/lit/ - Literature

>>19629337
>So everything is a spook, right?
Depends on how you mean it. The generality with which the term is use on /lit/ is definitely not what he's writing.
Stirner is also reacting to Hegel and, just like the themes of his literal contemporaries (as in beer buddies, Marx etc.), he does a lot of metaphysics and talk about consumption etc., maybe in a more general sense than Marx. What I mean is that the book in the end aims at a transient, self-consuming and always (i.e. continuously reconstituting) self, the "I", the "creative nothing."
I will agree with the criticism of Stirner ITT, that you can end up with a "what now," but I also think it's unfair. He's not like Nietzsche who tries to push you towards an Übermensch goal or anything. Instead he develops a metaphysics of the individual, what constitutes that individual and it's relation to the world (It's called "the unique one and its propery".) And from those metaphysical conclusion he starts to derive a critique of what's deemed ethical in society. He's again and again of interest to people because of how radical he dares to go, given his premise. E.g. rejecting "Human rights", in the humanism he's born into (basically on the basis of pointing out that rights are something given and can always be seen as just a positive formulation or a restriction: To have the right to pass the street at Green light is just a positive framing of being forbidden to pass the street at Red light.) And of course he's an edgelord and knows well what the reaction will be if he says Human Rights should be rejected, even if on the face of it he has a good justification - at least if you take for granted that living the egoist life is a good idea in the end. His life might be a counterpoint to that hypothesis. My tl;dr is that it's annoying if people read the first 10 pages or less (where he's parodying Hegels chapters), and where he's introducing the spook idea and gives examples, and on /lit/ people end up using the word "spook" as a substitute for "meme." That doesn't make sense.
So again, Stirner wants you to be able to drop all your properties, or self-descriptions at any time. As in you don't own them if you're clinging to them. That's his property concept, you also gotta be able to let yourself go and reconstitute yourself. What's a spook? If you declare yourself a vegan and are then unable to eat meat because you tied yourself to that idea. Instead he says you can always anew choose not to eat meat - if you don't want to anymore. Living as a vegan is your choice. Telling yourself that you're a vegan and drawing conclusions from that, that's falling for a spook.

>>16621546
I can’t make out the name below him, but it’s not the same as the one below Stirner

>>10075993
(Just so you don't get the last word.)

You'll be capable of getting out of 4chan the moment you can be honest about the fact you have no absolute shame about wasting time on it. So long as you don't do that, the part of you that does enjoy it will pull you back in, like a fly to the sweet aroma of flowers, carnivore ones included, that thinks it's found a clever cheat for life, only to fall into a place it can't get out of eventually; whatever self-shame you can muster will only make this thing stronger.

Work is the same. You'll be able to put out good stuff when you can admit to being selfish about it. When you have the uncalculated, unreasoned, raw integrity to simply "yes, I did that thing", then you'll be capable of moving on, because youll be setting your own barriers.

>>9356251
Or just attracted to them.

>>9258603
>being spooked by the will to survive at all costs

>>9229949
keke

>>9228341
Engels has a bunch of cool drawings

If I'd say "read Hegel first", you'd end up with a much bigger pre-reading list. So there's nothing you can do about that.

When Stirner speaks of the mans life split in childhood, adulthood, old age etc., that's basically a Hegel parody, who's famous for rethinking history and splitting it into eras.

When he goes on talking about Christianity, it's good to know that in the bar he and Marx, Feuerbach, Engels and so on where hanging out (the Young Hegelians), being able to legally criticize such things was a hot topic and Feuerbach was the guy who even wrote a book on how Jesus probably didn't even exist.
When you get to the part about Communism and Socialism, it's good to crosscheck the release date of the book with what had NOT YET happened in Europe.

Like you do know that for example the old German anthem had the famous line "Deutschland, Deutschland über Alles!!" in it ("Germany, Germany above all!!"). People today link that to Nazi Germany and how the were supremicists, but really it's from a time where central Europe was split into hundreds of largely independent Länder and in <Germany> the idea was to bring those together under one rule. "Germany above all" foremost also means "you, sub-states, consider yourself one now, not split into neighboring regions".

There's a lot of shit going on when Stirner writes his book and he's reacting (and essentially dismissing) just most major ideas being cooked up, while they are hot.

