/lit/ - Literature

he's a fucking edgelord

don't bother, he's the male ayn rand

he's cool why don't you just read him and find out for yourself

>>7051528
He's a spook.

>>7051528
Just read his small pamphlet on the false principle of our education (or humanism and realism).

it's a short read and it shows just how dope this man really is.

He's likely not discussed because there isn't much to discuss, his philosophy is one of living, not hot air and epistemological posturing.

You can disagree with it on ethical grounds, but there isn't really anything to disprove.

Nothing about it is too complicated or even importent. It's a good read though, he may have aimed low but I dont think he's wrong about anything.

His works foreshadowed existentialism, nihilism, anarchism and he was influential to some of the names you would consider big; Marx, Nietzsche, Camus.

They call him "end of philosophy" because he is pretty hard to refute

/lit/ likes him because /lit/ likes anyone who approves of their degenerate lifestyle.
also, i'd say 90% of stirnerfags haven't even read his pamphlet of a book.

He's talked about around here because of his meme potential.

>all things I possess, I am yet merely to obtain power over them
>There is nothing, except me

>anthroposophical movement

such things are mere spooks..

>>7051633
Steiner defends Stirner and he even admitted that his "spiritual-anarchism" as I like to call it was heavily influenced by Max.

>>7051627
>meme potential
this is an excellent way of measuring things.

>>7051652
In our digitized world it's the only metric that matters.

He only wrote one book, and it doesn't exactly contain a rich and complex philosophy. His entire philosophy is pretty much contained on the first page:

'And will you not learn by these brilliant examples that the egoist gets on best? I for my part take a lesson from them, and propose, instead of further unselfishly serving those great egoists, rather to be the egoist myself.

God and mankind have concerned themselves for nothing, for nothing but themselves. Let me then likewise concern myself for myself, who am equally with God the nothing of all others, who am my all, who am the only one.

If God, if mankind, as you affirm, have substance enough in themselves to be all in all to themselves, then I feel that I shall still less lack that, and that I shall have no complaint to make of my "emptiness." I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.

Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my concern! You think at least the "good cause" must be my concern? What's good, what's bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me. The divine is God's concern; the human, man's. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is -- unique, as I am unique.

Nothing is more to me than myself!'

The rest of the book is just him going through the major intellectual and political groups of his time (Christians, liberals, communists, anarchists) one by one and showing that they're all idiots who deify something alien to themselves.

So there isn't really much to his philosophy. He has a single idea, and it's a great idea, but Nietzsche (whether he plagiarized Stirner or not) offers the very same idea, IN ADDITION to which he has a million other ideas, criticisms and analyses.

Another reason for Stirner's obscurity is that the single idea that he has is unacceptable to the vast majority of people. Even with Nietzsche, who's an immensely popular philosopher, people tend to ignore what "beyond good and evil" actually means and focus on his other stuff.

>>7051528
He didn't do the fashionable thing and "suggest" ideas in a chatty way, or construct a fiddly theory he could quibble over with his buddies. He didn't play ball so much as toss it over a high fence.

He's like a coherent version of Nietzsche, who is mostly popular because he's spun out and willfully self-contradictory. If he forced himself to make a 10 Commandments level statement, he would have no more followers than Evola, but since he didn't, random leftists can agree with 2% of his corpus and not even realise that the man is more consistently right wing than Adolf Hitler.

>>7051702
Anarchism is left-wing.

>>7051702
>>7051705
And still neither of you understand anything he said.

Consider his concept of the 'spook.' That is, an invented, abstract concept that has no real substance. Consider the entire notion of adjectives - how can something be 'mighty' good? Or 'wickedly' bad?

Truth is a sensation of the mind - the objective truth of reality exists beyond the sensation of truth in the mind. You can believe nothing but falsehood, and yet still operate in objective reality.

Spooks are an attempt to produce objective truth in the mind. For example, our explanation of how vaccines work has nothing to do with their objective functionality - the doctors formulating the vaccines, and the nurses administering them can delude themselves into believing that vaccines work anyway they way, but in the end they work regardless.

Your intellectual and conceptual ability to deduce truth, in summary, is far weaker than you give yourself credit for. Anyone who studies science learns quickly that any attempt to produce an objective truth long ago went out the window; now, all we do is catalog probabilities and hypothesize causalities.

A lot of other people simply repeated what Stirner said, and got famous for it. It's like how Wallace actually came up with evolution, but everyone remembers Darwin for some reason.

>>7051702
>the man is more consistently right wing than Adolf Hitler
Explain how.

>I'M ANGRY ABOUT _PHILOSOPHY_!!# THIS IS IMPORTANT BUSINESS AND I AM AN IMPORTANT MAN
you got spooked m8

>>7051764
Just to be clear, I am referring to Nietzsche.
Hitler was willing to peddle a nationalist version of socialism. It turned out to be more literal than most people realised.
Instead of workers claiming a share of the rich's wealth, it was Germany taking a share of Eastern Europe's wealth.
That's a little too indiscriminate to be true elitism, which entails a pathos of distance. Hitler did not behave like Napoleon, the man of action, the man without conscience, crowning himself and his cousins. He behaved like a furious union rep.

He targeted Jews because he merged the concepts of class and race in his mind: to him, Jews were nefarious exploiters of the poor whether they were sitting behind a bank desk or a comissar's desk.

>>7051528

Because somehow the bulk of the intellectuals in the 19th and 20th century ended op choosing Marxism.

>>7051702

Yeah, whenever I see leftists referring to Nietzsche as being in essence a philosopher that could be brought into their cause, I'm at odds.
Nietzsche rebuked equality and was principally against any concern for the mass.

>>7051816
>Just to be clear, I am referring to Nietzsche.
Ah, okay then.

Your analogy seems way too far-fetched btw.

I've yet to see anyone refute his core philosophy and explain to me why I should indulge in spooks or why I should do anything that isn't ultimately in my own self-interest. Some people like to portray it as a philosophy of sociopaths, but I am not a sociopath, I empathize with people, and therefore making people happy also makes me happy, up to a point. This is why I don't go around acting like a fucking faggot to everyone, which seems to be the opinion people have of Stirner when they call him an edgelord or something similar.

At the very least, it's helpful, when you're troubled by something, to recognize that you're giving it power over you, and to try and curb or stop this.

