/lit/ - Literature

>>18171770
I mean, the dude who introduced Stirner to the English would talk about his love for young boys and a homosexual - Mackay. Lots of homosexuals found sympathy for his free love.

>>17667843
>>/lit/thread/S17660366#p17667843

>>17264760
Yes you shouldn't. That doesn't mean you can't do it. And knowing you should doesn't mean you will do it. Stirner's book is more about the hypocrisy of morality, much like Nietszche's take on morality.

>>16750832
based.

>>16688718
Read Stirner

>>14205450

>>13980304
>His only love is for what he considers Great Men, he has no respect for ordinary people.
That is an extremely narrow reading of Nietzsche's motivation, if anything, because there's no a priori framework to distinguish an ordinary man from a Great one. It may not be obvious to you why this precludes you from making a clean distinction between the one and the other, but it was quite obvious for Nietzsche at least.

As for Stirner, see pic related

>>13857146
How is it that people always misunderstand what "putting self-interest before the interest of others" mean? It doesn't mean you don't give a shit about others, it merely means that you recognise your desire to care about them as your own, egoistic desire. You care about them not because you want anything in return, but not because of any duty, either. You just want to. Nietzsche wrote about this, too.

>>12430854
>Love is a spook.
t. hasn't read Stirner

>>12341163
You are the only one here who has a negative connotation here.
Selfishness isn't something bad or condemnable.

>>12323191
>When you pity a child suffering at the hands of others, according to the philosphy of Max Stirner, is the emotion you experience a spook?
No. The duty to pity this child (moral or otherwise), however, would have been a spook.

>>10140430
>So, if I I am hopelessly in love, love is a spook. If another is hopelessly in love with me, love is my property.

No, I wasn’t clear enough its how **you** value and treat the idea. If you are genuinely hopelessly in love with someone then its closer to being your property. However if you try and force yourself to love someone because you feel that you have duty obligation to then you are spooked.

Indeed if you are hoplessly in love with someone to deny those feelings because its unmanly or illogical that is spooky.

>It also feels self defeating.
Its the opposite its self gratifying. Indeed it can and has personally lead to me having more fulfilling and genuine relationships.

>"I will not let any one, any thing dogmatically control me! With the sole exception of this dogma."

Should you read the book you will find that this is actually his criticism of all previous thinkers and the challenge his books sets out to solve without falling into that hypocrisy.

>You're only trading investiture in the external with investiture in your self minus the focus on what that self is v. existentialism classic.

I don’t think Stirner tried or intended to end all philosophical inquiry with that one book – nor is that a product of his thought.

>You will die, and all your creativity with it. Stirner's property evaporates on the death bed, but reality does not.

Of course, property in Stirner’s thought is an approach not physical property like your computer or home.

I know that you werent responding to me but Stirners thought literally does set out to establish atheism nor does it necessitate God being a spook

>>9990967

>>9937045
pic related

>>9757108
>I really like the idea of debunking spooks but a whole philosophy dedicated to self interest- thats not my thing at all. I mean the world would be a shitty place if we werent benevolent and stuff. I like doing selfless stuff sometimes

Why dont you actually read Stirner ?

>>8369571
>>8369386
>>8369391

See you you really try to read him. The thing that makes his philosophy different is it is against guys like Marx and guys like Nietzsche and Rand.

The whole idea is spooks is that they are ideas that control you in a way that only real things should.

From example: If you think that family is important and try to help out and so on you are being spooked by the idea of family, but if you help out because you love your family and it makes you happy then it is not really a spook since there are real people you are doing something for; the fact that they are your family such be irrelevant in your choice to help them.

You base everything off yourself and judge everything by how it affects you. To go and fight a war for your country is a spook, but to fight a land developer would wants to destroy a forest you love is not. The idea of the country is not a real thing but a forest is a real thing that you enjoy seeing and so to fight for it would not be a spook. Now if you were an environmentalist and wanted to protect the world for future generations or whatever, then that would be a spook reason to go out and fight for a forest.

His philosophy is about being free from control. It is not about being a sociopath. If you think you are obligated to lie and deceive people to better yourself then you are just as spooked as anyone else and Stirner would be against it.

>>8235335
dw famalam, that's the failure of Marxism-Leninism, not the failure of Anarcho-Communism

>>8224470

>>8224033
How is that the case? Pic related

>>8148415
I bet you didn't read either of them.
Rand's philosophy is a spook. The idea that you should put yourself before everyone and everything will force you to do thinks you wouldn't normally do making it a classic spook.
Also her philosophy is class "objectivism." How do you justify putting yourself above everything when you accept things as objective? she does it by saying society as a whole will benefit, which means her justification is just another spook. Stirner takes Descartes' idea and it is easy to see justify egotism if you are the only thing you can be sure of.

Good b8 if b8.

>>8083871
>Because he was extremely insecure that no one else cares about him so a philosophy in which carer for others is bad was appealing to him

A common misconception and a critque that would be more fitting of egoists like Rand who try to replace spooks with other spooks. Feeling bad about caring for others because "thats not what a REAL egoist would do!" or because its illogical is just as spooky as the view that all people have to care for others.

>Wonder if he ever talked about his relationship to his mother

Taking a look at his personal life he was a fairly introverted yet confident person in his interactions. Regarding his personal relationship with his mother the closest I can find is him saying that she had trouble with a certain fixed idea however I cant recall if this comment was made before or after her mental illness got her in hospital.

>>7001274
I haven't read Stirner yet, unfortunately. The way I parse it is probably more Epicurean.
What's in our minds, what we imagine are spooks. The real world is there, but sometimes our perceptions of it can be skewed. The stories we tell ourselves about creation/afterlife/souls and the value we place on gold, paper or electronic blips in a banks computer, are all easily not real.
The only thing that matters is yourself. You eat to maintain yourself. You love because you want to feel that way. The object of your love has to be shown this affection, they can never really know how it feels to be you in love with them. Even if no one else is real (a preposterous idea imo) doing right by them is best for you.

>>6817015
For some, he is a nothing more, but many come to realize he had the ultimate point, and that there are few "philosophers" out there that are better. More prolific, yes. Better? No.
For me; I'm not obsessed, I'm impressed.

>>6817037
This.

>>6817058
Yeah yeah. Like saying atheism is faith. Let it slide.

>>6817862
Authoritarian scumbo :^)