Why do lefties like him?

Leftist dislike him because he was against socialism.

He's a master of suspicion, like flag related and Freud.

Nietzsche was not a Nazi though, and often expressed contempt for Germany and anti-Semites alike at the time. He considered himself more of a Pollack anyway.

He learned a lot from Stirner. He believes in self freedom more than any "rightist" or "leftist".

Like Stirner he is beyond those labels / spooks.

He is an infantile Stirner through, Stirner is the real deal.

k

philistines.

thecharnelhouse.org/2016/10/20/for-a-dionysian-proletariat/

And was Stirner pro?

Because he's edgy which always appeals to lefties.

He's really deeply right-wing but right-wingers hate him because he bashed their religion.

Now that's what I call suffering.

Not Stirner.
Do not want

because he's a sadboy, and we're all depressed.

He was anti-capitalist. His union of egoists is basically socialism fueled by pure self interest.

We don't. Only post-left faggots like that linguistic shit.

People who like Stirner and dislike Nietzsche are edgy teenagers without an ounce of philosophical sophistication.

This thread makes me want to fucking kill myself I swear to heck.

Nietzsche isn't Stirner-lite; it's fucking opposite. Stirner's "strength" in comparison to Nietzsche is that he was far more straightforward and focused in terms of his ideas and how they would translate into the real world. He's about the furthest you can get from being a systematic thinker while still nonetheless indeed having a system.

Nietzsche on the other hand picks up where Stirner drops the ball in addressing that all system-builder metaphysicians must necessarily do so out of self-interested reasons, rather than any appeals to some nebuluous and elusive idea of Truth that they have somehow stumbled onto. And this applies to Stirner very much, so much in fact that Stirner embodies the irony of it by basing his system precisely on self-interest. You might say then that Stirner was shrewd enough to at least understand this, but nonetheless his abstractions stop just short of a complete rupture from system-building by stopping at the Ego. The greatest irony of Stirner is that for all his bombastic denunciantions of almost everything valued by the West, he still relies on an ontotheological grounding for his metaphysical system which must necessarily be beyond his grasp qua ontotheological grounding - and unlike Kierkegaard, he doesn't even recognize the irony in this.

For Stirner, the Ego is the basis of his metaphysical system, yet the Ego is at the same time beyond our grasp, as we are only able to conceptualize the Ego thru the proxy of the Self. Therefore, being an egoist ultimately depends on a fundamental leap of faith, that you are acting in accordance with the self-interest of your Ego and not your "Self's"-interest. This is pretty much endemic to German Idealism, going back to Kant's Good Will.

Nietzsche's superiority to Stirner in this regard, and where I think he's more useful and more interesting to anarchists (I can't say the same for "leftists" in general since he quite rightly was vehemently critical of the socialists and anarchists of his day), is that he recognizes the problems of systematic metaphysics. Whatever metaphysics he has is beyond capturing, because everything at bottom is will to power - literally every object in fact, according to Heidegger - and is constantly vying with one another for superiority. Which means that in the real world, the only truths are those which can be made truthful thru discourse coming from those who have structures of power in place that allow them to dominate the ruled and enforce their narratives on them. Narratives which can only apply to them, even if they believe otherwise.

Aside from that, Nietzsche also wrote about practically everything. Stirner has some good qualities, but Nietzsche is infinitely more complex and interesting in comparison - which of course is why Holla Forums is enamored with the simpler edgy philosopher who can be easily hackneyed into its narrative, and is generally spiteful (you might even say, resentful) of Nietzsche, who isn't easily memed like Stirner and defies being adapted to any ideology.

Literally this. Not that I expect anything less from Holla Forums

The better question is why do adults like him :v)

I sware on me mum I will fucking fite u

...

Love u2

are you going to have mental breakdown after this again?

But what about the Unique/Creative Nothing ?

...

I bet you want to give him a bj.

Nietzsche is incredibly easy to adapt to any ideology, which is why everyone from anarchists to idpol liberals to nazis does so while each claiming to have the true and honest understanding of what he meant. with a little creative interpretation Nietzsche will say whatever you want him to.

That's true of literally everyone though.