If I'd say "read Hegel first", you'd end up with a much bigger pre-reading list. So there's nothing you can do about that.

When Stirner speaks of the mans life split in childhood, adulthood, old age etc., that's basically a Hegel parody, who's famous for rethinking history and splitting it into eras.
When he goes on talking about Christianity, it's good to know that in the bar he and Marx Feuerbach, Engels and so on where hanging out (the Young Hegelians), being able to criticize was a hot topic and Feuerbach was the guy who even wrote a book on how Jesus probably didn't even exist.
When you get to the part about Communism and Socialism, it's good to crosscheck the release date of the book with what had NOT YET happened in Europe.
Like you do know that for example the old German anthem had the famous line "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles!!" in it ("Germany, Germany above all!!"). People today link that to Nazi Germany and how the were supremicists, but really it's from a time where central Europe was split into hundreds of largely independent Länder and in <Germany> the idea was to bring those together under one rule. "Germany above all" foremost also means "you, sub-states, consider yourself one now, not split into neighboring regions".
There's a lot of shit going on when Stirner writes his book and he's reacting (and essentially dismissing) just most major ideas being cooked up, while they are hot.

Not completely related, but this Zizek talk was just uploaded, where he literally fucks everybody on the spectrum

https://youtu.be/k6pyufzQs4I

>who is this guy
Max Stirner.
One of the, if not the, most edgiest of the Young Hegelians, a group of young intellectuals (e.g. Engels, Marx etc. are associated with them). Hegel, hugely influential, died in 1830 or so and they were a progressive group that fapped over Hegels ideas and each had their own spin and favorite topics and they discussed it. Mostly, they were contra the Church and a strict Prussian government, but often couldn't do much against it directly.

>why does /lit/ worship him
He's an individualist and wrote things similar to Nietzsche, but also quite different. There are no photographs of him, only two scribble pics by Engels (you posted one, have another scibble) and those offer themselves to memes. His book is also very funny for a philosophy text, arguably tricky to read without context, but still not hard to follow in idea.

>what's up with the spooky thing?
It's a concept that he introduces early in his work - "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" (The Unique/Only one and his Property). That's his one main book and people on /lit/ take "spook" to be the essence of his text.
A spook is an idea that you come to be fixated on so that you in turn base your action on it without thinking. ("I'm a Vegetarian, so I can't eat meat!" - you're spooked, you don't make individual decisions for yourself anymore - Stirner says do what's in your interest, don't eat meat if you think it's unhealthy, but don't act from the standpoint that there is this rule. The Fatherland or Freedom, Religion, becoming rich, those would be typical spooks - ideas that people put above themselves at one point, and then stop thinking.) On 4chan, spook is however sometimes almost used as substitute for "non-material meme". As in "You study STEM, but academia is fucked. Science is a spook." It's become a cheap way of insulting something and most things called spooks here aren't.
Spooks are but a aspect of Stirners work, though. It's also to a large extent about property, stuff you own, in a very broad sense.
It crosses with the Nietzschean line of thought in that both say to be sure about your power (to act in your own best interest. Emphasis on "your own").

>who is this guy
Max Stirner - one of the, if not the, most edgiest of the Young Hegelians, a group of young intellectuals (e.g. Engels, Marx etc. are associated with them). Hegel, hugely influential, died in 1830 or so and they were a progressive group that fapped over Hegels ideas and each had their own spin and favorite topics and they discussed it. Mostly, they were contra the Church and a strict Prussian government, but often couldn't do much against it directly.

>why does /lit/ worship him
He's an individualist and wrote things similar to Nietzsche, the also quite different. There are no photographs of him, only two scribble pics by Engels (you posted one, have another scibble) and those offer themselves to memes. His book is also very funny for a philosophy text, arguably tricky to read without context, but still not hard to follow in idea.

