Is Stirner the end of philosophy?

Is Stirner the end of philosophy?

No, although he did BTFO Feuerbach and made Marx reconsider his dedication to humanism. So at least he was good for something.

TBF nobody really reads Stirner outside of the internet. This isn't an accident either- he really is not an exceptionally rigorous philosopher.

He's the end of philosophy for most of the philistines here

It was once remarked by Ernst Ludwig Brauns, one of his contemporaries, that if Feuerbach was the end of traditional theology, Stirner was the end of traditional ethics. Feuerbach taught that Man had created God in his own image; Stirner that the individual ego had created man in his own image. One had dissolved the subject, God, into all of its predicates; the other had dissolved the predicate of Society into the personal pronouns—I, me, myself.

Also, Feuerbach was never clear about what was meant by Man just as Stirner was never clear about the "I".

It's the creative nothing

Yeah, but that's not really clear, obviously.

As in…he finds many ways to describe it.

The creative nothing that is, what it does, what it can do.

In freudian terms, that's the es

I'm sure a Freudian would reject Stirner's psychology though.

He's not.

T. Stirner fag

philosophy is literally a spook stop wasting time with it and follow your ego

No. He is the beginning. The epistemological break from epistemology.

Don't think so, no.

Nope.

no but he's probably the ultimate meme philosopher

Egoism is spook.

He's the end of ethics (no moral phenomena, spooks), value judgements (according to your own set standards outside yourself, spooks) and propositional statements (infinite subjectivity). But the end of all philosophy itself? No, he killed quite many a field, but not the whole. There's still metaphysics and ontology which he doesn't really touch on.

Religion, morality, law, rights, etc. are all spooks. Spooks are dead, and we have killed them.

"I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I
myself as creator create everything.
Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my concern! You think at least the “good
cause” must be my concern? What’s good, what’s bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am
neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me.
The divine is God’s concern; the human, man’s. My concern is neither the divine nor the hu-
man, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is
— unique,[Einzig] as I am unique.
Nothing is more to me than myself!"

You people really are the worst.

spooked

Yes, nazfag, your moral outrage sustains my egoistic existence!

No
Stirner is merely the proto-shitposter

...

He's a philosophical dead end, if that's what you mean.

I think you could still use Kant's categorical imperative to act ethically.

I am somewhat in agreement with regarding this. My understanding of Stirner leads me to believe that whilst he confirms values to be entirely subjective, he does not want people to dismiss them straightaway (unlike what many of the meme-chugging 'satirists' might say). His aim is for people to use whatever values they may see fit as individuals. There is no need to follow a set ethical system; there is only need for consideration.

I believe that Stirner sets out a meta-ethical system which is not too dissimilar to Kant's in the sense that it encourages such consideration to meet egoistic ends. I have skim-read a short essay which compares Kant with Stirner and Foucault

Couldn't even be bothered not skimming a short ass essay. This is what Holla Forums means when they say they read.

...

Does she also smoke, user?