/lit/ - Literature

>>12563952
>Mensch, es spukt in deinem Kopfe!

Which philosophers hold the more peculiar views about truth ?

>>6784235
A concept in the philosophy of Max Stirner

>>6551184
Dawkins is a spook.

What are some good books related to egoism and individualism, aside from Stirner?

>>5522516
>We don't even have a proper tan yet.

>>5452546
Beat me to it.

Feminster, I don't know if you're reading this right now but I miss you

I miss you a lot

If you need somebody to talk to then shoot me an e-mail

>>5164823
>made the connection
great breakthrough Sherlock, they are barely similar ideologically.

If anything Death Grips is more like Stirner

"What is it, where is it
How will it affect me
Fuck that shit, I need that shits bound to be the death of me
Fuck buying it I'm taking it, and sharing it with nobody"
-St. Max

>>5046803
>>5046827
The only reason academics ignore him is because Karl Marx gave a half-baked refutation to Stirner in The German Ideology, which really just amounted to name-calling Saint Max "bourgeois"

Stirner was better.

>>4908611
He leaves the ego (unique one) undefined because he doesn't know what it is apart from the creator and owner of individual thoughts and feelings that also recreates itself. He says we can only surmise it exists because of the evidence of the thoughts it creates.

>>4908632
>>4908661
Ayn Rand is an ethical egoist, Stirner is a psychological egoist. Ayn Rand subscribes to objective morality (Objectivism), Stirner is a moral nihilist.

>>4908873
Stirner seems to favor anarchism that's created by every participant in it (a union of egoists), he just seems to think it's not a state of things, but rather an exercise. He also likes individuals rejecting their overlords, he just doesn't respect people who go along with the overlords and complain on the basis of it being unjust.

>>4909120
Not entirely true. Stirner doesn't say that valuing something (he values love, for instance) is a spook, provided it is a conscious preference and not a deification of the idea. Wit that and mind, values of Right and Wrong don't work, but you can obviously value as you would your property.

>>4909193
Spooks are essences. Right and Wrong are cause/effect essentialism. Stirner calls essences spooks because they "haunt" things.

>>4909263
Stirner's personal sulk was heavy state censorship.

>>4909290
Moral nihilism is not immorality in the same was that atheism is not Devil Worship.

>>4893506

>It is remarkable that these authors did not find Stirner worthy of any argumentative criticism, that their strong words about him were usually uttered in rather remote places, in an apparently casual or accidental way. The small selection of material reviewed above should be sufficient to substantiate the phenomenon of an obviously intensive -- though nevertheless largely clandestine -- Stirner reception. It articulates itself sotto voce, reckoning that the educated audience already knows what is meant when insinuations are voiced regarding Stirner's demoniacal antagonism to culture and his absolutely malignant ideas.

>In some authors who worked more carefully and were more disciplined, mention of Stirner looks like a (Freudian) slip. For example, Edmund Husserl does not name him in any of his texts, letters etc.; this, however, not on grounds that he did not know Stirner's ideas or that he considered them insignificant. No, the intrinsic reason, which was passed down probably by accident, was that he wanted to protect his students (and perhaps himself?) against their "temptational power". (14) Another case is that of Carl Schmitt, who was ready to disclose something of his secretive relationship to Stirner, kept since his youth, only after being detained in 1946 in a prison of the Allies (which he experienced as an existential affliction). (15) Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had "let the cat out of the bag". However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner's name. (16) The never-revealed motivations of such partisans -- whose clandestine number is difficult to estimate -- are presumably similar to those of the apocalyptic visionaries mentioned above.

>Other authors (for instance, from recent times, the aforementioned Ottmann and Safranski) display an attitude of soberness and superiority; nevertheless, opposite Stirner a puzzled ambivalence is noticeable in them, which they endeavor to overcome -- and young Marx was the prototype for this -- by deploying the previously discussed petit bourgeois thesis.

>There can be no doubt regarding the absolute enmity felt by these thinkers towards Stirner. It is limited or obscured only insofar as they found it necessary to take care that it did not augment Stirner's value in any way. This enmity is evinced much more frequently among philosophical authors than among theologians, but seldom does a member of either group allow himself to go so far as to phrase such unambiguous words as that early admirer of Nietzsche and professor of philosophy, Karl Joël. In his opus magnum Joël writes: 'The Ego' is the "most rampant heretic book a human hand has ever written", and Stirner laid with it the foundation for a veritable "devil's religion." (17)

You better watch out

>>4677383
husbandos, bitches can't write

stirner army

Most of /lit/ just seeks the nicest ideas that allow for a hint of romanticism and distinction and intellectualism. Catholicism and Orthodoxy work best for that I think. But some sort of cool approach to calvinism might work as well. Or Kierkegaardian or Tolstoyan Christianity in a pinch. Or Islam or Hinduism (bonus for Vedanta) or Buddhism. It's more the approach to a certain -ism than the -ism itself, but rich traditions allow for it more easily.

Ancient Greek -isms are also popular and dwell on religion's edge. But the most /lit/ thing is of course to abandon spooks and seek enlightened self-enjoyment.

>>4313156
Why?

I.

>>3680586
You're better off reading his greatest hero.

>>3648962
As long as it's spookfree

I have an article on Stirner forthcoming... issue 1 2012, yeah right... I'm curious to see when it does come out. I'm not sure whether I should post a link here, I'm not sure I want /lit/ to know my real name...

>>2886566