/lit/ - Literature

>>17102221
infact it is only worth reading part ii

>>17102253
So you didn't particularly like the "Men of the old time and the new" chapter either?
I think there's too much stuff on the Reformation, Feuerbach, and the cultural zeitgeist of 19th century Germany for me to fully appreciate...

>>1710222
> is it worth reading a defense of nihilistic egotism?
The absolute state of things...

>>17102523
Egoism not egotism
Existentialism not nihilism
You literally have no idea what you're talking about

Read Marx's rebuttal

why isn't this faggot blamed for horrors of socialism when he had more influence on the russian socialist

>>17102764
No. Do not do this.

>>17102764
Is this das kapital? It says something about marx addressing stirners critique in there...

>>17102771
what? seems untrue

>>17102221
Stirner is half right I think, he recognises that all worldviews cannot justify their base assumptions, but then he takes it to nihilism as if the conclusion to be drawn from that is rational egoism, when rational egoism is itself a worldview with its own assumptions that cannot be proved. By refuting all worldviews all he does is refute himself.

>as a somewhat libertarian person living in 2020
That’s a lot of words for saying you’re a homo

>>17102825
He doesn't promote a world view, he literally says if he told you what to do it would defeat the purpose of what he is trying to say.

>>17102866
this

>>17102771
Because that's a weird claim? Marx wrote a massive critic of Stirner. Most Marxist accounts I've seen go hard on him except the western variety.

There's even an edition of the Ego and Its Own published in a series "Roots of the Right" from the 70s with an essay claiming Stirner was a proto-fascist and his radical individualism influenced Mussolini/Hitler

bump

>>17102221
Is libertarianism postmodernist?

>>17103323
>individualist
>fash

pick one

>>17102764
>>17102778
No. If you want Marx and Engels critique of Stirner you need to read The German Ideology.

>>17102825
>>17102876
You just have to be based. You don't need a cohesive worldview to be based.

>>17102764
Saint Max? A literary classic. So good they waited until everyone was dead to publish it.

>>17102221
unless you're a spook yes

>>17102764
He retroactively refuted the rebuttal.

>>17102221
From what I can recall, the second half goes into the self, the creative nothing. And mentions the pivotal “union of egoists”
(Which is why I post this picture.)
Very important chapter. Sweet ending line imo.

>>17102764
The German Ideology was one of Marx's best works tbqh. Too bad people can't read Marx as a philosopher due to all the political history. So many people either shut him off or support all his views unconditionally.

>>17102825
Its not very profound. We learned that worldviews can't justify their base assumptions from the ancient Greeks. This is why Plato refutes his own theory of forms.

>>17102221
Personally I feel that I am a kindred spirit with Stirner, but I would not trust someone dumber than me to believe in his philosophy. In the hands of an intelligent, forthright person, Stirnerism is the only path forward for humanity. In the hands of the common man, the weakling, idiot, or deviant, it is a recipe for the kind of base egoism of The Hills Have Eyes tier creaturely egoism, the idea that I can engage in cannibalism and fuck my sister because nobody but myself is the moral arbiter of values. Stirner in the hands of an idiot is a disaster; in the hands of the intelligent and forthright , it is the only way to proceed. Does this imply a contradiction? Does Stirner really recommend that one does whatever what one wills regardless of everything else? I'm not so sure, because Stirner is not willing to abandon a concept of rationality.

>>17102764
just a 1000 page seethe post that engels told him not to publish because it was embarassingly shit

>>17102876
Just because he says he doesn't promote a worldview does not get him out of the fact that he has a worldview, and it cannot be justified.

>>17104024
fascist in common use colloquial and academic literally just means 'bully', 'bad', 'not enough of a liberal conformist', etc. you can find almost anything denounced as fascist or claimed as an influence to bolster self-perceived aesthetics. nazism was certainly influenced by nietzche, among others, who were certainly influenced by stirner, but not fascism really, and it's still a huge stretch.

>>17105184
>>17104024
btw if you subscribe to stirner then you cannot be attached to your broad-strokes opposition to ideologies because it is incompatible with the level of detail it views from (the individual). to say someone is not an individualist because they thrive in a structure you have a vague dislike for is nonsense.

>as a libertarian
>i agree with him and it isn't revolutionary anymore
Yeesh
Keep reading bucko part 2 is the best and maybe you even realize that he still is revolutionary. He'd laugh at you gay little NAP.

Everything Stirner says in that book was said by Sextus Empiricus 1800 years before him.

>>17102866
Christcuck Cope

>>17104016
>Is libertarianism postmodernist?
its capitalist realist, so yes

>>17104802
I read this on 4chan so don't take it too seriously but doesn't stirner say that egoism only works if a small proportion of the population is egoistic while the rest some kind of Liberal state that allows their existence?

>>17105345
What if I was an anarchist?

>>17102221
The ego that can be had is not the enteral ego.

Stirner is an anarchist and there fore a literal. Egoism is peak liberalism. The full logical conclusion of the illusion of the self, power, and control. Don't forget Marx saves.

