/lit/ - Literature

stirner is post-dialectic

>>6478557
Stirner's work only makes sense if you understand the dialectic, but you're sort of right

>tfw stirner's biography is a sad read instead of a very edgy one

>>6478600
What's it called?

I debate people dialectically on here all the time you substanceless Other, what the fuck are you on about?

>>6478620
Max Stirner: His Life and His Work by John Henry Mackay

>>6478629
>i'm not substantial

on the contrary, my property

>>6478645
>Implying you aren't my predicate

>>6478544
Define "thinking dialectically".

I've read all of Plato and Hegel and I still don't know what dialectics are :(

>tfw pleb

>>6478673
>Hegel
>and I still don't know what dialectics are

How? Honestly, how is that even possible?

>>6478544
There's already a stirner thread on the front page >>6478282

>>6478687
I read the phenomenology. I understand that each epistemological stage is supposed to subsume the last dialectically but idk how dialectical arguments work. What sets them aside from normal arguments?

>>6478689
that's a meme thread. this is an actual stirner thread.

>>6478700
Think of it as a continuous upward spiral. The current argument builds on the previous one, while not necessarily refuting its points, and the next argument builds on that.
Previously, argument was about refutation. Dialectic is not.

>>6478704
What's the difference?

>>6478700
>>6478721
Nah, dialectics is all about presupposition and we get presuppositions from language itself.

Remember the part in the phenomenology at the very start where he says all pointing to, speech, utterances and ideas are universals?

This means for us when we say chair we also say not chair, the idea of not being a chair is contained within the idea of being a chair - and without this we literally wouldn't have chair as any idea at all.

When something presupposes its opposite and we determine the way in which the difference is constituted, and thus find a higher universal that mediates the two then we are doing dialectic. This is also why you can start at literally any place with dialectic.

>>6478687
I once made a thread asking for people to explain Hegel's dialectics to me and every response was different and most people disagreed with each other.

But, I mean, that's what you get when the source material is such obscurantist garbage.

>>6478760
LOLOLOL well troll'd my meming-friend

>>6478784
Hegel's dialectic is weird. Just stick to Fichte

>>6478784
Also dialectics are just a mode of thought that rejects the pseudo-rigor of analytics and fixed meanings (insofar as can be done), in a very general sense it's discussion. In the context of this thread OP is saying people generally don't understand what Stirner is trying to accomplish in his work

>>6478777
cont: with this I meant to give an idea of how dialectical development is possible, which for me was the chief reason I would have said I didn't understand dialectic before I felt I did

perhaps I don't understand it but what I do understand is stuff like >>6478721 and I always found these sorts of things unsatisfactory, hegel would have described it as just aims and results kind of thinking instead of getting into the meat of the matter

>>6478777
Uh huh

>>6478544
I just bought a new copy of Ego and His Own. So excited to read it in the bathtub by candlelight. :3

>>6479894
Have fun

>>6479927
Who said anything about fun?

>>6478784
pretty sure that the "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" schema doesn't actually appear anywhere in Hegel's work, it's just the most common interpretation of him

I think most people who talk about dialectics or Hegel get their ideas from some secondary text or teacher, not from Hegel. but for whatever reason (probably because it's actually comprehensible), that's the popular interpretation of what Hegel contributed to philosophy

>>6479950
But he didn't it comes directly from Critique of Pure Reason!

>>6479950
thats more like fichte's dialectic, whom hegels mostly mocked

>>6479950
He used it once

>>6478544
>implying Stirner 'though dialectially'
>impyling dialectics are not 100% eso-bullshit

>>6480203
Retard detected

I'm reading it now.

Am at the long long rant on Staat und Bürger (state and citicens?)

What's gonna be the best part in the book?
I'm a lifting theoretical physicist.

Stirner's dialectics are a spoof of Hegel's.

I am at the long long rant on state and citizens.
What's gonna be the best part in the book? I'm a 30yo /fit/ theoretical physics looking for what to do with life.

I understand them IRL. Feel free to discuss with me, I will be monitoring this thread for the next hour.

Stirner is not the 'end' nor is he a prophet. All he does is let you realize you have a choice. Certain ideas will either be useful to your or not. IRL, What you will come across are feeling rising within you calling to serve a spook. Using Stirner is merely noticing when this occurs and remembering to place the spook below you as property. It doesn't have to be particularly rebellious really, it's just understanding that your ego is competing against ideas. Back your ego and you in control, at least as much as it's possible to be.

