/lit/ - Literature

>>6523321
Bump for Hegel/Stirner thread

Daily reminder

>>6523419
It seems that spooks are only part of Stirner's philosophy to me

>>6523425
It's a meme you dip

>>6523450
Why do you post this in like.. Every.. Stirner thread?

>>6523321
Seems like a logical fallacy to imply that simply because something is edifying it can't be true.

>>6523466
Not when the claim is against it.

>>6523466
Hegel doesn't say that

>>6523457
Because it is my pleasure

According to Hegel, an ideology most dangerous to any individual is their own.

Is this why the people got so angry over sad puppies? Because it demonstrated that democracy is absolutely not good for them?

>>6524080
Good job, well meme'd

>>6523321
Yes, Stirner gives you a complete understanding of the universe.

every time someone posts Stirners actual views they seem dumb as shit and like something a twelve year old would think

I'm never going to read Ego and Its Own btw

>>6524166
At least for what to do, yeah.

>>6524171
literally nobody cares

>>6524001
yes je dpes

>>6523419
isn't happiness a spook?

http://lankanewsweb.net/beyond-borders/10260-the-limitless-expanse-of-an-enclosed-space-ruminations-on-heidegger-schelling-derrida-ludwig-wittgenstein-and-max-stirner-part-1-slavoj-zizek

>yfw zizek talks about stirner

>>6524410
Everything can be a spook, if you put it over yourself. However since happiness generally is a benefit for yourself, it is unlikely to be a spook.

>>6524172
Stirner does not telly ou what to do, he only makes fun of people who do something. Stirner is a jester, not a teacher.

>>6524418
>Stirner is a jester, not a teacher.
nop

>>6524410
the idea of happiness, but im sure the chemical release that makes you feel good isn't

>>6524418
i thought the point was you can give value to spooks if it benefits you. Its still a spook, but a spook that works in your favour.

>>6524171
why don't you point out something you find dumb and we will help explain/convince you why it's not. Its not like Stirner is without his flaws but he is one of the harder philosophers to dispute imo.

Friendly reminder that you don't really understand Hegel if you haven't read Science of Logic.

>>6523321
they aren't entirely comparable. stirner talks about the condition of the individual, the mind, its desires, the relationship of the individual to others, ideal forms of social organization, etc.

hegel is far more comprehensive and general. not a perfect analogy, but it'd be like trying to compare wittgenstein to peter singer. singer is mostly concerned with ethics, which is a specific topic or area. hegel on the other hand attempted to encompass and synthesize many different areas of study into one cohesive analysis.

>>6525844

Stirner assumes Being and falls into the same pit that Heidegger created for all the western philosophy tradition.

>>6525861
>Science of Logic

I think you mean Wissenschaft der Logik.

>>6526015

Yes.

>>6525844
the bit that OP quoted is indistinguishable from the classic twelve-year-old argument about how altruism can't exist "because you're really doing it for the way it makes you feel" or whatever.

it works on the same stunted circular logic: first you define philosophical inquiry as something only done in order to edify yourself, then you use it to prove that the edification of one's self is the only goal of philosophical inquiry. it's stupid, reductive, unfalsifiable and question-begging (in the actual sense, not in the way people use "begs the question").

all bits of Stirner that others have posted here have seemed equally stupid. Hegel at least has some interesting ideas.

>>6526741
>falsifying philosophy

>>6526741
It doesn't matter whether you "feel" good, if charity is a "higher" good, then it's still edification to do it

You never have to do anything, when you start dividing things into "good" and "bad" you're still doing "the good" because you think "the good" is better than "the bad", it's still you being motivated by what you think is best

Also literally nobody cares what you think

>>6525880
No he doesn't you retard.

>>6524418
>However since happiness generally is a benefit for yourself, it is unlikely to be a spook.

top kek, didn't Stirner say the self was a spook?

It's a bullshit philosophy that ought to be replaced with Aristotle's virtue ethics.

>>6527378

Yes he does, in fact his book only accounts for ideas and not for being in the world. Reading Stirner will calm your mind, but you will keep being the same as always.

>>6527486
This has to be bait.

>>6527373
"the self is the only way of evaluating things, therefore things are only good and bad based on their evaluation by the self" can you not see why this is dumb circular bullshit

guys theres a reason Stirner was not a famous philosopher and is mostly known outside of /lit/ as "some guy Marx made fun of." it's because Stirner said nothing interesting or original

>>6527489
Read Hegel and then Stirner again. Stirner does not assume being.

>>6527504
People on /lit/ are being retarded like usual. The "self" is a Lockian concept that needs to be read in order to make sense of the discussion. The Cartesian self is not "you".

>>6527601
>"the self is the only way of evaluating things, therefore things are only good and bad based on their evaluation by the self" can you not see why this is dumb circular bullshit
... But what you just said isn't circular.

>guys theres a reason Stirner was not a famous philosopher and is mostly known outside of /lit/ as "some guy Marx made fun of." it's because Stirner said nothing interesting or original
Epic post bro. Your hot opinions are swaying my views.

>>6527643
so what you're saying is you can't see why it's dumb circular bullshit

>>6527652
No. Elucidate for me

"Stirner just isn't good for me."

Oh the ironing

>>6527601
this

>>6529038
not this

>>6527601
>the self is the only way of evaluating things, therefore things are only good and bad based on their evaluation by the self
I still don't follow your rationale here, care to explain why this is circular, oh-so-patrician master?

