let's just have it out
Stirner vs nietzsche
Aaron Cook
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
myredditvideos.com
twitter.com
Caleb Sanchez
Neither, the redpill is my guiding light
Joshua Foster
wolfi landstreicher
John Moore
How did either philosopher overcome the fact that the subject is inherently an internally divided entity?
Christian Johnson
it's a process of becoming out of the divisions guy
Jonathan Cruz
I love Stirner but even I've gotta say Nietzsche is by far the better philosopher. Stirner was great at what he did, but he didn't do much.
Kevin Barnes
yeah dude, that was the genius of the whole fucking thing. if he didnt have that last section where he goes off the rails about unions of egoists he'd have had a flawless victory.
Andrew Anderson
i hate this picture. it was probably made by some fedora neckbeard
Carter Ramirez
But Mickey is correct.
Hudson Jenkins
"Stirner laughs in his blind alley; Nietzsche beats his head against the wall."
-Albert Camus
Lincoln Cook
I don't get how people subdued by either language or biology think themselves into such wretches either. Camus's rebellion is the only method that doesn't lead the hamsters who've escaped their cages to the horror of the vast empty living room. The will doesn't triumph without expression, and therefore Stirner is a fool. And Nietzsche took the individual to mean more than it does, and so he too, though not so much a fool, is wrong in proscribing what is actually just description.
Read Kittler. Or did I tell you enough of myself.
Asher Evans
camus's method and nietazsche method are THEIR methods
Josiah Mitchell
what did he mean by this
Jack Collins
Stirner on right
Nietzsche on left
Henry Lopez
They're both on the right.
Left would be someone like Cioran.
Nietzsche talks about it costantly: for him consciousness has always been a multitude of vague, conflicting personalities, volitions and desires.
Stirner does not bother with defining said consciousness, but he himself doesn't stick to the consciousness-soul paradygm.
Matthew Davis
>They're both on the right.
dip
it's kinda what camus meant and you know it
Aaron Peterson
What is there to overcome?
Michael Thomas
Stirner is just Hegel on meth ; he doesn't make sense outside of his hegelian context, hence the numerous misreadings of uncultured burgers who read him.
Zachary Ortiz
user, my son, you have two choices. Angry lower class man who has barely read philosophy, ranting about the most childish inclinations, or humorous philologist who dissects the entire world of high culture with the intent of ennobling his readers.
....
SPOOPS!
Kevin Bailey
ive read it not in context and in context and it is stronger not in context and not at all difficult to grasp what he's saying
Kevin Hernandez
The third path: knowledge is worthless
Nicholas Scott
The real question is which one I should start with? I'm more interested in Nietzsche, and what I've heard from Stirner seems obvious enough. Not that I agree with him on the implications.
Kayden Sanchez
I'll pray for you.
Justin Lopez
Glad to know
Christian Taylor
>implications
you lose
that's not necessarily contradictory to either m8
Chase Collins
don't you mean "worthless to know"?
Zachary Baker
stirner doesnt cover nearly as much as nietzsche does, hes mostly concerned with egoism
Liam King
as a nihilist i have to say the accurate description are the 2 pictures at the same time.
Chase Miller
>it's another philosophy thread on a literature board
Go fuck yourself