>>6480387
Do pushups until girls like you

>>6478673
It means discussion.

>>6480387
The part that comes after that part about the einzige after thoroughly wrecking all collectivist ideology.

"Just bee yerself! If you don't that's a spooky!" - Stirner

Still better than post-structuralism.

>>6480420
>Just bee yerself
This is a spook though

>>6480420
You can't do anything else than b urself, anon. Pic related.

>>6480394
That achievement has been unlocked.
But I realized academia became pointless in the last 20 years (writing grant proposals 50% of the time, and publish or perish 60h a week..) and industry is full with engineering plebeians with which you can't have a conversation about something else than sports and family.
Where to go from there - I mean I figure this is the sort of questions (pre-)Nietzscheans ask and answer. Say it is so.

>>6480413
Why is it good?

>>6480426
>Why is it good?
Because it has the possibility of freeing you from things you previously may have erroneously found yourself bound to.

Also, but that's more of a personal thing, for me he has the ability to inspire a sort of unworried mischievousness joyfulness and lust for life.

Stirner is love, Stirner is life.

>>6480429
What do you do in life, and where is it going?

>>6480440
Cool

>>6480440
Creating such a narrative for oneself where one identifies with a particular kind of activity and a specific destination is spooky, joyless and limiting tbh.

>>6480484
Okay, but if you make no plan whatsoever, then you don't step out of the social situation where you are.
inb4 comparing with others is spooky or something like this - point is that change and improvement makes live interesting and joyful and you must measure that with respect to some scale. The scale is a feature of the "narrative" you just have to create - otherwise I think boredom with life and then a sort of depression will await.

>>6480380
nice argument you got there! I actually know a lot about Stirner, am up to date on secondary literature, have published on him etc.

>>6478600

>>6480498
>Okay, but if you make no plan whatsoever, then you don't step out of the social situation where you are.
You can make changes as you please, you don't need to plan some sort of imaginary person or life in advance that you wish to become.

>point is that change and improvement makes live interesting and joyful and you must measure that with respect to some scale.
I don't agree. In fact, I think that this is one of the prime ingredients to unhappiness in a lot of people. Seeing life as some linear thing that has to process in a completely arbitrarily defined upwards fashion, often one that rarely corresponds to how things actually unfold. It's like applying careerism to existence itself.

>The scale is a feature of the "narrative" you just have to create - otherwise I think boredom with life and then a sort of depression will await.
The boredom stems exactly from this arbitrary notion of what a life should be and then not living up to it, feeling as if you have 'not enough' life, whereas someone who 'lives himself out' to his hearts content without placing his actual life in comparison with some imaginary alternative will be more likely to play around joyfully, like a child.

I think the two pictures I posted (>>6480425 >>6480484) are essential to the way in which Stirner can be illuminative. At least that's the part of his work that struck me most.

Stirner is quite literally The Selfish Gene (Richard Dawkins tm) of Ethics

>>6480545
>whereas someone who 'lives himself out' to his hearts content without placing his actual life in comparison with some imaginary alternative will be more likely to play around joyfully, like a child.
I don't have to imagine it, I just need to look at other people who structured life differently, or who have other starting conditions, and have already reached something that, as I see it, want too.
>You can make changes as you please, you don't need to plan some sort of imaginary person or life in advance that you wish to become.
If you want to reach a goal that can't be reached immediatenly, like being good at X/being in the position to Y in 5 years, then the way to reach that goal must look into the future and have some steps.
This might be applying careerism to existence itself, as you say, but I feel the opposite is necessarily boring.
I could try to life a life of reading books and hooking up, but even if, then the time I must (necessarily) spend to support me via money can be optimized and as soon I'm into the "how to optimize" thought process I set some sort of career goals.

>>6480587
you're quite literally desparete for attention.

Where do I start with Max "The Meme Man" Stirner?

>>6480599
I do understand your outlook and in a way I guess my interpretation of Stirner is a personal one that serves as an affirmation of my leisurely tendencies. There is no real 'ought' with Stirner though, so it's possible that reading him serves someone like yourself in very different ways than me.

In any case, you should read the whole thing, but it's the last parts of the book that are really remarkable as far as I'm concerned. So don't stop reading. I don't think I ever talked to someone who got through the whole thing unaffected.

Also, read Stirner's Critics when you're done.

