/lit/ - Literature

>>4006381
literature for edgy fedora neckbeards

Stirner's cynicism fails to see the value inherent in the spooks he fights again. He's trying to obviate all constructs and treat the remainder as the real, and of course stumbles upon nihilism, but good philosophy should focus the reality of constructs.

>>4006381
A superbly accomplished sophist who asked all the right questions and provided all the wrong answers.

Edgy

that the dent in his massive forehead accounted for the majority of his philosophy

>>4006381
Philosophy for me ego

Not for my mind.

>>4006395
>edgy
>>4006422
>Edgy

end urselves

>>4006494
Anarchism is stupid and wouldn't work

>>4006501
>Anarchism is stupid and wouldn't work

It's like I never left middle school.

>>4006507
Would I be arguing for anarchism, then?

>>4006501
>Anarchism is stupid and wouldn't work

Well you're obviously an expert on the subject...

Marx Stirner egoist anarchism isn't anarchism.

>What's your opinion on Max Stirner?

IMO Max Stirner is an irrelevant third rate philosopher that gets spammed on /lit/ every day by one guy.

>>4006501
>stirner
>anarchism

>>4006381
Best thing to happen to philosophy since Pyrrho.

>>4006607
>Marx Stirner

He's a "/lit/ meme", so I can't help but assume that he's shit and will likely never read any of his works.

crumble-er of ideological chains, fedora w/ razor edges on the brim, essential reading

>>4007117
He is not bad, and in fact he was very influential on Marx and presumably Nietzsche. He's just so radical and not a single picture of him exists, thus making him perfect le /lit/ meme material. I would definitely read The Ego and Its Own if you're interested in Egoism from a kind-of nihilistic perspective.

>>4006381
what anime is this from

>>4007408
Lupin III

2spooky

>>4007408
Welcome to the VVE (Verein von Egoisten)

>>4006501
But its fun

what is stirner all about? if someone hit him on the cheek, what would he do?

>>4008271
Probably go submissive mode so that you back off, only to drive a knitting needle up your heel well into your calf while you are asleep in your own bed seven months later.

>>4008280
how would he argue against:
"an eye for an eye makes the world go blind"
?

>>4008294
It only works for the first eye each - once you've taken both the other fellow's eyes he can't very well see you to take your second one.

He's really popular with off-site trash.

SPOOKYBOOGIE

>>4008294

>>4006395
>hurrr buzzwords
>>4006401
But that's not what his moral egoism is about. At all. You should stop criticizing his view judging from what you've read against him (i.e. Marx) and start going to the main source.
Do you remember the part where he talks about freedom? It's not something good in itself. The point isn't "being free": the point is depending on the things you choose. He criticizes what he calls spooks: being deluded, chained to an idea which is more important than yourself. Ideas aren't bad, they're tools and they're pretty useful when used properly. His whole point is: ideas are a tool to you, not you a tool for ideas.
>>4006404
What answers? He doesn't really provide any answer. The whole point of moral egoism is finding yourself the answers.
>>4006501
Well, I agree somehow. Anarchism is a great idea, the problem is to apply it. Our current society is too retarded for anarchism, it would turn immediately in some sort of totalitarian regime.

>>4008359
Hah, what a fucking lunatic that guy was.

>>4008748
Why? Seems perfectly reasonable considering it's how the world actually works.

>>4008757
I'd consider you to be a bit of a defeated pessimist if you believe so.

>>4008362
>our current society is too retarded for anarchism
#edge

>>4008362
An idea cannot be great if its barrier to being implemented is an innate quality of said idea. There's a reason why socialism got off the ground, and still continues to move millions of feet even after the Soviet collapse,while Anarchism only got a few bombings and assassinations in the early 1900s. They can't even rise to the level of impotent terrorism anymore, they fall over themselves apologizing every time they break a store window, lmfao.

>>4008362
go back to /pol/

>>4006404
>Catholic
>thinks his opinions means anything

>>4008362
>anarchism is a great idea
14 yr old detected

>>4008794
I'd say you're the pessimist if you think that bout of realism is something negative.

>>4008918
You must be an expert on anarchism who has read Bakunin, Goldman, etc, am I right?

