/lit/ - Literature

"nyah~"
t. Max Stirner

>>17723754
yes im a post-stirnete how did you know?

you people need help

>>17724617
>>17723834
>>17723791
>>17723773
Why is there an anime girl version of Stirner. What kind of subcommunity is this.

>>17723867
Based hunterchad

>>17724633
for the same reason that young stirner does not default to being a little boy:
pedos.

>>17724633
rule 63

>>17723776
Love those

>>17723754

I don't get it, couldn't Sterner's philosophy just be boiled down to emotivism? Did he think moral statements were not truth apt or did and just didn't care?

>>17726541

Lots of /lit/erature being discussed here, lads.

>>17723754

>>17726804

>>17726817
Stop posting leftpol memes, they ruin stirner posting

>>17726848
haha spooked

>>17726919
that a spooky (you)

>>17726330
he was too based

>>17726804
kek

>>17726330
morality is an arbitrary concept

>>17726814
Why did he make them seethe so much?

>>17729233
>Why did he make them seethe so much?
After Der Einzige und sein Eigentum philosophy which came anywhere near Ethics was forever dead. He basically destroyed their life work and put them out of jobs.
After realizing that they had failed to refute him, they were content to ignore and dismiss him out of hand until he faded into obscurity; hence why they never published it.

>>17729233
Stirner made the argument that communism would result of a tyranny much greater than capitalism because of the power it gives the community to regulate consumption and property. What makes his argument so remarkable is that he made the argument before Marx even wrote his Manifesto; he had already condemned Marxism to failure. Stirner's arguments were highly influenced by Austrians, and Adam Smith, in his book he defends essentially a theory of marginal utility, you could argue, he was a for runner to marginalism

MAX STIRNER IS SUPPOSED TO BE BLOND

>>17723867
my sides

>>17730580

>>17730737
the only good post in this thread

>>17730073
Ah ineresting

>>17730737
LOVE & PEACE

Why do people think neet and Max would get along?

>>17725638
This is the worst one so far

>>17730580
Something like this but with round glasses?

>>17734289
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_Max_Stirner

>>17730369
Genuine question, how the community makes it most tyrannical rather than a few people (oligarchy, capitalism etc)? History made clear that it does, but I don't understand why. Isn't the community interested for it's own good?

So is Stirner's philosophy just "do whatever the fuck you want"
Why did he need to write a book for this

>>17723810
When would it be appropriate to send this?

>>17729233
As this anon said >>17730073 , Marx at first tried to justify the communist/socialist agenda through attempting to equal it to an idea of moral good for humanity as a whole which was a humanism position adopted by Feuerbach and others. Stirner destroyed that position by adopting an absolute materialistic perspective that said that ideas like humanity had nothing to do with the material world and thus the individual and thus emanations of them like "humanitarian ethics" and the like were thus not really "valid" as they all come from other individuals trying to "take over" your individuality.

That's why Marx developed historical materialism, ideas aren't free/connected to individuals but to the environment because "objective" and thus deterministic material laws, this includes morality. One of the problems of this approach is that Marx also kills the idea of "communism good" as a moral act but he seems to do some doublethinking and still say that other people are bad, monsters, tirants, etc even though, as he says, morals are based only on the environment and thus have no "real validity".

Marx tried to spin Stirner's thoughts by ad hominem, by asking questions that were already answered in "Stirner's critics" (We have to cut him some slack here, it's pretty clear that he didn't have access to the book) and overall dismissing what Stirner said on materialism (one of the biggest chapters in the Unique) and misunderstanding (pretty sure that this was intentionally done) what he meant with "getting rid of spooks".

This is my headcanon of a very materialistic-centric Stirner, take it as you will.

I don't believe a word Stirner wrote but I use him all the time to argue against Marxists and communists.

And for that, he is based.

>>17736072
You sound like a Christcuck, i.e. a communist.

>>17736018
That's a nice Eiki. Here's one i've always liked.

>>17735969
He had to take down existing obligations. His book isn't just "do what you want," but "do what you want because nothing ethically holds you back from it, because ethics is ultimately constructed."

>>17736743
How does he justify ethics being constructed and objective morality not existing?

>>17734711
Neet is spooked in comparison to Max though

>>17736763

>>17736763

>>17736160
The cutest workaholic
>>17736763
He doesn't justify any ethics tho, even the "do what you want" statement is more of a "be aware thay every action comes from your own changeable self so try to not believe that a human construct/idea is over you when you are really the one enforcing it". Objective morality is also a non-existant thing when you are a materialist that negates any kind of moral compass like God, humanity (human rights), etc as they are all ideas that aren't truly present in the world. A "human", for example, is an idealized "Self/Unique/Ego* stripped of his individuality and characteristics, you can't call a murderer a non-human because you don't like his actions and he doesn't follow your "human" ideal.

You can find the new translation for free and it is a pretty short book so I would recommend you go read it.

>>17735958
All power derives from the exertion of force onto others. The state leverages power through the police and military, capitalism through access to resources and the state. The community is also a force to leverage power through. Communism, uses the community to leverage its will onto others, and the mass of people is by far the strongest force of all of these because it is inescapable and irreplaceable. A public enemy will only ever be at home with public enemies in a communist society. In a capitalist society he may choose to live off-the-grid and away from civilization, or in the hinterlands where the state doesn't care to apply power. But in communist states he is the enemy everywhere.

>I do not demand any right, therefore I need not recognize any either.

how cucked can you be? I demand all rights for myself, AND do not recognize any for others

>>17723801
Kek

>>17723801
My favourite

>>17737906
I don't accept your demand, whatcha gonna do about it pussy

>>17724633
where do you think you are, faggot?

>>17735986
when you're feeling like a smug bastard