Why?
Because of muh marx?
Also why do you guys hate Nietzsche?
memes
>>7231771
His work is not systematic, exhaustive or complete enough to give weight to the rather existential and total point he's trying to get across. On top of that, many edgy kids that seem want an easy exit out of ethics or that just want to be plain edgy take him and do a reductionist reading then make memes of him looking "badass". Finally, I think a lot of the hate comes from the fact that his philosophy, made into a social or political system, would be an economic disaster and would stray from the precepts of modernity, which is all good, but people are educated into these precepts and challenging them requires more that what Stirner did.
>muh
Thanks for that great expository capacity, faggot
All he said was
>dont worry about what ppl think of you
>you do you... Always and forever
>assert yourself
>you deserve it
Hes a makeup commercial for lonely men
>>7231771
spooks are a spook and the self is the spookiest spook of them all
People dislike the meme, not him. Most here haven't read his book and neither have I. "Ownness" is an interesting concept though.
>Also why do you guys hate Nietzsche?
What do you mean? Small dick nerds here trip over themselves to dog anyone who finds fault in him and go off about their "true" interpretation. As above, most 'hate' is of the 'fanboys' and many either haven't read him or have put little effort into understanding.
>>7231919
>Hes a makeup commercial for lonely men
this is too good
>>7231826
But I don't think Stirner is necessarily against ethics. Just don't act like ethics is some heavenly deity you must serve because it is some external force more powerful than you. Interestingly, I think reading Stirner should solidify the ethical. You admit that you follow ethics because it serves your own interest. You make ethics personal
>>7232936
I concur. Though I'm not a Stirner adherent, i do believe that there is an ethic system developed in his theory. What I said is that a poor reading could be used to escape the ethics question altogether, not fully processing the practical consequences of egoism and embracing self-indulgence.
>>7231826
>His work is not systematic, exhaustive or complete enough to give weight to the rather existential and total point he's trying to get across.
>I cannot accept the validity of Stirner's argument because I have invested a large amount of time and energy into studying philosophy and I have to be able to emotionally legitimize this investment. That is why only very complicated and lengthy works can be important and correct.
