/lit/ - Literature

>>19761195
bee yourself
/thread

>>19761198
But if you were a moralist, Stirner would disagree with you right?

>>19761195
Nihilism

He doesn’t give you an ideal life. He just says you should do whatever you want and anything which tries to give you “duties” — whether it be truth, religion, nationality, race, gender, and so on — is a spook. Stirner’s whole idea is that there are only hypothetical imperatives. IF you want to seek after truth, THEN you should employ reason and whatnot. But he would reject the categorical imperative: You SHOULD seek after truth.

It’s really just an unambitious, boring, satanic philosophy. It’s what every tranny implicitly believes.

>>19761210
"being" a moralist is just a spook so that wouldn't classify as "being oneself authentically"

>>19761219
Why does that need 400 pages, maybe more to be explained?

>>19761251
Because he wanted it to be so.

>>19761219
>It’s what every tranny implicitly believes.
Trannies are moralists par excellence

>>19761283
Well I don't want anyone to read it. Now what.

>>19761219
I don't agree with Stirner but the fact that he makes larpers like you seethe endlessly pleases me greatly.

>>19761311
Now nothing, since you won't do anything about it.

>>19761338
I bet that's something that gave him great pleasure, that's why although I disagree greatly with him I won't give his ghost the benefit of being righter about me

>>19761285
Trannies are spooks

>>19761409
No, trannies clearly exist.
Trannies are generally spooked, though.

Some Anon had said Stirner rejected the concept of "might is right". Can someone please explain how? I thought "might is right" is his philosophy.

>>19761214
But /lit/ told me Stirner isn't a Nihilist and he doesn't advocate for Nihilism.

>>19761198
fpbp

>>19761449
Might gives you dominance over another but that dominance only extends so long as your individual ego is able to exert it. You can make another person your property but ultimately his mind and Will is free and so in reality you only dominate his physical body. The major threat you hold to him, violence, only extends so far as you keep him alive.
>Chop off my leg and all your left with is a leg, I am no longer physically whole but my mind, my Will, remains my own.

There are no rights, only application of violence to serve the ego or spook of some egoist who came before in shaping collective consciousness.

>>19761251
>>19761311
Welcome to philosophy

>>19761694
Thanks, Stirner seems like an interesting person, maybe I should read him. What are the prerequisites to read him?

>>19761311
Now, nothing?

>>19761449
I think it's more that he doesn't believe "right" is a useful concept (except in a legal sense). To him, "might is right" is only true in the sense that things tend to go in the way of those with power.
It's very reductionist, but as an atheist there really isn't much choice. You can't derive an ought from an is.

>>19761195
Nigga read Rabelais - if you need to need to be something here and now, be a Pantagruelist.

>>19761842
Hegel. Also, you may find yourself interested in left Hegelianism, and particularly Feuerbach. But actually, nothing is necessary for understanding egoism except Hegel.

>>19762528
>Hegel
Fuck off with your world-spirit pseud. He's the 19th century version of Jordan Peterson.

>>19762549
The whole book is a massive shitpost utilizing the Hegelian dialectic taken to its logical extreme. People thought it was hilarious when it came out.

>>19762716
So, Stirner wasn't being serious?

>>19763057
His intent is beyond conjecture, a manifestation of his own creative nothing which cannot be explained. That said, it is intended to offend the simple minds of the ideologically possessed, of that he was serious.

>>19761195
It's quite easy. He implies throughout the book. Edgar Bauer explains it best.
>"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. For this reason, he was without a feeling of pride and even less of ambition. He kept in himself a quiet inclination to mockery, and a hidden imp, which whispered to him that he was more clever than all the critics and believers of his time and any other."
>" Neither, insofar as he had neither will nor heart, he neither loved the good, nor valued hardness as such. He was dulled by a kind of egotistical calculation, but yet not armed with the armor of selfseeking. He could not take an advantage, and yet not deny it. His character is best illuminated by the fact that no woman was able to hold onto the undemanding man."
Its very daoist and buddhist. I'd say.
>>19761219
Read my post and stop being retarded. Ok thanks.

>>19763130
So, his personal will to power is in doing very little at all? Based.