>>6478544
>tfw you'll never talk with someone capable of understanding Stirner's concepts IRL

then, mr supreme thinker, face a mirror and start talk to yourself

>>6478544
>assuming dialectical thinking isn't a spook

oh dear

>>6480792
You start and end with "The Unique One and Its Property".

>>6480823
So what do you do right now and where do you go with life?
And what does leisurely really mean and to what extend do you need confirmation?

Also, where do I find the critics?

>>6480599
the only satisfaction you should have with regards to property is from eventually dissolving it, since if you can't you are spooked.

>>6480884
Right now I'm having drinks between the blossoming apple trees in a luscious garden, where I'm going in life is the sum of what I desire to do each day and with leisure I refer to my general tendency to take it easy I suppose.

"Stirner's Critics" is a work by Stirner himself where he responds to the criticism that came in response to The Ego & Its Own that is very clarifying and is easily found online.

>>6480940
By property you mean a good career with income?
It's hard to say but difficult to live the chill way without cash, sorry.
I'm not about having many things - in fact I see that people (e.g. my boss) is stressed as fuck with his expensive home made kitched and the cars of his daughters. I don't want property (if you mean material things), but I need money to buy time.

>>6480944
>Right now I'm having drinks between the blossoming apple trees in a luscious garden, where I'm going in life is the sum of what I desire to do each day and with leisure I refer to my general tendency to take it easy I suppose.
I would have a much clearer idea of what we're talking about if you just say in which city you live and what class you belong to, what your education is, etc.
I get that you are a "free mind", bravo :P

>"Stirner's Critics" is a work by Stirner himself
Ah okay, I think I actually have it in the book I'm reading.

>>6480504
Then you'll be smart enough to know that Stirner attended Hegel's lectures and is responding to German idealism by use of their dialectics

>>6480792
The Unique and It's Property followed up by Stirner's Critics if you want to understand it more clearly

Are spooks actually stands? Did Stirner predict Jojo 150 years early, or is Hirohiko Araki the reincarnation of Stirner?

What does /lit/ think of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7vGntRbFe8

(talk against the single united culture spook)?

>>6482093
I've tried to read Donovan's The Way Of Men, it was turbo-dumb

Like a D&D manual not for "how to play as elves", but "how to play as human males"

>>6482093
What way does it lean politically

>>6482025
Spooks are literally memes in the parlance of our times.

>>6482138
right, as in "build white 'tribal' communities", and also build other independent groups/different creative pots.

>>6482093
Donovan is supremely spooked tbh, so spooked that he hates spooks that apply to him like 'faggot'. He's a roleplaying dyke.

>>6482151
Sure, but then again, everybody at least semi-famous is spooked, except Stirner himself - isn't that so.

Also, how is being a homosexual a spook? It's not, just like being straight or male or being blonde isn't a spook.

>>6482093
"I want people to remain isolated in parochial culture"

cf. Marx "The idiocy of rural life"

>>6482162
recognizing sexual limitation is a spook

>>6482162

Stirner is spooked though. It is literally impossible to be free of spooks, since even the Einzige is spooky. At best Der Einzige is an attempt at barganing with them and at worst a neutral study of them.

>>6482025
>or is Hirohiko Araki the reincarnation of Stirner?
Neither, Araki is the「Contemporary」of Stirner. Along with many other notable people...

>>6482093
this is the funniest thing I've ever seen. five minutes in and the dude has basically copped to being an accelerationist Marxist except for his shitty race war views lol

>>6482210

Do you think this what Stirner saw whenever someone in Hippell's wne bar started spouting shit about Christianity to him? Was Stirner a stand himself? It fits in with the Boltzmann brain theory.

>>6482249
Stirner was Engels stand

Other than Stirner who are some egoists worth reading?

>>6478784
Every philosopher does dialectic differently, it's like a Rorschach test.

>>6482230
This is too much smart lingo for me, what are you saying? Funny how?

>>6479950
How is a thesis-antithesis problem resolved there, I never got that.

>>6482268

None. Stirner is as far as philosoph got. Literally, he predicted our modern era of humanism far before it happened, and maybe even the future of it, which will end far after we die.

