Was stirner a nihilist?

Was stirner a nihilist?

Other urls found in this thread:

jstor.org/stable/2709548?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It doesn't matter.

found the nihilist

he was a precursor to nihilism.

Considering "All things are nothing to me" is pretty much the core of egoism, yeah I would say so. Egoism is basically just a militant individualist form of nihilism.

No, and please stop pushing this idea that he was one.

I would say it's fair to associate Stirner with nihilism because of his similarities to Nietzsche w/r/t his project of thoroughly destroying pretty much all the values of Europe. In this respect, his philosophy in part is an example of active nihilism.

Unlike Nietzsche, however, Stirner forms much clearer conclusions about what is left after we've destroyed all the other values that are essentially just the ruling class pushing different moral views onto the ruled. And what Stirner gets out of his active nihilism is egoism.

Nihilism is not egoism. I would argue that the two can be compatible, perhaps with some tension, but egoism is fundamentally incompatible with nihilism. Nihilism is a position that isn't in itself compatible with anything, really; it is the creative passion for destruction, and this will always be hostile to any positive view.

That's not to say you can't be a nihilist and also be an egoist, but if you are a nihilist you are saying that you fundamentally believe that there can be no positive programme for liberation until we've destroyed the old. I happen to consider myself an egoist in addition to being a nihilist because I just think egoism is generally the best practical position to take. It's better to be ruled by a tyranny of the Self and its reproductions of capitalist logic, than to be ruled by the moralities of others.

...

...

...

Fuck I just contradicted myself.

What I mean is that you can contextually have different positions. I would generally say for a nihilist that it makes sense if you happen to be participating in any kind of revolutionary activities, for instance, to approach things from the mindset of an egoist - and also an insurrectionist. One can be a nihilist first and foremost, and thus have the position that we need to destroy the old before we can create the new, and use the ideas of egoism and insurrectionism to further this end.

However, a true nihilist wouldn't uncritically accept egoism as the truth. And myself, I think that it will always be very misguided and inexact, because the only way to have any interaction with the ego is through the Self. But the Self != the Ego. The Self is in fact the greatest spook of all.

Likewise, I think that insurrectionism has the tendency to be activisty. I just don't think it makes sense for a nihilist to do anything else than be an insurgent.


Thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

Tfw active nihilism precedes existentialism.

Tfw Nietzsche was just being a special snowflake existentialist and should have just accepted it.

...

Yes he was, people who say he wasn't are just trying to pointlessly overcomplicate the issue.

I'd say the idea of "you can use spooks as long as you're aware they are spooks" is even sort of a precursor to existentialism

No. Read Aragorn! and stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Legolas is better.

...

Read stirnor please, you're still spooked

Fuck off tankie

He was a "moral majority" Reagan conservative.

At last I truly seee

No, he was an post-Hegelian idealist who wanted to elaborate on how the individual subject would act after each and every person had attained Absolute Knowledge. This article does a good effort to explain Stirner's relation to Hegel and Young Hegelianism:

jstor.org/stable/2709548?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Yes.

But Yui…not everyone has a subscription to Jstor.

...