Why do people in this board tend to bash The German Ideology? That book is perfect and Memex Stirner got BTFO. Accept it egocucks.
>>8186143
>Memex Stirner got BTFO
Precisely for that reason.
>>8186167
Why is it so hard to admit though? Why are they taking so seriously a meme philosopher?
>He actually believes Karl "Butthurt Pro" Marx and his anti-egoist lies.
>>8186179
Prove me how Marx was wrong. I dare you, prove that to me. You literally can't. Stirner is babbys first philosopher.
Can someone elaborate on how marx destroyed stirner? I don't think he ever responded to egotism/stirner in particular. He did write about communism the tenets of which would be in stark contrast with stirner's egotism.
However, marx's goal was to look for a political system that works ideally for the state. stirner's goal was to look for a philosophical system that works ideally for the individual.
Why can their theories not coexist with considering their different goals?
Am I missing something?
>>8186183
His argument was built on spooks.
If he was truly exorcized then there would be no need to even write a criticism, because Stirner is right about everything.
>>8186176
Because he makes a decent and convincing but heavily dated defense of anarchism.
>>8186226
tbqh Stirner was centuries ahead of his time.
His anarchism is only more relevant today than it actually was when he was alive.
>>8186176
The beauty of stirner is that his ideas are completely separate from modern politics.
He was thinking on a different plain.
You can destroy any argument with the word "Spook",and it's great.
>Privately fascinated -- Stirner was "the most ingenious and freest writer I've ever met," wrote Feuerbach to his brother; Ruge, Engels, and others spontaneously proved themselves to be similarly impressed -- and publicly rejecting, aloof, or silent, this intellectual avant-garde reacted ambivalently and cunningly to the most daring of their colleagues. No one wanted to follow Stirner's step beyond the New Enlightenment. His "nihilism" simply could not be the result of enlightened thought. Greatly alarmed, all were blind to the fact that Stirner had already opened up ways "beyond nihilism."
>The automatic rejection of Stirner's line of thought is also characteristic for the bulk of the subsequent story of the re(pulsion and de)ception of »Der Einzige und sein Eigentum«. However, the book was initially forgotten for half a century. Only in the eighteen-nineties did Stirner's ideas experience a renaissance that continued into the next century. However, he always stood in Nietzsche's shadow, whose style and rhetoric ("God is dead," "I, the first immoralist", ...) fascinated the entire world.
>>8186256
>Some thinkers, to be certain, perceived that Stirner, although officially considered a narrow-minded forerunner of Nietzsche, was the more radical of the two philosophers. Yet they were the ones who neglected to come to a public confrontation with Stirner. Edmund Husserl once warned a small audience about the "seducing power" of »Der Einzige« -- but never mentioned it in his writing. Carl Schmitt was as a young man deeply moved by the book -- and maintained his silence about it until "haunted" again by Stirner while in the misery and loneliness of a prison cell (1947). Max Adler, Austromarxist theorist, privately wrestled his whole life with the ideas in Stirner's »Der Einzige.« Georg Simmel instinctively avoided Stirner's "peculiar brand of individualism." Rudolf Steiner, originally an engaged, enlightened journalist, was spontaneously inspired by Stirner; however, he soon believed Stirner was leading him "to the edge of an abyss" and converted to theosophy. Lastly, the anarchists on whom Stirner is often pushed as a precursor either kept a silent distance (for example, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin) or had a lasting ambivalent relationship to him (Landauer).
>Prominent philosophers of our time voice a shudder of their own when confronting the principal idea in »Der Einzige,« which they conceive as being unfathomably demonic. Leszek Kolakowski said that Stirner, next to whom "even Nietzsche seems weak and inconsequent," is indeed irrefutable; nevertheless, he must be banished at any cost, because he destroys "the only tool that enables us to make ethical values our own: tradition." Stirner's aim of "destruction of alienation, i.e. the return to authenticity would be nothing but the destruction of culture, a return to an animal state ... to a pre-human condition." Hans Heinz Holz warned that "Stirner's egoism, were it to become actualized, would lead to the self-destruction of the human race."
