/lit/ - Literature

There aren't any that don't involve spooks. This is why Stirners framework is so beautiful.

>>13975054
"You shouldn't do what you want because you should do what I want instead."

Collective strategies are more powerful than individual strategies, "spooks" increase collective cohesion.

>>13975054
>This conceit which understands how to belittle every truth, in order to turn back into itself and gloat over its own understanding, which knows how to dissolve every thought and always find the same barren Ego instead of any content—this is a satisfaction which we must leave to itself, for it flees from the universal, and seek only to be for itself.

>>13975078
any book that amkes this point?

>>13975084
>>13975071
this is a literature board op is asking for books recomendations guys

>>13975054
Once you ask them about pedophilia they fall apart quickly.

>>13975078
Collective strategy is an individual strategy as well.

>>13975134
>have sex with minor
>get arrested
>maybe I shouldn’t have done that
ez

>>13975119
There is actually a recent book of Stirners letters published called Stirners Critics. It is a large collection of the criticisms his contemporaries were saying about his book, and his responses. Great read if anyone actually wants to gain a better understanding of his ideas, and not just spout shit in meme threads.

>>13975150
better response so far thanks dude

>>13975119
>Which are some of the best arguments against egoism?

>>13975150
Right, the best arguments against egoism is in this compilation of letters max wrote defending egoism

>>13975078
Question remains; is a willful self-spooking for the implementation of collective strategies valid? As it's motivated by a consciously egoistic action does that kind of not kind of break Stirner's political framework altogether. Sure you'd be spooket post-action but surely one could imagine reassuring oneself continuously that it's a desire grounded in oneself?

If awareness of your self-motivated actions is all that's required then I don't see what conscious egoism has to offer for any emancipatory movements as it could just be used to reify the status quo social arrangements.

>>13975182
i just want to say that i enjoy this pic

>>13975178
I would say that the book encompasses many of the common critiques that you hear, and his responses to them. So instead of hearing some neckbeard here give a half formed response to meme critiques of Egoism, you can hear it straight from the fuckers mouth. Nobody has really come up with any better critiques than his contemporaries already threw at him back in the day.

>>13975182
>>13975078

Did neither of you even read the damn book? He literally agrees with you, this is where his concept of the Union of Egoists comes from. Collectively acting in a sort of, I guess the modern realization of this would be the Affinity group structure that anarchist activists attempt to use often.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_group

>>13975219
i thought that people will answer recomending books i was a fool

>>13975054
I can't really argue against that people ultimately act in their own self-interest, but I can argue against the idea that by making spooks clearer Stirner should radically change your actions. You are subjected to people's reason and thoughts and to your own feelings and logic. Your actions will fall in familiar patterns that can predict your self-spooking reconciliations why you are doing something. Your so called creative whim is still spooked by your biological body and environment.

>>13975054
How is a spook not real?

Charity.

>>13975250
kill yourself please

>>13975256
i said best not shittier

>>13975235
I did but my conception of the union of egoists is a little different. See >>13856943 on warosu for my whole thread on it, I'll just copy what's most important here:
>The concept of union of egoists is a vaguely defined one, and it's part of Stirner's philosophy that I have the most gripe with; politics. My interpretation is that it's not a contractual or a legal union as the current notions of a union, these would be for lack of better a better descriptor, 'spooks in the mind'.
>Rather, a 'union of egoists', is no more than a descriptor of a group of people that act out of their own will, but share an interest. The moment a notion of 'ought' or 'must' is attempted asserted by someone that individual falls out of it.
>I don't think Stirner is to be read as opposed to hierarchy. If the hierarchy is motivated by conscious egoistic action it's a legitimate one. If I were to want a hierarchy, and another person wanted to join that hierarchy, both to our own benefit, eg. in a kind of symbiotic relationship then the hierarchy would be a legitimate union of egoists. As soon as one of us regards the hierarchy as an entity unto itself, though, and not just a descriptor of our conscious egoistic relationship, it's no longer a union of egoists.
>Though from what I've layed out, it's also seemingly completely legitimate for someone to consciously want a hierarchy as a 'spook'. In a renewed action of willful spookity self-spooking one could imagine how the notion of a modern 'state' might be wanted by someone. And as it's motivated by an individual act of will it'd be legitimate.
>I have yet to come to work out this conundrum, so I'll leave it hanging in the air here if anyone wants to discuss it or correct me if I've got something about Stirner's political philosophy wrong.

