Anonymous
6/30/2025, 12:33:28 PM No.24508245
Did he win?
Replies:
Thread 24508245 - /lit/ [Archived: 628 hours ago]
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 12:53:57 PM No.24508267
>>24508245 (OP)
He died dirt broke and alone is what he did. So yes.
He died dirt broke and alone is what he did. So yes.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 4:13:26 PM No.24508576
>>24508267
Why would you want to die with money? Spend it.
Why would you want to die with money? Spend it.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 6:02:20 PM No.24508879
>>24508576
I did say yes. Although you could argue having money near death is convenient to combat pain (i.e. affording morphine)
I did say yes. Although you could argue having money near death is convenient to combat pain (i.e. affording morphine)
Replies:
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 6:04:27 PM No.24508882
>>24508879
Weak cuck cope, if I'm in pain, I'll just kill myself.
Weak cuck cope, if I'm in pain, I'll just kill myself.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 9:27:04 PM No.24509405
win what nigga skeptics said the same thing two fucking thousand years ago. am I supposed to be impressed by this german autist nobody?
Replies:
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 10:31:04 PM No.24509614
>>24508882
You talk big now bitch boy, wait till it's your turn
You talk big now bitch boy, wait till it's your turn
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 12:37:20 AM No.24509915
>>24509405
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Replies:
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 1:30:48 AM No.24510001
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 1:33:52 AM No.24510006
if your book is mostly inner sense then it will eventually have a point
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 1:46:50 AM No.24510028
>>24509915
here's an idea: you are literally not a human being in the sense that people use.
here's an idea: you are literally not a human being in the sense that people use.
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 2:22:15 AM No.24510096
>>24508245 (OP)
Had a "friend" who was a big fan of that pile of pig filth. He unsurprisingly turned out to be a horrible "friend". I was young at the time, so I wasn't smart enough to steer clear of anyone who would name themselves after Max Stirner.
Had a "friend" who was a big fan of that pile of pig filth. He unsurprisingly turned out to be a horrible "friend". I was young at the time, so I wasn't smart enough to steer clear of anyone who would name themselves after Max Stirner.
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 7:55:26 PM No.24512042
>>24508245 (OP)
Almost everyone that read this guy is an obnoxious edgelord, everyone that criticizes and hates this guy is also an obnoxious edgelord (and probably hasn’t actually read him)
Everyone seems to think (mistakenly) he’s some pessimist, skepticism, nihilist (in the sense of denying reality),
No one has taken a serious treatment of his work, read it in continuity with the people in his intellectual tradition (Feuerbach, Hegel, kant) so no one has really understood it much.
So he didn’t win in terms of creating a long lasting serious intellectual tradition. He didn’t provide a strong enough or popular enough theory of social organization, but the internationals are more or less something he has in mind (Union of egoists).
Socialists haven’t achieved much and organization today is pitiful, so he and marx and everyone else of that period hasn’t won.
The only person in academia whose had a serious effect or popularity has been JL Mackie and his “queer object” argument against morality, but he’s an analytic
Stirners greatest disciple (if Mackie read him) is an analytic
Or Nietzsche …
I don’t think Stirner was the kind of person to care about his legacy so winning/losing in this respect was probably not of concern to him
Now that leaves the question OP, if you read the book and thought it was good, then why don’t you also sit down with some German idealists, starting with Kant, and try to contextualize the arguments Stirner is making
Almost everyone that read this guy is an obnoxious edgelord, everyone that criticizes and hates this guy is also an obnoxious edgelord (and probably hasn’t actually read him)
Everyone seems to think (mistakenly) he’s some pessimist, skepticism, nihilist (in the sense of denying reality),
No one has taken a serious treatment of his work, read it in continuity with the people in his intellectual tradition (Feuerbach, Hegel, kant) so no one has really understood it much.
So he didn’t win in terms of creating a long lasting serious intellectual tradition. He didn’t provide a strong enough or popular enough theory of social organization, but the internationals are more or less something he has in mind (Union of egoists).
Socialists haven’t achieved much and organization today is pitiful, so he and marx and everyone else of that period hasn’t won.
The only person in academia whose had a serious effect or popularity has been JL Mackie and his “queer object” argument against morality, but he’s an analytic
Stirners greatest disciple (if Mackie read him) is an analytic
Or Nietzsche …
I don’t think Stirner was the kind of person to care about his legacy so winning/losing in this respect was probably not of concern to him
Now that leaves the question OP, if you read the book and thought it was good, then why don’t you also sit down with some German idealists, starting with Kant, and try to contextualize the arguments Stirner is making
Replies:
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 8:48:13 PM No.24512179
>>24512042
>Now that leaves the question OP, if you read the book and thought it was good, then why don’t you also sit down with some German idealists, starting with Kant, and try to contextualize the arguments Stirner is making
Don't want to
>Now that leaves the question OP, if you read the book and thought it was good, then why don’t you also sit down with some German idealists, starting with Kant, and try to contextualize the arguments Stirner is making
Don't want to