Is there any real chance of Stirner's philosophies making some kind of resurgence culturally?
>>1287362
They, and thoughts like them, will always pervade society whenever a person has doubts if something is real; or contrived.
No.
Literally nobody outside of 4chan talks about Stirner at all. He is by definition a meme.
>>1287371
Do you know what meme status is, anon?
>>1287384
>implying le "Nothing is real XDDD" man will EVER reach the meme status of Pepe to the point where even normies take it on
He gets shitposted a lot on /lit/ and /his/ and that's it. There's a better chance of Oswald Mosley becoming a meme than him.
>>1287387
>Oswald Mosley becoming a meme than him
How?
>>1287405
Because at least Mosley is a meme on /v/ and /vg/ where all the normies usually go
>>1287411
>Mosley is a meme on /v/ and /vg/ where all the normies usually go
Really? WHy?
>>1287418
I think its spillover from /int/ and /gsg/, a lot of people who play Hearts of Iron and other WW2 games love to meme about him.
>>1287387
>Nothing is real
Oh, you're the fucking retard who got blown the fuck out and had to go sulk. Stirner never says nothing is real.
As another anonymous said. Your mom's feet are real, how delicious they look is a matter of taste, it's the latter being treated as objective fact that Stirner criticizes, not the existence of the feet.
>>1287445
Its not a matter of what he "said" its about what everyone else tries to make it into what he "said", like the difference between what Marx actually said and what Stalin tried to convince everyone he had actually said.
Stirner might not have said "literally nothing is real" but that doesn't stop all the people who worship him from acting like it is what he said.
>>1287454
Nobody who engages in spookposting gives a fat rat's ass about Stirner's actual thinking and are just shitposters.
Also, to answer OP's question, it kind of did when the post-structuralists were around.
>>1287454
>Stirner might not have said "literally nothing is real" but that doesn't stop all the people who worship him from acting like it is what he said.
I haven't seen a stirner poster who actually thought this. I think you are just getting mixed up with people just being too jumpy about saying spooks at any possible opportunity
>>1287454
>Stirner might not have said "literally nothing is real" but that doesn't stop all the people who worship him from acting like it is what he said.
So what you're saying is, these teachings of stirner, they lack substance, material grounding. You might even call them spooks.
does anyone want to make a delicious shop with this image taking kramer's place
>>1287473
That's the exact point of sterner IMO. Though I'm only a secondhand spookposter of what he wrote, I try to be cognizant anyways.
It seems like a demonstration of how arbitrary it is to claim "This is right". If his interest is to convince, then he's used irony to convey the idea that his interest is not necessarily your interest. And just because he has something profound to say, doesn't mean it's wholly right, real, or true.
>>1287502
Only if Jerry is Engels, and George is Marx.
>>1287512
MARX IS GETTING FRUSTRATED!
>>1287362
the desire to share your beliefs is a spook
