Did Nietzsche really copy the big forehead german guy?
>>7890270
yeah
>>7890270
nah
Nietzsche is more angry than funny.
>>7890270
probably a bit
>Nietzsche's closest friends and other people near to him were perplexed. No one could remember ever having heard the name of Stirner from Nietzsche's mouth. There are dozens of letters in the archives that bear witness to the confusion of his friends. They understood well enough why Nietzsche had been publicly silent about Stirner, but why did he, given his "habitual communicativeness" (Overbeck), never mention him even in the most familiar circles? Only Overbeck's wife Ida remembered in 1899 a discussion she had with Nietzsche about twenty years earlier, during which he unintentionally let escape the remark that he felt a mental kinship to Stirner. "This was accompanied by a solemn facial expression. While I attentively observed his features, these changed again, and he made something like a dispelling, dismissive movement with his hand, and spoke under breath: 'Well, now I have told you, even though I did not want to speak of it. Forget about it. They would talk about a plagiarism, but you will not do that, I'm sure.'" (33)
N never read Stirner for some reason.
>>7890420
he did. stirner was explicitly mentioned as one of the most dangerous cunts there are in a book nietzsche read over and over again. nietzsche wouldn't have been able to resist.
>>7890364
>taking this ridiculous over-the-top testimony seriously
>>7890794
[citation needed]
The only place he could have encountered Stirners ideas is second hand from reading "History of Materialism and Critique of its Present Importance"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Materialism_and_Critique_of_its_Present_Importance
>Lange mentions Max Stirner's book The Ego and Its Own as "the extremest that we know anywhere".[3] He also mentioned Blanqui's L'Eternité par les astres, which discussed the thesis of an Eternal Return.[4]
>Lange's work exerted a profound influence on Friedrich Nietzsche, who aimed at radicalizing Lange's viewpoint beyond Kant.[4] At one time Nietzsche planned to write a dissertation on the notion of organism in Kant's philosophy (letter to Paul Deussen [1]). He also envisioned sending a work on Democritus, a major focus of Lange, to Deussen.[5]
>>7890270
Their philosophies having nothing in common. If you think they do, you have read neither.
>>7890822
I've read both and they do. If you think they don't, you haven't read either.
>>7890324
sam harris pls go
>>7890814
yip, that's the one
Spookman slew Marx. When Neechee was still a pretty young thing, his boipucci was pumped by Maxy Skellig esquire. Little neechee, flushed and dizzy, moaned "spook" and wondered how deep was too deep. From that day forward he attempted to pass off this venereal revelation as a product of his own independent thought. "How to be a spexial snowflake?" he thought, "Of course! my gimmick will be god". Nietzsche would develop an obsessive hatred of religion that is almost comical to read. He would use this and his ((pretentious)) ""satire"" and his ramblings to create his own ""philosophy"".
Maxy killed Marxy and Neechee couldn't compete. Noo noo is a very minor figure in the history of philosophy that only survives because people need a gateway into philosophy and ethics! He will exist so long as 16 year old angst exists.
BREAKING NEWS:
Photography of Max Stirner discovered!
>>7890829
This.
>>7890822
>>7890829
I don't know who's spooking who anymore
It's actually a normal forehead, as I just measured. The eyes should be in the middle of the head which they are. Do you think the bottom of his face is large as well? It would have to be in order for him to have a large forehead. The only thing that could be disproportionate in this drawing is having small eyes. So, it's really quite impossible for this to be a large forehead.
>>7891011
Stirner is a pseudonym he took because of his big forehead. Stirn means forehead in German.
>>7891011
^ peculiar logic of the fivehead-defender
>>7890938
Oh man, I used to like Nietzsche because he was esgy and shady just like my soul, now that I know he is a total loser I don't like him that much.
I know, now I will like Maxy more
>>7890270
Yes but with some misinterpretations of Dostoevsky added in.
>>7890822
It's not just their philosophies but also their didactics and the language they used cf. Stirner and Nietzsche both using "sheep" as a metaphor for the ignorant masses.
Why is Nietzsche discussed so much here? It's like this board is in a perpetual state of imitating an Intro to Philosophy course at a community college.
