/lit/ - Literature

>>5988583
le zany sidekick arrives

He is no better than everyone he denounces before him, considering that his intellectual endeavour amounts to nothing more than a seduction. In its own little way it is a sort of immature, petulant and infantile seduction as well, one that does not have the sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but on the other hand it has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric (and I mean rhetoric in the general, system-level sense that I think De Man uses) that ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a child who disregards the rules of a game because he is tired of losing at it or some such poor behaviour.

Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history. Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.

Assuming that he has ghostbusted the spooks is to assume a very ideologically-charged perspective about the progress of conceptual thought in the west. And it's not only that, we must also consider that language is dialogic, which means that the language, the concepts Stirner uses to poke around with in first place are all shaped and ideologically charged before he even gets to employ them, he inherits his words and thereby whatever ideology is embedded in them, so it is not even clear whether there is really a distinct Stirner-type ideology critique and not just some permutation of a prevailing ideology. His whole endeavour is shot to shit and full of presuppositions, which is why people are debating over ideology, why Stirner did not solve the problem of ideology, and why its usefulness even as a concept today is in question.

>>5988626
So much text and you haven't really said much. Stirner does have his own philosophy but it's very uninteresting, poor, reactive, and tends toward nothing.

I really hope Stirner will cease to be a meme at Christ's age of 2015.

>>5988626
Allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.

Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

Stirner had a huge cock.

Prove me wrong.

Reminder that Marx bodied this fool

>>5989228
>

>>5989238
>

Although the space allotted here can't possibly suffice to elaborate in detail on the long list of Max Stirner's avaricious allocutions—including the heinous, the bellicose, the spleeny, and especially the raffish—I'll use what little space I have to champion the force of goodness against the greed of the most self-pitying cozeners you'll ever see. Alas, listing all of our nation's woes that are directly caused by Stirner would take up far too much of this post: the spread of narcissism; a newfound interest by hotheaded, bookish yokels in fomenting, precipitating, and financing large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government; the increasing number of people who believe that disruptive cadgers are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive; and so forth. Hence, to keep this post to the point, I will limit its focus to a discussion of how Stirner frequently insists that distasteful freaks of nature are easily housebroken. This lie of his cannot stand the light of day, and a few minutes' reflection will suffice to show how utterly pudibund a lie it is. Nonetheless, I myself have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that he will not be punished for his anger. He will be punished by his anger. There's also the possibility that Stirner may be punished for acquiring power and using it to indoctrinate homophobic bribe-seekers, but if we take Stirner's stances to their logical conclusion, we see that in a lustrum or two, Stirner will remake the map of the world into a Stirner-friendly checkerboard of puppet regimes and occupation governments.

The truth hurts, doesn't it, Stirner? His violent causeries promote allotheism with all of its callous and purblind facets: greed, self interest, narrow-mindedness, and most of all, stupidity. He says that all scientific and technological progress would come to a halt were it not for his shell games. That's like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise. I mean, it's not like Stirner doesn't know that he occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of empty-headed, superficial conspiracies. What I had wanted for this post was to write an analysis of Max Stirner's conjectures—not an exhortation or a shrill denunciation but an analysis. I hope I have succeeded at that.

>>5989242
^

>>5989246
^

>>5989251
<

>>5989260
a

>>5989260
<

>>5989264
Fuck off Brian.

>>5989264
b

>>5989264
a

>>5989269
y

>>5989274
o

>>5989303
y

>>5989264
>>5989269
>>5989274
>>5989303
>>5989307
abay oy! tu kehna kya chahta hai?!

>>5989346
w-what, m-m8?

Stirner's philosophy is, if nothing else, sensible

>>5989421
It really isn't. He wants to have a cake and eat it too.

>>5988626

>>5989228
it's true. if it weren't for him being mildly fashionable with post-moderns (Derrida basically just liked the words "specter" and "ghost"), no one would give two shits about this guy just like Bauer

>>5988583
that drawing reminds me of this, i feel like there's something hidden on that face

Since I have you philosophy fags all in one place here... I'd like to ask, do you think that weak people can be good?

As in, people not strong enough to be evil. People who have yet to encounter someone weaker than them to be effectively evil towards. I know that some people have touched on this, pointing out that idleness is often confused for good. But could one make the case for weak people not even having a choice between good and evil and, in being unable to exercise that choice, essentially inhuman? Because the choice is arguably one of the most important parts of being human. Weak people, in that light, are animals.

I'm asking not necessarily because I believe this, just because a character in my writing believes it. Are there any philosophers that would advance this line of thinking? Could it be considered a 'Nietzschean' thought?

>>5989504
It is related to Nietzsche but I'm not sure it's completely Nietzschean. Doing evil if "evil" is mostly synonymous with mere destruction is another product of weakness according to Nietzsche. It is actually the weak that turn to nihilism and the distinction between good and evil is "human all too human". Nietzsche tries to be beyond good and evil.
But your idea is really interesting, it is the idea of a being that is so weak to not even have reached resentment and reactivity. Well, maybe it corresponds to Nietzsche's perception of Jesus and Buddhism. Read Anti-Christ where he distinguishes Jesus from Christianity. It is an easy and short read.

>>5988626
He doesn't use Stirner-type ideology or tries to convey it, he uses the tools he has before him to communicate with others. He accepted the set morals of Christianity because of his inability to come up with better ones, but he doesn't succumb to them, as he is beyond it, through lies and what is taken by sin in Christianity he uses it to maximize his pleasure(he may find following it completely also pleasurable). All he does is not constructing ideology but escaping it, using what he has to denounce every incorporeal entity and abstraction as a spook, yet he can't renounce them as he will acknowledges that it would mean he uses that to favor his own ideology.

