Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by guerrilla 1088 days ago
That definition has nothing to do with political anarchism.
2 comments

Stirner would disagree
What makes you think that?
I recall him saying something in his works about not caring if his writings led to complete disorder and destruction, because it is irrelevant to him so long as he pleases his ego by writing.

Edit, here's the quote from The Ego and Its Own:

"Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought – I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it."

Yeah I guess that's one interpretation of that but I would interpret that rather as pessimism and staunch authenticity while he actually did want a better world (which is what all anarchism is really about.)
I think that Stirner would say you're telling a bunch of ghost-stories :)
The second definition covers that.
Yes, I mean the first one that you refer to in "That’s the first definition of anarchy." The disorder definition is irrelevant to this conversation.