What are the differences between Nietzsche's philosophy and that of Stirner?
If you had to choose, which one would you prefer?
Stirner's ideas are actually based in reality, Big N's ideas are what you would get if you talked to a recovering 10 year meth addict, who is now enrolled in a community college Philosophy 101 class.
No. More. Stirner. Threads. Plz.
>>717087
>not an argument
>>716956
Stirner BTFO'd Nietzche's whole philosophy before Niet could even spell.
>>717102
Could you expand on that? Not trolling, just asking.
>>717113
Nietzche's ubermensche is a spook, because you would have to act out of your own self interest to subscribe to his concept of an ubermensch.
>>716956
They are very similar but Stirner strictly orients the philosophy towards the individual and nothing beyond that, whereas Nietzsche often has an individualist focus but sometimes spells out implications for a broader society. I haven't read all of Nietzsche though so don't take this as an a fully educated answer.
>>716956
As people have said Stirner's philophy focus entirely on the individual while Nietzsche sometimes looks beyond it.
Advanced philosophy is about reconciling differences, in other words the best philosophy is to realize both are correct and highly complimentary. The key is to realize that there are multiple perspectives to see things from and all of them are correct.
If I zoom into something it is equally correct as when I zoom out and both will give me different details. So Stirner is zooming at the max at the fore-most and Nietzsche is slightly zoomed out.
In contrast someone like Hegel or Plato is zoomed out at the max.
>>717150
Do you not understand that being a spook isn't always a bad thing?
>>717450
Yeah, but it is lying to yourself, and that's pretty dumb
Übermensch are literally the robots of /r9k/ (not the >tfw no gf fags) , those who don't feel anything and not influence by spooks
>>717626
Dont you also have to not be a loser?
>>717626
Robots would be normalfags if they were able. It's not wilful rebellion, they just pretend it is.
>>717450
>Do you not understand that being a spook isn't always a bad thing?
It is always a bad thing until you make it your property
>>716956
does the reason /lit/ fawns over Stirner is because he is similar to Nietzsche but people dont really know Stirner as well so they get hipster points?
>>717093
>i can't come up with a refutaton to his philosphy pls stop btfof'ing me
>>717711
No, its because Stirner is the God made flesh of all contrarians.
Nietzsche was an intense critic of his time who had great insight into the problems the Enlightenment had brought and how Kantian ethics failed to account for the Darwinian nature of values.
Stirner was a sophist who didnt understand the difference between convention and morality, and is ultimately shoed away by any cursory knowledge of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, or anyone who adheres to following the stronger arguments in life. His dismissal of morality and duty rely heavily on tautology.
>>716956
>N: that sounds good m8 but if we just add some spooks here and here...
>S: what? no that's-
>N: BEHOLD!
>>717656
Not necessarily
>>717747
Thats because the morality of the teleologist is just convention (or desired convention) dressed up in faulty assertions and bias
>>717855
>Teleological morality
>Convention
Have you read the groundwork at all? Hypothetical imperatives cannot be the foundation of morality; our maxims for action must hold no matter what. This cannot include convention.
>>717711
It's because he's a meme
Nietzsche fans: Highly accomplished intellectuals who have sex and create art.
Stirner fans: Virgin NEETs who masturbate to waifus and eat Mom's tendies all day.
CANT BURN THE STIRN
>>717872
That was more a shot at Plato and Aristotle
>>717877
Its funny because if you replace tendies with fruit you describe Nietszche
>>716956
>everything I don't like is a spook
>>717711
It's basically because he's a meme.
Personally I feel Stirner is a fantastic philosopher, and while his philosophy doesn't cover a lot of ground, what he does cover is covered pretty fucking solidly.
>>717877
What the hell are tendies?
>>717747
>didn't understand the difference between convention and morality
There is no difference, not in any substantial sense. They're both just fictions of the mind.
People also don't seem to get this about Stirner, but morals are entirely within the scope of his reasoning. I wish more people were aware of Stirner's Critics, as he explains that he's not opposed to any idea or ideal, only any idea or ideal held as sacred and considered to be "above" the individual, as ultimately no such thing can be either of those. Ideas and ideals, will forever remain just concepts, of no physical substance, and they'll always just be creations of our will meant to enable our pursuit of gratification.
>>716956
Philosophy, by the time it reaches publication stage, especially in Germany, sells a point of view to contemporary mass mindsets. Stirner's didn't go through the gestation Nietzsche did, nor had the advanced training and mental--lets say oddity. Stirner has notions, not a presentable or complex basis of understanding. Comparing them isn't pertinent to anything; he is rightly a footnote
>>719612
He's a footnote because his work btfos students of morality so thoroughly that noone can even attempt to criticize it, so there's no debate to attract attention to him.