>what's up with the spooky thing?
It's a concept that he introduces early in his work - "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" (The Unique/Only one and his Property) his one main book - and people on /lit/ take it to be the essence of his text.
A spook is a fixed that you come to be fixated on so that you in turn base your action on it without thinking. ("I'm a Vegetarian, so I can't eat meat!" - you're spooked, you don't make individual decisions for yourself anymore - Stirner says do what's in your interest, don't eat meat if you think it's unhealthy, but don't act from the standpoint that there is this rule. The Fatherland or Freedom, Religion, becoming rich, those would be typical spooks - ideas that people put above themselves at one point, and then stop thinking.) On 4chan, spook is however sometimes almost used as substitute for "non-material meme". As in "You study STEM, but academia is fucked. Science is a spook." It's become a cheap way of insulting something and most things called spooks here aren't.
Spooks are but a aspect of Stirners work, though. It's also to a large extent about property, stuff you own, in a very broad sense.
It crosses with the Nietzschean line of thought in that both say to be sure about your power (to act in your own best interest. Emphasis on "your own").

who is this guy
>Max Stirner
>One of the, if not the, most edgiest of the Young Hegelians, a group of young intellectuals (e.g. Engels, Marx etc. are associated with them). Hegel, hugely influential, died in 1830 or so and they were a progressive group that fapped over Hegels ideas and each had their own spin and favorite topics and they discussed it. Mostly, they were contra the Church and a strict Prussian government, but often couldn't do much against it directly.
why does /lit/ worship him
He's an individualist and wrote things similar to Nietzsche, the also quite different. There are no photographs of him, only two scribble pics by Engels (you posted one, have another scibble) and those offer themselves to memes. His book is also very funny for a philosophy text, arguably tricky to read without context, but still not hard to follow in idea.
>what's up with the spooky thing?
It's a concept that he introduces early in his work - "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" (The Unique/Only one and his Property) his one main book - and people on /lit/ take it to be the essence of his text.
A spook is a fixed that you come to be fixated on so that you in turn base your action on it without thinking. ("I'm a Vegetarian, so I can't eat meat!" - you're spooked, you don't make individual decisions for yourself anymore - Stirner says do what's in your interest, don't eat meat if you think it's unhealthy, but don't act from the standpoint that there is this rule. The Fatherland or Freedom, Religion, becoming rich, those would be typical spooks - ideas that people put above themselves at one point, and then stop thinking.) On 4chan, spook is however sometimes almost used as substitute for "non-material meme". As in "You study STEM, but academia is fucked. Science is a spook." It's become a cheap way of insulting something and most things called spooks here aren't.
Spooks are but a aspect of Stirners work, though. It's also to a large extent about property, stuff you own, in a very broad sense.
It crosses with the Nietzschean line of thought in that both say to be sure about your power (to act in your own best interest. Emphasis on "your own").

>>8519402
It's legit. I never "memed" it

A bunch of clever guys with some free time regularly met in a bar to talk about their favorite author (thus: Young (Left-)Hegelians), banter and invite impressible chicks to live the /lit/ life.

Contrary to their idol (who was concerned with self, competition/enslavement, among other things) they didn't view the current sociology-political situation as finished and desirable, and thus they competed against each other about how to destroy, using coherent arguments. It was kind of illegal to do so, so they focused on critiquing religion, though. Texts on how the bible stories are made up or even how Jesus himself was a made up person resulted.

They eventually got kicked out for running out of money and continued on the street, where they ironically begged people for money to buy more alc.

Oh, and there was a smug face with a large forehead who regularly dropped by and socialize with this intellectual circle, and in the end he wrote a book making fun of their views. He was playing their game though, of being more radical -than the others.

He wrote about self and competion, and so did Marx later (all of that applied to social classes as "individuals"). He then attacked Stirner for his ideas, naturally. But Stirner was forgotten in the end, and Marx and other guys weren't.

What's there to explain?
A bunch of clever guys with some free time regularly met in a bad to talk about their favorite author (thus the name), have banter and invite impressible chicks to live the /lit/ life. But contrary to their idol, they didn't view the current sociology-political status as finished or desirable and thus competed against each other about how to destroy it in arguments. (It was kind of illegal to do so, so they focused on critiquing religion, though.)
Then they got kicked out for running out of money and continued on the street, where they ironically begged people for money to buy more alc.
Oh, and there was a smug face with a large forehead who regularly dropped by and socialize with this intellectual circle, and in the end he wrote a book making fun of their views. (He was playing their game though, of being more radical - while still coherent - than the others)