>>17105511
word salad

>>17105511
I am missing some context here, Anon.

Nothing is sacred for Stirner. He is the most radical philosopher there ever was. Tears down every social construct

>>17105511
Stirner never considered himself an anarchist, and he actually attacked anarchists in his work, like Proudhon. Stirner also explicitly rejected communism in the book. He's an active nihilist which would make most anarchist shiver, individualist anarchism, literal wall street bombing anarchists, are as close as you can get to Stirner when comes to anarchism. But, his work has also been called the "Billionaries Bible" because he also has a Machiavellian streak in the book where he defends deceit and schemes
>>17105920
Him and Nietzsche

>>17102764
Stirner ended up refuting Marx in the long run if you actually look at the historical failure of communism. Stirner made it clear that communism would end up in tyranny before Marx even wrote the Manifesto because communism gives too much power to the collective; much like all forms of secular humanism, which gives it the power to alienate individuals from their own ability to take ownership of their lives.

>>17105968
>>17105948
yeah i'm thinking he's based

>>17105948
>literal wall street bombing anarchists, are as close as you can get to Stirner when comes to anarchism
isn't bombing wall street a sure sign that you're spooked?

If you did it because you wanted to, and nobody forced you; I wouldn't think so

>>17104024
Being an individualist doesn't mean you reject your right to impose your views on others. You're probably conflating individualism with liberalism but you don't have to respect other peoples opinions or "their" rights to be an egoist. Liberals believe in natural laws you have to obey that you don't create which creative individuals can't rise above. Stirner wasn't a liberal FYI and there's a lot in there that could lead a sociopath to justify acting as a charismatic dictator

>>17104016
Americans use that term to mean liberalism but that's just modernism

>>17105968
>which gives it the power to alienate individuals from their own ability to take ownership of their lives

And this caused the failure of communism exactly how?

>>17106296
Only if you do it to "hurt" the "rich"
If you do it because you want to do it, then everything is fine

>>17106364
Stirner believed in some Randian Ideas, that there are a few smart and productive people and if the majority offends them enough, and they leave.

ff. society collapses

>>17106430
>Stirner believed in some Randian Ideas
Not at all. Rand was overly normative. She came up with a way you HAD TO live your life.

>>17106364
Read the other portion of the post; the point on secular humanism is a criticism Stirner makes against communism. Communists selfishly assert one must throw away their life for the cause of the worker in abstract, and that "communism" would allegedly eliminate the suffering the of worker; which hasn't been the case because every time Marx's ideas have been put into practice, numerous atrocities against them such as gulags, famines, mass executions, and even worse communist countries had a lower quality of life than their capitalist countries. They also failed to abolish wage labor, commodity production, or even implement the principles of the Paris Commune. Modern day communists hand-wave the historical evidence against them, and play games of historical revisionism to dupe people into falling for their lies when these criticisms are levied against them

>>17106430
>Stirner believed in some Randian Ideas
No, Stirner was very much a nihilistic, might makes right type of person. He did uphold capitalism, or morality, as Rand did. He very much was critical of the "Free competition" of capitalists because it really wasn't "free" when its regulated by the state, he wanted individuals to be truly free, literally breaking laws and doing whatever it took for them to reach their goals

Made a typo here. He did NOT uphold capitalism or morality

>>17104941
Why can it not be justified? Where is the contradiction?

judging from marx's reaction he felt really threatened by stirner

>>17102253
Pretty sure spooks and voluntary vs involuntary egoism is introduced in part 1. I do remember part 1 being a series of attacks as op says. Part 2 has the union of egoists which is honestly stirners most flawed concept. Spooks and egoism makes way more sense and was better conceived compared to the union.

>>17107940
The Union of Egoists is just a mutual association; a group of friends going out to a strip club would be a union of egoists

>>17108858
How is that different to workers in a commune? Or individuals in an AnCap state? All voluntarily associating without state?

>>17110073
>AnCap
>Voluntary
pick one

>>17102825
>but then he takes it to nihilism

And? Problem?

>>17102221
>The Ego and its Own
>not The Unique And Its Property
Your reading the pleb translation anon.

>>17110091
That's a good one

>>17107839
individual self interest will always triumph over collectivism and forced altruism
people care more about themselves and advancing their will to power than some abstract mass of "proletariat"

>>17110731
It is in the member of a proletariat's self interest to pursue their economic self interest and create conditions that enable them to reap the full rewards of their labor rather than being exploited by someone else. This is for the benefit of the individual because they gain more autonomy, power, and influence over their own life instead of being subordinate to the bourgeoisie

>>17110709
thanks

>>17110754
marxism wants to force this into being and compel proles to revolt and believe in class consciousness rather than letting the individual decide for themselves. if they do not want to participate in the revolution or disagree with the party, they dont have a say in the manner and were pushed by another group's influence. it is up to the individual to make the decision to revolt or not rather than having a party or ideology force them to do so

>>17110768
Marxism is simply a tool of analysis, not ideology. Marxism is a framework to analyze class relations, economic production models, social behavior, philosophy, and historical progress. Marxism doesn't tell anyone to revolt, it simply just analyzes the material conditions, society's relationship to the economic process/material conditions, and the mechanisms of the capitalist system. The analysis finds that the contradictions of capitalism will result in a revolution by the working class whose material conditions are intolerable. It comes to this conclusion based on systemic analysis.

