>>1347566 OP here, yeah I want to read his actual work before forming an opinion on him, because most people just lump him in with Rand, F.A. Hayek, etc., although I've heard he has a difference in opinion on certain issues with them.
I think it is disappointing that, given the recent Hegel resurgence, very few people have tried to understand Stirner in the light of Hegel.
Hegel and Stirner are similar in deep and profound ways. Stirner employs Hegelian concepts in innovative and even sarcastic ways to overcome Hegel in Hegelian fashion. Stirner is the true heir to the Hegelian tradition.
He was the thinker the 20th century deserved, but not the one it needed back then. So they ignored him: because he could take it, because he was not Their thinker. He was a quiet revolutionary, a selfish meme, a Creative Nothing.
>Have you ever seen a spirit? "No, not I, but my grandmother." Now, you see, it’s just so with me too; I myself haven’t seen any, but my grandmother had them running between her feet all sorts of ways, and out of confidence in our grandmothers’ honesty we believe in the existence of spirits.
His importance has been completely overblown in the tiny little backwater that is 4chan. They have made him into a cult; if fat psychologically broken neets scattered across the internet can form a cult.
He is an interesting oddity if you are interested in Anarchism, Marx, or Nietzsche.
Anything actually within his books is more interestingly expressed in the above three or elsewhere.
He absolutely destroyed idealistic left-Hegelianism. What came after is materialistic left-Hegelianism, and this shift was largely spurred by Stirner, both in being responsible for undermining the core of the idealistic strain, and for encouraging Marx to take up his later materialistic approach.
>>1350352 I agree wholeheartedly. He dealt a crushing blow to the idealism, but yes, Marx and Engels started developing the materialistic dialectic after it instead.
But the point is that the essay Saint Max never even lends a credence to anything Stirner said, it's literally a wall of shitposting, because Marx, unlike Engels, wasn't willing to admit that Stirner had a point.
>>1350373 Saint Max did point out that Stirner's philosophy pays little attention to material conditions, and can often achieve a net result that winds up with a person acting not particularly differently than they did before. Which isn't wrong, but I think misses the point of Stirner's work, which focuses primarily on getting you to think of why you believe or do what you do.
>>1350410 >He actually has a pretty solid conception of property.
This I absolutely agree with (not that I've disagreed with you much so far), I absolutely love Stirner's view of property. Every other conception I've seen seems to act as though the act of somehow claiming something etches your ownership of it into a cosmic ledger. Stirner eschews this entirely, and brings it back to its most primal, naked, and honest form.
I think he couldve been the Father of Psychology if he had wrote his book in a less abrasive style and wrote a few more than he did Tbh I like him. His brain doesnt work like mine does I relate more to Nietzsche's or Camus's way of visualizing stuff so I find his perspective interesting
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.