Buddha > Stirner

I'm sure you're aware of the phrase "nothing new under the sun" OP.

Of course. However, I feel that Stirner doesn't bring anything new to the table that Buddha doesn't. He barely repackages anything, he adds some of his own crummy ideas- honestly he comes off like someone with a very poor understanding of Buddhism.

Maybe he just reinvented the ideas

Was knowledge of buddhism common at that time in Europe

Yes, but Stirner never mentioned Buddhism as an influence, which is usually what you do as a philosopher.

The fact you're still trying to judge thinks as "ok" or "not okay" shows you have literally no idea what you are talking about.

confirmed for not having read Stirner.

Lol ok

Try actually reading the book next time, kiddo.

The main impediments in discussing Buddhism, one that can be encountered in the face of any theology, religion, philosophy or ideology, of course, is the common Westerner's lack of exposure to Buddhist thought, especially through the works of bhikku scholars (more particularly from the Theravada tradition). Unfortunately, the West's illusory picture of this religion is derived from the ignorant, feel-good stereotypes depicted in films and similar media along with the added false Buddhist quotes one can encounter online at ease. Therefore, one feels that they can say that Buddhism is highly misunderstood for something of a New Age sentiment which it is certainly not. Finally, one makes the claim that it has been cheapened of its content and religious nature with added alien psychologization through the appropriating of it from Western atheists who feel the urge to redress it as something the traditions collectively would not hold. Secular "Buddhism", is being referred to here.

You're referring to the Middle Way: The path of modesty set in-between the road of extreme self-indulgence and the road of extreme asceticism. It is true that Buddhism, unlike many other religions, cannot be characterized as being pro-family in a defining way.

Give works on buddhism