>>17110073
It's not necessarily against the tenets of The Ego etc., it's really a matter of semantics or, more properly, poetry. In a 'union' you as a group are unison, you are made one (cp. the German prefix ver-), but you remain individuals. Each individual is a part of the union only as long as it serves his purposes. If you compare to a guy like Zizek he'll say that, no, you have to believe in the party. You'll have to accept a revolutionary individual, something particular, which can stand in for the general revolution. In Stirner's eyes, this is the will stagnated.

>>17110809
and leninism is the praxis. leninism is the way to achieve marx's theory, it uses marx's theory as the justification for revolution. marxism and leninism go hand in hand.

>>17105194
Why should the concepts of a singular worldview have to cancel every other perspective?
Isn’t it optimal to take on the best that ideology has an apply it to a given context?
Like say, the proposal of aristocracy as the best kind of government can be seen as bad if your view of aristocrats is a bunch of rich people(which should be considered an oligarchy). I remember someone here disregarding The Republic because he thought of it as fascism. Would you consider a world constructed like say, Huxley’s London in BNW fascist?

>>17110877
Not that anon but my gripe with this along with Marxism as such is that I don't see how this isn't a Hegelian residue. Hegel believed we were approaching God and that we (=he) could objectively prove it, Marx claimed to 'demystify' Hegelianism but apparently retained the rather orthodox gesture in claiming he was describing pure fact. Later on, think the Soviets or DDR, they would even talk of 'scientific materialism' and the like. I appreciate Stirner as a Fichtean regression which to my mind allows for contingent action where Hegelianism does not.

I've seen some serious misreadings of Stirner itt. If what you're getting out of his book is something resembling "psychological "egoism" where everyone actually does everything out of self-interest, then you're reading it wrong. Not even "selfish" people like some Scrooge-type capitalist are necessarily egoists. Marx did some critique of Stirner but I find his later writings are kind of a try at constructing a "spook-free" analysis of economic/sociopolitical relations, so I wouldn't throw them out of a window as fast as some posters do when it comes to comparing both philosophies. Remember Stirner talks about workers' self-interest and what that would entail, or that some of the better known egoists, like Renzo Novatore, advocated for some sort of social revolution. The anarchist experiment in Spain has some stirnerian roots which deserve being looked into. Godspeed my fellow egoists anons.

>>17106430
stirner is much more robust and above ayn rand's crude worldview

>>17104223
based

>>17105511
Stirner is in no way an anarchist. He is a fascist with himself at the top in an extremely hierarchical, centralized government.

>>17110594
Only bother with this translation.

Also, Stirner would oppose the term "individual" on the grounds that the ideology of it mandates that the "I" must bow before his individuality first, even if the "I" may have totalitarian ambitions.
Stirner would find the term "Existence" a better expression of his thought, As a "Existence", I may be willing to defend or subjugate may Individuality against a Idea or a trait with "I" may have.

>>17111087
>He is a fascist
HAHAHAH
Fascism is the subjugation of the individual towards the State.

Stirner does not have a ideology per se, Stirner will take/give what he wants and destroy/create what he wants, IF HE HAS THE POWER.

>>17111115
>subjugate may
My

>>17110988
>If what you're getting out of his book is something resembling "psychological "egoism" where everyone actually does everything out of self-interest, then you're reading it wrong.
Stirner explicitly argues everyone is an egoist though. He does argue that psychological egoism exists, but he argues its often an involuntary egoism in which people are duped into by a higher authority be in the church, the state, the family, etc. Psychological egoism is an important part of Stirner's critique because he attacks those who use this cynicism to deny one's own conscious egoism of making choices that are truly in their own self interest because they made the choice using their own observations, their own thinking. Throughout the book, he talks often about "courage", and "strength" and how that conscious egoists are typically the "intellectual vagabonds" or basically iconoclasts to walk their own path and take responsibility for their own life by any means necessary using the courage to lash out using their physical prowess, or even wit.
>. Remember Stirner talks about workers' self-interest and what that would entail,
Stirner supported non sacred forms of socialism; so I don't he'd be against some of the voluntary forms like communes, co-operatives, and mutual organizations or mutual aid, especially if it can be done in the interests of the egoist.
>>17110073
It's whatever the egoists in the agreement want. The thing is, Stirner isn't talking about constructing a society; he explicitly says egoism is every man for himself. Some men might want to collectivize, some might not - its ultimately up them to doing whatever they want

Peter pan philosophy.