Friendly reminder that "Stirner" was btfo by Marx in "The German Ideology".

>>19763263
Reminder that Stirner made Marx REEEEE so hard he dropped everything to seethe, but was too much of a bitch to actually publish his response.

>He interrupted important, previously commissioned works in order to storm upon »Der Einzige.« His criticism of Stirner, »Sankt Max,« which was full of invectives directed at the "flimsiest skull among the philosophers," turned out to be even longer than »Der Einzige« itself. Yet after the completion of the manuscript, Marx must have wavered again in his choice of tactics, as the criticism of Stirner remained in the end unprinted.

>>19764603
That's really the impression that I got. Frankly Stirner could have just responded "Obsessed" and he would have won the argument.
The German writers of the time seem like a bunch of shitposters and other than the length of their writing and the fact that they (some of them) actually read books they would fit in well here.

>>19761449
"Ownership" is the primary concept of his philosophy. Only from the fundamental ownership that comes from the self does one conceive of any idea of the public or private property of others. That is to say, by comparison with what one already has within himself. But because "internal" property precedes public/external property, it must also be the case that the latter is dependent on the existence of the former, and thus selfhood/the ego not only precedes, but also forms the basis of sharing, altruism, and the rights of others.

>>19761449
"Ownership" is the primary concept of his philosophy. Only from the fundamental ownership that comes from the self does one conceive of any idea of the public or private property of others. That is to say, by comparison with what one already has within himself. But because "internal" property precedes public/external property, it must also be the case that the latter is dependent on the existence of the former, and thus selfhood/ego forms the basis of sharing, altruism, and public rights.

>>19761195
An ideal life for Stirner is pursuing you’re desires that exist in this very moment. In this moment want to do you want? Go do it. The future is a spook used to tame your desires and keep you from pursuing what you want. All there is is the now. That’s how I read him at least. I make no comment on how one goes about doing that but that’s about his answer.

>>19761198

>>19761195
Stirner philosophy is a bug, eternal loop of spooks and non-spooks

>>19761195
Just B.E. yourself

>>19761195
this nigga is unironically not worth the effort.

>>19765773
Spookman be str8 buggin frfr

>>19765294
What seperates it from Hedonism?

Just be yourself brahhh

>>19763263
I'd say the opposite is true. Stirner argued that communism would lead to the creation of a despotic state. He was absolutely correct - his argument was simple. You can't implement common ownership, and abolish class, without despotic measures that regulate the human impulse to be selfish and unique. Its weird how Stirner was able to predict the results of Marx's beliefs, in action, before anyone even attempted to implement them. Its almost Stirner understood human nature better than most Marxists.

>>19761448
>generally
name me a single unspooked tranny

>>19766214
following and ideological imperative to maximize your own "utility" is as spook

>>19761448
Non-biological sex identity is a very spooked concept, like all identities.

>>19766274
But wasn't Marx idea was that communism was the end state of capitalism?

>>19766214
Hedonism is a moralistic stance which prescribes pleasure-seeking. Egoism is a descriptive stance which acknowledges that the individual is ultimate arbiter of meaning. According to Egoism, hedonism may be correct for some, but no more correct than asceticism for another. To have a problem with Hedonism is to be angry at a spook, anon.
Ghosts aren't real, you fucking hippy.

>>19766214
Nothing

>>19766817
Pseud

>>19766281
>>19766362
"Identifying" may be a spook, but wearing women's clothes and taking hormones (because it turns you on or just for social credit, for example) does not have to be. As long as you recognize there's really nothing more behind it than that.
I assume you won't find a lot of unspooked trannies of course, and even the ones that aren't will probably pretend to be spooked anyway.

>>19766968
fair enough

>>19761694
Ironically, that sounds a bit like Stoicism.

The pedo-aplogolist who's translated Stirner implied Stirner who would've been pro-pedophilia, or atleast not against it. Is that right?

>>19767657
Fundamentally, he would think of it like everything else, in the sense that he may or may not personally like it, but that:
1) He can't make moral arguments to other people because their minds and decisions are ultimately their own. Who is he to tell them what they should do?
2) If he cares enough he might intervene / try to get others to intervene for him. If he doesn't care, he won't.