Stirner’s doctrine is briefly this: The one reality is the ego, and he should aim at treating the world as mere material for his amusement. Max Stirner tries to show that Christianity did a service to mankind in so far as it set them free from the gods of this world and proclaimed its nothingness in comparison with real satisfaction. Unfortunately, it did this only in order to introduce a deeper slavery to abstractions concerning the other world. All supernaturalism he condemns just as Nietzsche does. But he goes on to say that every kind of moral ideal is only a form of supernaturalism, a ghost or bogieman with which we are terrified. The real nature of religion is contained in this fact — it enslaves man to a principle. it does not matter what the principle, is. So long as we allow ourselves to be directed by it, we are not independent. The one thing we know is ourselves — and we are fools if we allow ourselves to be enslaved to any form of authority, church or state or class or tradition or morale. All these things are dodges invented by other people, in order that with their s help they may tyrannise over us. Not Merely n this. A man is equally a slave when he is the follower of an ideal, even though that ideal be self-chosen. Justice is absurd, for that is a social principle; and our sole business is to use the universe for ourselves. Truth, asap end, is no less silly, for it prevents us doing what we want at the moment. All ideals which look to the future are of the nature of religion and are merely vain imaginations, bogies. The ghostly world of our dreams is the factory out of which men have invented the supernatural. Afterwards this became the ideal world of moral purposes. Then, with the positivist .conception annihilating the supernatural and all idealist ethics, there has come the idea of Humanity. All these in turn are worshipped, and the last. Humanity, the principle of the French Revolution, is not the less dangerous, because it comes in the form of enlightenment. At bottom those who hold it are bogie-worshippers, no better than Christians. Even Freedom as an ideal is ridiculous, because it sets forth a principle, which will interfere with the ego.

>>7051856
It's not a pure analogy, but the basic point is that Hitler worked himself into an authentic rage on other people's behalf. Comparing him to Napoleon would be like comparing Martin Luther to Cardinal Cesare Borgia. There's a gulf of difference.

>>7051931
use some paragraph breaks u autistic FUK

>>7051961
I thought it flowed well.

>>7051931
You got it.

>tfw you stopped reading The Ego 1/4th of the way through because it felt like you weren't getting anything more out of it and it was annoyingly written

>>7051528
>anthro
why doesn't /lit/ talk about anthroposophy and theosophy more? the modernists loved that shit

>>7052033
That's cause you'd have to be a fucking cuck.

>>7052019
>it was annoyingly written

Yeah, what's the deal with that?
Is reading Stirner in German just as painful?

>>7051702
>>7051528
Daily reminder Marx BTFO Stirner
and that Stirner completely ignores the unconscious

>>7052455
What did he say?

>>7052458
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03a.htm

>>7052483
tl;dr

>>7052458
Nothing but ad hominems, Marx hated Stirner for no good reason

>>7052514
I really don't know how individual and collective anarchists can't re-conciliate themselves.
I mean, I'm no philosopher, far from it, I'm one of the most ignorant motherfuckers in the entire planet tbh, but it seems to me logical that those who set their affairs on themselves and those who set their affairs on others can see that the rule of law and living compassionately with one another is in the best interest of everyone

>>7052514
>Marx hated Stirner for no good reason
Why do you say "no good reason"?
He wrote against all the other Young Hegelians too

>>7051540
No

>>7051931
>The one reality is the ego
So in other words, he's completely wrong.

>>7052581
*tips fedora*

>>7052455
>Later, Marx and Engels wrote a major criticism of Stirner's work. The number of pages Marx and Engels devote to attacking Stirner in (the unexpurgated text of) The German Ideology, in which they derided him as "Sankt Max" (Saint Max), exceeds the total of Stirner's written works.[35] As Isaiah Berlin has described it, Stirner "is pursued through five hundred pages of heavy-handed mockery and insult".[36] The book was written in 1845–1846, but not published until 1932. Marx's lengthy, ferocious polemic against Stirner has since been considered an important turning point in Marx's intellectual development from idealism to materialism. It has been argued that historical materialism was Marx's method of reconciling communism with a Stirnerite rejection of morality.[37]
FIVE HUNDRED PAGES
How butthurt do you even have to be?

But anon, being an individual just isolates you and makes you miserable.

>>7052595
You're kidding right? We know for a fact that the ego isn't even the totality of our mental reality. Never mind that there is a physical reality that exists independent of our minds or selves.

Holy shit, Stirner is a joke. The fact that he's popular here is just a symptom of /lit/izens tending to being contrarian and wanting to justify their self-indulgence. How anyone can take this easily refuted philosophy seriously is beyond me.

>>7052613

>Never mind that there is a physical reality that exists independent of our minds or selves.
>ego isn't even the totality of our mental reality

No.

>>7052522
>best interest of everyone
spoooky

>>7052612
Not when there's nothing to be isolated from.

>>7052613
>How anyone can take this easily refuted philosophy seriously is beyond me.
How do you refute it?

>>7052632
Anon I'm going to be very sad if you make me consider this.

>>7052623
Prove it. Bear in mind you'll have to disprove all of modern psychology and neuroscience.

>>7052638
The fact that the ego has been scientifically proven to be the tip of the iceberg of our minds. Bam. Refuted.

A demonologist transcended mongolist professor and Geist activist was teaching a class on Hegel, known necromancer.

"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship the end of history and accept that Absolute Idealism is the most highly-evolved sophism to make us feel good about ourselves the continent has ever known, even greater than self-serving petit-bourgeois protestant theology!"

At this moment an uncaring if he was brave because being judged by illusionary social standards was of no importance to him, egoist, unique girl's school teacher who had smoked more than 15000 cigars in Hippel's winebar and understood the spookiness of all ideology and fully supported whatever he felt like stood up and held up "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum".

"I wrote this, innit?"

The arrogant professor smirked quite synthetically and smugly replied "It's not yours at all, fucking egoist, its the stern, reluctant working of reason towards the full realization of itself in perfect freedom."

"Wrong. It's been a few years or something (time is nothing to me) since I, the Unique One, created it. if it was not mine, and idealism, as you say, is not a spook... then Ghost Busters wouldn't have had a happy ending."

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his balls and copy of Plato's dialogues. He stormed out of the room crying those ironic thesis and antithesis tears, both coming together on his cheeks into synthesis. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Hegel (who liked to teach about himself), wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a spook ridden sad cunt interested in arbitrary justifications. He wished so much that he had some kind of Own to hold on to, and he had but just didn't realise it because he was an involuntary egoist.

The students applauded and all started milk shops that day and accepted their Self-Enjoyment as the end of philosophy. An eagle named "Union of Egoists" flew into the room and perched atop the copy of "Stirner's Critics" and shed a beer on the hardcover. "Ich hab' Mein Sach' auf Nichts gestellt" was said several times, and Renzo Novatore himself showed up and demonstrated how hand grenades are nothing but a means of killing police officers.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of superstition and his "books" were disregarded for all eternity.

stirner is just a convenient way to brush everything that challenging or uncertain under the rug of ego, ala pomo, except it's muh spooks instead of muh social constructs.

stirnerfags like to shoot back "he's not saying these things don't exist, he's just saying to be aware of their influence and to not let abstractions dictate your behavior!" time out breh, you mean critical thinking skills are a requisite to being a healthy and stable individual? FINAL BOSS OF PHILOSOPHY I TELLS YA

>>7052646
>The fact that the ego has been scientifically proven to be the tip of the iceberg of our minds. Bam. Refuted.

That doesn't really refute egoism

>>7052642
I'm sorry Anon, but you're the only one that you can know is real. On the other hand, everything you know is you, so while you could say you're infinitely alone, loneliness isn't really a thing because there isn't anybody else to be separated from.

