Why are there no actual picture of Max Stirner?

Why are there no actual picture of Max Stirner?

Did he refuse photos or something?

he thought pictures were a spook

I'm actually interested in this. Anyone got an answer?

An image couldn't represent the grandeur of his ego.

Maybe he never existed.

Maybe he's maybelline

Maybe he was actually Marx writing under a pseudonym and the ad hominem sperg rage was just an example of Marx's self-hatred

Wan't he dead before photography was popular amongst the masses?

...

lies

That's not him

But death photos were popular.

/thread

that nots johan smith

...

If anything wouldn't he be Engels writing under a pseudonym? He's the one who was keen on his ideas before Marx disabused him of them.

Marx was testing Engels' loyalty

...

...

How many people besides Engels actually say they saw him?
Does he even have a grave?

Is Engels really the only person to claim to have seen him? Who published his works?

Maybe Nax was the biggest spook all along

Quality is potato but he looks like a quiet calm qt to have a relaxing picnic with

Our only bet is to dig him up and do some forensic reconstruction on his skull.

It was in his self interest to have an actual picture?

I'm now convinced Max Stirner is Engels in a pseudonym.

It's simply because he died slightly before photos became a thing people were able to just do and he never had very much money in his life to get a photo.


Just about all the Young Hegelians saw him in the Die Freien meetings. Plenty of other people in schools etc where he was teaching/learning and the women he married.

Yes he does have a grave.


That is a picture of MARC BLOCH, there is NO photographs of Stirner.


No many other people knew Stirner, he wasn't alone.

Why did Engels try to make him sound sexy? Was he trying to catfish girls?

Yes. And also Marx, but he failed at that

It also in large part has to do with his ego

...

...

;____;

Why would his grave say Max Stirner and not Johann Caspar Schmidt?
Further proof he didn't actually real and that Engels was being sloppy

We could crowdfund an expedition to dig up the grave to see if there are real remains.

Max Stirner was the first SJW
His pronouns were just formatted to look like a proper name

if theres a skull we could have some scientists reconstruct his appearance like that one thing with the egyptian queen on the history channel

This is him.

To what end? It would just tarnish his meme value

Hell no, do you think the real Johann would be caught dead with those weak-ass sideburns?

ITS ALL CONNECTED

That's Rudolf Steiner, a profoundly spooked man.

Spooked but individualist

I guess if you consider right-wing nationalism with root race theories about atlantis and lemuria and rhetoric about "spiritual capitalism" indiviudualist.

Well what do you do when material knowledge fails? What is the "creative nothing"?

Well what do you do when material knowledge fails?
Maybe just blindly trust some dude that claims to be a clairvoyant that can google the past and future of the world on the akashic record? Or maybe not.
The creative nothing is the radical freedom (like sartre) which results from not being spooked and fighting against spookery, dude.

Szeliga, after first having in all seriousness allowed the unique “to become” and identified it with a “man” (page 4: “The unique wasn’t always unique, nor always a man, but was once a baby and then a young boy”), makes him an “individual of world history” and finally, after a definition of spooks (from which it emerges that “a spirit lacking thought is a body, and that the pure and simple body is the absence of thought”), he finds that the unique is “therefore the spook of spooks.” It is true that he adds, “For the critic who doesn’t just see in universal history fixed ideas replacing each other, but creative thoughts continually developing, for the critic, however, the unique is not a spook, but an act of creative self-consciousness, which had to arise in its time, in our time, and fulfill its determined task”; but this act is merely a “thought,” a “principle” and a book.

When Feuerbach deals with the unique, he limits himself to considering it as a “unique individual,” chosen from a class or species and “opposed as sacred and inviolable to other individuals.” In this choosing and opposing “the essence of religion remains. This man, this unique, this incomparable being, this Jesus Christ, is only and exclusively God. This oak, this place, this bull, this day is sacred, not the others.” He concludes: “Chase the Unique in Heaven from your head, but also chase away the Unique on earth.”

Hess strictly only alludes to the unique. He first identifies Stirner with the unique, and then says of the Unique: “He is the headless, heartless trunk, i.e., he has the illusion of being so, because in reality he doesn’t just lack spirit, but body as well; he is nothing other than his illusions.” And finally he pronounces his judgment on Stirner, “the unique”: “He is boasting.”

From this, the unique appears as “the spook of all spooks,” as “the sacred individual, which one must chase from the head” and as the “pale boaster.”

