What's the fucking difference

high narcissism and moderate autism vs. moderate narcissism and high autism

The bigger question is what are the similarities the conclusions they reach and the way they reach them are totally different.

N shits on dialectics whilst S bases his philosophy off of it.

>S bases his philosophy off of it.

Wow you reaallly misread Stirner dude.

I'm guessing you're putting Stirner in the "high autism" part, right?

nigga on the left is a flaming retard

According to Deleuze, this:

We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself. The philosophical learning of an author is not assessed by the number of quotations, nor by the always fanciful and conjectural check lists of libraries, but by the apologetic or polemical directions of his work itself. We will misunderstand the whole of Nietzsche's work if we do not see 'against whom' its principal concepts are directed. Hegelian themes are present in this work as the enemy against which it fights. Nietzsche never stops attacking the theological and Christian character of German philosophy (the 'Tubingen seminary') — the powerlessness of this philosophy to extricate itself from the nihilistic perspective (Hegel's negative nihilism, Feuerbach's reactive nihilism, Stirner's extreme nihilism) — the incapacity of this philosophy to end in anything but the ego, man or phantasms of the human (the Nietzschean overman against the dialectic) — the mystifying character of so-called dialectical transformations (transvaluation against reappropriation and abstract permutations). It is clear that Stirner plays the revelatory role in all this. It is he who pushes the dialectic to its final consequences, showing what its motor and end results are. But precisely because Stirner still sees things like a dialectician, because he does not extricate himself from the categories of property, alienation and its suppression, he throws himself into the nothingness which he hollows out beneath the steps of the dialectic. He makes use of the question 'which one?' but only in order to dissolve the dialectic in the nothingness of the ego. He is incapable of posing this question in anything but the human perspective, under any conditions but those of nihilism. He cannot let this question develop for itself or pose it in another element which would give it an affirmative response. He lacks a method, a typological method which would correspond to the question. Nietzsche's positive task is twofold: the Overman and Transvaluation. Not 'who is man?' but 'who overcomes man?' 'The most cautious peoples ask today: "How may man still be preserved?" Zarathustra, however, asks as the sole and first one to do so: "How shall man be overcome?" The overman lies close to my heart, he is my paramount and sole concern — and not man: not the nearest, not the poorest, not the most suffering, not the best' (Z IV 'Of the Higher Man', 3, p. 297) — the allusion to Stirner is obvious.

this

This seems accurate, but I have a question. In describing Hegel as a nihilist, does he mean that Hegel removes humanity from his philosophy by describing history as the outcome of forces that use humanity merely as pawns?

Stirner's philosophy is a philosophy of individualism, basically narcissism. Nietzsche's philosophy is the philosophy of the antichrist. There is a huge difference between the two. Nietzsche doesn't disregard the concept of "reality" so easily as Stirner does. In fact, the source of every idea (the mind that manufactured it, the body that bore its fruits) is extremely important to Nietzsche and is a critical aspect of his evaluation of things, and he influenced many psychologists that came after his time for a reason.

His notions of conflict being inherent part of experience (constant attacks against the person attempting to assert their owness) and life being processual are dialectical.

nietzsche is a spooked cuck for 15 year olds
ACTUAL BADASSES prefer Stirner