/lit/ - Literature

>>18884573
Growing up refutes him.

>>18884585
>Growing up refutes him.
Ah yes, growing up. The infamous spook of magical properties of your physical constitution biologically changing.

>>18884585
Either bait or you clearly haven't read him

I’ve been thinking of reading him. What’s the QRD on him? Every idea has an agenda and is a “spook”?

>>18884573
He's a dead end.

Yes, everything is a spook.

But youi need to believe in a spook to be able to do ANYTHING.

So, he's more of a dead end to doing anything and living a good life.

I believe he was refuted by a tick making him it's property.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spook
>A racial slur for a black person
Fucking racists.

>>18884573
I refuted him but I won't tell you how.

>>18884641
>What’s the QRD on him?
He was attacking Feuerbachian humanism. Most of the young Hegelians ended up at the idea God isn't real and Christianity was a history filled with lies but wanted to defended its essence as being the truth and Stirner just took the next logical step in that line. Marx just ripped off Stirner there, before encountering Stirner he was still arguing for communism basically along the moral lines of Feuerbach

>>18884694

Hrrrmmm, an awful lot of that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMax_Stirner%2FArchive_1#Racism/anti-semitism_in_Stirner's_work
>I'm not recalling exactly where this passage occurs, but Stirner is presumably referring to the problems associated with Old Testament foundation in Law and vengeance as opposed to anti-semitism considered from a racial standpoint. There is nothing, for example, in the book to associate Stirner with a positive view of miscegenation. Stirner's argument with the Jews was construed firmly on a conceptual basis, it seems to me. There are other, more problematic passages in Ego, however. He maintains, for example, that human history is something "whose shaping properly belongs altogether to the Caucasian race" (p. 62, Cambridge Univ. Press edition 1995). It's hard to imagine how this straightforward wording could have been substantively mistranslated. In 1845, it was undoubtedly easier to invest in such a sentiment than it is now, but in Stirner's defense, I would say that his conception refers to the driving force of civilization up to that time, which must have looked almost exclusively European. Stirner's tripartite division of history into the three stages (Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasian) reflects and undergirds this idea. It's hard to deny that individualism had little currency in non-Caucasian races generally from a historical point of view. Asian and African cultures are quite collectivist by European standards to this day. See my article "Individualism in the mid-nineteenth century" in the Nonserviam pages online for an expansion on this topic. The bottom line, it seems to me as pertains to this facet of Stirner's thought, is that Stirner was convinced that it was among the Europeans that personal autonomy first gained a foothold in culture, and that they are the historical agents most responsible for its development and spread. I don't believe Stirner would have maintained that this idea of the primacy of personal autonomy was ungraspable or otherwise unacceptable to members of other races. But, the argument would have to run, insofar as one finds oneself imbued with unalloyed collectivist ideologies, as is far more dificult to escape in non-European cultures, one would undoubtedly be saddled with a greater burden to overcome than those whose cultural heritage was less unfriendly to individual autonomy.--David Westling 18 Nov 05

Has anyone refuted Taoism? No? Then no one has refuted Stirner.

>>18884844
If you know anything about Feuerbach, you will know that he isn't attacking him. He is clearly attacking Bauer, though considering the context, he either got the two confused, or intentionally confuses them (as the two were quite hostile to each other). Either way, he misunderstands Feuerbach completely.
>>18884641
>Whats his QRD?
He tries to prove that he has the correct interpretation of Hegel, consequences of Hegelian system and that he can btfo any other young Hegelian. Like Bauer, he posits anither subject instead of God as the subject of history, but unlike Bauer he puts the abstract self. Karl Schmidt, another young Hegelian does the same thing, but unlike Stirner he abandoned his philosophy and became a Protestant. Basically, Stirner is an absolute idealist and a solipsist, I am all, all is from me and for me (my property). He attacks other young Hegelians under the pretext that they haven't ended theology, i.e. the second age (as per revisions of Cieszkowski and Bauer), i.e they failed and it is up to him to show true light. Karl Schmidt is less subtle about this strategy, which is disproving every other young Hegelian using Bauer, then attacking Bauer himself.