>>13975274
finally adecent iq fag

>>13975274
Point being that it seems my conception of the union of egoists stands self-refuting if you wanted a tl;dr.

>>13975090
The Unique and its Property

>>13975090
The first book of the Culture of Critique trilogy, A People Who Shall Dwell Alone, goes into great detail about this in relation to the Jews. There's a paper included where he does the same analysis of other minority groups, including the Chinese (living in other Asian countries) and some separatist Christian sects like Amish and Mennonites. Similar material on Europeans is probably in his new book, though I don't have it yet so I don't know for sure. In an interview about it I watched, he referred to the Roman model of conquering and assimilation as a failed group evolutionary strategy because it was too inclusive to groups too genetically distant from the original population.
You don't actually need to read anything to understand what I'm saying though. I got to this view on my own.
>>13975136
I used to think this, but the fertility of kin actually represents what MacDonald calls "diluted wells of genetic interest". The individual is a carrier of genes that are common to his family, ethnic group, and wider race to a lesser extent, and it is the reproduction of the genes, not "the individual" (which is a construct of the genes), which is important in a biological sense. Inherited preferences and affection for family and one's ethnicity reflect this. An individual who does not reproduce personally but has brothers and sisters who reproduce is effectively reproductive because his entire genome is reproduced via kin.
>>13975182
>>13975235
I've never read Stirner and don't adhere to his philosophy. I'm only going off an osmosis understanding, but I understand what nihilism is, and I think I understand what egoism is - and I might have even basically believed it in the past. My view is that the inscrutable force of spiritual-material perpetuation* constitutes an important part of the meaning of life, so I don't think acting in service of this is "a spook" at all. It's valid because it is what life really is and wants on a fundamental level. Something like national socialism is the political framework best suited to this view, and I have discovered passages of Hitler (Haven't read Hitler yet either, I get a lot of info secondhand) articulating these views after I came to them. I've heard of the Union of Egoists but I don't know what means. If I'm getting a bunch of shit wrong feel free to explain. Conversation's useful for that. I'm not gonna read him any time soon because I have a backlog of dozens of books already.

*genes and the attributes caused by genes, which include not only physical but mental and emotional traits that reoccur over the time and space of a people with common heritage and that can be usefully thought of as "racial spirit" I understand that my use of the word "spirit" could possibly have made you completely disregard me though cause it's le spook.

Society (should) know whats better for you than you do

>>13975442
Ought cannot be derived from is

>>13975493
prove it

>>13975140
What if you get away with it?

>>13975078
>Collective strategies are more powerful than individual strategies
More powerful at accomplishing what, exactly?

>>13975442
That's impossible, there is no objective "better".

>>13975541
Choice is objectively better.

>>13975054
It being overly compatible with other beliefs/insubstantial (which I disagree with), and it not considering the possibility that humans are innately bad (an inquiry Stirner could not care less about iirc).

>>13975581
>it not considering the possibility that humans are innately bad
What defines "bad"?

>>13975596
Inability to choose good.

>>13975261
Again, How is a spook not real?

>>13975496
Conception of better cannot be defined without making base assumptions about the nature of the world at large (eg. "Why is it "better" for me to do 'x' rather than 'y'?"). Assumptions (ie. axioms), even if they stand self-proven once accepted, can only initially be justified by blind faith.

>>13975575
Based

>>13975493
Yes so any basis for morality should be strictly a priori using the powers of reason. All rational beings partake of the same powers of reason. For something to be reasonable it must hold universally within the realm of reason. Therefor all rational beings have responsibility to act in such a way that their behavior can be universally reasonable.

Egoist debates are so pointless, I say a soldier jumps on a grenade, you say he really did do it for his own benefit, I say that makes egoism completely vacuous and describes every feature of behavior while explaining nothing, you disagree and it ends.

>>13975531
Cavemannish shit:
Genetic perpetuity, domination of space, domination of other organisms and people, physical security, wealth
Less cavemannish shit: the creation and maintenance of institutions (i.e science, education), co-operative art (i.e orchestra, animation), a comfortable social environment with a common sense of belonging, the ability to solve problems that require a lot of labor

And more!

