/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16165936]

Let's say hypothetically i wanted to follow his ideology where should i start.

[Anonymous No.16165953]

>>16165936
you can't. the game was spooked from the start.

[Anonymous No.16165991]

>>16165936
just be an hedonist, but without feeling bad about it

[Anonymous No.16166010]

>>16165991
Nah cause that would mean you are spooked by your own desires

[Anonymous No.16166030]

>>16165936
Read his book, the dismiss everything in it as a spook.

[Anonymous No.16166039]

>>16165936
Sell milk

[Anonymous No.16166047]

>>16165936
Stirner doesn't have an ideology he wants you to follow. His philosophy is pretty much useless if you're looking for advice on how to live your life. Stirner's whole philosophy can be simply summed up as: do what you want. Which is just completely hollow and meaningless.

[Anonymous No.16166066]

>>16165936
It's not an ideology

[Anonymous No.16166085]

>>16166047
>doing what you really want is meaningless
Spotted the biggest pseud ever who need to be told by other people how to live his own life.

[Anonymous No.16166243]

>>16165936
Bumping for more. Stirner Chads, tell us how you might genuinely go about acting Stirneresque in your own lives. Give me and OP some examples.

[Anonymous No.16166257]

>>16165991
>being a slave to your physical urges
Not to say that abstinence is recommended but being addicted to instant self gratification is pretty spooky

[Anonymous No.16166261]

>>16165936
hegel or you could just be a retard that posts memes all day like all the internet stirnoids

[Anonymous No.16166359]

>>16166243
Why should I? You and OP never give me anything. Your request is nothing to me.

[Anonymous No.16166459]

>>16166039
Based

[Anonymous No.16166467]

>>16166359
Here is something for you Stirner Chad, ironically related to your post.

[Anonymous No.16166725]

>>16165936
>ideology

[Anonymous No.16166733]

i cringe at the Max Stirner subreddit that has rules such as: don´t be misogynistic, don´t be racist....the usual anglo-liberal buzzwords, it doesn´t surprise me of reddit but goddamn, they have no self-awareness, not a little bit

[Anonymous No.16166741]

>>16165936
lift, fuck prostitutes and married women

[Anonymous No.16166750]

>>16166733
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.16166752]

>>16166733
if they don't have those rules they might get banned from the site though

[Anonymous No.16166805]

You've missed his point if you're looking for something beyond 'be an aware egoist'.
>what does that mean?
It means maintaining awareness that you're doing what you want. He says something like 'the immature brat is better the overly mature sheep because he is closer to being his own.' For Stirner everything everyone does is only possible because of their desire to do it, therefore the first step on having any control over yourself is to admit that is what's going on. From there he gives you a map of your origin (the creative nothing/unique), located beyond the phrase world, which crafts itself from moment to moment in relation to world it encounters/ed spooks and all. He can't give you any Philosophy/Ideology on what to do beyond this or the whole point he's trying to get at would be overwritten, he would become a moralist who requires religious lolyalty to his own ideals. Egoism is revolutionary because it can't be integrated, it's beyond the limit of any social 'should'. If you're still interested read his short book and Stirner's Critics.

[Anonymous No.16166858]

>>16166010
Thats a christ cuck non arugment, I can't be spoked by my own desires because they are as mine as my limbs or my mind. Read Stirner instead of looking at memes about him.

[Anonymous No.16166862]

>>16165936
he only wrote one book. read it.

[Anonymous No.16166890]

>>16165936
He just points out that everyone acts in self-interest whether they are aware of it or not, he doesn't prescribe an ideology. It's not about being a hedonist.

[Anonymous No.16166922]

>>16166890
>He just points out that everyone acts in self-interest
The opposite actually, he points out how people allow ideas (spooks) like father land or god to possess them and make them act against their own intrest.
You should actually read books before you post about them.

[Anonymous No.16166925]

>>16166750
it's a valid criticism based on stirner's own book
how do these threads attract so many illiterates

[Anonymous No.16166926]

>>16165936
>egoism
>following someones ideology
lol

[Anonymous No.16167000]

>>16165936
>Wanting to blindly follow some new meme religion you have no idea what entails
Never gonna make it, just go back to being a christcuck

[Anonymous No.16167033]

>>16166257
there is a big difference between your physical urges and gratification. for example the desire to have sex all the time is not a ‘physical urge’ contrary to popular belief, it’s a desire of the mind which just wants pleasure all the time. Observe how different humans and animals treat sex, one is natural for reproduction and the other is about more good feeeeels

[Anonymous No.16167133]

>>16167033
Apeals to Nature are an actual spook, gratification isn't in the slightest you complete retard.