>>18884925
>Either way, he misunderstands Feuerbach completely.
How? Feuerbach was trying to rationalize and defend a social system imposing a set of moral obligations on everyone while claiming to be free and was the most trendy and successful intellectually at the time

>>18884573
Reality

>>18884844
The Mongolian part wasn't racist at all. I swear, nobody reads the fucking text. He was using that section to insult Europeans who fetishize revolutionary optimism when history has shown that revolutions simply replace one ruling classes ideals with another, and that replacement doesn't remove the overall antagonisms of human nature - the drive to be selfish, to follow your passions. He goes into it a bit when he criticizing bourgeois society for upholding the principle of competition, and juxtaposes that with communists' attempt to replace that with making society based on work. If you under Marx's near genocidal views of the lumpenproletariat - you'll understand the problem here.

>>18884925
>be a solipsist
>believe you are all and everything else is your property
>still give a fuck about people and debate them that you are right, even though when you are right the debates don't matter

>>18884844
>"Marx is a hero to many labor union leaders and civil rights organizations, including leftist groups like Black Lives Matter, antifa and some Democratic Party leaders. It is easy to be a Marxist if you know little of his life. Marx’s predictions about capitalism and the “withering away of the state” turned out to be grossly wrong. What most people do not know is that Marx was a racist and an anti-Semite."

>"When the U.S. annexed California after the Mexican-American War, Marx wrote: “Without violence nothing is ever accomplished in history.” Then he asked, “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?” Friedrich Engels added: “In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States.” Many of Marx’s racist ideas were reported in “Karl Marx, Racist” a book written by Nathaniel Weyl, a former member of the U.S. Communist Party."

>"In a July 1862 letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor, Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote: “It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also nigger-like.”

>"In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx’s son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Paul had “one eighth or one twelfth nigger blood.” In an April 1887 letter to Paul’s wife, Engels wrote, “Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.”

>"Marx’s anti-Semitic views were no secret. In 1844, he published an essay titled “On the Jewish Question.” He wrote that the worldly religion of Jews was “huckstering” and that the Jew’s god was “money.” Marx’s view of Jews was that they could only become an emancipated ethnicity or culture when they no longer exist. Just one step short of calling for genocide, Marx said, “The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.”

>"Marx’s philosophical successors shared ugly thoughts on blacks and other minorities. Che Guevara, a hero of the left, was a horrific racist. He wrote in his 1952 memoir, “The Motorcycle Diaries”: “The Negro is indolent and lazy and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent.”

>>18884573
Just read Jung, and you'll realize that spirituality is the most important factor of life.

>>18884585
/thread

>>18884625
>>18884589
You have to be either 18 to post here or be mature enough atleast

>>18884925
>He tries to prove that he has the correct interpretation of Hegel
Wasn't Hegel just autistic and christian?

>>18885024
>The Mongolian part wasn't racist at all
The whole historical racial schemata is straight up Hegel

>>18884672
I like this answer. It's also comforting to know that, no matter what happens, you can "take refuge" in the kind of Stirnerist solipsism which attracts his young fans to him in the first place.

Sending positive vibes!

>>18885054
>Wasn't Hegel just autistic and christian?
No, he was a protestant

>>18884573
His own means refuted him. Stirner was extraordinary for his time, the way he used dialectics to lead them to their end. That end was nothing more than a nihilism. He ended up creating an Ego with no land under his feet. And that's why people don't recognise his importance, he almost managed to ruin their comfort. And since i haven't read any of the other posts in this thread, remember that if anyone says Marx did they are complete retards. Marx wrote around 200 pages dedicated to Stirner but he never disagreed to realise the same problem in dialectics, it was based on Stirner's work that Marx founded himself his dialectics which were also a complete utter shit like all its predecessors. It was the perfect ending to German idealism, and people still read Hegel and praise muh dialectics. This world is hopeless as long as humans crawl on its surface.