>>719639
He is a footnote because he didn't incite the interest of the German intellectual scene or the middle class magazine reader. He's a nihilistic anarchist, what's there to talk about unless you're perfect contrarian?
>>719650
>He's a nihilistic anarchist
He's not and you know it. He was totally in favour of adopting any kind of ideology or worldview, as long as you realize you're doing it for your own benefit. And he did incite interest in german academia, just look at Marx. There only is nothing published because even after trying for years the best he could muster were insults.
>>716956
Nietzsche was always ironic and aphoristic (antiphilosophy) while Stirner actually seems to have been serious.
Thus I prefer Nietzsche.
>>716956
I like watching Nietzche play offense, but I dislike how Nietzche needs to chase the status of perfection. I find the existance of faults in the self and in others to be necessary for the individual, which rules him out. Of course, his retort would be "but if they're necessary, how are they faults?" etc etc, so I'm not going to pretend I've just blown him out or something.
Stirner is more bare bones and I like his psychological egoism. For him it's a matter of "you do act in your own self interest" and less about how you ought to.
Stirners philosophy is enlightening from the get go, Niet has you chasing a spook called the superman. You be the judge
>>716956
One was a cuck
That being said, the cuck was the better philosopher while the horsefucker was the edgeiest self-help author in existence
>>719824
You know what they say, better to fuck and get cucked than to never have fucked at all
>>717626
Robots are spooked the fuck out. If they weren't so obsessed with intangible concepts like virginity, productivity and masculinity they wouldn't be half as depressed as they are.
>>719659
I'd disagree that he's an anarchist, but he certainly seems like a nihilist, even if he didn't prescribe it.
>>718448
The tremendously faggy term robots have for chicken tenders.
>>717626
nice troll
>>720196
I'd disagree that he's an anarchist in that he wouldn't have much association with any anarchist movement, but he was an anarchist in that he held state authority over the individual to be illegitimate. He was a moral and existential nihilist in that he didn't believe there was objective morality or meaning to the universe, but he wasn't against adopting morality or meaning, he even acknowledges in his book that he had spooks of his own.
>>720196
>>720327
To butt in, what constitutes being an anarchist or marxist or anything-ist? Do you have to believe that "[blank] government is the objectively right type to have" or that "I want to live in a [blank] type of government"?
For example, I would say "everything truly comes down to anarchy," as there's no ultimately best government, but as someone with preferences I'd say "I like living in a [blank] society because the benefits are worth my while". Am I an anarchist? I'm pretty sure I'm not.
>>720627
The problem is with the massive assumptions people make like:
>there's ultimately no best form of government
I mean, come on... I get that we're all jaded millenial hipsters but as long as you accept a belief like this uncritically then it really hurts you're ability to do philosophy or understand people with opposing philosophies.
>>720627
It's a murkier subject than one would expect. I'd say the main criteria is an ideology that holds that the state is either illegitimate or undesirable, and seeks to do away with it without the assistance of an intermediary state. The problem here is that this would include ideologies like autonomism or council-communism, which traditionally rejected anarchism entirely.
>>716956
Stirner's ideal = voluntary egoist, is conscious of his inescapable selfishness
Nietzsche ideal = overman, overcomes nihilism by creating his own values
Stirner = anarchist
Nietzsche = apolitical with aristocratic tendencies
What does following Stirner's philosophy even involve besides calling things spooks?
Neither one matters. You have to have a weak will to succumb to a foreign philosophy imo. To study is one thing, but in the end if you're not your own greatest philosopher you are desperate to cling to the thoughts of others.
>>722649
Being cognizant of your own egoism, and holding yourself to be the highest authority over your thoughts and actions. So you can hold to basically any ideal, you'd seek to avoid being bound by any ideal, ready to move on to different things as your interests and needs suited you.
It ultimately doesn't change all that much, you just ideally wont catch yourself choosing between yourself and an ideal, as the choice would become simply "which suits me better?" You don't have to be a dickhead or screw people over.
>>722649
You have to realize that you always act selfishly no matter what. People adhere to spooks for their own benefit. A Christian does not serve God, but himself. He hides his own egoism from himself.
>>722659
That sounds rather Nietzschean.
>>716956
Nobody in this thread knows what he's talking about.
One simple reason. Nobody even mentions that Stirner is simply a hedonist. Nothing more, nothing less.
Stirner is pretty basic.
Stirner is what Nietzsche would have been if Nietzsche was less educated.
Nietzsche was a proponent of amorality.
Stirner didn't even know what that meant.
Stirner basically sees common conventions as useful illusions.
Nietzsche proposes to create your own conventions.
Stirner is good if you don't like thinking too deep about anything and he's a good gateway to Nietzsche.
The reason why he's a footnote is because Nietzsche says basically the same things as Stirner, but adds a bigger picture and more innovative concepts to it.