We don't. He's a pretentious twit only used to justify sociopathy.

sounds like a complete fag lmao

that snek is so qt I wanna kill myself

That's the thing tho, every attempt at appropriating him to an ideology cannot help but fail to fully capture Nietzsche's thought. Because Nietzsche's philosophy fundamentally denies politicization in the sense of being hackneyed into the narratives of any given ideology. Like I said, there isn't any concept of "truth" for him; everything with him is will to power. Something which Foucault picked up on very nicely.

Trying to appropriate Nietzsche's thought for an ideology is literally just using stuff that isn't even there. It's based on an inability to conceptualize what Nietzsche was saying or be able to think beyond your ideology and more down to earth, down to the level of being-in-the-world.

absolutely ebin xDD

Nietzsche wrote a lot of very impassioned, life-affirming aphorisms. They got me through some tough times.

^ also this

Nietzsche inspiring af

why does nietzsche think the will to power is the ultimate, when discourse is dialectical, and constantly evolving?

I don't really see how that contradicts his position.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, how exactly do people then break free from other people's subjugation of the will onto objects?

Firstly, there are a lot, and I mean a lot of people who will talk about Nietzsche, Nietzsche's ideas and positions based upon the most limited of understandings of his writings. Others cling to Nietzsche because culturally he's seen as 'cool'.

So when someone says "I like Nietzsche", be ready for someone who neither understands nor has any real interest in Nietzsche.

...

...

NO IDEALISM ALLOWED

I think you mean "owness". Self-interest isn't the same thing. You missed the point of Stirner and the "will to power" is a spook, m80.

The Ego is a spook :^)

...

Isn't that pretty much just language?

ah, the irony

Also, the Ego literally is a spook. It has no correspondence with anything that is graspable for us. Like Kierkegaard's God, it is a concept that is beyond our conception but that nonetheless is the necessary ontotheological basis of any metaphysics.

kek that fucking image

You do have a point there, actually. I don't think it contradicts what I was saying though. In fact, Nietzsche was aware of this. Have you read "On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense"?

Anybody else watch Abandoned on that one vice channel

I'm addicted I can't stop

Just bits of it for a philosophy course.

it's pretty short. You should come back to it because he more or less makes the point in that essay if I remember correctly that language is by its very nature untruthful because it refers to ideal, abstracted entities that never exist in the real world (there is no form of "tree", only particular trees in the world with the same general sorts of properties).

Really neat piece

Define "spook", fam.

I want to see if you can do it. I'll give you a hint. It's composed of two words.

That's exactly why he calls it a creative nothing.

It continually dissolves and rebuilds itself. The ego can be a spook, but it does not necessitate it.

I like Nietzsche, but I think he may have plagiarized Stirner.

I'm not sure I'm as depressed as I use to be, actually.

"In a sense I think it’s necessary to invert the idea of the eternal return. It is not the promise of eternal repetition that lacerates but this: that the moments caught in the immanence of the return suddenly appear as ends." - Georges Bataille

Yeah, I got that out of it. Socrates (or Plato) had said more or less the same thing, as did Saussure later.

I thought Zizek was mostly ignorant of Nietzsche. I remember there was some interview where someone brought up and Zizek said he just never was interested or read him or something like that

Nietzsche wrote volumes of stuff on topics Stirner never wrote about.

Sure, but I think there were a number of things he may have lifted. Maybe it was by accident, but they are there none the less.

How does Stirner differentiate between ego and self?

That's the difference between good philosophy and egoism.

Sarté and Ayn Rand are well known, think about that for a moment.

Didn't the dude go crazy and then his mom was the one that made him famous by promoting the fuck out of him?
That's what I remember.

He's what atheism should have become as a religion that could drive political action, like Islam still is today. Instead we have no atheist spirituality except for the shitty new age stuff and mindless conformism to science and technology.

stirner wouldve just taken both bottles

typical

LOL

No, his sister promoted him to the Nazis, but she had to purge his work and letters of his clear hatred of antisemitism (including his strong disapproval of her marriage to an antisemite). His fame in the West after WWII is mostly Walter Kaufmann's doing, though.