Anarchism isn't teenage "lel chaos anarchy", it's a damn serious ideology.

http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html
Become enlightened before spouting off.

>>4008843
How is that a /pol/ thing to say? Anarchists get laughed at over there too. Just because he isn't a socialist does make him an idiot being an anarchist does.

>>4008967
>Bakunin, Goldman
>Damn serious ideology

19 year old anarchists are way more embarrassing than 15 year old anarchists.

>1844
>having spooks in your head

ISHYGDDT

>>4008813
That's an obvious fact. Maybe you're a retard too, though.
>>4008820
You generalize too much. The idea of a possible society without the existence of a state isn't stupid at all, people being too immature to achieve adulthood and take responsibility doesn't make responsibilities and adulthood stupid.
>>4008843
Go back to not shit-posting.
>>4008989
Your post makes little sense, but if you imply that I'm an anarchist, then your reading comprehension sucks hard.
>>4008918
whoa dude that's like very wise. Great argument, keep it up.

>>4007408
thanks for the chuckle, you caught me off guard.

jew

>>4009007
Anyone else would be too obscure and out of your frame of reference.

>>4009018
lol'd

>>4006426
kek was had

/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
( 2 | s | p | o | o | k | y )
\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/

The Ego is pure nihilism, his doctrine is incomplete. The Ego consists on doing whatever you want without caring about anything. But he doesn't say what to do, its your own decission, your will. I don't understand why they call him anarchist rather than fascist; he only wants to satisfy his Ego (an egoist doesn't recognise anyone as another Ego, people is cosificated, people are like any other objects, they're his own, his property, and the Ego is an autocrat).
i havent read it all though

aw yea

>The Ego is pure nihilism
>consists on doing whatever you want without caring about anything
Wrong.
>he only wants to satisfy his Ego (an egoist doesn't recognise anyone as another Ego, people is cosificated, people are like any other objects, they're his own, his property
Very wrong. There's a part where he explicitly talks about an union of egoists.

>the Ego is an autocrat
More like autarchic, quit the political connotations.

Read the whole work.
That's all.

This kind of threads make me realize how rare is it to find someone who has actually read him.

>>4012342
:coffee cup: let me brag to you about fucking vanessa already christ man

>>4012426
come to fucking skype then
they banned me accidentally
i had to restart my router to write this post you fucking faggot i lovwe ypu

>>4012417
>Wrong
How wrong???????? what does he care about?
>Very wrong
union of egoist is a spook

>>4012444
gimme 2 hours im riding in a car on my way home, ly2

>>4012467
going 2 sleep

>>4012470
goddamnit you fucking wetwipe, talk to you later

>>4012451
Ugh, read my other posts: >>4008362
The point of being an egoist is doing what you want depending on the things you choose (as EVERYBODY does), but first of all try to get things clear and stop looking for excuses to justify your own actions. Create your own values or choose the ones you really want, but do it if they make you feel fulfilled, not because you have some kind of moral imperative or you consider some idea to be greater than yourself. Just be responsible of your own decisions.
>union of egoist is a spook
No. you don't understand what that means.

Seriously, just read the fucking book. Most of the people who criticize that book would have to change their arguments if they actually read the book.

>>4012485
i read the book faggot. i said no because i wanted
and you're the one who doesn't understand union of egoists
it's impossible, it's a fucking spook
imagine the nihilist 10 person commune:
there are weapons, everyone wants to rule on everyone because that's what they want. They'll fight for the weapons, the stronger will get first and subject the other 9 persons. The other has the power.
What would happen then? The person who has the machine gun will force that hot girl of the 9 others to suck his dick meanwhile the other 8 are just in a fucking cage, for example, in which the Weapon Egoist had to put them just because they're too much.
I made a pic for you to understand, because you're FULL retarded most retardated on /lit/ kill yourself

>>4012521
>i read the book faggot
Read it again, but pay more attention because you're criticizing it badly addressing problems already solved there or attacking things there weren't.
>it's impossible, it's a fucking spook
Doesn't follow. Also, the point isn't it being possible or impossible. It's just how egoists would interact. It's not an ideal, it's not an end towards which all egoists should achieve. It's not a spook, you don't fucking know what spooks are.