>>7052654
I think you are confusing spooks the meme with acutal spooks
We get this a lot here
It is best solved by reading the book my friend

>>7052658
"The one reality is the ego"

If this is an apt description of egoism, then yes, yes it does.

>>7052670
plz stop

>>7052672
stirner doesn't have a moral stance against spooks

>>7052672
Hey just one thing my friend
Freuds Ego is not the same thing as Stiners Ego
Ego is a bad translation of Einzige or The unique one

>>7052608
>LE EBIN BUTTHURT WRITING BOOKS LELELE
Kill yourself.

>>7052671
I did.

>>7052676
I'm not talking about morality. I'm talking about reality.

>>7052683
read don quixote and nietzsche, i think it will help.

>>7052677
So "the self" would be more accurate. Again, our sense of self isn't the totality of reality.

Stirner is shit. The only reason he's popular is because you all got trolled into buying into his philosophy by some dude posing as a female tripfag.

>>7052683
see
>>7052677
ty

>>7052676
Wait, is that a sad or a disapproving "plz stop"?

>>7051528
I read it so I would get the jokes people were making but then i realized that most of the posters had never read it and just misinterpreted some wikipedia articles. imo if you want to stirner post just copy a bunch of previous ones and just keep posting them until it becomes funny k.

>>7052689
Lol femishitster has nothing to do with my appreciation of stirner

i'm not nuts about stirner but he's definitely an interesting and underappreciated philosopher

>>7052697
sad and i don't want to think about it.

>>7052707
>muh solipsism, muh loneliness, muh how can anything be real outside our minds

lmao never change 1st world

>>7052701
No, he's simplistic, dull and appreciated at the correct level in general (not at all) and greatly overappreciated here.

New possibility why he's popular on /lit/, he's easy to grasp. /lit/ isn't big on complexity, unless they feign an interest in it to be pretentious.

>>7052719
Cerrá 'l orto, negro garca.

>>7052689
The self and what surrounds you is the totality of reality
What else is there?
Please expand

>>7052689
So the totality of reality which was discerned by the self proved that the self isn't everything there else?
and this exits the scope of the self how...?

>>7052719
I know you're right.

>>7052721
Okay. Maybe you're right. I haven't read much philosophy so I don't really know that much.

>>7052721
>difficulty of understandability
>outside of art
>good
choose two

>>7052764
>harder is better
fuck off
making your writings intelligible in the least should be a requirement for everyone

>>7052897
Anon, that's what I'm saying.

>>7051528

Stirner was actually bretty influential, the problem with his modern reception is that the people he influenced didn't acknowledge it. Marx openly stated hostility toward Stirner even though he later incorporated his ideas into his project, while Nietzsche just refused to mention him. But his fingerprints are all over 20th century intellectual life if you know where to look.

>>7052944
And why would they not want to mention him at all?

Maybe people on /lit/ are the only ones stupid enough to clue other people in on egoism. Fuck i hate stirnerposters so much.

>>7052947
because Stirner was an egoist, the fedora-tipping denomination of the day, and suitably disliked

>>7052968
Yet he was still influential?

>>7052973
influential enough to make Nietzsche write a book whose purpose seems to be to make the reader an egoist without their knowing

>>7052978
I'm not asserting his level of influence, I'm just saying that if he's really a fedora-tipper then why would he be influenced at all?
Fedora tipper's books, such as Schopenhauer's, deserve to be thrown to the fucking garbage.

>>7052764
>>7052897
>>7052927

Hahahaha you two are so incapable of basic reading comprehension that you don't even understand each other, never mind philosophy. I'm sure there is plenty of easily digested philosophy you simply don't have the capacity to handle, so you think this bottom of the barrel trash is actually a shining example of clarity. What a laugh.

>>7052984
>influential*
fix'd

>>7052984
I think the discourse on this topic is needlessly ruined with this childish maymay gag.

People, religious people, who respond with fedora tipping are rightfully the fedora tippers, but enough of it already. Say the words, the real words.

Atheist/theist

>>7051687
>>7051702
>>7051745
>>7051931

Quality posts, thanks for writing

>>7052999
We aren't dandies, who the fuck cares what is the proper way of speech as long as we manage to convey what we meant? Overall, if we manage to mock those who we speak of and ridicule everything then it's even preferable to involve maymays.

>>7051931
> Even Freedom as an ideal is ridiculous, because it sets forth a principle, which will interfere with the ego.

I don't understand, what exactly is the ego then?

>>7053010
It doesn't convey what you mean. It reverses it and it need verbal confusion. It dumb. Tbh.

>>7052988
>reading philosophy
No thanks, I'd rather think for myself.

>>7053016
ebin meme

>>7053016
I somehow doubt you're capable.

>>7052764
>>7052897
>>7052927
>32 words in three posts

>>7052988
>59 words in one post

MARXISTS WHEN WILL THEY LEARN

>>7052613
>Drinking this hard from scientismic koolaid

>>7051931
>Max Stirner
could have been a buddhist

>>7053183
>rejecting facts that conflict with a philosophy that revolves around selfishness

It's like being a child.

Max Stirner is the least important person in the history of philosophy. Everyone posting in this thread is more important than him.

>>7053188
But his philosophy is the polar opposite of Buddhism. It emphasizes the ego, while Buddhism says the ego is an illusion.

>>7053193
It's not relevant, your life is your perception, ultimately your consciousness is the only thing that matters to you.

>>7053196
indeed, but in order to understand that there is no ego, the buddhist must turn towards himself

>>7053197
Yeah, try imagining yourself out of getting mugged. See how your consciousness serves you then. See if you think your ego is the only reality during that experience.

Stirner fags are like the sort of idiots who read a pop-science magazine article about quantum physics and think that means they can change physical reality with their minds because the "obesrver effect totally says so!"

Your perception means nothing to the outside world. What matters to you is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. You're a cog in the machine. Hell you thoughts aren't even your own. You're a product of your experiences and environment. The only reason Stirner even resonates with you is because you're primed to accept his bullshit.

>>7053209
stirner is not solipsism

>>7053195
this is quite sad tbh
smh at all of you

>>7053220
Stirner isn't anything.

He basically says, "Only I matter". Good luck with that. See how far that attitude gets you, both in terms of what you can accomplish, and how you feel about yourself.

>>7053229
What a fatherly attitude.
>Listen here son

>>7053014
>>7053014
>>7053014

pls respond

>>7053234
Don't take my word for it. Look at Stirner himself. 200 years later and the only people who give a shit are manchildren on an anime image board.

bamp

>>7053209
You're such a fucking retard

how can someone misunderstand something so simple so much?

>>7053209
>You're a product of your experiences and environment.

But not of your genetics of course

>>7053240
If you honestly believe that The Ego And His Own's text correctly reduces to "Only I matter" then you are doing your opponents a service with your criticism.

Even if it correctly reduced to "Only the individual matters", and then you understood that we are all The Unique One whether we understand that or not, you are still so far behind in understanding Stirner that even the kids who took 5 minutes to read his wikipedia article know more than you.