>>13975638
And why should I want any of those things?

>>13975630
Distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge is arbitrary and defeated by the fact that humans do not have the impeccable recall required to perfectly separate learned experience from a priori categories and assumptions. Assuming, of course, we ignore the solipsistic argument.

>>13975061
the ego is a spook

>>13975649
>/adv/

>>13975657
What I asked is philosophical, dumbass.

>>13975517
Too risky, but in that case, as long as only benefits occur, it will have been a moral action.

>>13975661
No you are asking us to help (you) understand basic arithmetic

>>13975652
The distinction is not arbitrary, for example we can surely know a priori that the angles of a triangle must add to 180 without observing all possible triangles in the universe. This is just the difference between law and theory in empirical sciences.

>>13975649
Because you like them, for one (don't be tsundere about it). I explained why I think these things are meaningful already in this post
>>13975425

>>13975667
No, I am not. I'm asking why any of those things should be important to me.

>>13975670
>Because you like them
Nope.

>>13975674
That’s not philosophy

>>13975705
Yes, it is. He's justifying the existence of spooks with things that I don't necessarily want.
Stop fishing for (You)'s.

>>13975682
The ability to choose is objectively good. You can't reject it.

>>13975719
What the hell are you talking about?

>>13975665
> it will have been a moral action.
>to fuck children and getting away with it

>>13975729
What don't you understand?

>>13975717
>I live in a house named Max Stirner

>>13975739
What does the ability to choose have to do with the current discussion?

>>13975211
Hunter x Hunter > every other anime

>>13975747
It is an objective good that exists regardless of individual preferences or subjectivity.

>>13975779
Prove it.

The problem with Stirner, as well as Philosophy in general, is that he makes the assumption that words, organized in the “correct” manner, reach and belong to reality as such. Anything that does not fall into his “correct” structure is spooky. His whole philosophy is logocentric and repeats the history of metaphysics. Which is ironic to say the least

>>13975783
You mean, it would be good for him to prove it?

>>13975665
No because the reconciling such action start breaking your other morals you previously found beneficial. You will be in a constant state of trying to create spooks that serve as good enough reconciliation with the spooks you are subjected to be the society and your reason. The same reason you can't simply believe in flat earth and get away with it. You either become delusional enough to believe in incoherent worldviews or you end up admitting that the earth is not flat.

>>13975796
No it is an imperative clause.

>>13975783
That in no possible universe the inability to choose is good.

>>13975054
Religion and Philosophy 101 defeats egoism. I believe egoism is only popular because its easy to understand which means it will hit home for most people.

>>13975803
Yea but what about Santa Clause? He is objectively good

>>13975796

>>13975814
That statement isn't self-evident. Prove that the ability to choose is good.

>>13975734
Highly unlikely. That’s why the moral law exists as a general guide.
>>13975798
We should treat moral laws as being fixed for practical purposes, but my point was that in some very rare cases, it may be beneficial to break them. That doesn’t mean we should, because it’s very unlikely that we’ll be able to determine when we should break them. Those moral laws can only be truly fixed when prescribed by God.

>>13975829
It is self-evident. Choice is required for good. Increased ability to chose always betters a situation. You cannot provide a situation or scenario where this is not the case.

If a individual wanted to exist in a universe void of choice, it his ability to chose to exist in that universe.
If an individual wanted not to choose, but be forced into a universe void of choice, he is still engaging in choice to enable this subjective preference.

Choice is an objective good, but it good is contained within choice.

>>13975844
>Choice is required for good.
Prove it.

>>13975844
Based

>>13975857
I just did. If you don't understand try and provide a scenario that is not better with choice.

>>13975891
What does it mean not to choose something? What does it mean to live without choice?

>>13975891
You do realize that society strips the individual of choice, right?

>>13975903
>What does it mean not to choose something?
To have something chosen for you. If you can choose between a universe with xyz or a universe without xyz, being able to choose your prefence is objectively better. If you are choosing to exist in a universe where you cannot choose, presupposing choice before is always better.
>What does it mean to live without choice?
If I was to make every choice for you, it would be objectively better if you could chose to exist in the universe where I make every choice for you.