>>6481961
>I would have a much clearer idea of what we're talking about if you just say in which city you live and what class you belong to, what your education is, etc.
I get that you are a "free mind", bravo :P

you sound like a douche

>>6482287
there's a tendency within Marxism called "accelerationism" that openly supports things that makes capitalism more extreme/"worse," on the grounds that doing so makes the supposedly inevitable proletarian revolution closer

that's this guy's view, except for multiculturalism and insane racist tribalism, or whatever his end goal is instead of communism

>>6482312
Why predict?

When he write about the system of state and how humans have switched spooks from religion and god in favor of moral reasoning and humanity, leaving us with capital to express the differences,
isn't that because this system and the associated notions are already present in the world he lives in?

>>6482371

He suggested that was the Mongolian Age, and the Caucasian Age would follow, which is the egoist age.

>>6482346
Thanks for clearing that up.

>>6481961
>I would have a much clearer idea of what we're talking about if you just say in which city you live and what class you belong to, what your education is, etc.
How does that matter as far as my interpretation of Stirner goes?
>I get that you are a "free mind", bravo :P
I wasn't trying to be a cunt, but I can see how it seems like it though.

>>6482381
I don't know what age or state of affairs he would say is better (both are not good for him, obviously), the older one where some rich dude owns the land and the workers etc. and the mass is fucked,
or where that someone is not a person the spooky state, and everybody serves the state and every child defends the "rights"/laws of that spook by moral code.

>>6482399
>How does that matter as far as my interpretation of Stirner goes?
I feel it obviously makes the meaning behind every statement more understandable if one knows where you're coming from.

>>6482404

The Caucasian age would be best for him because he was adapted to it, and perhaps is the only human who ever did and will ever live it. We won't ever know because obviously we can't put ourselves inside Stirner's mind and know the extent he personally heaven-stormed spooks.

I don't think he preferred either. He speaks dispassionatley of both capitalism and socialsim.

>>6482162
>Sure, but then again, everybody at least semi-famous is spooked, except Stirner himself - isn't that so.
Being 'spooked' is being a servant of ideas and ideals.

>Also, how is being a homosexual a spook? It's not, just like being straight or male or being blonde isn't a spook.
Homosexuality is a 'spook'. Fucking men, or being attracted to men, or loving men, isn't . Androphilia in the Donovan sense is a spook deluxe. He wanted a special spooky concept to not be a regular faggot but his own kind of special masculine faggot. This lad is obsessed with ideology. Stirner would have no problem with fucking men, but making fucking men into some kind of essentialist identity that defines you is something he would laugh at in the same way he laughed at people being a Christian or a humanist or a socialist.

>>6482207
Stirner never claimed to be free of 'spooks', nor wanted to be, nor claimed it was possible. 'Spooks' are conceptual thought. His main points were about one's relation to conceptual thought and how we are either servile to ideas or use them to our own benefit.

You probably have not read him though.

>>6482433
From reading the bio on the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on him, he didn't seem to live the happiest of lives, so I won't try to admire his actual mindset - rather I just take from the book what makes sense to me.

Someone on /fit/ asked me why Nietzsche is so famous in comparison - I'm really a scientist, I have no idea. My guess was that either Nietzsche was a better writer or he lived at better times. Knew Wagner and so on. What is it?

>>6482452
>Stirner would have no problem with fucking men
D-do you think he would have wanted to f-fuck me?

>>6478600
>tfw when there isnt an english translation.

>>6482452

>Stirner never claimed to be free of 'spooks'

That's what I said.

>>6482454

Because Nietzche is more accesable, and because after his death his damnable sister manipulated his writings to fit German Nationalism, culmulating with the Nazis. Neitzche wasn't a better writer - and dare I say, for this might draw a lot of contempt - Sirner managed to say in one book what Nietzsche said in 12. Despite that, I do not believe Nietzche ever plagerized Stirner, I simply believe they both arrive at mildly similar conclusions.

>>6482454
>he didn't seem to live the happiest of lives, so I won't try to admire his actual mindset
His mindset was wonderful, it's just that his circumstances were shit. Most people who knew him admired his personality though.

>Someone on /fit/ asked me why Nietzsche is so famous in comparison - I'm really a scientist, I have no idea. My guess was that either Nietzsche was a better writer or he lived at better times. Knew Wagner and so on. What is it?
I love and respect Nietzsche, but apart from being a great philosopher and rhetorician he is also supreme quote material for plebs ("life without music would be a mistake"), which is a great part of the reason he is well known today, in addition to his historical influence. And, as you say, he also had more publicity on his side, while people gave and give Stirner the silent treatment because he isn't convenient to ideologues.