>>18885049
>Thinking Stirner was solipsistic
He was a nominalist like Protagoras. You might want to brush up your philosophy.
>"believe you are all and everything else is your property"
He actually says the opposite in his book though,
>""Everything belongs to everyone!" This proposition comes from the same empty theory. To each belongs only what he is capable of If
I say: The world belongs to me, that too is actually empty talk, which has meaning only insofar as I respect no alien property. But to me belongs only as much as I am capable of, or have the capability for. A person isn't worthy of having what he allows to be taken from him out of weakness; he isn't worthy of it, because he isn't capable of it."
Read the book, its not even that long you lazy nigger.
>"still give a fuck about people and debate them that you are right, even though when you are right the debates don't matter"
Again, read the book,
>"Do I write out of love for human beings? No, I write because I want to give my thoughts and existence in the world; and even if I foresaw
that these thoughts would take away your rest and peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the destruction of many generations sprouting from this seed of thought:-still I would scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that's your affair, and I don't care. You'll perhaps only have sorrow, struggle and death from it; a very few will draw joy from it."
He wanted to have fun at the bar, to enjoy his life, and his peers spoke highly of him:
>". He was -- and I speak here from the year 1841 onward -- simply an amiable and unobtrusive person, never offensive nor striving after brilliant effects either in phrase, conduct, or appearance. He was never drunk, was temperate in eating, cool, chaste, not a gambler, never angry, uninclined to philosophizing, being offhanded and joking during discussions. The general impression was of an intelligent, unimpressive good person. He was agreeable to be with, as he had no power to resist any request, and I know of no occasion where he made an accusation against anyone or spoke badly about someone behind their back. His basic attitude was one of easy indifference."
He debated people because it was an interesting to do. He never got involved in the political radicalism of retards like Engels and Bakunin (he took classes with them together). He just shitposted and chilled. When he was done with his business, he went about his way. He wasn't interested in social change, and his life proof of that. He was content himself, and loved what he did - to live for himself and his self enjoyment - as he said.

>>18885054
>Cites Jung
>Doesn't realize Jung said he liked Stirner
>Doesn't realize Jung actually borrowed his critiques of socialism from Stirner
Retard, Evola and Mussolini were all people who Stirner seriously. Stirner's book sets the foundations to critique modernism. Its not even controversial to argue Nietzche plagiarized Stirner or was directly influenced by him. The guy is ignored because his ideas are difficult to counter when you're an idealist up against the someone who has the realist wisdom of Ecclesiastes. There's not much to refute or say. Stirner is the completion of Hegel's philosophy.

>>18885144
>Its not even controversial to argue Nietzche plagiarized Stirner or was directly influenced by him
It is not because most of you are retards and clueless. Stirner made extreme use of the dialectics and Nietzsche was the one that criticised dialectics as a whole, a way that leads to nothing, a way of thinking that denies life. Best case scenario to support your claim and save your face is to say that Nietzsche would have probably recognized Stirner as a Master compared to his christcuck slave friends.

>>18885161
Stirner's use of dialectics was to destroy the Hegelian system. He explicitly says this in the "Philosophical Reactionaries." He wanted to leave philosophy because he saw it as a joke. Nietzsche gets there, in the Twilight of Idols, by dismissing dialectics as sophistry carried over from Socrates.

>>18885144
>Its not even controversial to argue Nietzche plagiarized Stirner or was directly influenced by him
There's no serious proof for that though. There's obvious written proof Evola and Mussolini were familiar with him

what do I need to read before Stirner if I don't know anything about philosophy? All I read was Plato.

>>18885182
I dont see what your post's purpose is, probably to argue your case but it doesn't do you any favors. There is a big difference between obliterating something to the ground and not giving anything in return from doing what Nietzsche did. Nietzsche offered his alternative to dialectics, a philosophy of genealogy, something Stirner couldn't do because as you say he hated philosophy and he was indeed way too dialectic for anything beyond what he achieved.
And to be even more clear, Nietzsche went back to Socrates, the other just stayed attached to what Hegel did and opposed it. If you don't see the difference that makes it impossible for the possibility of plagiarization, then maybe i am wrong.

>>18885264
Our shitposts anon, they cover the basics every now and then.

>>18885265
>Stirner is telling you don't have to be a pawn for revolutionaries, and that you can use your mind, and your body, as a weapon to pursue your passions and self enjoyment. His ideas are really no different than the Epicureans. To give you some ideas, the man called Diogenes an example of an egoist.
>" There is a big difference between obliterating something to the ground and not giving anything in return from doing what Nietzsche did. "
Zarathustra said he was a "destroyer of values." Nietzsche does the same, but replaces it with the humanistic virtues of the self over-coming "Ubermensch" - the goal for humanity. Stirner has no goal for humanity; its another ghastly chain on his neck. Stirner doesn't care what you replace it with, and to him, you can choose not to even care about it at all. To a lot of people, for some strange reason, it bothers them that the solution could be indifference, or Stirner's cynicism. Its weird considering his beliefs aren't very different from the Greek Pyrrhonists and hedonists