This also applies to other things like murder, robbery, and charity.

>>19767657
Cute and funny is an insurmountable spook that cannot be subjugated. It is thus of no concern to the voluntary egoist.

How come we have pictures of Marx but none of Stirner even though they come from the same time period?

>>19761251
He was dabbing on other philosophers of the time, the Feuerbach crowd and even dunking on young Marx.
They were German Idealists that were criticizing things like religion while creating their own ideology that simply mirrored religious thought without being called religion. His work caused a rebuttal from Marx that generated Marx's early ideas on historical materialism.

>>19766968
I don't believe this would be anywhere close to the widespread thing it is without the spooky side of it. Nobody just wants to hormonally castrate themself without being spooked beyond belief.

>>19761377
Stirner wins again.

>>19768839
Two German men met through classified ads so one could eat the other's penis. I'm not discounting a concrete outside ideology but plain old autism has had people spooking themselves all on their own forever.

>>19767657
Qrd on the guy who translated his works?

>>19768926
Some anarcho-tismal going by Wolffi Landstreicher or something like that. It's not even that great a translation, but is better to confer with one of the best ones than others.

>>19761198
>threading your own post
newfags should be hung

>>19768916
I know the case you're talking about. Do you think the will to be cannibalized is also not the result of BDSM culture (which is ultimately a derivative of the whole culture surrounding gay top-bottom relations)? While this whole weird underground sex culture always harps on about consent, even at it's most extreme like here where it was important that the one guy WANTED his penis to be eaten, it's always struck me that there's a sort of sinister undertone to all of it. I don't know if you would call it gaslighting or brainwashing or whatever, but it's like the people on the bottom/submissive/getting-your-dick-eaten side of things are so spooked that they get off on it. Once you start getting horny at a desire that is clearly the result of a spook, how could you ever look in the mirror and see it for what it is? It's a spook in the truest sense of how Stirner used the word, a ghost, or I guess in this case a succubus. To your point though with autism, I think being autistic definitely makes you more liable to being spooked, which would explain why trannies are often giant spergs. Autists like things systematized and that's what spooks often do.

>>19768995
>but is better to confer with one of the best ones than others.
I'm not even going to try to fix that, ESLs beware I cain't hide my roots like woman no more. They's both plenty good but ol' Maxxie Forehead fucks with ye, with language as the Greeks and frogs are wont to do. He plays it like a fiddle and gets on laughing joking and having a good time at it and that's the real tale he's tellin. He pedals words like an Armstrong machine and peddles ideas carpetbagger like. An he'll paddle upstream like an injun in a flood, through euphemism and euphony, for the fuck of it if'n there's a point to be found there, and fore ye know it, there is. This is what reading that awful g*rman language of his is like, a briar hell for translatin.

>>19768995
I've read the Unique and its Property and can't recall any point where pedo stuff was mentioned. Vaguely recall sth about incest though. Why do you say Wolfi is a pedo-apologist? I don't get that impression from him.

>>19769112
I'm not the Wolffi anon and just like stirner as far as it serves me. My position on it was >>19768091 and all I know about zim or zer is zere translation takes a different take on the punning hell >>19769049 that is the Unique One that is useful but not as enlightening as the one I have I'll post forthwith. Chawin the fat with me maw as it were.

>>19769049
Okay Huck Finn thanks for the post

>>19766281
Trannies are idealists in the sense they believe in a platonic form of masculinity and femininity that is independent of material reality, they also believe in a soul.

>>19769343
This one. This one is best if you only have one. Read the overlong introduction unless you're afraid of learning something. Confer with other translations as you see fit.

>>19769363
I learned enough and did enough research to figure out what he was up to and if'n that ain't native to ye y'r in for a hard time in the original. Elsewise y'r a shitter with a catywompus kenning that ain't serve no one, lest yourself of all what it's worth for. He writ what he writ for kin and kine that his time allowed. It's a majestic shitpost refulgent as beautius wisdom be. Fucker plays with prepositions like and unlike my own, don't trust translation further than you can throw or spit.