>>13975907
What does this have to do with my argument of an objective good?

>>13975929
I don’t know why you talk about choosing worlds. If it’s better to live in a world without choice, then it’s better to live in a world without choice. There’s no contradiction in preferring such a world, if it is truly better. If the lack of choice is preferable, and we could choose it, then why shouldn’t we? Ah, but you think that this means that choosing is good. No, it means that choosing can be good, and in this case, it only means that choice is good when you’re choosing to have no choice about other matters. Do we not all miss our childhood, when we made significantly fewer choices than we do now? Is it somehow contradictory to prefer this state of existence?

>>13975955
>If the lack of choice is preferable, and we could choose it, then why shouldn’t we?
If that is your preference you should, but you cannot create this clause without choosing. Choosing and good are contained within themselves. Even if your preferred universe is one void of choice, you have to choose that universe opposed to every other possible universe.
>No, it means that choosing can be good, and in this case, it only means that choice is good when you’re choosing to have no choice about other matters
Yes, so choice is objectively good. The individuals ability to choose his preferred universe of not choosing is better than his ability not to choose his universe of not choosing and forced into a universe less preferred.
Within the contained universe there can be subjective preferences, but the to choose the preference is an objective good. An objective good would exist outside all possible universes.
>Do we not all miss our childhood, when we made significantly fewer choices than we do now?
If I gave you to choice to live in a universe that fulfilled this preference, which could include reliving a childhood with less choice and all other preference, the ability to choose this universe would objectively be good.

>>13976013
But isn’t it possible to be born in a world without choice? Thus you can be born in the best world without choosing that world. Why does it matter if you choose it if the result is the same? And you cannot say that choice is objectively good purely because it would be good to choose to live in a world without choice. This only means that being able to choose a world without choice is good. But you’re generalizing, and claiming that choice is inherently good.

>>13976036
Yea the mentally handicapped is a good example. The severe cases don’t really have a choice, but neither do they know it.

>>13975054
>argument
>ethics
haha pleb

>>13975668
>for example we can surely know a priori that the angles of a triangle must add to 180 without observing all possible triangles in the universe.
No, because the epistemological validity of something can always be put into question. See: Münchhausen trilemma.

The empirical sciences are founded upon an epistemological assumption, and these assumptions are based wholly on "faith" in a sense, as even if they might be self-affirming when put into place the initial axiom has to be accepted based on nothing but hot air.

It's like the "first-cause" God argument. If everything has a cause then there must either be:

a) circular logic, an infinite regress of causes (ie. argument stands self-proven)
b) a first cause from which everything else stems (one accept that ones base epistemological axioms are based on nothing)

And as far as I can see, the first option has to be discarded as it requires that for the circular logic in itself to even exist you have to take part of the circle for granted. In other words, b) is the only logical argument.

The idea that "all knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot know" cannot be circumvented.

>>13976036
>But isn’t it possible to be born in a world without choice? Thus you can be born in the best world without choosing that world.
Define best here. Are you saying there is an objective best world or the individuals preferred world. There wouldn't be a best world, there would be a best of all possible worlds.
>This only means that being able to choose a world without choice is good. But you’re generalizing, and claiming that choice is inherently good.
No, because increase in choice and consent is always objectively better. Even if someone wishes to to live in a universe with no choice increasing choice to choose to exist in that universe is objectively better. If someone is forced into that world, even if it is their best possible world, it would be better if they could choose to enter the world, because the increased choice has only increased the possibility of preference being fulfilled.

>>13975054
Derek Parfit's critique of personal identity (it's impossible to be an egoist since future you is a different person)

>>13976149
>The egoist, he suggests, must embrace the heroism of the lie, and be willing to break even his own word “in order to determine himself instead of being determined”
(From stanford encyclopedia's Max Stirner summary page)
Stirner's conscious egoist is not the same conceptual being as the egoist you propose.

>>13975054
Nothing, its just typical relativism that thinks itself irrefutable by rejecting any foundation for knowledge or judgement at all while still acting like it can accept or reject anything.