Even your ideas about what constitutes value (other people giving a shit) are answered by Stirner himself. If Stirner truly believes what he suggests, instead of offering up those ideas because it amuses him, then he definitely didn't write to be appreciated.

>>7053333
Genetics are naturally selected and thus environmentally determined.

>>7053329
not him and really curious, how did he misunderstand it? Its basically the way I understand the phenomenon too

>>7053336
pic related knows more than any of you do about stirner tbqh fam

>>7053341
He (and you) must be philosophically illiterate with no experience in the continentals. Stirner's answer is one to the same question of freedom that Kant and Hegel tried their hands at answering. German "freedom" was a question of one's actions being in concert with their mental faculties, or sometimes, the state. Stirner's work has absolutely nothing to do with the "I'm being oppressed by a man with a gun! I'm unfree!" scenario that anon is posing here. German philosophers would tell anon that when he chooses to surrender his money in exchange for his life that he is free, or even that if he is killed for refusing that he overcame the slavery of caprice.

Stirner's "freedom" is not Marx's freedom- it is not "freedom" from the actions of others or physical realities, but a state in which one can interact with the world without being inhibited by oneself.

>>7053368
>and you) must be philosophically illiterate with no experience in the continentals
thats true I haven't read more of philosophy then some wikipedia pages and I dont engage in these discussions, so thanks for clarifying

>>7053376
Good on you friend. Philosophy is a fucking waste of time. As Schopenhauer would have it, thinking for yourself will be always and forever infinitely superior than reading, but sometimes you will run out of ideas in which case you can (begrudgingly) read something to stimulate you.

>>7053341
The ego being all that matters doesn't mean physical reality doesn't affect you

Spooks refers to abstract concepts not tangible reality which is why something like race isn't a spook

>>7053382
>As Schopenhauer would have it, thinking for yourself will be always and forever infinitely superior than reading
Came to that conclusion on your own, I see.

>>7053383
Race having any meaning is a spook even if race is not a spook.

>>7053387
Well the other guy got called a fucking meme for saying that thinking for yourself is better. Schoppy is household-name tier so I thought it would be better if I mentioned him with this assertion.

>>7053388
Genetics have "meaning"

>>7053391
So you're asserting the authority of thinking for yourself by invoking the authority of another person.

>>7053399
Sorry. Meaning is a spook. Nice try though.

>>7053406
hurr

>>7053403
Yes, basically.
To exaggerate: "Who cares what that anon says? Thinking for yourself? Pfft, that's what ancient Greeks did, and they fucked little boys. Who cares what anon says? he posts in a chinese girl board for christ's sake!". Obviously I'm not being serious (if you would try take me for a strawman), but people take what those with certain authority say more seriously than with others.

>>7053421
But that's in direct contradiction with what you're suggesting.

Even if the person did reject your suggestion to "think for yourself", in doing so they'd be thinking for themselves instead of going along with what you suggested and by proxy the authority you drew upon to legitimize it. Rejecting your call to "think for yourself" IS thinking for yourself.

>>7053421
You seem pretty dumb tbh. You assert that reading the thoughts of others is a waste of time while having us read your own thoughts, ones which you regurgitate from others who have had you read their thoughts about how reading their thoughts is a waste of time.

You seem utterly without further explanation as to why it might be a waste of time to read the thoughts of others. I won't hold you to the standard that you have suggested, whereby you are disallowed from using the ideas of others in answering me. Feel free to mine from any source the reason for which it is a waste to read the thoughts of others!

>>7053436
>>7053430

tbh I'm sure that 1. I have expressed that thoughts can dry up in which case you can read foreign thoughts and 2. if you're going to go that way, then by rejecting my advice of thinking for yourself by not thinking for yourself then you might as well listen to me and think for yourself, since it's what you're doing by rejecting my advice in the first place.

>>7053448
It seems at this point the argument is meaningless wankery.

I think a better question is CAN you think for yourself. It's not like we can seal ourselves into some mental vacuum and think our own thoughts detached from everything else.

>>7053448
Thoughts can "dry up"? Even if we suspend our disbelief high enough to accept this dumb-as-fuck allegation as fact, why is it better to have wet thoughts, or an abundance or thoughts, than to have dry ones or a scarcity thereof?

I'm not going to bother examining your dumb ass further. You've obviously built one assumption on another and taken whatever that you've found useful to supplement your stance regardless of discrepancy. I believe the answer to the quite simple question I've begged here will be yet another of your spooked assumptions.

Your second point is yet another gallery of the assumed and the malformed.
> by rejecting my advice of thinking for yourself by not thinking for yourself then you might as well listen to me
No wonder you defame Stirner without knowing what he argues. It is necessary to lower him if you are to accept yourself as his equal, and serve as it to us. The answer to the rhetorical question you (seem to be trying to) pose in 2 is that I take Stirner's arguments over yours because he is better than you at making arguments.

>>7053465
Stirner was a literal fucking cuck. It matters not what I say about him. He was forgotten by history, he's only recognized by some Austrian esotericist and an american japanese-styled imageboard.


If you wish to have an empty head then by all means go ahead, the masses do it all the time and how well would it seem for you to be with them, for they also like to have their brain full of shit like they watch on TV or read on their social media.

>>7053209
>Yeah, try imagining yourself out of getting mugged. See how your consciousness serves you then. See if you think your ego is the only reality during that experience.

to me i am the most important thing in that experience. i don´t know what are you trying to say with that shitty example.

>Stirner fags are like the sort of idiots who read a pop-science magazine article about quantum physics and think that means they can change physical reality with their minds because the "obesrver effect totally says so!"

meh!

>Your perception means nothing to the outside world.
but my perception of the outside world means everything to me.

>What matters to you is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
there is no great scheme of things without great scheme of thoughts.
>You're a cog in the machine.
you´r a cog in the machine what is a cog of another machine what is a cog of another machine. bravo!.

>Hell you thoughts aren't even your own.
yeah, nobody own my thoughts.

> You're a product of your experiences and environment.
i slide throught the experiences and environment,

> The only reason Stirner even resonates with you is because you're primed to accept his bullshit.
true, i accept his bullshit, what´s wrong?.

>>7053482
>true, i accept his bullshit, what´s wrong?.
I don't know. I guess I'm just sick of Stirner. He's not that special. And Stirner fags on this board are like evangelicals or something. You can't say anything without someone calling it a "spook" or posting the a meme or something. It just seems like whatever anyone could possibly get out of him has been destroyed by the rabid nature of his sycophants.

I just want to live in a world where Stirner fags go out and do something with their lives instead of clogging up the internet with bullshit. Or preferably just shut up.

>>7051528
Hitler was the greatest philosopher of all time.

>>7053196
Saying I am the same as everything is the same as saying I am the same as nothing. The antithesis of infinite is not zero, for they're both absolute, their real antitheses are not-something and something (respectively), that is to say non-absolute.

>>7053519
tbh I feel that this is the same as saying Black and White are the same and the color spectrum is its opposite.

I don't think anyways, I actually only use images in my head.

