/lit/ - Literature

>a guy translated "50 shades of grey"
>he is a woman that's into bdsm

Stirner was apolitical, I think. He liked competition, but certainly not Adam Smith's kind, which relied heavily on the state as umpire. Stirner's idea of competition was more Nietzschean than liberal.

Nietzche is was a kid when Stirner died of tropical bite

show some respect to based Maxie

>>6390798
Stirner was a fucking idiot, why does anyone listen to what he had to say about anything?

He's fetishized by dumb cunt entry-level high school faggots

>Stirner
>Affirming the status quo

M E M E
E
M
E

>>6390832
>t. genius

>>6390832
He's not profound, but he's much better than Ludwig "proto-Reddit" Feuerbach.

>>6390854
Yeah, all those fucking Feuerbach threads we see on here, right?

>>6390832
>Stirner was a fucking idiot, why does anyone listen to what he had to say about anything?
Spooky.

>>6390866
We see threads for people like Sam Harris, same shit.

Adam Smith was a SJW in the context of the XIXth century.

>>6390886
>SJW has now become /lit/-lingo

>>6390886
>>6390890
This use of it, though, if I'm reading it right, is more like reappropriation--it seems not to have the usual derogatory connotation. Maybe I'm wrong about this case, but I think this is probably a good strategy.

>>6390809
>Stirner's idea of competition was more Nietzschean
I wonder why

>>6390832
Great haunting Casper you sure spooked me with those hot ghosts.

>>6390809
He certainly was apolitical, but that's why I said closer to right wing than left wing

>>6390803
>implying he translated it because he had to, not because he wanted to

>>6390854
You underestimate him.

>>6390974
>He certainly was apolitical, but that's why I said closer to right wing than left wing
Liberalism isn't any closer to being apolitical than leftism is, it only appears that way because it is the currently dominant ideology.

Wouldn't he see money, and value as spooks, though?

>>6391023
That depends on what you mean by "value", but he'd definitely see money as a spook.

>>6391033
Value is what something is collectively, subjectively agreed upon to be worth.

>>6390798
>hegelians
>ever

>>6391040
Economic value? yes, he'd call that a spook.

>>6391051
Stirner is a Hegelian like Aristotle is a Platonist.

>>6391006
No, I'm saying that Stirner is closer to liberalism than leftism, not that he's really liberal

>>6391065
I don't think Stirner would really approve of that dichotomy. Liberalism is, after all, fundamentally grounded in the idea of rights, and since Stirner totally rejects the idea of rights at all, it makes him about as close to liberalism as the Beast is to Jesus.

>>6391071
What explains his like for Adam smith then

>>6391122
Just because he translated him and found him fascinating doesn't mean he was ideologically on the same page as him. I'm a fascist and at least 50% of the philosophical works I read are Marxist.

>>6391122
Adam Smith was a genius

>>6390798
is this about stirner personally or just his philosophy of egoism?

if the former, who cares?

nailing a political group on the latter is just silly, since you can belong to anything as an egoist. please explain why you would think otherwise.

>>6391151
>being this stupid

Obviously it influenced his view of competition

>>6391153
You can belong to anything as Stirner's idea of an egoist, but not sincerely, you can only belong as a LARP'er.

>>6391122
The Wealth of Nations is an utterly dispassionate treatise on economics, not an ideological text. The widespread idea that the Wealth of Nations is some kind of libertarian manifesto comes second-hand from the likes of Milton Friedman.

>>6391166
one's interests are unique and the egoist pursuing his interests is sincere

>>6391189
interests are spooks

>>6391189
If the ideology incorporates fidelity to certain values (and just about every ideology does), then you wouldn't be a sincere adherent because you'd know and be fine with disregarding these values whenever whim dictates.

>>6391221
no, your interests are your property

pursuing your interests over spooks is what egoism is about

if you cannot drop or critisize one of your interests, it is a fixed idea, a spook

>>6391171
Also, nevermind the futility of trying to fit Stirner's thought into the left-right spectrum, your transparent attempt at trying to score points for your team is pathetic and shows that you have no understanding of Stirner, in addition to Adam Smith.

>>6391228
i get what you mean now, i agree.

>>6390798
no shit. Why else would be promote "taking the property you are entitled to."

He transcends the left/right dichotomy. Stop trying to manipulate his words to fit your childish ideology.

>>6391273
Nice spooks dude

>>6391338
Nice spooks dude

>>6390798
>guy who believes everything belongs to him
Yep, right wing all right, not sure why anyone would contest this.

>>6391228
Nice fixed idea, spooky the spook

>>6391343
Because hippy faggots like to pretend people like Nietzsche and Stirner are theirs

Is liberalism good or bad?