There is no difference between Stirner posters and piles of dung.
>>8186258
>Similar apocalyptic fears might have driven Jürgen Habermas in his younger years to condemn the "absurdity of Stirner's fury" with furious words -- and since that time never to mention Stirner again, even in texts about Left Hegelianism. Theodor Adorno, who saw himself driven back at the end of his philosophical career to the -- pre-Stirnerian -- "standpoint of Left Hegelianism," once cryptically remarked that Stirner was the only one who really "let the cat out of the bag," but in no way referred to him in any of his works. For his part, Peter Sloterdijk took note of none of this, only shaking his head at the idea that the "brilliant" Marx had "grown angry in many hundreds of pages about those, after all, simple thoughts of Stirner."
>Karl Marx: like Nietzsche's, his reaction to Stirner deserves to be emphasized here, owing to its era-forming impact. Marx believed as late as the summer of 1844 that Feuerbach was "the only one who had achieved a true theoretical revolution." The appearance of »Der Einzige« in October, 1844, shook this outlook to the core, because Marx very clearly experienced the depth and implications of Stirner's criticism. While others, including Engels, initially admired Stirner, Marx saw from the beginning in him an enemy who needed to be annihilated.
>>8186259
Yes, they are both my property.
>>8186264
What was the point of this?
>>8186294
To point out contemporary casuals just couldn't hack the Egoist banter.
>>8186299
Marx did though.
>>8186305
Marx was the most asshurt of them all.
>>8186317
Given how little he devoted to Stirner, I think he honestly forgot he existed.
>Be Marx & Engels
>Write massive scathing critique of your contemporaries.
>Publish it after you and them are all dead and they're not relevant enough for anyone living to defend them.
D E V I L I S H
>>8186327
I appreciate that you consider Stirner a talentless hack but please remove your tripfag. It's even more unpleasant than any stirnerfag butthurted rant.
It's just a book where Marx decided he wanted to be a hot shot and take on every Young Hegelian while young. He regretted a lot of it later on.
And he never BTFO Stirner, who remains second only to Karl Schmidt- he just made 100 pages of ad hom.
>>8186351
You mean remove my trip, not my tripfag?
>>8186193
>marx's goal was to look for a political system that works ideally for the state.
WRONG. stop posting!
>>8186238
>You can destroy any argument with the word "Spook",and it's great
the dickwads on this board who do this are what makes me not want to read stirner.
>>8186361
Meant to write "trip, fag."
>>8186327
What? They devoted far more pages in tgi to him than any other.
>>8186379
Nice spooks.
>>8186258
>would lead to the self-destruction of the human race.
He really didn't get it, did he.
>Was soll nicht alles Meine Sache sein!
>>8186408
As a German speaker this sentence sounds utterly confusing because it reads like it's meant to be ironic when it's actually serious.
>>8186256
>re(pulsion and de)ception
Why do people in the humanities do this?
>>8186366
correct me? how am i wrong?
>>8186471
I'm a German speaker as well. To me it sounds perfectly clear (or I guess more so when put into context).
It's a rhetorical question. The only particularity is of course, that he capitalizes "Meine".
>>8186193
>marx's goal was to look for a political system that works ideally for the state
If this is the misinformation you vehement anti-Marxists were taught, no wonder you all dislike Marxism so much.
>>8186193
>I don't think he ever responded to egotism/stirner in particular.
The German Ideology has a section specifically about Stirner, blowing him out. No one talks about him IRL except for anarchists because he's already been dealt with by marx and engels.
>"What I'm telling you, men of Athens, is the truth...that's the reason, I am almost certain, that I am so hated; and that in itself is proof that I am right." - Socrates
The same applies to Stirner, even if truth is spook. His ideas had people shitting themselves, whereas the allegedly 'revolutionary' ideas of Marx/etc were comparatively tame.
The latter didn't want to do away with the 'system', merely take the reins by force and then reform it. As for Stirner:
>Revolution is aimed at new arrangements; insurrection [Empörung] leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and set no glittering hopes on “institutions.”
See pic related.