>>19763130
>His character is best illuminated by the fact that no woman was able to hold onto the undemanding man
I don't get does this mean that women didn't like him because he was unambitious and non combative?

>>19769752
Unicorns are suchlike. Women think they like them until they try to tame the wildest of horse.

>>19769765
>>19769752
cf.

>>19769796
also

>>19769804
lastmost, the impossible man.

>>19769765
Every woman I date is super into me until eventually they end up saying stuff like I'm "a lot" or that I'm "quirky". Does this mean I'm the wildest horse or just autistic?

>>19769943
I gave examples.

>>19769943
To be completely clear, the only manic pixie dream girl made manifest is going to pop out of existence, a tree has been through multiple wives, and the rest is self explanatory.

>>19770187
what?

>>19761219
cool it with the buzzwords dave

>>19769943
>wildest horse or just autistic?
Take a guess?

>>19763130
He's completely different from what I imagined. Is this accurate?

>>19772441
What did you imagine him to be like? A calm, polite man who nonetheless portrays an aura of constant, underlying smugness pretty much matches everything I'd ever heard or seen of him.

>>19772460
I thought of him as one of those Gary Stu kind of characters. Like the Main Character of those police movies, where his boss lets him get away with anything, because "he gets the job done".

>>19761251
Because philosophy is not about facts and bullet points. Philosophy isn't ever written for cynical retards who can't approach anything without their "cut-the-crap-and-spoonfeed-me-the-sweet-bits" mentality, it's not supposed to be fast food. Not even in aphorisms. I hate your retarded question with a passion.

>The Ego and Its Own was dedicated "to my sweetheart Marie Dähnhardt."
>Dähnhardt later told Stirner's biographer, John Henry Mackay, that he was "a very sly man whom she had neither respected nor loved, and claiming that their relationship together had been more of a cohabitation than a marriage."
So, was it supposed to be a sarcastic jab at this wife when he dedicated the book to her, or was their relationship better back then?

>>19773323
Would be funny either way

>>19773323
Only Stirner knows.

>>19773323
Bros he seems like a failure. Not successful, not charming, unloved, friendless. His claim to fame is that he made a famous man seethe one time and a bunch of neets that think he's their hero.

>>19775004
who's to say that being charming, "successful2, loved or having friends meant anything to him? if it didn't please his ego, why should he have cared? your metric of what makes a life worth living could be utterly meaningless to somebody else.

>>19761195
I will never read this man, sorry /lit/, but I just wont.

>>19761195
He's a meme

>>19775588
The only people who'd care haven't read him either.

>>19769005
Hanged

This board loves Stirner but he's against everything they stand for.

>>19778092
I don't think most of this board even likes Stirner.

Too many butthurt marxists in this thread

>>19761338
Pretending you're above dogma while touting Stirner's pomo dogma is quite ironic.

>>19761694
>You can make another person your property but ultimately his mind and Will is free and so in reality you only dominate his physical body.
This is cope and contrary to reality.

>>19775579
Cope

>>19761195
It's mere existentialism. You make the rules

>>19761195
>I didn't really understand this guy.
You got trolled into reading frivolous masturbatory schlock and learned nothing. Unfortunately the people who read him here don't seem to understand, instead looking towards Stirner as a surrogate father figure who tells him "You shall believe what you believe", yet the reader after learning of the creative nothing artificially chooses to mold his values around it.

A very subversive, slimy author, who I am sure expected this to hpapen.

>>19779017
*happen

>>19761195
he's a pedantic rehash of eastern thought; apparent reality is unreal. not a valuable thinker in any sense.

>>19778905
Reality is subjective my dude. If you think people's minds and wills aren't free, maybe you're the one that has encaged himself

>Stirner confessed that having once caught sight of his wife naked he had been unable to touch her again.
Seriously asking, what did he mean by this?

>>19779443
He was schizoid. Confer with disorders of the self by masterson. His work is a beacon for reaching out of oneself.

>>19763130
sounds like the average 4chadder
he truly was ahead of his time

>>19781127
Many philosophers are. Freud was right to think philosophy is a delusional endeavor. Stirner was even worse than the rest that at least had some social success and a woman

every philosophy requires you to kill yourself after completing all the works

beats me man