That post makes no sense. It's pretty retarded actually. Stirner talks about everyone being already an egoist. He never talked about a commune or some shit like that. Seriously, read the book because you clearly haven't or you are attacking strawmen all the time but you are too stupid to realize it.

>>4012521
You just described the world as it is.

>>4012521
annie crust has a pretty good grasp on stirner take your medication david

>>4012580
Yeah. But he believes that is an objection to anything related to moral egoism.

>>4012584
moral egoism

actually i listened to an 4 parts divided audiobook with gaps

>>4012584
but i'm gonna tell you you're wrong and retarded and that cristopher is a retard too this time, because he defends you but we're shitposters so let's go to the shit:
the logical error of moral egoism: imagine
A wants to kill B
if you want to see the full argument learn spanish, i'm not going to translate this into english just for a fucking retarded pretentious "stirnerian moral egoist", you're fucking wrong son of a bitch
******************
El egoísmo ético ni siquiera es una teoría. Imaginemos que la acción K es matar, entonces podríamos preguntar al egoísmo ético: ¿es éticamente correcto que un individuo A mate a un individuo B? la respuesta del egoísmo ético será "depende", porque K es una acción éticamente correcta para A y éticamente incorrecta para B, pero no puede decirnos si la acción K es éticamente correcta o incorrecta en sí misma, es decir, no puede decirnos que “las personas no deben ser matadas”. Esto es así porque, para el egoísta ético, una acción K es éticamente correcta si tiene como consecuencia beneficiar su propio interés -el medio para conseguirlo es indiferente-, ese es el principio que sigue. En cambio, si le preguntamos al egoísmo ético: ¿es éticamente correcto favorecer el propio interés? el egoísmo ético responderá que sí, porque dice que siempre “debemos actuar para favorecer los intereses propios”, pero esto no es cierto: lo que realmente dice el egoísmo ético es que siempre “debo actuar para favorecer mis intereses propios”, pues que los demás cumplan o no cumplan con su deber, como vimos, para el egoísta ético es secundario. Es más, para el egoísta ético lo éticamente correcto es que los demás no cumplan con su deber egoísta. Es decir, la acción que favorece los intereses propios es éticamente correcta y la acción que no favorece los intereses propios es éticamente incorrecta, pero esto no se dice de manera universal sino de manera individual. Esto quiere decir que el egoísmo ético intenta pasar por regla universal, por ciencia, una regla que sólo es verdadera desde la perspectiva individual de un egoísta ético. La regla que debe seguir el egoísta ético es la siguiente: sólo yo debo actuar siempre buscando mi propio interés. Dicha regla entra en contradicción lógica consigo misma cuando es aplicada por otro individuo.

>>4012711
you're arguing against egoism as the 'moral imperative', egoism as 'ethically right', and neither annie or max is arguing for that. this is all totally irrelevent...

>>4012745
f
u
c
k

y
o
u

>>4012745
fuck you

>>4012754
comer una polla, trapomojado

Risky, you are one cheeky cunt m8 but please listen to Analcrust and actually read the Ego and Its Own.

>>4012711
>calls me a retard
>proceeds to cut-paste some stupid excerpt from a textbook that doesn't even address Stirner's philosophy.
lol what a retard you are.
>pero no puede decirnos si la acción K es éticamente correcta o incorrecta en sí misma,
Whoa no fuck. But who cares?
>para el egoísta ético lo éticamente correcto es que los demás no cumplan con su deber egoísta.
That's a retarded assumption.
There's no contradiction. Everyone acts (or tries to) for their own interest. When you are deluded you can act for others' interests, or for the sake of some ideal. But why should you use an ideal to regulate your behavior? Because it's good for you. Why do you act how you act? Because you choose to. Because you want. Just accept it, be consequential with your own decisions and stop using that retarded universalism.
Stirner never tries to universalize ethics. His theory is just like some kind of wittgensteinian propedeutics, but for morals. The point is leaving behind all that kantian and hegelian shit before starting to develop your own moral system.
Your posts are retarded because you didn't even read Stirner, you have no fucking clue. You attack strawmen, nobody talked about your retarded shitty universalism, because we're not on the 19th century anymore. Next time read a fucking book before criticizing it, fucktard.

>>4012752
>>4012754
lol dat samefag
like nobody knows which tripfag this is.