>>17111087
Fascism is a form of involuntary egoism that dictates one must sacrifice their life, autonomy for the "good" of phantasms such as "race", "culture", "heritage" ; conscious egoism isn't compatible with that. You're still selfish, an egotistical person like everyone else, but you're doing it for an external, not nominal, cause. If you want to be a fascist, go ahead, someone just be against you - and kill you, since again its every man for himself.

>>17102866
>>17105492
Narrow-minded shit post frens. Plenty of Christcuck libertarians, well perhaps more specifically anarchists but not of the communist variety. I guess you could argue they are incompatible worldviews to add further irony to this thread.

>>17106589
They did try to implement it for real during the "War Communism" economic system 1918-1921. The result was disastrous, and necessitated a constant state of war against the peasantry, in effect being much like the Deluge.

>>17102764
"Rebuttal"
Yeah because him seething for 500 pages about Saint Max totally is a rebuttal.

>>17105968
yea im done with this board

>>17110988
>>17111193
I've seen Stirner linked around by some anarchists, fuck the version I read (Unique and property) was from "The Anarchist Library"
If Stirner wasn't pushing any political worldview and since he bashed communism why do modern anarchists keep him around? Is it because he said "I think I'm an anarchist" in one paragraph?

>>17112249
Yes, please fuck off from this board you insufferable weeb faggot

>>17112302
"egoist-anarchism" is an entire segment of the anarchist community.
anarchism was an extremely diverse collection of ideologies, the only thing linking them together is the goal of having no government. unfortunately marxists have infiltrated anarchist scenes and pushed the red and black anarcho-communist school as the one-and-only "real" anarchism, while allowing some token compatible micro-ideologies like green anarchism, queer anarchism, anarcho pacifists, etc. stuff like egoist anarchism is generally frowned upon since it is not compatible with marxism, obviously

>>17102221
Stirner didn't take spookery far enough

>>17112382
The next logical step from Stirner is solipsism, which is based but pointless to discuss.

A few questions about stirner
Is it existentialist or nihilistic
What is it economically
Is it communist
Is Stirner nominalist
Would did it support the modern race narratives and LGBT

>>17102221

>>17112397
No
>>17112669
Nihilistic
Whatever
No
Yes
Race and gender a spooks but potential property

>>17112892
>Nihilistic
How is he nihilistic?

>>17112949
Same reason Jacobi thought Fichte was a nihilist, but you could obviously view him in light of existentialism, e.g. http://www.max-stirner-archiv-leipzig.de/dokumente/Der-Einzige-Nr.24.pdf, just like several authors have compared him to Kierkegaard.

>>17104768
>He retroactively refuted the rebuttal.
how? Stirner is still:
an idealist
without good knowledge of history
naively taking everything hegel said as true
without good knowledge of other young hegelians (he conflates Feuerbach and Bauer)
Stirner is an absolute failure of philosophy, trying to move beyond hegel from inside of Hegel, who was already refuted by Feuerbach, whom Stirner misunderstood. Only value Stirner ever had was being misread by the anarchists, which is even sadder than his life

what is stiner's economic preferences

>>17113122
nothing, he's an idealist he doesnt care about real things

>>17110809
Is this generally accepted? Sounds interesting, but I feel like most would think Marxism IS ideology.

insert some quote

"What do I do if my ways are no longer its ways, my thoughts no longer its thoughts? I look to myself, and ask nothing of it! In my thoughts, which I get sanctioned by no assent, no permission, no grace, I have my actual property, a property with which I can carry on trade. Because as mine they are my creations, and I am in a position to give them away in return for other thoughts: I give them up and in exchange for them take others, which are then my newly bought property. "-- max stirner

Could you describe his economics taking what you need then, if you want to create some new item and then enter Union of Egoists to Trade it.

>>17113153
It's all there if you actually read Marx or just about any even remotely competent introduction to his work. In fact I just checked and you can gather about the same from the fucking Wiki page.
You definitely don't belong here. Moreover I've more than a slight suspicion of underage b&.

>>17113174
You sound like an insufferable, bitter virgin. Just like every other Marxist I've come across. Well done for embodying the stereotype.

>>17113181
So no retort and you're not gonna read, gotcha. Lurk more if you don't wanna be told off the next time. Now get off my property.

>>17112249
kys pseud pedophile

>>17113100
>without good knowledge of history
What do you mean?

>without good knowledge of other young hegelians (he conflates Feuerbach and Bauer)
How does he conflate them? Also what do you mean with knowledge, he was pretty much in the same room as them. His public debate with Feuerbach is well documented.

>>17113187
>guy says your post is interesting, wants to know more
>noooo! why haven't you already read marx! fucking faggot you need to go read wikipedia!

>>17113204
(you)

>>17113187
So you're a Marxist egoist?

>>17110809
>Marxism doesn't tell anyone to revolt, i
lol

>>17113206
I was explaining plain fact, nowhere did I say or imply I was a Marxist, and I'm not >>17110809
An Anon said something dumb, I corrected him.

