/lit/ - Literature

This thread is now mine.

>>5819622

Were you the guy who said "This post is now mine?". Nice work.

Do actual philosophers and academics care about Stirner or is he actually just a meme?

>>5819639
Yep.

This post is also now mine.

>>5819650
>Do actual philosophers and academics care about Stirner or is he actually just a meme?
This is now a meme

>>5819622
Implying this thread is worth having.

>>5819650

Nobody really cares about Stirner except for a few academics no one has heard about and people on /lit/ and a few devoted amateurs.

My theory is that academic types are just sophist types whose job it is to talk a lot of bullshit, using their well developed verbal skills to obfuscate things to collect their welfare check (tenure/etc.).

Plus it's difficult to argue against Stirner because he holds most beliefs people hold to simply be "spooks", or illusions in the mind we use to fool ourselves or are fooled by. Philosophers are just a bunch of spooked faggots thinking the shit they talk about matters or is relevant when clearly it is not. How can someone talk about Kant and imperatives when probably 5% of people have any sense of empathy in the first place?

>>5819616
Stirner is pure ideology
honestly
If you think you can live "spook free" that is when you are most attached to spooks

>>5819670

>>5819670
>My theory is that academic types are just sophist types whose job it is to talk a lot of bullshit, using their well developed verbal skills to obfuscate things to collect their welfare check (tenure/etc.).

>literally parroting calvin and hobbes

>>5819686

It says something when the truth is found in comic strips, eh m8?

>>5819650
He is a force of nature, not a meme. You cannot extinguish Stirner.

>>5819707
You missed the point entirely, just like you did a few nights ago.

>>5819724

I wasn't posting a few nights ago.

You want to know the truth, cunt? Us fans of Stirner are all alike. We don't give a fuck about proper use of logic or making cogent arguments like you think we should. We don't believe in your le Reddit downvote/upvote bullshit trying to shame us for calling it like we see it.

You want me to write a giant fucking treatise to explain the logical fallacies of why it doesn't matter what calvin and hobbes says?

Nah, m8, don't think I will.

I might just throw a grenade at you in the form of this post. Deal with it. Stroking yourself off thinking you can butt decimate the finest philosopher to ever live with the best adherents who give no fucks? I will wreck you in a debate in real life because you're a fag and I'd just take your gf and walk away, eh nerd.

You probably think hypocrisy even matters.

>>5819650
nobody would care about sterner if it wasn't for those neat little doodles

>>5819734
>acting like I don't own my very own copy of Ego and Its Own
>Implying I don't agree with many of the ideas put forward by Stirner
>Implying you aren't being extremely spooky by claiming to be apart of the "Stirner Fan Club"
>Implying the phrase " Us fans of Stirner are all alike" isn't inherently antithetical to the concept of Egoism

I laugh at you, and your post has no bearing on me. Open a Milk Shop somewhere and then come talk to me, Maximum Edgelord.

>>5819743
>>Implying you aren't being extremely spooky by claiming to be apart of the "Stirner Fan Club"
>>Implying the phrase " Us fans of Stirner are all alike" isn't inherently antithetical to the concept of Egoism

Why not be a part of the Stirner fan club?

Question: Does Stirner actually have rigorous criteria for determining what is or is not a spook, or does he just point his finger (figuratively speaking) and go, "Ha! A Spook! A Spook!"?

>>5819778
The latter, which is what makes it so fun.

Stirner is the perfect autism test. If you require more rigor, you have autism. Minecraft of Philosophy he is not.

>>5819784
Does he have ANY criteria?

Also: any translation of his work you can recommend in particular?

>>5819790

Haven't read him.

>>5819778
>>5819790
Yes he has criteria and that other guy is a dumbass.

Stirner is not a dense writer, the one I found using google was fine.

>>5819616

>>5819778
Essentialism, including essentialism of actions and effects, like right and wrong. Essences are "spooks" because they "haunt" things.

>>5819790
afaik there is only the byington translation from a hundred years ago plus some amended versions. Baumgartner is working on a new translation as we speak.

>>5819670
>Plus it's difficult to argue against Stirner
Stirner has been quite powerfully criticized from various directions. He's in large part a caricature of Hegel's obsession with alienation and property, radicalized to absurdity. Most people that like Stirner here aren't aware of his enormous philosophical baggage because they don't have much knowledge of other philosophers, at least such is the pattern I've noticed. They need better knowledge of how Stirner could have happened in the first place.

>greatest philosopher to ever live
>Not Wittgenstein

Do you even understand the limits of your universe?

