/lit/ - Literature

>>11813986
Better than /lit/'s description of "uh, Ayn Rand but a guy".

ah yes

I was really enjoying his egoist critiques of liberalism, but all of the sudden, what the fuck?! Negroid and Mongoloid stages of history?! The Caucasian man is the true shaper of history?! The fuck is this spooky bullshit?! And why haven't I heard anybody talking about it before?! Ugh. I need to go wash my hands after reading some of that crap. Shit sounds straight out of a national anarchist wet dream. The cringe!

>>11813986
Where should I start with him?

>>11813986
>andn in consequencen passed some starving/hunger times;

what?

>>11814241
Apart from just wading into The Ego and Its Own, you might want to take a look at "Stirner's Critics," which was a clarification by Stirner of his ideas. You can find a translation on Wolfi Landstreicher's site, along with an in-progress new translation of "The Ego" (under the title of The Unique and Its Own.)

https://sites.google.com/site/vagabondtheorist/stirner

>>11814253
Thanks, anon.

>anarchist
No

Ego is the corruption that draws from past actions or future plans.
If we lived in the present-moment, ego would be under control, but it's not, it's rampant.
In America it is encouraged because ultimately it is what seperates and isolates you and (ironically) generally creates low self esteem because our reality rarely comes into line with our ego. Encouraged because low self esteemers fill the gap with buying shit.
Stirner is our only hope for entering a post-industrial and fully automatized society.

>>11814315
deleuze's schizoananalasys and stirner's creative nothing actually complement each other very well

Do you agree with Deleuze in calling Stirner "the dialectician who reveals nihilism as the truth of the dialectic"? I think that escaping the sense of binary/dichotomy can bring a helpful perspective on things and remove the sense of 'us vs them'.

you're his property

Is he even real or is this a hoax?

>>11814237
Mongoloid refers to a conformity with the status quo, it’s talked about in other parts too.

>>11813996
Private Property is a spook

>>11814523
I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Do the like with what you call my property. Pray I do not take a liking as yours!

>>11814324
>this upsets the kantian

>>11814243
he got no platformed

>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.
>penguin takes all mention of Stirner out of Camus' Rebel
>Nietzsche's closest friends and other people near to him were perplexed. No one could remember ever having heard the name of Stirner from Nietzsche's mouth. There are dozens of letters in the archives that bear witness to the confusion of his friends. They understood well enough why Nietzsche had been publicly silent about Stirner, but why did he, given his "habitual communicativeness" (Overbeck), never mention him even in the most familiar circles? Only Overbeck's wife Ida remembered in 1899 a discussion she had with Nietzsche about twenty years earlier, during which he unintentionally let escape the remark that he felt a mental kinship to Stirner. "This was accompanied by a solemn facial expression. While I attentively observed his features, these changed again, and he made something like a dispelling, dismissive movement with his hand, and spoke under breath: 'Well, now I have told you, even though I did not want to speak of it. Forget about it. They would talk about a plagiarism, but you will not do that, I'm sure.
>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"
>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

What's the big conspiracy of trying to hide Stirner from the public? Why are people so reluctant to name him? Is it because they can't actually argue against his ideas?

>>11814598
markets manufacture spooks, nick land made this very clear

>>11814601
he got spooked

http://www.xenosystems.net/transcendental-anarchy/

Anarchy invisions the illusory state without power. Stirner is no anarchist. He sees through the anarchist fight against what is the spectacle of the state. It is- as the House of Commons is universally proclaimed- government as theatre. It has only a paper sovereignty. The desire that evades the party and the state is not the desire that is enslaved. It is the desire held and engineered by the party in the name of the state that is the path to enslavement.
The various kind of antipraxis need to be understood not as the opposite of praxis but as the principle of wu wei as applied to an antipolitical politics. It is understood as human participation as non-participation and withdrawal.

Capital is sapient. Markets manufacture all intelligence.