>>17113214
>being this much of a dick on Christmas
Lemme guess, Christmas is a spook too?

>>17113244
It is. But you can still enjoy it if you like it.

>>17113244
Yes, now get your candyass off my board.

>>17113244
I hate Christmas too!
But I'm an AnCap bah-humbug!

>>17102221
disgustingly hot take incoming:
if you seriously associate yourself as an "egoist" or a preacher of Stirner's work then you are a walking, talking, breathing oxymoron
the entire idea behind egoism is a personal philosophy, if you told everyone in society to be an introvert not only would you be laughed at but you'd contradict egoist philosophy by trying to push a narrative onto others
it's a zero-sum game, the only solution is to keep it to yourself

>>17113944
That's actually retarded.
Why the fuck would an egoist care about other people's opinions?
If Stirner has a philosophy he wants to share he's going to share it no matter what some spook says.

>>17113981
My bad I'm a retard.

>>17113981
exactly my point, egoist preaching would have to happen on the accord you don't care about what people think, just that you yourself have a feeling that you need to spread the idea
which goes directly against the point of preaching
probably why egoism is so popular online

>>17114011
If you don't convince others that communism is bad then you'll be forced to live in a communist hell hole

>>17114053
but to get into an intellectual argument would require your own ego to be challenged as well as the ego of those you challenge; no side benefits from the confrontation, therefore you shouldn't argue for your own sake
get the picture?

>>17110988
wasn't that quote of Stirner him quoting what the socialists would say ?

>>17113944
Well no, you can agree with Stirner and preach it just fine. There is nothing really to follow. It is just a thinking style.

>>17114075
But what if you enjoy arguing for its own sake?

>>17114075
1. You can argue in self-interest.
2. You can try to persuade others in self-interest.
Everyone does this, not just egoists. (Everyone is an egoist.)

>>17114145
>>17114160
not everyone enjoys the headache of debate ig
but to argue in self-interest would mean you've developed a personal bond with the idea you want to preach, and personal bonds, as well as all other bonds for the sake of pure "love", are shunned by Saint Max
so unless you get paid to do so or find some other benefit there's no reason to believe in anything, might be why Max is classified as a nihilist

>>17113194
>What do you mean?
Marx shows how he knows about the greeks "only as much as a highschool teacher should", he also skips every actual historical event, and solely talks about history of philosophy (and even that is fairly abysmal)

>How does he conflate them? Also what do you mean with knowledge, he was pretty much in the same room as them. His public debate with Feuerbach is well documented.
Its not "well documented", there is one paper by Frederick Gordon which seems heavily biased towards Stirner, and another by Lawrence Stepelevich who merely copies Gordon with even more bias towards Max. After reading both Stirner's book, Feuerbach's response, Stirner's response and Feuerbach's correction - as well as a paper which talks about how Stirner misunderstood Feuerbach - its pretty clear that Feuerbach won.
He conflates the two by giving Feuerbach the qualities of Bauer. Bauer, who was a self admitted ethical idealist preached all about realizing human essence and suspension of selfish interest for the sake of humanity. Feuerbach however constantly insists that existence is the essence of any normal being, as for animals so for humans too (something that marx would shit on him for). He also insists that to be a complete man one should be both an egoist (ie care for himself) and a communist (ie care for others)

>>17114194
there's nothing wrong with developing personal bonds and love as long as the love isn't "religious" as per Stirner. You can love and be altruistic all you want as long as it pleases you as an individual and you're not doing it because you are possessed by the idea of love or duty or any other spook
pretty simple stuff really, you dont have to overthink it

>>17114194
And If your personal bond is 'i found this to work best' ? There is no belief needed for egoism, except maybe belief in your own wants.

>>17114245
then I'm sorry to say that a good chunk of the "egoists" in this thread already have overthought it beyond personal fulfillment

>>17114245
Even more, if you like spouting moral spooks and it pleases you then you should do it. Basically do what the fuck you want but don't be a idiot when other people try to spook you (or be an idiot. Your choice. Atleast stirner gave you the option)

>>17114262
It gets complicated when you argue that it's the best philosophy for everyone to have (which means, it's the best for you and the best for everyone else, individually)

>>17114277
as i mentioned earlier everyone online is trying to sell everyone else on some idea, which is why Stirner causes so much shit flinging everywhere he's mentioned

>>17114287
He causes shit flinging because egoism (before going into the other parts of his philosophy) is simply true and the default description of everyone.

is stirner the final boss of philosophy?