>>7053500
you have fear everyone become a lazy monster doing nothing all day?, why you care?.

>>7053532
Obviously I should reiterate that this is a false analogy, color has nothing to do with existence; it's just a sense perception.

>>7053519
But the way it plays out is completely different. With egoism, you privilege the self (what is best for me? what allows me to maximize my enjoyment?), while with Buddhism you deny the self and privilege others (there is no difference between you or I so I must do what is best for you, so that creates a positive chain of karma and the Boddhisattva path is one of compassionate sacrifice etc.). So while you might be right in a theoretical sense, you're wrong in a practical sense.

>>7053535
No, I'm being an egoist and I'm just annoyed that I have to see Stirner bullshit all over this website all the time.

>>7053542

>>7053539
>while with Buddhism you deny the self and privilege others
The bamboo acrobats, my man. You aren't supposed to privilege others in spite of yourself. I haven't read Stirner, but I could see an ego based philosophy working similarly, helping others is always beneficial (or at the least gratifying) in some way, so long as it's not in spite of oneself.

>>7053553
Well to be honest it isn't really "in spite" of yourself. Following the 8 Fold Path is the way to the cessation of suffering.

Buddhism basically says you suffer because you want to hang on to what is good and avoid what is bad, but that isn't possible because everything is impermanent. It doesn't say "spite yourself". It says, you're going to be miserable unless you realize what you want is impossible and based on illusion.

>>7053570
To add to this, it seems more that in practice Egoism and Buddhism COULD be the same, but in theory they're opposites. However, in practice they aren't necessarily going to be the same, because an egoist could also follow a "fuck everyone else I'm out for mine" attitude, while Buddhism would say that is an illusion that will always lead to dissatisfaction and suffering.

>>7053188
i got every single one oooh baby

:^)

>>7051590
>hard to refute
>Marx blew him out of the water

'K

>>7052678
But it's fucking true, just read that over again - Marx devoted 500 fucking pages to mocking one guy. This is like me starting a thread calling you a faggot and that your breath smells for the next 400+ posts

>>7055274
fact, tbh

>>7055326
But that's not what happened.
>if someone explains at length why you're wrong it means you're right
>Stirnerfags

>>7055340
He did btfo him. Bring ideologically free isn't the only requirements of true emancipation. A slave is still a slave, even if they know they're a slave. The only way to really be free is to be free from material subjugation, which, for the proletariat, means revolution.

>>7055347
>As Isaiah Berlin has described it, Stirner "is pursued through five hundred pages of heavy-handed mockery and insult"
>"mockery and insult"
>Marxfags think "mockery and insult" constitutes an argument

>>7055381
It has mockery and insult throughout, but Marx does provide a devastating argument. It shows you haven't actually read the German ideology

>>7055381
>Stirnerfags think "some literally who said this" constitutes an argument
How spooky

>>7055361
>Bring ideologically free isn't the only requirements of true emancipation
that is like saying being free from material subjugation isn´t the only requirements of true emancipation.

>The only way to really be free is to be free from material subjugation.

where really end the material subjugation, can you elaborate?.

>>/lit/thread/S7010551#p7010660

>>7051921
>At the very least, it's helpful, when you're troubled by something, to recognize that you're giving it power over you, and to try and curb or stop this.

This is very similar to Stoicism's idea of the will and externals. The only thing we have control over is our mind/will and the rest is to be discarded as indifferent 'externals' which we give power to when they trouble us.

Just goes to show there is a common thread throughout history about how to achieve true happiness.

>>7052455
Marx was a dreamy eyed Hegelian idealist before Stirner shit all over it.

In the summer of 1844 Marx had completed his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, which defended his communism on the basis of Feuerbach's humanism and doctrine of species being, that humanity has an innate, unchanging, substantial core which, despite being manipulated and degraded by the forces of capitalist production, remains fundamentally the same. Marx was so convinced of the perfection of Feuerbach's theory that he once claimed that one would have to "cross a river of fire" (a clever play on Feuerbach's name) in order to refute his communism.

In the winter of that year, Engels gave Marx his copy of The Ego and Its Own, which Engels obtained from Moses Hess. Engels believed and wanted Stirner's egoism to be the foundation for their communism, not Feuerbach's humanism. Marx got all butthurt about Stirner because, despite his claims otherwise, he thought Stirner's arguments about the transitory nature of the ego utterly destroyed the doctrine of species being, and, by extension, his communism. This is supported by both the Marxist thinker John Carroll and Robert K. Paterson, the author of one of the few book length studies of Stirner: The Nihilistic Egoist: Max Stirner. Carroll even goes so far as to say that Marx was literally afraid of Stirner.

At this point Marx writes up his Theses on Feuerbach in which he claimed that he, alone, discovered a fault in Feuerbach's system, a lie perpetuated by Louis Althusser, because Marx is just all that and a bag of chips. Anyway, all of Marx's post-Theses writing takes a fundamentally different approach to the problems of capitalism and the state: a theory which is anti-humanist, economic, and historical, as opposed to Marx's previous humanist and philosophical theory. His theory of historical materialism originated in his point-by-point response to Stirner in the German Ideology. Marx simultaneously appropriated concepts which were Stirner's while rejecting others and formulating some which were uniquely his own. Marx's biographer would latter go on to say that most of Marx's counterarguments were based on hairsplitting.

TL;DR: Marxism was a simultaneous reaction against and appropriation of Stirner's egoism. Marx was a choleric brat and buttmad because Stirner raeped his carefully constructed communist dream, and the rest of his life was a fevered quest to find a way to ground his communism on a theory that wouldn't fall prey to Stirner's onslaught.

>>7055466
>>7055466
>>7055361 (You)
>that is like saying being free from material subjugation isn´t the only requirements of true emancipation.

That's true, you need to be free from both, it's dialectic.

>where really end the material subjugation, can you elaborate?.


I don't understand.

>>7051528
There's a literal conspiracy against him to the point of censorship.

>>7055581
>he fell for the "anti-humanist" Marx meme

He doesn't get discussed outside of this board because he's a fucking MEME you retard.

Stirner isn't actually a philosopher grown ups read. The only people who take him seriously are edgy teenage boys on /lit/

>>7055611
I guess that presupposes the academic elite actually are more clever than other people and are also beyond investing their time in only that which is fashionable/makes them important.

>>7055673
not a huge fan of academics usually but their opinions definitely carry more weight than those of losers on 4chan when it comes to philosophy

I don't understand what everyone's problem with Stirner is. If you're irritated by people saying "muh spooks" all the time, then that's a problem with them, not his philosophy.

It's funny that you're allowing these people to have power over you though, since if you adhered to Stirner's philosophy you'd realize how stupid you're being.

If Stirner mentioned the ego being the only thing that exists, I missed it, and even if he did I can disregard it. Not solipsism, not sociopath behavior, not "edgy". You can tell when someone hasn't read Stirner because they make these same mistakes.

He freely admits that making other people happy makes him happy, and that's why he does it. It's a form of liberation, that's all. It's not serving any master, not putting any person or ideal or object above yourself. That's it. It is doing everything for your own self-interest, which isn't as bad as people make it sound. Everybody is selfish. His philosophy is pretty straightforward.