>mfw people who haven't even read any Hume, Kant or Hegel try to criticize Stirner
>mfw the criticisms of Stirner never approach anything that actually speaks to the core of his argument
>mfw literally "he's gay" is the equivalent of how people argue against him

People love attacking him in "le epik Nietzsche" polemical one liners, but they always sound cringy as fuck because 1. they're not Nietzsche and 2. they don't even understand half of exactly what Stirner is doing and how he fits into the history of western philosophy

Stay mad, betacucks.

>>6527601

Stirner was received well by a few in his time, Benajmin Tucker was quite influenced by him, as was Friedrich Engles, I think the theory that he influenced Nietzsche makes a lot of sense too, so I don''t think its fair to say that "No one cared about Stirner". That fact that he made Marx so butthurt in my mind shows how valid his philosophy is.

Fact of the matter is though he didn't write many books, I think he wrote a total of four pieces? ( TEAHO, False Principal, Stirner's Critic, and another one I can't quite recall ) So frankly his lack of influence ( outside one of the most well known philosopher's in history) is understandable.

Last week, I was sitting in the local library, reading Hegel. Suddenly a man with receding hairline, round spectacles and a smug smile approached me, leaned over my shoulder and gently whispered "spooks, son" into my ear. Without warning, there came to me the purest ecstasy I'd ever known.

>>6529298
I smell bullshit

>>6529531
I think you have seen through yet another cunning ruse, dear Samwell.

I saw Stirner in a milk shop in Prussia yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.
He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?" and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw Stirner trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Red Bulls in his hands without paying.
The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be hearing a ghost, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.

When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any spooky infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in individual bags and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by giggling really loudly.

>>6529543
GODDAMN NOT THE SPICY KEYCHAIN

>>6527601
>implying man is not the measure of all things

Hey, do you know if the language in German original of The Ego and Its Own is difficult? I learned German in school, but I haven't used it a very long time.

>>6529298
>>6529548

What is sex like with Max Stirner? It’s a question I’ve pondered many times, about a great many men, but the thought of sexual intercourse with Max Stirner is something I constantly return to, more so than others. Sex with Friedrich Nietzsche must have surely been terrifyingly masochistic and dangerous (not without protection, Freddy). Ingmar Bergman’s many affairs meant he was probably a great lover in bed, but he also probably cried relentlessly afterwards every time out of guilt and the lack of God’s answers for shagging. Someone like Cary Grant would have been a fantastically smooth talker, but given that he was probably gay, he would also have probably been a slight disappointment. Klaus Kinski would probably not allow you to make a single sound, in case you distract him from his task. A Marlene Dietrich would probably eat you alive and forget about you immediately. It goes on.

But Max Stirner? Lord knows what that was like. Marie Dähnhardt couldn't bring herself to talk about it when Mackay asked her, it was probably too terrifying, or maybe even non-existent. After many hours pondering (because what better things do I have to do than ponder how Max Stirner tackled penetration?), I have come to the conclusion that Sankt Max was either entirely asexual and has always been that way, or he’s a complete fucking jackhammer. I can imagine him viewing sexuality as a spook, same as he views absolutely everything. On the other hand perhaps he only sees spooks everywhere because he didn't get enough sex. If it’s the latter than he was probably incredibly frustrated in bed anyway, and it lead to 300mph machine-gun fucking. Did he even have a mattress? Was it just a metal or concrete slab? I doubt Max Stirner had a memory foam mattress. There was probably a bunch of metal chains hanging around for spooky stuff, and also love poems to Marie and some hot milk maid in a shop he frequented, as drinking anything but milk else would be far too spooky for him.

>>6529836
No it's not.

>>6529850
>not bending over and having your prostate "examined" by minmax stanstirner

>>6528002
He's assuming what he's trying to prove by defining "evaluation" as something that only the self can do. So therefore all evaluations are dependent on the self. It's like a textbook example of circular reasoning (or question-begging). It also hand-waves away any idea of evolutionary or social morality, just by defining the terms the way he chooses to. It's crap thinking.

>>6533051
What else can 'evaluate' then?

>>6533075
Most importantly, groups of people can evaluate (in a way distinct from how each individual would evaluate alone). But computer programs can evaluate inputs, calculators can evaluate equations, etc.

You can define down "evaluation" to be something that only individuals do if you want, but it removes the explanatory power of the world and makes the statement basically worthless. Which seems to be what Stirner is trying to do (according to others here), I just have no idea why that's worthwhile or who on earth thinks it's interesting philosophy.

>>6533122
Yes, I think calculators are a valuable part of defining 'evaluation' here.

>>6533210
The groups one is obviously the important one, and the one you'd respond to if you were interested in defending Stirner's views which I don't personally care about at all, other than that they seem dumb.

>>6533243
A group of individuals do not form a hivemind, judgement is still created and accepted on an individual basis.

>>6533259
A group evaluates differently than an individual does, and will often come to a conclusion that no individual on his own would. I don't know how you could disagree with that.

>>6533502
Why is it impossible for an individual to come to those conclusions?

>>6533527
Because people come to different conclusions when they interact with other people?

Do you think a person raised without contact with anyone else in the world would be able to reach as many and varied conclusions as heterogeneous mixes of people would?

>>6533566
Given enough time

I've got:

> The Dance of the Dialectic - Ollman
> Studies on Marx and Hegel - Hyppolite
> Introduction to the Reading of Hegel - Kojeve
> History of Philosophy - Hegel
> Science of Logic - Hegel
> Phenomenology of Spirit - Hegel
>On Contradiction - Mao (Verso Books edition)

What order should I read them, and what else should I get?

>>6533850
you are ready for Zizek