didnt he basically conclude that virtually everything he sperged out about from the state to christian morality is actually good, BUT LIKE NOT BECAUSE MOM SAID SO
He doesn't negate the fact that the state is strong. That's the whole point of his critique actually, state shouldn't control the individual. Individual strength should be above everything else and the day people realize their own power, the state will fall to pieces
you're mistaken nietzsche with stirner, easy mistake to make seeing as how nietzsche pretty much copied stirners homework
nietzsche: will to power is meaning of life, cruelty is highest form of arostocracy, overman should break the old rules to make new ones, everyone who can should be an overman, no no not like that
stirner: here is why all rules set and ideologies in stone are moronic and made to subjugate you, now hold up while i unique myself into being shunned by my moronic peers by trying to save them from platos cave because i fricking love my fellow men
>nietzsche: will to power is meaning of life, cruelty is highest form of arostocracy, overman should break the old rules to make new ones, everyone who can should be an overman, no no not like that
This is the plebbiest mis-reading of N i've seen on here in quite some time. If this is the case why did he dislike Cesare Borgia so much?
He can be contradictory because he doesn't care about the rules of philosophy, logic or argument. He says what he wants, and does what he wants. Stirner isn't even a opposed to the state, in principle, as he mocks Proudhon for it. He argues he opposes the "state" insofar it opposes his interests. If the state doesn't oppose him; he could not care less. >"If it is right.for me, then it is right. Possibly, this won't make it right for others; that's their problem, not mine : they may defend themselves!"
didnt he basically conclude that virtually everything he sperged out about from the state to christian morality is actually good, BUT LIKE NOT BECAUSE MOM SAID SO
No
Try reading the damn book.
The motive for writing it was not to legitimize the state as deity, but an explanation for what they’re doing.
He doesn't negate the fact that the state is strong. That's the whole point of his critique actually, state shouldn't control the individual. Individual strength should be above everything else and the day people realize their own power, the state will fall to pieces
Once an individual subjugates another individual using their individual strength, their strength is no longer individual.
>Individual strength should be above everything else and the day people realize their own power, the state will fall to pieces
Holy brainlet
Those are stirner words not mine
He's naive to think there is a self and world outside of spooks. We are spooks living in dream world of spooks.
Spooks this spooks that I’m just trynna damn grill
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mctaggart/#McTOntIde
you're mistaken nietzsche with stirner, easy mistake to make seeing as how nietzsche pretty much copied stirners homework
nietzsche: will to power is meaning of life, cruelty is highest form of arostocracy, overman should break the old rules to make new ones, everyone who can should be an overman, no no not like that
stirner: here is why all rules set and ideologies in stone are moronic and made to subjugate you, now hold up while i unique myself into being shunned by my moronic peers by trying to save them from platos cave because i fricking love my fellow men
How does he even posit that there is a self?
>nietzsche: will to power is meaning of life, cruelty is highest form of arostocracy, overman should break the old rules to make new ones, everyone who can should be an overman, no no not like that
This is the plebbiest mis-reading of N i've seen on here in quite some time. If this is the case why did he dislike Cesare Borgia so much?
Because he failed
Parasites and predators will automatically misunderstand nietzsche. This makes him the ultimate tool to finding these types of people.
The law of noncontradiction
Is the oldest spook
In the book.
Stirner is a spook
He can be contradictory because he doesn't care about the rules of philosophy, logic or argument. He says what he wants, and does what he wants. Stirner isn't even a opposed to the state, in principle, as he mocks Proudhon for it. He argues he opposes the "state" insofar it opposes his interests. If the state doesn't oppose him; he could not care less.
>"If it is right.for me, then it is right. Possibly, this won't make it right for others; that's their problem, not mine : they may defend themselves!"
But he presupposes a whole set of philosophical rules and principles to even make his point. That’s just inconsistent.