>>13977294
Read the book

>>13975054
It's painfully obviously how few have actually read his work, and instead are just recycling memes about him. Stirner doesn't advocate just blindly acting against others for the slightest material gain, which many of you seem to believe he does; rather, he advocates using an egoist groundwork to better understand the interactions and relationships one forms. Stirner explicitly states it's great to love others, cooperate with others, help others, etc., so long as these concepts do not domineer one's self into abandoning its own well-being. One can certainly critique the absurd caricature of the insanely-selfish Stirner, but that is simply an incorrect conception of his views. Rather, when one analyzes egoist thought not as some inane obsession with the self but rather as a form of analysis and maintaining self-will does one truly grasp the meat of egoism.

>>13975211
It's good isn't it

>>13977480
This. As is why I use the term conscious egoism/egoist to describe Stirner's particular ideological strain of egoist. It's a very unfortunate collision of semantics.

>>13977480
Welcome to /lit/ lmao.

>>13975054
Simply put: if everybody did it everybody would be miserable all the time.

>>13978745
>he doesn't know
Everybody does, regular altruism is egoistic and pathological altruism is a maladaptive mental illness.
>how is it maladaptive
If I'm already poor and give my last $20 to someone else I die of starvation.

>>13977480
A very good post.

>>13980072
>only poor people exist
>every situation is extreme

wew

>>13980130
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argumentation method.

>>13980114
It was terrible. We already domesticated Nietzsche into edgy humanitarianism, please leave Stirner alone

>>13980154
>implying edgy reading of Nietzsche is more meritorious than a humanitarian one

>>13980154
W-what do you mean? Nietzsche loved PoC and fought for their rights fighting the evil nahtzees, he specially cared about the weak because he had master morality and the noble always must protect the weak.

>>13975054
If the entire world was like stirners egoism we would live in Africa.

>>13980147
unless its based on a retarded assumption that empathy is absolute

>>13980177
>If the entire world had 60iq we would live in Africa
Fixed that for you. The reason we live like we do is because of technology, not racid morality.

>>13980198
That's why every advanced civilisation is based upon egoism...

>>13980171
You know what I'm talking about, people who interpret Nietzsche in a mainstream-friendly way about how you should find your own meaning in life and believe in yourself etc. while downplaying the Machiavellian/Social Darwinist elements of his philosophy.

>>13980173
To be fair the Nazitard reading isn't much better. Go read on what Nietzsche thought about Nationalism, Conservatism, Bismarck and Antisemitism.

>>13980217
>people who interpret Nietzsche in a mainstream-friendly way about how you should find your own meaning in life and believe in yourself etc.
Retards will always be retards, why care about them? More importantly, just like you can't ignore Machiavellian elements of Nietzsche without his philosophy collapsing into something disgustingly trivial, you cannot ignore his humanitarian elements and his love towards people either. The contradiction between them is the very question he tried to solve, after all. Same is for Stirner.

>>13980230 explain nietzschianism to me and how his machiavellian elements make his philosophy nontrivial i havent read him

>>13980230
>humanitarian elements
Such as? Before answering read the actual definition of humanitarianism please.

>>13980217
The "Nazitard" reading doesn't need massive copes to turn his philosophy into the opposite thing such as egalitarianism or humanitarianism.

>>13980230
I don't think there is anything humanitarian in the core of Nietzsche's philosophy. His only love is for what he considers Great Men, he has no respect for ordinary people.

In Stirners case it is even more clear, his philosophy IS pure egoism unobstructed from morality. He clearly says that there is nothing wrong with murder if it serves your own interests, there is no room to present him as a misunderstood proponent of a moderate balance between egoism and convential morality.

>>13980285
It does actually. Nietzsche couldn't care less about the good of the nation, he thinks ordinary people are plebs whom only purpose in life is being used be the Elites to achieve their goals. Hitler was very much an utilitarian in his approach to morality, he just limited it to the good of the German people instead of humanity as a whole. He even thought that pacifism would be a great long term goal once the sovereignty of the Aryan people was establishment. Nietzsche would've thought of him as a pleb.

>>13980304
>His only love is for what he considers Great Men, he has no respect for ordinary people.
That is an extremely narrow reading of Nietzsche's motivation, if anything, because there's no a priori framework to distinguish an ordinary man from a Great one. It may not be obvious to you why this precludes you from making a clean distinction between the one and the other, but it was quite obvious for Nietzsche at least.