Stirner names the unique and says at the same time that “Names don’t name it.” He utters a name when he names the unique, and adds that the unique is only a name. So he thinks something other than what he says, just as, for example, when someone calls you Ludwig, he isn’t thinking of a generic Ludwig, but of you, for whom he has no word.

What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is neither a word, nor a thought, nor a concept. What he says is not the meaning, and what he means cannot be said.

One flattered oneself that one spoke about the “actual, individual” human being when one spoke of the human being; but was this possible so long as one wanted to express this human being through something universal, through an attribute? To designate this human being, shouldn’t one, perhaps, have recourse not to an attribute, but rather to a designation, to a name to take refuge in, where the view, i.e., the unspeakable, is the main thing? Some are reassured by “real, complete individuality,” which is still not free of the relation to the species; others by the “spirit,” which is likewise a determination, not complete indeterminacy. This indeterminacy only seems to be achieved in the unique, because it is given as the specific unique being, because when it is grasped as a concept, i.e., as an expression, it appears as a completely empty and undetermined name, and thus refers to a content outside of or beyond the concept. If one fixes it as a concept — and the opponents do this — one must attempt to give it a definition and will thus inevitably come upon something different from what was meant. It would be distinguished from other concepts and considered, for example, as “the sole complete individual,” so that it becomes easy to show it as nonsense. But can you define yourself; are you a concept?

But it is not true, as Stirner’s opponents present it, that in the unique there is only the “lie of what has been called the egoistic world up to now”; no, in its nakedness and its barrenness, in its shameless “candor,” (see Szeliga, p. 34) the nakedness and barrenness of concepts and ideas come to light, the useless pomposity of its opponents is made clear. It becomes obvious that the biggest “phrase” is the one that seems to be the word most full of content. The unique is the frank, undeniable, clear — phrase; it is the keystone of our phrase-world, this world whose “beginning was the word.”

The unique is an expression with which, in all frankness and honesty, one recognizes that he is expressing nothing. Human being, spirit, the true individual, personality, etc. are expressions or attributes that are full to overflowing with content, phrases with the greatest wealth of ideas; compared with these sacred and noble phrases, the unique is the empty, unassuming and completely common phrase.

Therefore, if the attribute should include everyone in itself, everyone should appear as subject, i.e., not only as what he is, but as who he is.

But how can you present yourself as who you are, if you don’t present yourself? Are you a doppelganger or do you exist only once? You are nowhere except in yourself, you are not in the world a second time, you are unique. You can emerge only if you appear in the flesh.

“You are unique,” isn’t this a sentence? If in the sentence “you are human,” you don’t come in as the one who you are, do you actually come in as you in the sentence “you are unique”? The sentence “you are unique” means nothing but “you are you,” a sentence that logic calls nonsense, because it doesn’t make judgments on anything, it doesn’t say anything, because it is empty, a sentence that is not a sentence. (In the book on page 232, the absurd sentence is considered as “infinite” or indeterminate; here however, after the page, it is considered as an “identical” sentence.)

What the logician treats with contempt is undoubtedly illogical or merely “formally” logical; but it is also, considered logically, only a phrase; it is logic dying in a phrase.

The unique should only be the last, dying expression (attribute) of you and me, the expression that turns into a view: an expression that is no longer such, that falls silent, that is mute.

You — unique! What thought content is here, what sentence content? None! Whoever wants to deduce a precise thought-content of the Unique as if it were a concept, whoever thinks that with “unique” one has said about you what you are, would show that they believe in phrases, because they don’t recognize phrases as phrases, and would also show that they seek specific content in phrases.

You, inconceivable and inexpressible, are the phrase content, the phrase owner, the phrase embodied; you are the who, the one of the phrase. In the unique, science can dissolve into life, in which your this becomes who and this who no longer seeks itself in the word, in the Logos, in the attribute.

Every time a picture is taken of you, someone is stealing a piece of your ego.

Do you people seriously just write "Max Stirner" in Google images and blindly trust that whatever photograph pops up is him even though no one else has ever produced a photo of the guy?

...

we value anonymity

...

...

Found him

wtf i hate socialists and pirates now

I'd kill to get mad Max's skull.

So max stirner was just Engel's edgy oc?

I'm really starting to wonder that now

spooky tbh

Probably because he didn't have enough money for the photography that was out when he was alive. Remember that Marx and Engels didn't get photos taken of them until decades after Stirner was dead, and the cost of photography had probably gone down enough