Nietzsche is well known to have plagiarized Stirner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_Max_Stirner
Haven't read Nietzsche enough to form an opinion 2bh but according to a lecture from Heidegger he was more concerned with overcoming progressivism in the traditional sense while Stirner was more of a general "can't define what I am dad" type of nigga. I think he would have shunned the Übermensch.
>>7891226
Because we are headed down an ugly road and he's as relevant as ever
>>7891356
>Because we are headed down an ugly road
t. everyone since the invention of fire
>>7890364
>"This was accompanied by a solemn facial expression. While I attentively observed his features, these changed again, and he made something like a dispelling, dismissive movement with his hand, and spoke under breath: 'Well, now I have told you, even though I did not want to speak of it. Forget about it. They would talk about a plagiarism, but you will not do that, I'm sure.'"
>>7891011
Hi Max
>>7891215
Homer describes masses as sheep.
Their "didactics" have little in common. Stirner's style often relies on a dialectical approach. He is just Hegel on meth.
See his justification of his "egoism" by him saying "mankind's goal is its realization as itself, so is God's, so is History; then let me be my own goal."
>>7890270
Stirner only seems to be close to Nietzsche on the most superficial level, a resemblance only apparent to those having a mediocre understanding of both philosophers. Stirner is a leftist; his criticism of all forms of 'tyranny' reaches so far that he concludes that only the Ego remains as something that is not a form of domination against the individual. He wishes to free mankind, and in this way, the consequence of his thought would most likely be that of an "irrational" Kingdom of Ends.
Stirner wants us free, --- free of oppression, of all ideals, of all values.
Is this not, for those among us who can read, for those who have understood the man, --- exactly the opposite of Nietzsche's thought?
Nietzsche's thought is not an individualistic one; he thinks by millenia, wants a größe Politik, a unified Europe; he wishes to conclude the work of the Renaissance.
Stirner's ideal society is close to Rousseau's State of Nature; Nietzsche's is a mix of 15th century Italy, 17th century France, Classical Greece and Early Roman Empire.
>>7891410
I'm new to /lit/ what is this "t." meme
Nietzsche also wrote this, which is basically the only answer we're likely to get on paper...
>>7891511
And please ignore the fact that it's from thespiritscience... I know they post a lot of things that fail what you might call "scientific rigor." The point is the words, here.
>>7891495
>Stirner is a leftist;
Wrong. He is an individualist. Individualism is inherently rightwing.
>>7891537
You do not seem to grasp either Stirner's individualism nor the concept of "rightwing".
>>7891495
Did Homer use the metaphor in the same way?
I confess that that was really my only example. I just (vaguely) recall a footnote in the copy of Ego that I read which suggested that their both using sheep wasn't a coincidence, but that copy is back in the library now, so I can't quote the footnote.
There did seem to be a lot of those types of footnotes, but sheep was the only one I internalized.
>>7891497
"regards"
As in, ending a letter with "regards, Anon."
"t." is an abbreviation of the Finnish terveiset, popularized on non-Finnish imageboards by Dolan and Spurdo comics.
>>7891565
>terveiset
Thanks Anon, I appreciate you educating me.
>>7891560
I guess it's the most obvious metaphor which comes to the mind, when one thinks of ignorant masses.
>>7891226
Because Nietzsche is a good philosopher but more importantly he has a lot of attributes that appeal to young people. Rand has a lot of attributes that appeal to the young but because she is shit the Rand phase doesn't last long for most where their appreciation of Nietzsche matures over time.
>>7891759
They're both shit, actually. They appeal to the adolescent mind, along with Sartre et. al.
>>7891537
That's what happens when you leave americans in charge of education
>>7890324
I completely disagree. I read some of The Birth of Tragedy and it's hilarious. He seems like he could've been a fun dude to hang around. Before he went insane anyway.
>>7890808
>not taking ridiculous over-the-top things seriously when they concern a guy whose entire philosophy was based on ridiculous over-the-top assertions
Have you even read any Nietzsche?
>>7891144
I actually only got into Nietzsche because of how much of a loser he was and I still love him for it. He honestly seems adorable.
>>7891226
His stuff is fun to read. It's not as dry as a lot of the more "advanced" philosophy because he actually knew how to engage people in a lively and entertaining way. His ideas might very well be complete hogwash, but they're amusing hogwash.