>>17114296
so he's the epitome of the hegelian troll
"you can't disagree with me because everything you do follows what I've been saying"
kind of like how Islam claims everyone is born muslim until they claim they aren't

>>17114303
Yeah, only he's right.
You can disagree with him, but in the eyes of egoists you're just spooking. And, as I said, that should be the default approach: burden of faith is on you, if you don't believe in anything (god, platonic ideals, whatever) then you default to egoism

>>17113100
Terrible post.
Feurbach? Greater than Hegel?
Anarchists misunderstood Stirner?
Never mind. You’re lost and won’t listen

>>17115098
>oI3er5KKetj

>>17114300
nah he is more like when you glitch a game and speedrun it in 1 second

>>17102764

>That the communist sees the human being, the brother, in you is only the Sunday side of communism. According to the workday side, he doesn’t by any means take you as a human being as such, but as a human worker, as a working person. The liberal principle is there in the first view; illiberality is hidden in the second. If you were a “lazybones,” he would certainly not fail to recognize the human being in you, but would strive to cleanse it, as a “lazy human being,” from laziness, and to convert you to the faith that work is the human being’s “destiny and calling.”

>The principle of fortune or competition is certainly outdone by the principle of work. But at the same time the worker, in his awareness that the essential thing about him is “the worker,” keeps himself away from egoism and submits to the supremacy of a workers’ society, as the bourgeois citizen clung with devotion to the competition-state. The lovely dream of “social duty” is still being dreamed. People think again that society gives what we need, and we are therefore obligated to it, owe it everything. They still remain at the point of wanting to serve a “supreme giver of all good.” That society is no I at all, which could give, lend, or grant, but an instrument or means from which we might draw benefit; that we have no social obligations, but merely interests in pursuit of which society has to serve us; that we owe society no sacrifice, but if we sacrifice anything, sacrifice it to ourselves: the socialists don’t think about this, because they—as liberals—are trapped in the religious principle and zealously strive after—a sacred society, as the state was up to now.

>Society, from which we have everything, is a new master, a new phantasm, a new “supreme being,” which “takes us into its service and duty”!

After reading the whole thread it is still not clear that what the fuck he actually believed in
Can someone sum up his shit?

>>17115615
The individual is more important than abstract concepts that dominate him such as God, Law, State, Humanity. He fights agains all generalizations.
The thing is that he writes in a very ironic fashion wish confuses normies

>>17115562
Stirner said that

>Hans Heinz Holz warned that "Stirner's egoism, were it to become actualized, would lead to the self-destruction of the human race."

>Edmund Husserl once warned a small audience about the "seducing power" of Der Einzige -- but never mentioned it in his writing.

>In hiss opus magnum Joel 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."

>Even Nietzsche appears, according to Kolakowski, "weak and inconsistent compared to him [Stirner]." The "destruction of alienation", that Stirner aims for, he says, amounts to "the return to authenticity", and this would be "nothing else than the destruction of culture, the return to animality [...] the return to the pre-human status."

>Calasso too regards Stirner's "Egoist" or rather "Owner" as an "artificial barbarian", an "anthropological monster" etc.. 'The Egoist' is the "writing on the wall", signalling the doom of occidental culture.

>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.

>NevertheIess in his study of Nietzsche, [Klages] was prompted to commemorate the author Stirner as a "sheer demoniacal dialectician." Stirner, he says, is the reason why Nietzsche is of paramount importance, because "the day on which Stirner's program becomes the will-guiding conviction of all, this alone would suffice for it to be the 'doomsday' of mankind."

>>17115674
based

>>17115646
but how does anyone can escape the framework?
everyone operate in the one framework on another so the so called choice aren't really choose because those given by that framework. every idea is linked with one process or another. every choice that brain makes is conditioned already the way it was programmed.

how the fuck one can escape and practice his ego when he is already just a puppet of economy, society and evolution?

but how does anyone can escape the framework?
everyone operate in one framework or another and the so called choices aren't really choices because those are provided by that framework. every idea is linked with some process. every choice that a brain makes is conditioned already by the way it was programmed.

how the fuck one can escape and practice his ego when he is already just a puppet of economy, society and evolution?

>>17115735 was meant for >>17115648

>>17115674
Any lengthier works from anyone spooked by Stirner?

>>17115674
>>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.
Pathetic

>>17115735
That's not a critique of Stirner, though, it's you (not) reading Stirner from your own egoist standpoint. This is where you actually read Stirner and come back. You should be able to do so in less than a day even with your apparently very basic English skills. He's also rather widely translated so you might be able to find him in your own language.
If you read German, go for the edition published by Karl Alber. Otherwise I recommend Byington's original (not Leopold's revision) over Wolfi Landstreicher.

>>17115766
In fiction there's B. Traven, an enigma and, if you ask me, an underappreciated gem, e.g. pic related (but his other works are great and fucking hilarious as well).
Don't watch the film though, it's some sappy and old timey wannabe Hollywood shit.

bump

>>17116022
>Don't watch the film though
Noted

So why is Stirner not as big as Neet?

>>17117133
i think philosophers followed up Neetzche´s thinking meanwhile Stirner´s thinking was an endpoint since you can´t follow up what he already proposed

Stirner is the logical end point of individualism

>>17102221
christmas is a spook

>>17115674
These guys are hella spooked, very scared people

>>17112302
>I've seen Stirner linked around by some anarchists
Opportunists have done this with every philosopher; you can't really stop it, all you can do is mock and criticize it

>>17111377
People like Bukharin initially considered it communism, but quickly back tracked a market based economy

>>17112249
Kys commie retard

Widespread egoism would destroy society.