>>6482470
It's easily found online m8:

https://libcom.org/files/Mackay%20-%20Max%20Stirner%20-%20His%20Life%20and%20His%20Work.pdf

>>6482495
>That's what I said.
I read your post out of context, apologies.

>>6482495
>nietzsche wasn't a better writer

>Spirit is the life that itself cuts into life: with its own agony it increases its own knowledge. Did you know that? And the happiness of the spirit is this: to be anointed and through tears to be consecrated as a sacrificial animal. Did you know that? And the blindness of the blind and their seeking and groping shall yet bear witness to the power of the sun, into which they have looked. Did you know that? And the lover of knowledge shall learn to build with mountains. It means little that the spirit moves mountains. Did you know that? You know only the spark of the spirit, but you do not see the anvil it is, nor the cruelty of its hammer. Verily, you do not know the pride of the spirit! But even less would you endure the modesty of the spirit, if ever it would speak. And you have never yet been able to cast your spirit into a pit of snow: you are not hot enough for that. Hence you also do not know the ecstasies of its coldness. In all things, however, you act too familiarly with the spirit, and you have often made wisdom into a poorhouse and a hospital for bad poets. You are no eagles: hence you have never experienced the happiness that is in the terror of the spirit. And he who is not a bird should not build his nest over abysses.

>>6482552

Not than Stirner, no. Neitzche is too conveluted and seems to struggle to say exactly what he means. Stirner has much better prose, especially given that his prose is directly linked to the concept that you cannot describe Eizige without poetic language. The entire book is an ode to Einzige. Nietzche has metaphores and analogies and so forth; Stirner caputes the Einzige through poetic langauge.

And will you not learn by these brilliant examples that the egoist gets on best? I for my part take a lesson from them, and propose, instead of further unselfishly serving those great egoists, rather to be the egoist myself.

"God and mankind have concerned themselves for nothing, for nothing but themselves. Let me then likewise concern myself for myself, who am equally with God the nothing of all others, who am my all, who am the only one.[Der Einzige]

If God, if mankind, as you affirm, have substance enough in themselves to be all in all to themselves, then I feel that I shall still less lack that, and that I shall have no complaint to make of my “emptiness.” I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.

Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my concern! You think at least the “good cause” must be my concern? What’s good, what’s bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me.

The divine is God’s concern; the human, man’s. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is — unique,[Einzig] as I am unique.

Nothing is more to me than myself!"

>>6482585
>someone that appreciates stirner for his prose

ily tbh

>>6482585
this is a dynamite intro tbh

>>6482505
Thank you greatly anon.

>>6482632
Pic related, it's how I love you.

>>6482452
I don't see why it's completely clear that homosexually would be a spook but being a male isn't one.
At least if you strictly associate 'spook' with idiologies that people put above them. A gay man in a tribe might think of himself he only likes to fuck men but never heard of the concept as concept and might know nobody who has an opinion of being homosexual. It's a word, short for other words describing something.
Donovan might be obsessed with some spooks, but just because he uses the word Androphilia to denote a subset of Homosexuals - the mere introduction and use of the word - doesn't make it a spook, I'd say. I mean if you want to talk with other people, you must introduce language, and then those predicates are all naively spooky in the sense of made up and fuzzy, not right away measurable with a ruler.
Let me put it like this: I don't know how to quantify at which point someone "puts a concept above himself", so that I could honestly claim I'm spooked.
If I'd just say I'm a homosexual, then this can just as well be language to communicate and make people react a certain way.
How to judge when one is caged by predicates he claims true for himself?

Will reading Stirner help rid me of my anxiety over lofty existential questions?

>>6483716
I think some people get out with a "I can be selfishly mean, it doesn't matter" attitude.
But if you are planless in life, I don't think it'll improve your general outlook.

>>6483716
Maybe. But talking to a therapist would help a bit more.

>>6480429
>Stirner is love, Stirner is life
I don't even like Stirner and I can still say that you sir are fucking spooked.

>>6482416
I'm not the guy you were talking to, but it's pretty clear you have some unresolved issues. It'll take more than Stirner memes from 4chan to unspook you. Have you considered counseling?

>>6483793
It's pretty clear there are unresolved issues from which post/statement?

What is the real definition of spook ?

>>6483801
Uh, what is a ghost? An apparition, it appears but has no corporeal effect. It's effects are purely imagined by you.