/lit/ - Literature

>>10615057
Good meme.

>is his work actually worth something?
Yes.

Start here:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

Then:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-false-principle-of-our-education

>>10104333
Perhaps, if you're unwilling to read the thread, you will let the text speak:
>But “the egoist is someone who thinks only of himself!” — This would be someone who doesn’t know and relish all the joys that come from participation with others, i.e., from thinking of others as well, someone who lack countless pleasures — thus a poor sort. But why should this desolate loner be an egoist in comparison to richer sorts? Certainly, for a long time, we were able to get used to considering poverty a disgrace, as a crime, and the sacred socialists have clearly proven that the poor are treated like a criminals. But sacred socialists treat those who are in their eyes contemptibly poor in this way, just as much as the bourgeoisie do it to their poor.
>But why should the person who is poorer with respect to a certain interest be called more egoistic than the one who possesses that interest? Is the oyster more egoistic that the dog; is the Moor more egoistic than the German; is the poor, scorned, Jewish junkman more egoistic than the enthusiastic socialist; is the vandal who destroys artworks for which he feels nothing more egoistic than the art connoisseur who treats the same works with great love and care because he has a feeling and interest for them? And now if someone — we leave it open whether such a one can be shown to exist — doesn’t find any “human” interest in human beings, if he doesn’t know how to appreciate them as human beings, wouldn’t he be a poorer egoist with regard to this interest rather than being, as the enemies of egoism claim, a model of egoism? One who loves a human being is richer, thanks to this love, than another who doesn’t love anyone. But there is no distinction between egoism and non-egoism in this at all, because both are only pursuing their own interest.

From "Stirner's Critics"

>>9968751

>implying you can die forever

Eventually you'll rise again. True it will probably take around 10x10^10000000000000000000000 years, but we'll eventually meet up again someday having this exact same conversation.

>>9968756

No its not. That would be a grand narrative.

E G O I S M

The Ego and Its Own

>>9414358
I don't think generality needs to be "restored": humans reflexively resort to generalities. Uniqueness will always be "new" if it is pronounced enough, i.e. it will appear as Zizek's "truly moral act ex nihilo." While I agree with him that "ex nihilo" is a necessarily materialist notion, I disagree with his ascription of morality to an act that possess this property. He ignores the necessity of determined self-ownership to accomplish such an act.

By "dismissal" I mean assimilation. Each person understanding that Marx's ideas are as worthless as Evola's when presented in a vacuum will result in the "dismissal." I yoke Marx's ideas to my purpose, and make them my servant.

The fall of the capitalist religion, the end of worship of "the Self" as something outside of the self (pure alienation) can only come (for a particular person) when a person takes their "Self" back into their unspeakable, unknowable, language-resisting self. In this realization, uniqueness is given own expression, as opposed to "free expression," which is the admonition of capitalism.

>>9371959
Racial privilege is the spook that responds to the spook of racism.

>>9354022

>mfw when Stirner was completely right about the universe and his views are compatable with modern science

>>9021493

Everything Max Stirner wrote resonated with me.

He's persauding you into his way of thinking, if you adopt it, then of course everything you see will fit into his framework. Its very hard to refute the idea that morality obtained outside of the self isn't a spook or that property is only something one can defend, doesn't mean its neccessarily true.