As for Stirner, see pic related

Thinking logical arguments are needed? That's a spook

>>13980377
Nietzsche does give several examples of great men but never mind that. Even if that wasn't clear it doesn't change the fact that he explicitly says that they constitute an extreme minority among the "cattle". So again where are the examples of humanitarian tendencies in the core of his thinking?

As for Stirner, all he says in that pic is that he is not a sadist who would kill people for fun, he wants others to be happy as long as they don't interfere with his own interests. But there is nothing in his philosophy that would condemn somebody who just killed for fun. It's just a matter of taste from his POV.

>>13980533
>But there is nothing in his philosophy that would condemn somebody who just killed for fun. It's just a matter of taste from his POV.
No shit. It's not up to philosophy to condemn, it's up to people to condemn. Stirner was pretty much an existentialist on that one.

>>13975607
>"What defines A?"
>"Not being ~A"
Waste of a post

>>13975637
Stirner's egoism isnt solely the common sense egoism you are used to hear.

>>13975607
Not inability. Unwillingness.

>>13980154
That's not what I said. Stirner is certainly no humble humanist, he clearly stands against dogmatic forms of morality, but to imply he is completely against voluntary affection and cooperation is just as, if not more, absurd.

Was Stirner a nihilist?

>>13975078
this is so cringe lmao

>>13975078
Yeah this is fairly obvious

>>13980655
Find me one anon who claims that voluntary affection and cooperation is bad even when it benefits you.

>>13980660
ye careful he will cut off your johnson

>>13980864
Of course no one would (besides natsoc "stoicists" on here), but many people are under the impression Stirner feels this way, and is solely concerned with exploiting others at every waking moment, which seems the basis of most of the critique in this thread.

BwO

>>13975134
Lack of response indicates youre right

>>13975054
Egoism collapses into emotivism which collapses into preferential utilitarianism.

>>13975061
The power to ignore and overpower spooks through 'laughability threshold' is a spook.

>>13975054
Average max stirner fan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3x8cjWGuro

>>13975054
>Look up Stirner
>Expect "individuals are inherently selfish"
>receive self-contradictory drivel where a man argues that nothing we mean can be accurately said and then uses words to describe such concept

>>13982808
Are you in over hour head, Donny?

>>13983325
you goddamn resilient, beautiful slut

>>13975054
The ego is the little bitches among the many different persons inside one human mind

>>13980705
>>13980747
Back to back opposite responses. Weird.

>>13975596
I'm the anon you replied to; that's not a question I can answer, but it's the question I would ask.

That I know how to refute it, utterly btfo, but it is too trivial to bother. It means nothing to me.
Just trust me bro.

>>13975857
9>>13975054
>egoism
>analy retentive angsty-boy drivell presented as being void of subjective and reductionist impulse while promoting a workaround of society lacking an internalised drive for cohesion and throwing both individual and society under the bus because muh me first

Why not just suicide?
Why not faint blindness?
Why subscribe to the phylosophical equivalent of skateboarding?

Moral nihlism.
Morality doesn't exist and is a meme

>>13985337
>Morality doesn't exist
The psychology of morality, in all its diverse bullshitery does, it litteraly lives in peoples heads and occupies brain matter, no I'm not a microscope and I don't perceive at a molecular level and I don't have to acknowledge a bihevioral concept

>is a meme
Yeah, kind of

>>13985369
>Psychology of morality =//= Morality
Do you have brain cancer?

egoism is a spook
spooks are spooks

>>13985369
>no I'm not a microscope
t. microscope

As far as atheist/nihilist thinkers Schop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stirnier. Schop's argument for compassion as the basis for morality is thin (as is for most philosophical systems that do not subscribe to an objective morality) but it's actually psychological sound compared to Stirnier.

>>13975211
Based

Besides Marx did anyone take Stirnier seriously enough to actually critique him?

>>13986802
Yes. Read Stirners critics. Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, some guy called Hess.

>>13977480
that's a pretty solid train of thought. (you) have inspired me to add him to the to-read list.

Is Stirners the central figure of egoism or is there someone else as prominent in this school of thought?

>>13986945
I've tried to look for more contemporary critiques on Stirnier and it's all from communists/Anarchocommunists