>>4012796
you said nothing retard
i am right nobody understands

>>4012899
Risky cat, you sooo risky.

Got to respect him for how he pisses off leftwing utopian anarchists.

>>4012913
???

>>4012899
>you said nothing retard
I basically said that argument is retarded because there's no logic contradiction since universalist assumptions have nothing to do with moral egoism. That text uses a strawman that has nothing to do with what Stirner actually argued, you posted it because that is the only remotely related shit you have ever read. I sincerely am convinced that you are just too retarded to argue like a rational being, I surrender.

>>4012920
retard
explain what stirner argued then
stirner can suck my cock, i'm sure he would agree with me if he really existed

>>4012927
I already explained on the thread. I just give up you're too dumb to understand.
Btw, go read the fucking book, moron. you shouldn't criticize something when you obviously have no clue wtf are you talking about.

>>4007373

>presumably Nietzsche
>citation needed

he was almost there

I'm convinced anyone on /lit/ who is into philosophy most connects with nihilism or some other depressing BS.

>>4012942
you're saying you explained an argument of a nonexistent person, and then tell me i'm dumb to undertsnad
0/10
>filtered

>>4012949
A lot of people here (recently at least) seem to identify with a more Eastern mindest.

>>4012943
Some Nietzsche's friend wrote about Nietzsche mentioning he liked Stirner but he didn't want to say it in public because at that time that would mean losing all credibility.
Anyway, that's pretty obvious if you've read them both. The Genealogy has several resemblances with The Ego and Its Own.

>>4012958

Source? I want to check this out for myself.

>>4012952
Oh no that retard filtered me, discussing philosophy with normal people will be too boring.

>This tripfag circlejerking

>>4012961
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_Max_Stirner

stirner never existed
FUCK NWO NIHILLUMINATI

>>4006395
Pretty much these days. I find his philosophy feeble and it has no ground. God is an egoist so mankind should be too. Oh really!?!? Well can't argue against that! I couldn't take him seriously.

>>4013737
But that's the introduction, the part about god isn't even important if you take it out of context of an argument against idealism. The point was criticizing idealism, liberalism, communism and humanism as ideologies. What do you think about that?

>>4014561
He probably hasn't read Stirner beyond skimming the introduction. Pretty much all people who argue against Stirner on /lit/ do so because they misunderstand him and they misunderstand him because they haven't read him.

>>4014731
>posts my OC
>says i havent read stirner
fuck you

>>4017456
More reading, less MS Painting.

>>4017456
but you HAVEN'T read Stirner, obviously. Nobody is so retarded to misunderstand him this bad.

Your logical contradiction copypasta didn't even address what can be argued against him, idiot. Go read it again.

>>4017472
yes i read him
>giving importance to reading a TEXT rather than discusing ideas
>being this religious
<lel get out my lit XD fedorrhea diarrhea porgy orgy

>>4017486
>the importance of reading something before discussing it
>Being this ignorant and retarded
Seriously just stop discussing anything. Your only arguments were retarded strawman fallacies. Anyway, didn't you filter me? lol

You're a patient man, RectalScab.

Why are there trip fags everywhere these days?

>>4008359
sweet poetry.

It's like he put everything I've felt into words.


To be quite honest, I bet he'd be pretty disappointing to meet and talk with in real life. I imagine his work is greater than he himself.

>>4012913
leftwing utopian anarchism = "let's make everyone our slaves"

Stirner is glorious in every way. He is the antidote to oppression.

>>4017563
He mostly sat quietly in the corner, impeccably dressed and polite, smoking a cigar and drinking a beer with an amused little smile on his face while the rest got their panties in a twist discussing their respective ideologies.

>>4017531
Talentless showoffs are at an all-time high in our culture.

Anyone have the greentext about egotism and spooks with the Stirner feels face?

>>4019351

>>4019577
>yfw you didn't read Stirner, because if you did you would remember the part where he mentions love and how it is desirable to be "chained" to some things when they are better than being radically free.

Niggas, read pls.

>>4019777
That wouldn't make a funny greentext, you dogmatic Stirnerist.

>>4019781
Wouldn't be funny, but wouldn't be retarded. I know it's meant to troll but... Dunno I remember back then was possible to troll without acting like a fucking retard...