Talk:Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner

Philosophy: Continental / Modern C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Continental philosophy
	Modern philosophy

I've created this page after discussion with other editors (available for review on the Friedrich Nietzsche talk page under "Stirner, again..."). At present this page contains only a summary paragraph, notes, and a bibliography. I envision the following arrangement, which I present here for consideration and discussion:

0. Summary paragraph

1. Origins of the debate (Why did this question arise? Because of (superficial?) similarities in the expressed ideas of the two thinkers.)

2. Period of popular association (Regardless of the arguments for or against the assertion of influence on Nietzsche by Stirner, the association of the two thinkers, and the assertion of the possible influence of the one upon the other is a notable historical fact)

3. Arguments for influence

4. Arguments against influence

This should get things started. I'd like to work on this carefully here for awhile before moving to establish links since the article is at present really just a stub. --Picatrix (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Checking

I hope that other editors will be available to double-check all references in this article. Also, in many cases where only one reference is given in support of a passage it is possible to provide more. Using the convention of separation of sources within one note number using a semi-colon, more can be added. I'm particularly concerned about ensuring all references in this article are solid and double-checked. Any help would be appreciated. --Picatrix (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for influence

I've briefly discussed the most substantial and convincing of the arguments for influence that I am aware of. However there are several others that I will be adding as time permits.--Picatrix (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Influence

Some philosophers were influenced, not by reading the original texts, but by reading someone else's account of another philosopher. Emerson never read Kant, but he read Coleridge's writings about Kant and he knew Kant through Coleridge. Wittgenstein and Nietzsche read little, if any, of Kant. They knew Kant through Schopenhauer's readable discussions of Kant's doctrines. Hardly anyone read Hegel's idiosyncratic lecture notes and writings. Instead, they read someone's account of Hegel's doctrines, or an attempt to give an intelligible paraphrase of "the secret of Hegel." It is very possible, almost probable, that Nietzsche never read Stirner but was influenced by the few sentences that Lange had written about Stirner. After all, Nietzsche went to Lange because of Lange's discussion of the atheist Schopenhauer, whom Nietzsche revered. Among Lange's references to Schopenhauer was a comparison to Stirner's doctrine. This is probably all that Nietzsche knew about Stirner. See the passage as listed in the Wikipedia article in the "Comments by contemporaries" section.Lestrade (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

superficial similarities

The "often-noted (though arguably superficial) similarities" are supported by citation number 10, which however does not have any of the given sources claim that they are superficial. One of the sources even claims the opposite. I have come across the claim before somewhere else, but I am not sure how it would be argued. It might even be advisable to have a section here listing a very rough overview of shared topics, such as criticism of the value of truth, criticism of heterologous morality, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.227 (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see "shared topics" explored, but I just don't have time for it now. --Picatrix (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]