>>17119719
Why?

>>17119864
If sociopaths chose to be violent or harm others because it gets them ahead or they simply want to, then we will devolve into pure animalism. There will be nothing left to keep humanity's worst and most selfish instincts in check. We need spooks.

>>17119719
There's no such thing as society.

There is.
There will not be if everyone is an egoist.
Stirner's philosophy works only if you're a marginalized incel / volcel with no contribution to his community, economy, or country.

>>17119919
There'd be a union of egoists. At the least it's sort of refreshing to see a blatant moralfag normalfag here, even if slightly embarrassing. But still good to know as an egoist that there are people willing to slave away and die instead of me.

>>17119873
read stirner brainlet

>>17119873
Sociopaths do whatever they want in any framework.

Egoists will pursue what they believe to be in their interest and not pressured by external forces. They are not to be influenced by societal constructs or government by force, but choose what they wish to follow or pursue without force. Union of egoists allows collaboration of individuals who share common interests that maintain ownership and autonomy of their person

"As such, "[m]orality is incompatible with egoism, because the former does not allow validity to me, but only to the Man in me. But, if the State is a society of men, not a union of egos each of whom has only himself before his eyes, then it cannot last without morality, and must insist on morality. Therefore we two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this "human society," I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform it rather into my property and my creature; i. e., I annihilate it, and form in its place the Union of Egoists"

In Stirner's Critics, Stirner intended to respond to criticisms made to important arguments put forward in The Ego and Its Own. In it, Stirner tends to refer to himself in the third person. He defines the Union of egoists as follows:
>"Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn't exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc. The "exclusiveness" of the egoist, which some want to pass off as isolation, separation, loneliness, is on the contrary full participation in the interesting by — exclusion of the uninteresting

Stirner also proceeds to give specific examples of what he would consider Unions of egoists:
>"It would be another thing indeed, if Hess wanted to see egoistic unions not on paper, but in life. Faust finds himself in the midst of such a union when he cries: "Here I am human, here I can be human" — Goethe says it in black and white. If Hess attentively observed real life, to which he holds so much, he will see hundreds of such egoistic unions, some passing quickly, others lasting. Perhaps at this very moment, some children have come together just outside his window in a friendly game. If he looks at them, he will see a playful egoistic union. Perhaps Hess has a friend or a beloved; then he knows how one heart finds another, as their two hearts unite egoistically to delight (enjoy) each other, and how no one "comes up short" in this. Perhaps he meets a few good friends on the street and they ask him to accompany them to a tavern for wine; does he go along as a favor to them, or does he "unite" with them because it promises pleasure? Should they thank him heartily for the "sacrifice," or do they know that all together they form an "egoistic union" for a little while?"

>>17111215
>"phantasms"
>race
ok reddit

stirner makes the most sense to me out of any philosopher desu

>>17120218
Hush, babby. Adults are discussing.

>>17120291
>that
>adult
>hush sweaty
sure you do dilbert

>>17120363
(you)

>>17120218
We are not interested in your spooks.

>>17120368
>(you)

>>17120373
so stirner didn't believe in objective reality either then?
enlighten me so

Anon you're out of your depth and it's clear as day you'll do nothing to alleviate this fact. Refer to the text or fuck off, something your teachers apparently haven't taught you yet. Everyone else stop giving this baiting niggertranny more (you)s.

>>17120392
We are not interested in your spooks.

>>17120398
>Anon you're out of your depth and it's clear as day you'll do nothing to alleviate this fact. Refer to the text or fuck off, something your teachers apparently haven't taught you yet. Everyone else stop giving this baiting niggertranny more (you)s.
seethe just because of your utterly obnoxious attitude I'll post as much as i like you fucking poser

>>17120399
no need to get all stuttery anon. the phrasing just struck me as odd, I can see you guys aren't used to human interaction

>>17120463
We are not interested in your spooks.

>>17120465
>We are not interested in your spooks.

>>17112249
Good riddance faggot, don't ever come back

>>17120392
>objective reality

>>17120475
is that pic how you got your head so far up your own ass?

>is that pic how you got your head so far up your own ass?

>>17120488
oh yes this truly is where the important discussions are happening
good on ya anon

>>17120504
Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Grug.

>>17120471
We are not interested in your spooks.

>>17120511
you are not very interesting period
clearly your autism is why this board blows
glad I don't come here often.
touche you boring cucks

Thank you, Anon. This was an interesting debate. Have a nice day.

>>17120578
you too reddit

>actually competent discussion of Stirner — and Marx, to boot
>genuine interest shown
>funny pics posted
>illiterates being told off and deported back to /pol/ left and right
At last after all these years a good Stirner thread. On another note, does anyone know if other English translations of the beginning Goethe poem exist? I mean other than the one apparently by John Dwight. I don't think it's particularly good, in fact I'd like to take a stab at translating it myself.