If the idea of using everyone/thing to further your own self-interest rubs you the wrong way, at least consider the part of his philosophy where you aren't the slave of anything, person, or ideal. It helps tremendously. When something riles your emotions, ask yourself this: Why am I allowing this thing/person/whatever to have power over me? For example, you get passed over for a raise. Most people would be upset, we almost all like money. But don't be a slave to money. If you get it, be happy! If you don't get it, don't be unhappy. You are giving money power over you if you do that.

>>7055722
Not really responding to your main point here, but why do you put solipsism together with a bunch of negative things?
Afaik, it's something not refutable or useful, it's not bad.

>>7055742
I was just including a bunch of shit that people in this thread think Stirner's philosophy is all about.

>>7051528
nah

>>7055583
>That's true, you need to be free from both, it's dialectic.
then, marx should be agreed with stirner in many things. and he´s not.

<where really end the material subjugation?

you can´t be free from material subjugation, you just want a more equal material subjugation.

>>7052648
>died of superstition

>>7055581
So what you're saying is that... let me get this straight... Marx was spooked by Stirner?

>>7051528
He's obscure because pretty much everybody misunderstands him, just look at this thread. It's not about him proving anything, he's removing the shit-stains that this society has smeared all over your brain. What is translated as the ego is the process of you making decisions, thinking about things and doing things that please you, the I is not a thing but a no-thing, the end point of language, the process of creation. His book is a tool for you to understand what is not you, the things that are used to control you. Please read him OP, you won't regret it.

>>7055591
Elaborate?

>>7051745
Sounds like buddhism

:^)

>implying this thread will 404

>>7051558
link?

>>7052648
This is one of the better professor-pastas I've read, did you make it anon?

innit

>>7052689
>So "the self" would be more accurate. Again, our sense of self isn't the totality of reality.
hypocrite that you are, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals

>>7052680
Really?

>>7052654
>Muh social constructs

The Pomo kids are right though. All those things they call social constructs are spooks.

>>7062230
Race isn't a social construct
Gender isn't a social construct

They're biological reality

>>7062256
You seem to be confusing race with skin color and gender with sex.

>>7062262
Skin color isn't the only aspect of race you ignorant fucking idiot.

Gender isn't some magical mental state, there are two genders and they're decided by your sex.

>>7062278
So explain to me, how many races are there and what separates them? What about people with mixed ancestry? Given that some "Races" such as Hispanic are just languages or combinations of other races, couldn't there be said to be as many races as there are people?

At the end of the day, it's just a human tendency to ignore individual details and want to classify everything into broad strokes. And these classifications are different for different cultures (Hence the whole >Argentina >White meme)
Hence it's a cultural construct.

As for gender, you are right it's not some sort of magical mental state. It's a social construct. Your sex determined usually by chromosomes, but gender is ultimately the role you play in society. People will inevitably act in a way that society calls masculine or feminine. In an age where child rearing is no longer the most important thing ever, it will become more socially acceptable for people born one sex to behave in ways constant with a different gender.
As the roles are determined socially, and the pressure for them to be centered on child rearing is effected by social change, then we must conclude that gender (unlike sex, which matters less and less in the modern world) is a social construct.


If you cling so hard to the idea of natures and categories you are the ignorant one.

>>7062314
So what you just said about colors, that doesn't apply?

‘To claim that there are no races because one cannot say exactly where one race “ends” and another “begins” is like saying that Europe and Asia are the same thing because there is no border, apart from an artificial and arbitrary one, that allows one to exactly pinpoint where the division occurs. This approach is essentially reductionist: it defines using that which is common, rather than that which is different (indeed, it is difference that defines personality, identity, specificity, etc.)… There are no pure races because there is no race that possesses an allele gene at every locus (the locus of a gene is its location on a chromosome; two allele genes are genes that occupy the same location on two homologous chromosomes) or that possess only genes that are non-existent in the other races. Even if such races existed, they would not be able to maintain their integrity. The smallest “drop” of miscegenation suffices to break the monotony of their genetic composition. Among populations, only genetic frequencies vary. But there exists within each genetic pool a certain homogeneity that is translated by a more or less regular distribution of characters within the population, following a statistical distribution curve in the form of a bell. The absence of pure race guarantees the polymorphism that is internal to every population, the intra-racial “inequality”. In a race where all the genes (of the same loci) would be identical, all individuals would necessarily be equal. Now, total genetic heterogeneity does not exist, since it would lead to the existence of only a single race in the animal world’ (ibid., p. 81). While Johannes Ney points out, not without irony, that when ‘the races were born, at least the human ones, God was clearly on vacation. This is how the opponents of racism see things. And, if they were to have their way, it would be best if there were no races at all. Except — there are!’

>>7062256
>They're biological reality
But that doesn't mean anything

>>7062314
I will not even respond to the insane rambling about gender.

>>7062325
There's different subpecies of lions, and there's different subspecies of humans. Each share general characteristics unique to their own subspecies, this is part of reality, just like a tree being a tree.

Spooks are abstract concepts, not scientific ones.

>>7062328
What was insane about what he said? Masculine and feminine don't actually exist in reality

>>7062330
>this is part of reality
No, that's YOUR perception of reality, not mine, I refuse to become your property

>>7062330
Subspecies of anything is ultimately determined by humans and only matters to humans. Hence it's a spook/social construct. They only exist in our heads. As does gender (but not sex, and even then individuals incapable of reproduction could be considered technically sexless)

>>7062333
Through redefining things, backtracking and arguing semantics you can make any concept not exist. It's obvious what masculine and feminine imply, and those things are feasible and real.

>>7062336
Stop misunderstanding Stirner you bunch of idiots

>>7062338
Stop being an essentalist. Read up on bundle theory.

>>7062340
You're a retard, read up on non retard theory.

>>7052689
>Again, our sense of self isn't the totality of reality.
No two people remember the same event the same way. To them, that IS reality. All you are is sensation and the residue of sensation.

>>7062378
You're a crap argue-er, read up on debate.

>>7062394
You're a dumb faggot, read up on intelligence and heterosexuality.

>>7055361
>true emancipation
>the only way to really be free

Spooky tbh.

>which, for the proletariat, means revolution.

Of course it does, commie.

>Stirner thread actually hits 200 posts

dope
>ctrl+f "spook"
>27 match results
kek

Is Stirner fanboyism a spook?

>"Oh man, I sure wanna take a walk, enjoy nature today, pray to god and kiss my girlfriend"
>suddenly remember that Health, Beauty, Religion and Love are all spooks
>decide to stay inside and shitpost on 4chan all day instead

>>7051540
If you've Read Ayn Rand or Stirner, you know this to be false.

>>7062472
>being baited this easily

>>7051540
>>7062472
>>7062494
What is the difference between stirner and rand?

>>7062496
Rand is a spook ridden cunt.