"Philosophers pursue answers in the ultimate sense-universal answers. And so they are, indeed, lovers of wisdom. They conceive of wisdom as something objective, as something that exists in itself, beyond any individual, and so as something they have to pursue, rather than as their own property, their attribute, to use as they see fit. They are still attached to the idea of a "wisdom" that is greater than them, you or me. Stimer called them "pious atheists;' a particularly biting barb in a country where the most extreme Christians were known as "pietists." So long as a person continues to pursue this external, supposedly universal wisdom, he may well be a wise man (whatever that means), but he will never be a wise guy. Stimer was a wise guy, because he recognized that there is no ultimate, universal wisdom to find; the philosopher's goal is a pipe dream worthy only of mockery and laughter. And Stimer mocked and laughed often in the most delightfully crude ways in his writings."

>>11814324
Stirner complements many things. He's quite adaptable.

The beginning of 'wisdom' is to call things by their proper name.

>>11814598
In academia they name him an irritating sophist.

>>11814742
>academics up to their eternal tricks again

>>11814237
Do you not understand literature? Don't tell me you take it all literally? And just the surface?

He's drawing upon his cultural reference and frame to explain something, they're placeholders for certain modes. You masturbate in smug self-righteousness as he critiques liberalism, though the subtleties and humour of that probably went over your head (for starters: historical context), then you self-repress with aversion that the liberalism you gaze upon with hatred (as a delinquent yet dependent child gazes at their parent when denied a toy, a toy that the parent imparted desire for upon you) has instilled in you. This is weakness, to be so vain and spoiled, like a dog given a treat and ceasing undesired actions. You are a liberal, culturally and mentally, through and through. This is basic shit that you can't even see past or question, have you developed at all? I'm guessing you cry racism/bigotry/fascism/spooks when strict adherence to status quo and set political/cultural/economic thought boundaries aren't upheld, too? You are the spooky one if your automatic aversion is stronger than your critical thought and basic reasoning.

Unironically, try training your ability to empathise, it will enable you to take a step back from perspective in general as well as grasp the perspectives of others. That is, not be limited to the small-minded cultural / social fashionability mental walls of an NPC that most are.

>>11814766
you were replying to copypasta btw

I probably am too

>>11814237

I am to believe that Stirner would allow for other men to take his wife?

>>11814819
If it pleased him

>>11814766
based

He invented postmodernism.

>>11814970

>>11814970
spooked binary thinker who doesn't understand stirner made this

>>11814237

Nice pasta. Anyway:

Any time he mentions Mongoloid or China or whatever, he is talking about Germans. Censorship was for real back in the day. Also, spoofing on Hegel.

>>11814324
Deleuze and Stirner were talking about the exact same thing, Stirner was just more to the point in his writing style.

To date, the philosophy of Max Stirner (1806-1856) has not attracted much academic attention. An early critic of Karl Marx and precursor of existentialist thought, he is nevertheless remembered as a radical Young Hegelian engaged in an unsuccessful attempt to move beyond Hegel. Arguing that this image of Stirner is based on a faulty interpretation of his relationship to Hegelian philosophy, this book proposes an entirely new reading of his philosophical magnum opus Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. In this work, traditional philosophy, epitomized by Hegel, is reduced to the property of the unique or single individual. This move must not only be seen a refusal to keep traditional philosophy alive by criticising it, but also entails an existentialist inversion of the traditional relation between thinker and idea. This exciting new interpretation, which is demonstrated here by a detailed analysis of Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, clears the way for a philosophical rehabilitation of Stirners ideas.

cringe

>>11814970
Does stirner care about the working class?

You are nothing for me but - my food, just as I am also fed upon and consumed by you. We have only one relationship to each other, that of usefulness, usability, advantage. We owe each other nothing, because what I seem to owe to you, I owe at most to myself. If I show you a cheerful expression in order to likewise cheer you up, then your cheerfulness matters to me, and my expression serves my wish; I do not show it to thousands of others, whom I have no intention of cheering up.

nobody can touch him, he closed the book on philosophy