[Anonymous No.16167292]

>>16166085
It is meaningless. You never know what you truly want.

[Anonymous No.16167318]

Call everyone a stupid spooked faggot while being incredibly smug about it.
It's absolute bliss.

[Anonymous No.16167329]

>>16167292
Absolutely based

[Anonymous No.16167451]

>>16165936
>stirner
>ideology
just kys you leper

[Anonymous No.16167670]

>>16165936
It's more refutation of Hegel than an ideology.

[Anonymous No.16167678]

>>16166725
Cope. It's an ideology whether he wants to call it that or not.

[Anonymous No.16167739]

>>16167292
Garbage take.
I am incapable of doing anything other than what I truly want regardless of whether or not that changes as I change.

[Anonymous No.16167753]

>>16167678
is not having an ideology an ideology? the answer is no but i don’t think we can say any person has no ideology, that is the ultimate freedom

[Anonymous No.16167763]

>>16167753
No true nomad

[Anonymous No.16167780]

>>16167739
>"take"
Then the truth is that you really don't want anything at all. Or better yet, you are incapable of conceptualizing what it means to "want", applying the label to "what I need at this exact moment". In a way, it perfectly encapsulates the viewpoint of modern liberalism.

[Anonymous No.16167826]

>>16167780
Please explain how equating desire to need encapsulates 'modern liberalism'. I honestly want (need at this exact moment) to know what you mean by this.

[Anonymous No.16168034]

>>16167826
It is not "equating desire to need", but equating desire to need to goal. Living for today and such. I got

[Anonymous No.16168109]

>>16168034
Okay, now thread this through 'encapsulates modem liberalism'

[Anonymous No.16168171]

>>16168109
Liberals don't care about an end goal, only what pertains to them and satisfies them at the moment they find themselves in. Marxists and Fascists at least seem to have a finite goal, though it seems rather unrealistic and at times even childlike. Most anarchists are veiled liberals, of course.

[Anonymous No.16168432]

>>16168171
Amazing. He ignores institutions, constitutions, rights, general will, even law. Just to say anarchists are liberals and authoritarians have a goal. I am truly astounded.

[Anonymous No.16168446]

>>16168432
What makes you think I ignored them? Mentioning them just didn't seem pertinent to the discussion at hand.

[Anonymous No.16168476]

>>16168446
Because you impled those things had no goal.

[Anonymous No.16169390]

>>16166752
>rules
SPOOKED

[Anonymous No.16169776]

>>16166047
Stirner's egoism is mirrored off his own personality; which offers clues on how we would want you to act. Many people have taken it to either mean be humble, simple and to live a life of self sufficient solitude. Others have used it to adopt an illegalist lifestyle.
>>16168171
>Most anarchists are veiled liberals, of course.
Anarchists are the pious atheists Stirner accused Proudhon of being - they've just replaced god with morality

[今晚打老虎 No.16169804]

>>16165936

[Anonymous No.16169882]

>>16165936
You don't, because following is a phantasm.

[Anonymous No.16169917]

>>16166858
There is no you. You are an amalgamation of your environment.

[Anonymous No.16169996]

>>16166243
Constantly deconstruct all values in front of other people, then wonder why you turned them off. That's basically it. The Ego and its Own consist of one idea only, that is that everything is allowed as long you allow yourself to do it. Feuerbach back in the days attempted to pull all the positive teachings of Christianity out of it's metaphysical wrapping. For Stirner this was not consequential enough. He contented that what Feuerbach did was to produce other spooks but of a lesser kind as the religious ones. What he meant was humanism. For him it was a deprecating 'Ersatzreligion'. He refered to humanism with 'Liberalismus'. It proclaimed the individual but preached the human, therefore humanism, in the Stirner sense, doesn't give a fuck about you. You could be Hans or Franz it didn't matter, what matter is that you're a human. Stirner disdained this shit, he observed that people were happy to run into liberalism because it was compassionate or benevolent, but no one one mentions that it is also manipulative. You are it's pawn. Stirner is insane in a way. He speaks the real self being a great nothingness that contains all and creates everything. It's a spring of source decisions. When Stirner decides to not to murder a person, he did so not because of fear of the law, or emotionally laden hesitation, or out of obedience before a moral code or some other constraints. He did not do it because he simply decided to do it.

[Anonymous No.16170092]

>>16165936
A lot of what Stirner gets at in his work is how Higher ideas (God, The State, capitalism, Communism, Socialism) are spooks in the sense that we hold their ends higher than ones own ends and interests.

Stirner's main idea in the E&IO / U&IP is that "one should base their affair on nothing but themself" so not any of the spooks/higher ideas mentioned before.