>>17120622
at translating the original German*
But you get the point

>>17120622
Probably should make a new thread for this.

>>17120637
Well I will eventually, but the poem is both a part of Stirner's book and the key to understanding it, so it's only a natural part of this thread. Just hoped maybe Anons had come across other translations they could share.

OP here. Made this thread days ago and it still bumping haha. It has convinced me to read the rest, so my question was answered. Thanks

>>17117133
Neetcha was spooked enough for people to like him more

>>17119873
We're literally already ruled by sociopaths and sociopaths do all of that anyway, brainlet
>what is the literal definition of sociopath

>>17119919
You know that feeling inside you when people call you a pathetic non contributing piece of shit? That shame social urge will still exist for an egoist.

Marx theory of alienation in the ego and its own

Stürmers conception of the creating nothing is most interesting. You should incorporate talking about the unique one instead of maybe baby moral implication of "what if everyone was a Stirnerian." The latter contributes little, as the book is about the reader and not so much about society at large. Society at large, humanity, is busy with other ideas.

Stirners conception of the creative nothing is most interesting. You should incorporate talking about the unique one instead of maybe baby moral implication of "what if everyone was a Stirnerian." The latter contributes little, as the book is about the reader and not so much about society at large. Society at large, humanity, is busy with other ideas

>>17114300
No, he is infinity, his whole "philosophy" is just one sophisticated troll, one could argue for, or against it, but you will always end up where he started. Not worth shedding your braincells over like most of the people discussing him do, unless someone wants to discuss how he created this trick in the first place and fooled thousands of black/white thinkers. Stirner has created the perfect trap to attract and filter midwits in both directions without them realizing, his real and absolute genius in that regard is never mentioned.

>>17122568
so if you can't argue against it, it's true?

>>17122582
No, there's nothing true or false about him, get some basic knowledge about his books and then read my post until you understand it.

>>17122718
the fact you still mention black/white thinkers on a fucking ego thread makes me think you didn't understand him

>>17122736
This post is not only proof that you got trapped, you even mistook the chocolate for cheese, and when someone pointed it out to you, you somehow denied all three. Well done, anon, outstanding performance.

>>17122888

>>17114300
Honestly, I do not know where to go after Stirner. Nietzsche's theses are just a watered down version of his work at the core. What is next? Just turn to descriptive philosophy entirely?

>>17122917
>he interprets my declaration of his philosophy (which claims to be against sacredly believing in anything) being merely a comedic trap as a personal offense against him, as if he was the property of that belief, believing he is the trap he walked into, not the other way around, and ironically can't dismiss it, as if it was sacred

So much about your understanding of stirner

>>17123118
I am not that anon. I just saw big words and decided to post funny image

Max Stirner is the greatest philosopher of all time. I predict that his idea of morality being a spook, when combined with the fact that the core of economics is debt, which is ultimately a moral concept, will bring about something utterly unprecedented. I call this the idea of economical nihilism, which is the realization that our economy doesn’t actually exist, and that it’s indistinguishable from a religious ritual. The moment that economical nihilism gains traction in mainstream thinking is the moment when humanity will either be free for the first time, or will end itself. You have been warned

>>17123709
I don't understand why people think collectively humanity will ever get to either end of the spectrum of existence by that I mean either a utopia or complete self destruction.

>>17123709
sure stirner is based but this >>17123796 is true

>but dude theyll just go full ayn rand sociopath mode
No, because people will choose to defend themselves and their property against this sort of wannabe tyrant who seeks to exploit them. A union of egoists can form a defense to maintain and defend your interests, provided it is absolutely voluntary.

>>17124018
so is stirner against obligations and doing something against your will or under someone else's influence basically?

>>17102777
checked, have a (you) anon

Read De Sade, Proudhon and Stirner

>>17124525
no

>>17125166
pussy

I've read so far about 2 pages of this book, but I'm already convinced that the author had not taken his concept of "ego" far enough to its conclusion. The unique one once stripped of all spooks is no different from any other such being, rather not a being at all. An elemental unit from which "things" become through layering of spooks.

A rock (made of stone, a literal rock) for example, employing the same method as applied to the proto-unique one, will present itself in the very same manner. There is nothing to differentiate them, the stripped down rock and a stripped down Stirner. They are the same ego, same as any other "thing" or mind.

I'm sensing a similar line of thought to what gave birth to buddhism, without the baggage yet not concluded.

>>17125599
Whoah, we're stones?

>>17125640
There is no we, it's all one stone.

>>17125599
What do rocks create?

>>17125706
Only a spook can create, as creation in itself is derivative of the unique one.

>>17125844
Why value the pile of ashes higher than the burnt Jew?

>>17126075
The ash was always the tree, just as the tree was always the ash.

There is no value to assign, value requires a construct, an equation to compare things. There is no inherent goal in knowing how things are, a point of view without any particular use is all I'm describing.