[ydb]

> coherent

That I can agree with you on. It is certainly dense material that frightens away those unwilling to be linguistically challenged when reading a book.

> interesting

Absolutely not. Look, I get Stirner is neat for being a proto-anarchist and all, but his value ends there. You seem preoccupied with the "fashion" of it (which itself raises questions) instead of with the philosophy being discussed. Engage with the ideas instead of resorting to this rhetorical BS that we both know you're pulling.

For example, your point that Stirner grounds his philosophy merely in self-interest -- what exactly does that prove? That his ideas are derivative and trite? I understand that Baudrillard's writing is a tough nut to crack, but to think that his work (and the rest of the French canon) is irrelevant because it requires more than egotism as its foundation is absurd.