>>6391350
Don't you think blaming your problems on "hippy faggots" is kind of spooky?
Don't you think trying to claim egoism belongs to a political ideology is spooky?
Don't you realize that ideology is, under egoism, the biggest spook of them all?

>>6391353
Depends if it suits me brah

>>6391342
I'm not sure you quite understand what is meant by "spooks." I was identifying OP's spooks.

>>6391359
Nice spooks dude

Don't get so butthurt because you can't justify your spooks in Stirner

>>6391366
Is spooks just shorthand for an argument you don't agree with?

>>6391362
I am OP, I have no spooks but you sure do.

>>6391369
It's shorthand for me making fun of your retarded fixed ideas about Stirner. You're contradicting hi by insisting what his views are, retard.

>>6391379
You're insisting what his views are, aren't you?

>>6390798
That sure is a spooky post, OP.

>>6391384
No, I've not said once "this is what Stirner believes", I made a comparison and everyone's gone apeshit because most stirnerfags are autistic retards on here who insist being "right" and dictatorial about Stirner.

Just shows the kind of thinkers I'm around

>>6391391
You realize that your central argument implies that one cannot say anything about Stirners thought, and further more, you've associated Stirner with belonging to ideology by insisting that he's right wing. If anyone has committed the problem you are complaining about, it's you.

>>6391403
If you believe Stirner is correct, then no you can't, obviously, he is an egoist retard. And Stirner would own right wing as his property as he saw fit.

You just don't like right wing and are incapable of his perfect dialectics. That's fine, I don't blame you for being stupid.

Also, I never once insisted Stirner is right wing. But please, place more words in my mouth.

/lit/ guide to stirner

don't like something?
just call it a spook

>>6390911
>SJWs are good :)
fucking tumblr

>>6391435
Cool post bro post it twice, post it thrice, post it cheesy and next to rice

>>6391428
>If you believe Stirner is correct, then no you can't, obviously, he is an egoist retard. And Stirner would own right wing as his property as he saw fit.
I believe, and have asserted, that Stirner is incompatible with ideology, right wing or otherwise. This has been my entire point and can be traced by reading all my replies, which start here >>6391359
You have assigned all of my posts to asserting that Stirner is ideological, when the opposite is true. I also think it's quite rich that you have continually insulted my reading comprehension, when in fact, you are the one who lacks reading comprehension.

>Also, I never once insisted Stirner is right wing. But please, place more words in my mouth.
Why are you arguing with me?

>>6390869
>Sam Harris, same shit
I know they were both atheist but I hope you are capable of making finer distinctions than that.

>>6391469
>Why are you arguing with me?
Because I'm bored

>>6391489
You're also wrong.
How does that make you feel?

>>6391487
Have you read Feuerbach? He basically is new atheism

>>6391499
Nice post m8 keep posting them maybe you'll feel okay in your spooks

>>6391552
Do you think that skepticism of mental constructions is exclusive to egoism?

>>6391538
Where did Feuerbach talk about establishing a system of ethic/religious profiling, preemptively attacking a number of nations because of their religion, or advocate finding morality through science like Sam Harris? He didn't even attack Christianity in the same way people like Harris did.

>>6391559
No I think you're mad because you want to own Stirner, but I own Stirner instead so you're throwing a hissy fit

>>6391603
Stirner's philosophy is garbage though

>>6391582
Where didn't he establish humanism?

You can get pedantic and argue all philosophers are diametrically opposed because all are in disagreement, but the core of Feuerbach is not too far, e.g. moral atheism

>>6391606
And why should I value your values? Spooky mate, blog and call your mother if you want someone to care. On second thought just call your mother

>>6390911
Fuck off cunt

>>6391610
>Where didn't he establish humanism?
So anybody advocating humanism is equivalent to Sam Harris? If you are going to stretch things that far you may as well say Rothbard and Rawls are the same as they are both "liberals".

>>6391614
I don't value your values. You are not required to like my values just because I posted it. Did I imply that you did?

>Spooky mate, blog and call your mother if you want someone to care. On second thought just call your mother
Jesus christ.

>>6391627
Where did I equate Sam Harris to new atheism? You did that, not me

>>6391628
>Did I imply that you did?

Yes, you did.

>>6391632
How is Sam Harris not a major part of new atheism? Him, Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens are called the "four horsemen" of new atheism.

>>6391639
Go ahead and show me where, I'll be happy to recant that post because I easily don't mind if you decide my values aren't good, I already know you have bad judgement.

>>6391644
Mhmm, now you just admitted that "new atheism" doesn't mean "Sam Harris", and your criticism of my comparison to Feuerbach is retarded,

>>6391650
He isn't similar to any others of the main people in new atheism.

>>6391660
Nope, except in his atheism and humanism and attack on Christianity as a worldly power.

Retard.