Stirner's destruction of spooks is a nihilistic practice and if he were consistent he would destroy his own philosophy, along with everything that he thinks and is. Instead he arbitrarily stops his destruction at a certain preferred region, such as the concepts of property and autonomy. His belief that one can exit one's history like a young adult exiting the relationship with his mother (Stirner's metaphor and his final dialectical stage) is actually one of the biggest spooks. In this and other ways Stirner brings the concept of the soul into his philosophy through the backdoor without noticing it himself.

>>5989346
Chutzpah

>>5989215
What word did he misuse? I'm not scanning that entire post.

>>5989475
Stirner got the silent treatment because people couldn't deal with him. Marx didn't wreck anyone, he just wrote a huge butthurt ad hominem longer than the entire oeuvre of Stirner and then couldn't publish it.

>>5988626

This is Marx-tier damage control.

>>5989228

lel. Marx dedicated 500 pages of his work to Stirner, you can literally see the 19th century butthurt oozing from the pages. And the funny thing is, Stirner probably could've refted it with one sentence. If someone is wrong, that's all it should to refute them, not 500 pages.

>>5991324
Nah m8, Stirner was such a condensed example of everything that is wrong with Young Hegelians that he served as the best target since he was a nihilistic and poisonous radicalization of them, of Hegel and Feuerbach themselves.

Isn't the ego itself a spook?

Dude is no betta than mah playas da ruffneck denounces before him, thankin bout dat his crazy-ass muthafuckin intellectual endeavour amounts ta not a god damn thang mo' than a seduction. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. In its own lil way it aint nuthin but a sort of immature, petulant n' infantile seduction as well, one dat aint gots tha sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but on tha other hand it has tha gall ta disrupt tha game of rhetoric (and I mean rhetoric up in tha general, system-level sense dat I be thinkin De Man uses) dat ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a cold-ass lil lil pimp whoz ass disregardz tha rulez of a game cuz he is pissed wit losin at it or some such skanky behaviour.

Stirner knows his own doctrine aint gots a leg ta stand on, dat tha whole exercise he engages up in is contradictory yo. His whole project be a gangbangin' failure simply cuz itz a cold-ass lil contradiction. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. Da only way you could consider it a success is if you be thinkin tha overall outcome is dat you have tha mobilitizzle ta question or battle ideology. But dat is hardly a qualitizzle specific ta Stirnerz writings, itz simply tha mobilitizzle ta be thinkin critically, n' itz what tha fuck most philosophers wit a system of thought have done all up in history. Except Stirner appears ta be inferior ta most of dem cuz where every last muthafuckin other philosopher attacks tha previous prevailin ideologizzle n' replaces its centa up in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies wit no centa ta prevail up in replacement, tha battle itself is contradictory, n' there is no real insight gained tha fuck into tha lack of tha centa cuz Stirner his dirty ass has no answer or interest up in attemptin ta solve dis contradiction of negation. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. Right back up in yo muthafuckin ass. So where every last muthafuckin other philosopher has been up wit tha oldschool n' up in wit tha new, Stirner is simply up wit tha old, n' not even up in a logical manner, wit no new. Yo ass is gettin short-changed n' fucked up in tha ass fo' realz. And on tha other hand there be a shitload of mo' in-depth attempts ta address tha contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen ta Deconstruction.

>>5988626
this is (shitty) copypasta

>>5989449
>It really isn't. He wants to have a cake and eat it too.
Wow, what a great point you are raising!

>>5990026
>Instead he arbitrarily stops his destruction at a certain preferred region, such as the concepts of property and autonomy
confirmed for not having read the book :^)

>>5991492
>>5991518
Is mine better?

>>5991373
>everything that is wrong with Young Hegelians
It's funny how Marxists don't know that Young Marx was just as much a 'Young Hegelian' as Stirner was. The 11th thesis on Feuerbach you jerk off to every morning is actual a Young Hegelian centerpiece. You have no fucking clue because you just take (probably a summary of) Marx' perspective in Deutsche Ideologie to be the truth (or Feuerbach late 80s version of what he would have liked to have happened half a lifetime ago). The very fact that Marx derides Bauer, Stirner and Feuerbach as still stuck in Hegelian thought which he alone overcomes is actually the primary marker of a Young Hegelian, THAT'S WHAT THEY ALL CLAIMED. You just don't realize that, because you know fucking nothing about German Vormärz philosophical debates.

>>5991534
yeah, pretty 'good'...

>>5991552
>Feuerbach late 80s version
That should be Engels' Feuerbach und der Ausgang der klassischen deutschen Philosophie (or whatever it's called).

>>5988583
published Stirner scholar reporting in. Last time someone wanted to know how much I earn, I obviously don't earn anything as a scholar, I work in advertising (spooks).

>>5989228
>500 pages of asspain
>bodied

>>5989504
Being "evil" is still possible by manipulation and sneakiness.
Also, having others pity you and therefore tolerate your weakness is just another form of exercising power over others, as is organizing into a "society" that takes care of its "weaker" constituents. So it is hard to see a person that is absolutely powerless to exert any power over anyone ever, and who therefore never got to be either "evil" or "good".
Even a drooling retard can make someones life (caretaker for example) miserable or better, and therefore has some power to wield.

>>5988583