>>18884573
Like all (crypto-)gnostics, he cannot be refuted

>>18884996
And Stirner isnt Marx. Stirner doesnt criticize social systems, he does theology, and in addressing Feuerbach he totally confuses him with Bauer, both in notion of man, his methodology, and the fact that he uses both to characterize humanism equally.
>most trendy and successful intellectually at the time
Yea so trendy and intellectually successful that he was barred from holding any post in academia for life (without a retirement, unlike Strauss), he only achieved moderate fame with materialists in 1850s

>>18885378
This discussion feels like i am arguing with myself almost three years ago, when i got so salty with Hegel and read Stirner as a reaction. After reading a few pages i googled to see if Nietzsche plagiariazed Stirner.
But through time i gained the certainty that this didn't happened, simply because i gained better understanding on Nietzsche's works. He didn't replace anything, he instead claimed that replacing the values of his time would do no good. What he sought was an answer to what is that gives value to values. He went through history just to prove that human nature is inclined to half baked nihilish, degrading all the values that we had since christianity are a negation to life. That's what he called culture. We are unable to break free from our culture, no matter how hard we try to replace those values with our own, they are never our own. Thought is not thinking for its sake, it is moved by the powers of a nihilistic culture. Every thought we have on values, if we follow them strictly they will take us nowhere. Stirner did that by using dialectics, Nietzsche did the same thing by some form of psychology.
The endings are perfectly fitted for both of them. Stirner didn't give a fuck whether he would be called a dialectic, a nihilist or anything. Nietzsche on the other hand had a more noble stance towards life, according to my own standards at least. He didn't leave us empty handed and gave us a conclusion, one of the hardest if not the hardest to swallow. in the strict sense of a philosopher, Stirner was closer to that. Nietzsche proved to be a prophet when i look around. I am ESL so i don't know what words he used exactly talking about this era, but he would call it somewhat along the lines the age of the people who are too tired to even suicide.
It ends with us getting extinct, that's the only way to undo what we have done. We are flawed by nature.

>>18885458
>Stirner didn't give a fuck whether he would be called a dialectic, a nihilist or anything.
Well, apparently he did, considering the name "Max Stirner" is a pseudonym, whose owner we don't know.

>>18885458
>It ends with us getting extinct, that's the only way to undo what we have done. We are flawed by nature.
Not necessarily. AI might save us, unity with it. If we are naturally flawed then we need to fix the flaws by reprogramming our minds.

>>18886217
>I will become the mitochondria

>>18886170
Maybe he also didnt want nutcases busting his balls and let him live life
>>18886217
>Human programms AI
>AI reprogramms human
Tell me there is something i dont see, but this is certainly leading nowhere. Our nature is flawed, we cant undo or redo nature. Can you imagine a new color? Can you imagine a new value that doesn't contradict with life?

>>18884573
_German Ideology_

>>18884585
Fpbp

>>18884573
Yes, all it takes is a single word:
>so?
>and?
Etc
Example, currency is a spook/social construct/whatever the fuck you want to call it, but it sure beats lugging around half a tonne of wheat to trade shit with. Same goes with laws, borders, states, etc. They might be spooks but the alternative is shit, so it's in my best interest to believe the "noble myth" and make life easier.
Also btfos post-modernists and deconstructivists.

>>18888686
Stirner is never prescriptive. If you want to be a duped egoist, you can be that, Saint Max just gives other people the tools they need to not be someone like you.
>"When a wise man hears of the Tao,

>he immediately begins to live it.

>When an average man hears of the Tao,

>he believes some of it and doubts the rest.

>When a foolish man hears of the Tao,

>he laughs out loud at the very idea.

>If it were not for that laugh,

>it would not be the Tao."

>>18884573
He refutes himself

>>18884573
Marx in german ideology.

>>18884573
I just noticed he's basically the Dale Gribble of philosophers, quick some one go find which philosophers work with hank, bill and boomhauer wait boomhauer is realistically voltaire quick some one go make that meme

>>18884573
Growing up refutes him.

>>18886217
>believing AI will save us
ISHYGDDT