>>7062496
Stirner - KILL PEOPLE BURN SHIT FUCK SCHOOL

Rand - Egoism within the bounds of "muh rigid and objective" morality

>>7062513
Renzo Novatore was not a spiritual successor to Stirner's philosophy, nor any of the illegalist anarchists for that matter.

Lets get one thing straight. The two philosophers that have most heavily influenced human thought in the 20th century were Marx and Nietzsche, and Stirner influenced them both.
Marx has literally shaped the political future of almost any country in the world (either by the people taking on his ideas or violently rejecting them) and had maximum influence on pleb thought.
Nietzsche has influenced every intellectual worth his salt after him (either for or against, again, this is not about the validity of their ideas), and Nazism flows most definitely from his ideas (whether lefties like it or not). He also pinpointed the idea of nihilism which is also one of the major shapers (even if it is subconsciously) of modern Western thought and action (and as such influences the whole world).
Stirner represents the first philosopher openly embracing (the conclusions of) nihilism, and every philosopher willing to convince people to adopt a certain model (as all philosophy in the end is forcing a model of reality on other people) after him had to tackle him first, either towards the readers or inwards to convince themselves.
See for example Marx, who wants to posit a mode of thought where people equally share resources and work for "the greater good" (aka force people to adapt spooks). Well then, in a world where the old religions have become untenable, you better disprove and dismantle nihilism first. So he spent HUNDREDS of pages to disprove (ALSO TO HIMSELF) Stirner, which in the end amounted to using emotion as communism is rife with illogicalities, and Stirner's idea can be posited in a few sentences and represents a hard problem (to anyone with half a brain and willing to lay emotions to the side for a bit).
To see the influence of Stirner on Nietzsche one just has to read his works. If you don't see it, I am sorry to say, you are blind.
So, disregarding the memes, Stirner has been largely influential.
I will now shortly expand on why he is also largely "ignored". The funny thing is, we can use Nietzsches idea of power perspectives to explain part of it. Every philosopher in the end wants to force his model of reality on others. So keeping this in mind, Stirners ideas are largely detrimental to this undertaking, as he spurs people to reject any model that others foist upon them. What is the best way then to deal with this? Don't talk about the guy at all and pretend he doesn't exist, of course. Nietzsche posits similar ideas to Stirner but they are part of such an extensive body of work full of distractions that people can ignore the problematic bits and incorporate things they like into their models.
Stirner can be called an anti-philosopher as he lays bare the inherent irrationality of philosophic models and this causes philosophers to approach him aggressively, let alone those with stakes in religious thought (which you could file democracy, humanism and communism under if you wanted to).

>>7051725
Absolutely none of the anarchists who have been reading Stirner for 200 hundred years understood him, only you did <|:^)

>>7062576
Good post.

>>7062589
>200 hundred

>>7052613
What if you take the assumption that "to be is to be perceived"?

If we are unaware of anything outside our ego, surely only the ego can constitute a reality? If there were influences on such an experience that could come externally from that, any realization of such would also come under the ego, and if it was not realized, would not be much of an effect to begin with.

Holy shit, it's unreal how buttmad people still get over Stirner in 2015.

cognitive dissonance: the book

>>7056131
Essentially, yes.

>>7062594
>Good post.
No, it's the same "just-so" bullshit every Stirnerfag spams on this board.

>>7062802
how so, according to you?

Is this thing on?

>>7062496
i am saying that you can't not act selfishly.
she is saying that you should act selfishly.

Not that being a free spirit involves being always cruel or senseless or wild to other people, but how does one go about being a libertine in this day and age?

>>7051528
He is an Egoist. Our Rulers have pushed this ideology hard the last couple years. He is also a staunch anti-religionist, something which at least the Americans need to hear.

The combination of these two factors make him popular.

Why is freedom even important?

Judging from this thread I desperately need to read Stirner.

>>7062496
If it matters to you, read the fucking sources, cunt.

>>7062576
>Stirner represents the first philosopher openly embracing (the conclusions of) nihilism

Stirnerism is not nihilism. It is simply the natural consequence of modernity, the return to foundations. You are not a negation, you are the beginning of all creation.

>>7062978
>Our Rulers have pushed this ideology
They've done the exact opposite and called it being selfish., Stirner was explicitly against this.

>>7062496
>>muh entitlement
Basically, Rand is the reason Marx felt it so pressing to refute Stirner, because, no matter what he actually says, this is what every petite bourgeois reader draws from him.

>>7052658
>egoism
>ego
>ism
Oh...

>>7062445
If you do them because they make you happy, they aren't spooky.

Spooky is when you think you should go for a walk "Because it's good for you" pray to god "Because that's what a good christian does" and kiss your girlfriend to prove your masculinity.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying the outdoors, spirituality, or human contact. The wrong part is when you elevate those over yourself.

>>7062496
Sterner speaks of Is. Rand speaks of Ought.

All Oughts are spooks by the way.

>>7063054
this is actually extremely accurate and a good post

>>7055274
That's because Marx didn't understand him

>>7051528
nah

>>7062907
this

In 1342, a man sacrificed his life in the name of the western canon. Before he was beheaded, he yelled "Drink deep from Piera".

Now that you have read these holy words, you have 8 hours to repost this in 3 different threads and you will will find find the purest most aesthetic prose within 8 days. If you should fail, this offer will never be available again

>>7063257
Is it fine to go for a walk because it's been proven that it improves your health and I have decided I want better health?
Yes, I know asking for advice is in a way surrendering to someone else's spook, but I value your opinion.

>>7063344
Go take a walk already. You'll feel much better after leaving /lit/ for a while.

If anything shitposting on 4chan is a bigger spook because you are excessively concerning yourself with the opinion of others. Both Sterner and Buddha would agree on that one I think.

>>7063359
You are the one good poster on /lit/ this evening

>>7062652
>what if you take the assumption of something which is entirely wrong
Well my guess is that a bunch of other wrong things would follow from the first falsity, yes.

>>7051528
Calling Stirner irrelevant is a great sign of someone's lack of knowledge about the history of modern philosophy.

How did this thread even get +250 replies..?

>>7063344
>>7063257
>>7063359
Stirner isn't about not asking others for opinions or advice, but using those to your advantage and selecting ones that fit your interests.

>>7064265
Shitposting on 4chan is not to your advantage. Taking a walk is.

>>7064271
In your opinion mate

>>7055722
>Why am I allowing this thing/person/whatever to have power over me?
I always feel like that in itself is a pointless act of defiance. An object having power over you is not detriment to your well being it merely comes with the acknowledgement that you are an element of your world.
>But don't be a slave to money. If you get it, be happy! If you don't get it, don't be unhappy.You are giving money power over you if you do that.
First you are giving money power over you either way, second gaining happiness is not a rational justification for an action; hedonism is not sensible.

>>7064271
I like shitposting, therefore it is to my advantage.

>>7064728
get the deluxe edition m8

meme philosopher just like zizek, don't bother

>>7051687
>IN ADDITION to which he has a million other ideas, criticisms and analyses
Couched in poetics I can't quite grasp.