>>5819743
>Implying you aren't being extremely spooky by claiming to be apart of the "Stirner Fan Club"
>Implying the phrase " Us fans of Stirner are all alike" isn't inherently antithetical to the concept of Egoism

lol.
Maybe you should go and actually read your copy.

>>5821329
I've read around and I see quite a few parralels between stirner, Lacan, Foucult and Deluze. I don't see the philosophical baggade, unless you perhaps fetishise historical materialism or believe stirner was a materilist in genral.

Stirner's philosophy is not some all encompassing system like Hegel and Marx. It's basically the crituqe of ideology taken to its extreme and the continous becoming of the individual.

It was only ever Marx who took him seriously anyway.

>>5821334
I don't care about individual experience, I wanna know about the real

Fetus.

Do spooks have any similarity the concept of social constructs?

>>5819616
Not yet, I'm too busy not reading faggot meme philosophy.

Stirner looks like leorio from hunter x hunter

>>5821768
>derived from a logical analysis
>it's personal insight
Go die in a fire, useless piece of shit.

>>5819650
he is one of those influential philosophers who will forever be thrown under the bus by achedemics

like sartre and rand

the "involuntary egoist" garbage is still what culture and modern economists mostly teaches us despite being unfalsifiable and just as much of a "spook" as anything Stirner turns his ire on

>>5821936

>Le "spooks are spooks themselves!" argument.

Back to reddit.

i really like max stirner. why is max stirner a meme?

>>5823163
Because people need ideology

>>5819670
>DA PROBLEM WITH ACADEMICS IS THEY TALK TOO MANY WORDS AND SHEEEEEEET
I fucking hate these kids so much. This shit is a code phrase for, "I don't know what you're talking about because I haven't read any of the literature review." There's a reason people say, "Utility" and "Virtue Ethics" and "Deontologically." We're not just saying it to make it hard for others to participate. They have real meanings and uniquely necessary factors that make them integral in the discussion itself.

I want Calvin and Hobbes to leave.

>>5821936
muh unfalsifiables!!!!!!!!11one

>>5823163
funny drawings that make a 19th century philosopher look like a anime villain

>>5823163
Because his fans think one tiny book allows one to disregard all other philosophy

>>5823245
>essentialism

>>5823245
No they dont, read his fucking book turdmaster

>>5823194
>There's a reason people say, "Utility" and "Virtue Ethics" and "Deontologically." We're not just saying it to make it hard for others to participate. They have real meanings and uniquely necessary factors that make them integral in the discussion itself.

Actually everything you said here is a lie.
The purpose of jargon is to perpetuate your closed system because by making philosophy difficult to participate in, you justify the extreme amount of money professional philosophers make for doing something anyone with a few beers in them can do, and do better.

>>5819650

CANT PUT STIRNER
ON THE BACKBURNER

>>5819616
>Have you overcome being an involuntary egoist yet?
Have you overcome believing in an ego a.k.a. subject a.k.a. soul yet?

>>5821768
> I wanna know about the real
>the real
Spook.

>>5821924
>like sartre and rand

>>5823477
>for doing something anyone with a few beers in them can do, and do better.
Constructing logically consistent philosophy is not something "anyone" can do. Sure, you might be able to scribble up some shit like the Bible when drunk, but we all know what that book ended up like.

I love Max Stirner, he's one of my favorite philosophers ever, but it's ridiculous to call him the greatest. Nothing he said was ever terribly complex.

>>5823754
Shit doesn't needs to be complex to be great.

>>5823534
You haven't read the book isn't it?

>>5825422
>individual autonomy
>individual
>autonomy
>individual autonomy

fucking libertarian meme

go back to /pol/ where the rest of you play in your own shit.

>>5819670
>How can someone talk about Kant and imperatives when probably 5% of people have any sense of empathy in the first place?

this is empirically true, the rest of your post is BS

>>5826553
Kant doesn't want to argue against empathy or desires, he acknowledges that such personal aspects are inescapable.
His categorical imperative merely gives a kind of test to determine whether an action is permissible and duty is basically doing such permissible actions *while* also recognizing them under the form of categorical imperative. Yes, it is highly problematic because it's so fucking formal that you can make almost anything work. But the point is that the issues with Kant's practical philosophy lie elsewhere.

>>5826599
kants categorical imperative would only work in a idealistic world where everybody uses this formal rule. i think this was his point, he uses empathy but meant the lack of understanding/using the formal rule.

>>5826627
>kants categorical imperative would only work in a idealistic world
The same argument can be made against Stirner though, his "unity of egoists" seems equally idealistic. Both Kant and Stirner require some form of "general enlightenment", although with different content and different methods. Of course, Stirner as a "good Hegelian" solves this somewhat by simply relying on historical progress (ancient and modern world are followed but that unity of egoists).