>>6391683
>except in his atheism and humanism and attack on Christianity as a worldly power.
Which isn't enough to qualify as a "new atheist" which is its own movement.

>>6391700
Is your entire method of debate to pretend people are making fucking equivalencies when they are making analogies?

>>6391715
If you were making an analogy it was a terrible and nonsensical one.

>>6390798
>Why can't you yet accept that Stirner is closer to pure right wing thought than left wing?
I think you'll find that Stirner transcends the left-right dichotomy ;°)

>>6392689
COOL POST THE OP TOTALLY DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THAT

>>6391721
Cool post bro, real good arguments there

>>6392704
I don't think OP has realized this, because if he has his post makes no sense. As does yours.

>>6391442
>>6391621

making idiots mad

>>6390798
Liberalism: You can do what you want within the space of these arbitrary rules that I just made up, also have some spooks about Humanity and Freedom being important

Stirner: Do as you please. Or don't, whatever.

Liberal competition: Put the picture of the cute cat on the packaging, our product will be more popular!

Stirnerist competition: Poison his newborn, he will be too distraught to function >:)

Stirner removes all the rules. Liberalism loves rules. The liberal idea of freedom is having rules that stop people from fucking with you too much. Stirner's idea of freedom is disregarding rules that stop you from fucking with people too much.

Stirner is neither left nor rightwing, since he dismisses obedience to any political order at all.

>>6393768
How fucking retarded is everyone? Stirner is closer to liberalism than to all forms of leftism, that doesn't mean he's liberal at all

Why is everyone on /lit/ fucking retarded?

>>6394669
>a worker's collective
>not a union of egoists

I remember having read him saying that he accepts christian values because they are the best he knows of and likes.

Don't forget, most of the people are unconscious egoists, as there are no reason to pick one generality(commonly accepted spook) over the other but because that you like it.

Stirner supported people's union which in turn helps him, what would still lead to people trying to make up and agreeing upon spooks, or just rules of preference, to benefit themselves.

>>6394732
And not all christian values, but I suppose he makes a point in that he thinks Christianity made some pleasant to follow ones

>>6394732
>I remember having read him saying that he accepts christian values because they are the best he knows of and likes.
You probably read that in a shitpost. Otherwise: Citation needed. The full text is on Project Gutenberg.

Stirner's tradition has survived solely through anarchism / left communism, why liberals and ancaps feel the need to reclaim him now is beyond me

>>6394732
Yeah you made that up

>>6395021
>>6395236
I tried reading it to find it, and I couldn't. However, there was a line of thought I discerned there that made me think he accepts christian values.

Especially evident when he talks about love, near the part about the singer and his need of ears to enjoy it.
" I sing as the bird sings
That on the bough alights;
The song that from me springs
Is pay that well requites.

I sing because—I am a singer. But I use[201] you for it because I—need[202] ears."

He is the singer, but he needs another person to entertain him, entertain him in way he wouldn't be able to without him. It's evident that constructs/spooks can be enjoyed, which he isn't able to construct as craftily himself, and some of them entertain the thought more than the others, more than he is capable to entertain himself(only through other he enjoys, no other no that specific entertainment); and so, some spooks can be owned to be used by you for your own sake of entertainment even though they are not made by you.

>>6395421
Can't say I see anything Christian about that statement tbh, and in other parts of the book he expresses himself as not very considered with morality, although he is sort of strangely pleasant about it ("I can kill them, not torture them").

But you're right in the sense that he doesn't have a problem with spooks, which a lot of /lit/ memers seem to think. Spooks are just concepts, you can't do without them, but it's how you deal with them that matters.

>>6390798
Why do you lefties and righties always try to claim a random, obscure philosopher as your own? It's not a big deal, children.

whats the next meme philosopher guys

>>6396434
i'm not trying to claim him, and i'm not a leftie or a rightie, tardie

>>6396786
ONLY YOU CAN DECIDE!

>>6396434
>random
>directly responsible for both nietzscheanism and marxism

kek

>>6390798
Are free markets inherently rightwing? Isn't stae controlled corporatism the most right wing, a la Nazi Germany? I wouldn't call it leftist, but I wouldn't call it rightwing either.

>>6396786
Marquis de Sade

>>6395099

because those people are not living up to it.

Stirner was a dream, so soft you could only barely whisper his name. But he lived.

>>6400177
Nazi Germany is ultimate modernism/progressism.
I don't care about useless words like "right wing" or "left wing". Nazism is foremost the opposite of the political philosophy of Constant, Turgot or Spencer.
Up to 1920 German society was very conservative. It is the Nazis that broke the power of the nobility and all traditional forms.

Right and left are mainstream memes.

>>6390798
>However, Stirner translated one of the first and certainly the most important German translation of Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
adam smith was left wing

>>6402390

You're funny.