>>7051816
I thought Neechee despised both nationalism and socialism.

>>7052581
Our perceptions is who we are. The subconscious mind, the mid- and back-brain, might as well be external stimuli, the only exception being they feed us emotion rather than sensation. If this weren't true, how could a person be said to suppress his grief, enjoy his rage, or hate his schadenfreude?

>>7061925
This was disproved years ago.
It's the connection between neurons that tell us we are them, the chemicals tell us that sex is fun.

>>7064972
toplel

>>7064972
trusting chemicals to tell you that they are chemicals

>>7063002
It's definitely nihilism, just a different kind than, say, Nietzsche's, whose "Umwertung aller Werte" a metaphysical and/or historical explanation demands while also being inherently fatalistic, whereas Stirner's nihilism comes from his comparison of God with the "Ich", and a system of eternal recurrence would turn this into a "Nichts".

bump, tbh

Because his philosophy is very, on the way to live as opposed to to dealing with knowing, reason, god, etc.
He similar in his goals to Nietszche, Camus or Kierk.

>>7064972
You know nothing of neurobiology.

>>7064239
the same way i fuck your mom

>>7051764
egoism is inherently right wing you idiotic retard

>>7068539
Nah mate.
Jesus loving christcucks and their emperors are right wing.

>>7063216

Ego is a pretty bad translation of Einzige, which is more properly called a "creative nothing".

>>7068539
no it's not

>>7069378
Nah mate, 'der Einzige' means 'the unique', 'the only'.

>>7068539
Egoism has two wings with which it flies away from silly ideological allegiance.

How can Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum help me if I have some things I want to do in my life, but my parents want another future for me and I don't want to disappoint them.
fyi I'm 20 years old, in case this seems like underage problems.

>>7070698
Stirner is a slightly more anarchist Rand. Both of which are right wing

>>7071243
these are the problems that confuse me when it comes to Stirner. If you love someone then it is you who benefits from that but then were do you draw the line when it comes to conflict with other things you like? Do you just have to decide which benefits you more?

Like I can have a girlfriend but want to sleep with other men, supposing she will leave if I sodomize him do I have to choose which opinion will benefit me more?

>>7071255
No, he is simply not on the spectrum. The right wing is the right wing by virtue of their shared values, ideals and policies. Stirner dismisses all of those. The same goes for the left.

>>7071255
Rand is clearly libertarian right, whilst Stirner is a little harder to pin down because both the political system and the economy are spooks

>>7071243
>>7071281
Stirner is not about optimising happiness or pleasure or whatever, he does not provide a prescriptive philosophy and a method along with it. Just do whatever you want, there is no Stirnerist formula to the good life or something like that. He's not about 'wisdom'.

As far as the parent situation though, I would just use rhetoric like 'so you'd rather have your child living unhappily according to your wishes than happily according to his own?' and such against your parents.

I don't understand the idea of escaping a spook when you recognize one as such. How does recognizing lead to not bothering with the spook? Liberating yourself from spook is spooky in itself as it would mean you put value on spooks and don't accept them as creative nothings without value.

Identifying spooks doesn't lead into having less spooks. You even get more haunted since you create new spook which exists in the position where it functions as another spook of having a spook recognized.

>>7071309
Identifying spooks changes your relationship with them. You gain insight into how the game works. Insight is always empowering.

For example, I find it a lot easier to overcome feelings of 'family duty' when I realise it for what is is than when I'm enthralled to the point of taking them seriously.

>>7071306
Wouldn't that entail the guy being an asshole trying to guilt them into going his way?

>>7071316
This.
Knowing something is bullshit, and engaging in them anyways, is liberating in its own sort of way. Instead of being dull you're droll about it instead.

>>7071290
>>7071301
Stirner is leftist like all hegelians, get the fuck out lol.

>>7071317
Guilting them in supporting you is a great way to get to do what you want while not having to worry about your parents' opinions.

I don't think guilting your parents into anything is necessarily being an asshole. They spawned you recreatively (in both senses of the word), why would you allow them to dictate how you live as well? Just because you are the result of their actions doesn't mean they have executive rights over how you live your life. A child owes his parents nothing.

Whenever you are afraid of hurting your parents you should remind yourself that they created you like one would buy a puppy, a plaything for them brought into existence to amuse them. This sounds edgy of course, but it's a great tool to get over your feelings of obligation.

>>7071355
But they've sacrificed themselves during 20 years for my sake. Even if I didn't choose to live (which I'm sure I did but that's another subject) they still did what any good parent would do - raised their child lovingly and selflessly.

>>7071373
There's nothin selfless about whipping your spawn into the shape you like.

Anything problematic that they might assist you with is a problem that they themselves are the cause of. There's nothing noble about taking care of your children, it's neutral at best.

If someone buys a dog, would you consider him praiseworthy for feeding and walking it and teaching it not to shit on the couch?

>>7071316
>For example, I find it a lot easier to overcome feelings of 'family duty' when I realise it for what is is than when I'm enthralled to the point of taking them seriously.

But why did you do this? Where this overcoming leads to when you know that seeking power is spooky?
Having feelings of family duty has the same non value of being in a position where you overcome them. You are creative nothing either way. And seeking other relationship is seeking another spook as it is only liable option when you already have a spook identified into yourself, a spook you now act in accordance with.

Overcoming spooks isn't liberation, it's a constant search for spooks.


>>7071355
See this for example.

It's only a rhetoric from a person engaged in other spooks than the person he advises, no matter for what reason. For the guy he advises, both options have as much value as he gives to them: if he wishes to engage in spook of parental care and human empathy, he does it; if he wishes to engage in other spook, no more valuable in itself(not to himself tho), he does it. Both of his options are his whims, he is engaged in both spooks because he wanted to. He now has a seeming difficulty of choosing a whim, and the guy who advises him does nothing but create for him other spooks because of his own - advisor's - spooks. The guy with a problem, if he is asking, only wants to search for new spooks he could act with accordance to.

He gets more haunted.

>>7071450
I agree that it's all rather arbitrary. However, I like not doing things for my family more than I like doing things for them. So the overcoming of the notion of family duties leads to me having a better time. It's as simple as that, really.

There is no notion in Stirner that one should end up without spooks or something. He just points out on how they work and leaves it at that. If you know how they work it's easier to use them in your favour.

bamp

>>7071430
considering most owners I've met are pieces of shit, yes I would.
Also, quit it with the pet analogy, taking care of a pet is much more selfless than taking care of your child, because a pet does not (genetically) belong to you.

>>7071336
>Stirner is leftist
>like all hegelians

>>7073324
>the young hegelians
>not communists, anarchists, and faggots

>>7073329
Not all Hegelians are/were Young Hegelians

>>7073336
Stirner wasn't even a young hegelian

>>7073351
Glad that got cleared up for you

300 posts

>>7073385
Wrong, this is 300
in b4 this is sparta

>>7073392
kek___________________________

BOO!

>>7073409
AHHHHHHH

>>7073409

>>7073418
pretty spooky, huh?

watchign this thread 404 is quite sad tbh fam