As someone who has read Stirner and to some extent "bought into" it, why should I read Nietzsche...

true it's not a limited choice as in has to be one or the other. it's just the unique doing what he/she wants.

Stirner is deep as fuck and yet so simple, simple things we forgot how they are because we have been indoctrinated since birth.

Kant is to Christianity as Hegel is to Hermeticism as Schopenhauer is to Buddhism as Nietzsche is to Hinduism as Stirner is to Zen.

They are both on the same fucking team

What is your self-interest if you're a nihilist?

self-interest is Ayn Rand speak it's creeping back into the territory of oughts.

If you want to eat, eat. If you want to sleep, sleep. If a spook tells you to eat or sleep punch it in the face.

>as nietzsche is to hinduism
Lmao in what possible way??????

From the preface of my copy of The Ego and its Own:

> Stirner loved liberty for himself, and loved to see any and all men and women taking liberty, and he had no lust of power. Democracy to him was sham liberty, egoism the genuine liberty.
> Nietzsche, on the contrary, pours out his contempt upon democracy because it is not aristocratic. He is predatory to the point of demanding that those who must succumb to feline rapacity shall be taught to submit with resignation. When he speaks of “Anarchistic dogs” scouring the streets of great civilized cities; it is true, the context shows that he means the Communists; but his worship of Napoleon, his bathos of anxiety for the rise of an aristocracy that shall rule Europe for thousands of years, his idea of treating women in the oriental fashion, show that Nietzsche has struck out in a very old path — doing the apotheosis of tyranny. We individual egoistic Anarchists, however, may say to the Nietzsche school, so as not to be misunderstood: We do not ask of the Napoleons to have pity, nor of the predatory barons to do justice. They will find it convenient for their own welfare to make terms with men who have learned of Stirner what a man can be who worships nothing, bears allegiance to nothing. To Nietzsche’s rhodomontade of eagles in baronial form, born to prey on industrial lambs, we rather tauntingly oppose the ironical question: Where are your claws? What if the “eagles” are found to be plain barn-yard fowls on which more silly fowls have fastened steel spurs to hack the victims, who, however, have the power to disarm the sham “eagles” between two suns? Stirner shows that men make their tyrants as they make their gods, and his purpose is to unmake tyrants. Nietzsche dearly loves a tyrant.
> In style Stirner’s work offers the greatest possible contrast to the puerile, padded phraseology of Nietzsche’s “Zarathustra” and its false imagery. Who ever imagined such an unnatural conjuncture as an eagle “toting” a serpent in friendship? which performance is told of in bare words, but nothing comes of it. In Stirner we are treated to an enlivening and earnest discussion addressed to serious minds, and every reader feels that the word is to him, for his instruction and benefit, so far as he has mental independence and courage to take it and use it. The startling intrepidity of this book is infused with a whole-hearted love for all mankind, as evidenced by the fact that the author shows not one iota of prejudice or any idea of division of men into ranks. He would lay aside government, but would establish any regulation deemed convenient, and for this only our convenience in consulted. Thus there will be general liberty only when the disposition toward tyranny is met by intelligent opposition that will no longer submit to such a rule.

Tantra.

agreed

Ayn Rand is spooked through. She sees business men as sacred. Stirner destroys the sacred.

That's more or less what I meant when I said she is creeping back into the terriority of oughts.

There are no oughts in Stirner's thought process. Stirner destroys all sacred cows and oughts and leaves only the Ego which is based on nothingness.

>men make their tyrants as they make their gods

great line

yup. he was the most woke motherfucker ever.

He was spooked by the ego. Bundle theory and no self and the barred subject all disprove his notion of ego.

youtu.be/yKN6jr4QTUw

Just call me Franklin

Thats a common mistake.
The ego is not a spook. It's you. unique, like yourself.

Read Stirner's Critics. It's short, he addresses all the common criticism he got there. Stirner himself already covered everything he had to cover.

That was a puerile essay. "[Stirner's Unique] is simply a name for something beyond language..." Very well, but you're ignoring the empirical ego in favor of some sort of transcendental ego. Many interesting things have been learned in psychology regarding the empirical ego. And if you ignore it then you are collapsing an interesting dialectic. The empirical ego is part of the two-fold expression of the will or spirit as thing-for-itself as opposed to the transcendental ego being the thing-in-itself. Unless you subscribe to some sort of mereological nihiliam, which would preclude you positing this aporeticly unique ego, you have to think of the given and our relationship to the greater being and other beings and our own (possibly divided/multiple/deceiving) being. Descartes has demons now. That is what modern psychology tells us. The unique is not so unique as to escape science. Although science always let's a little escape due to its Platonic/Aristotelian nature...

In any case, Stirner just seems to ignore a lot of philosophy and psychology and meme itself as some sort of final boss book when nothing about it seems particularly "unique" or even interesting in its intellectual influence. Alll in all, just eventually results in some sort of vague either stoic or hedonistic (not really defined) anarchist individualism which is boring to me. I don't mind hierarchy and community. Everything is unique, not just humans or ourselves but the organic wholes we form. Organized organisms and bodies without organs. On Earth as it is in heaven. You have merely renamed the sacred. In any case, how far does anarchism go? Would you give your kid liquor and matches? I had an insight once that philosophy comes down to how you wanna raise your kids...

>stirner
>not ideological

LOL

This guy is so butthurt and insecure.
>We individual egoistic Anarchists
Gold.

read stirner critics. he didn't critizice Marx theory because he is right. his ideology however... its not an absolute, nothing is. All Young Hegelans were the most WOKE af people on Earth.

butthurting people since 1844.