What's the difference between Stirner's ideas and that of postmodernism/poststructuralism...

What's the difference between Stirner's ideas and that of postmodernism/poststructuralism? I'm never gonna trudge through poststructuralist lit cuz i'd rahter read and think about other things so be as concise as possible. I notice that Stirner is loved here and postmodernism is despised. But from what I know both ideas are based on the idea that the 'self' can not be actually defined, and that it's a creative nothing/fiction.

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/files/David Harvey - The Condition of Postmodernity.pdf
plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#Fre
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

They're very different.

Similar though

Look into Saul Newman and post-anarchism.

They're very different and you'd be best served by reading Stirner. It's not particularly challenging and a very good read anyways.

It is not despised. for it is not a movement with goals of itself but a product of a failed movement "modernism"

They goes against each other, Lacan was critical of egoism, the imaginary order "the ego" and how it relate to the symbolic

I have read most of Ego and Its Own.

If you think postmodernism can fail you don't understand postmodernism. The only reason to hate postmodernism is because every time you cut off its head five more just spring up like a hydra.


In some respects but not others. It depends on who you read. I find a lot of similarity between semiotics and spooks.

Stirner's ideas are coherent and actually prescribe a particular course of action.

"Philosophical nagging" is the best way to put it.

What about Stirner's Critics? That gives a fairly good insight to what he meant.

Yeah, I'll read that one eventually.

Ehhhh

If you want an actual, materialist understanding of postmodernism and why you should be against it (if you're a Marxist), please read David Harvey's The Condition of Postmodernity. Terry Eagleton's The Illusions of Postmodernism is a good follow up.

Basically, the shift to finance capitalism (i.e. fictitious capital, i.e. flexible accumulation, i.e. signifier over signified, i.e. aesthetics over ethics) in the 60's-70's is what ushered in attendant forms of cultural postmodernism (e.g. post-structuralism).

Incessant bitching about what other people do after the fact without offering any alternative course of action–that's nagging.

Here's a link to the Harvey book:

libcom.org/files/David Harvey - The Condition of Postmodernity.pdf

Everything that shares ideas with communism is ultimately a tool.

I'm an anarchist, but I'd certainly consider myself a materialist and I find Marxian economics useful. I'll check it out, thanks!

No, some of it is noise.

And you have to tell what is, and what isn't, and which is both, and which is neither, and which is not at all.

Stirner doesn't tell you where do spooks come from, who implanted them into you, and for what purposes.

Stirner doesn't provide you with any kind of philosophical strategy of skepticism, while simultaneously believing in the supernatural creative nothing.

Stirner is an idealist whose creative nothing is his interpretation of the Kantian noumenal self.

The noumenal self is what Kant came up with to justify human freedom in a world of mechanistic alleged determinism, where everything is pretedermined and supposedly nothing would be in human (and moral) agency.


If you want to read more on Kant and freedom:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#Fre

Now the creative nothing too is an uncaused cause.

When was the last time you heard of an uncaused cause outside time and space? Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God? Aquinas? Aristotle?

Unlike so much of his contemporary readership, Stirner is no naturalist.

Zezik is as much of a meme as stirner, here.

I just wanted to add that I don't hate the guy, but he's just the beginning.

And he couldn't hope to be a proper introduction to philosophy for so many new readers without involving some metaphysics. :3