/lit/ - Literature

>>7933690
Most of the what Ive seen discussed here indicates that he was doing this to have fun at hegels genealogical approach to the development of ideas.

>Is he not serious there? If so, how is what he has to say later not congruent with this part?

His ideas are consistent even if his ways of expressing them are not. Whilst I have yet to read the rest of his work Im of the opinion that those sections are a fun way of him exploring other forms of egoism and thought.

>>7934036
You seem a little biased, but you might be totally right still.

On the topic of this evolution with age - in that chapter it seems that the way that he perceives as right (i.e. away from young idealistic spooked perspectives, and towards more egocentric aged guy) happens automatically here. That's surprising because otherwise it doesn't seems like he feels anybody is naturally adopting his way.

--------

Also, I need clarification: To what extend does Stirner say other people are his property?
And how does he explain that other people are not really easy to use.
If he says something can only be your property if someone can't just take it from you, how are other (and/or capabilities of others) every truely yours?

>>7933690
>Is this true? Is he not serious there?

Did you read the book? First, he's obviously not a hegelian in any way whatsoever.

>Compared with this puritanical Calvinism, Lutheranism is again more on the religious, spiritual, track — is more radical. For the former excludes at once a great number of things as sensual and worldly, and purifies the church; Lutheranism, on the contrary, tries to bring spirit into all things as far as possible, to recognize the holy spirit as an essence in everything, and so to hallow everything worldly. (“No one can forbid a kiss in honor.” The spirit of honor hallows it.) Hence it was that the Lutheran Hegel (he declares himself such in some passage or other: he “wants to remain a Lutheran”) was completely successful in carrying the idea through everything. In everything there is reason, i.e. holy spirit, or “the real is rational.” For the real is in fact everything; as in each thing, e.g., each lie, the truth can be detected: there is no absolute lie, no absolute evil, etc.

[...]

>But, if the deserving count as the free (for what does the comfortable commoner, the faithful office-holder, lack of that freedom that his heart desires?), then the “servants” are the — free. The obedient servant is the free man! What glaring nonsense! Yet this is the sense of the bourgeoisie, and its poet, Goethe, as well as its philosopher, Hegel, succeeded in glorifying the dependence of the subject on the object, obedience to the objective world. He who only serves the cause, “devotes himself entirely to it,” has the true freedom. And among thinkers the cause was — reason, that which, like State and Church, gives — general laws, and puts the individual man in irons by the thought of humanity. It determines what is “true,” according to which one must then act. No more “rational” people than the honest servants, who primarily are called good citizens as servants of the State.

It's pretty clear, no?

Also the way he uses Hegelian "methods" is completely absurd on its face, of course he is not serious.

>>7934069
sorry for being a history pleb, but what is the connex between Hegel and Luther?

>>7934112
Read Stirner and find out!

Or read Nietsche, his explanation is actually better.

The tl;dr is that Hegelianism and leftist ideologies in general are basically a secular sect of Protestantism, but there's more to it.

>>7934053
>You seem a little biased, but you might be totally right still.

Im quite ignorant Im just reporting what ive read here and what ive gathered for myself from the text.

I must say though that as a German speaker you are in a unique position because from what ive heard whilst English discussions on Stirner are rather sparse (and old) there are good German materials on him.

If you have access to a university library it would defiently be worthwhile to search for essays and articles on him.

>>7934154
To add to this Ive also found discussion in the Amazon comments sections of books on him to be helpful.

>http://www.amazon.com/Max-Stirners-Egoism-J-Clark/dp/090038414X

Take a look at the one star comments for some nice discussions on Stirner as well as some breif recommendations on other english secondary sources

bump

>>7933690
Who published that edition of Stirner?
I've been wanting to find a German edition.

>>7935487
......Reclam.

To what extend does Stirner say other people are his property?
And how does he explain that other people are not really easy to use.
If he says something can only be your property if someone can't just take it from you, how are other (and/or capabilities of others) every truely yours?

>>7937449
These quotes might help you here

>I do not want to recognize or respect in you any thing, neither the proprietor nor the ragamuffin, nor even the man, but to use you. In salt I find that it makes food palatable to me, therefore I dissolve it; in the fish I recognize an aliment, therefore I eat it; in you I discover the gift of making my life agreeable, therefore I choose you as a companion. Or, in salt I study crystallization, in the fish animality, in you men, etc. But to me you are only what you are for me — to wit, my object; and, because my object, therefore my property.

and

>Therefore we two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this “human society,” I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform it rather into my property and my creature; i. e., I annihilate it, and form in its place the Union of Egoists.

>>7938122
Okay, that's direct!
But then it's an approach you can't really talk about with "your property". Most "normal people" you talk to will reject Stirners ideas and be offended if you call them their property. So not tell what you think?

>>7938413
Just keep repeating "I own you" over and over. They'll get it eventually.

Oh, and by the way, I can't emphasize enough the importance of sound-proofing when it comes to your basement dungeon. You can have the strongest steel cage in the world, but if your neighbors hear screaming, the jig is up.

>>7938413
You can see why he coped a lot of hate from people and Marx wrote almost a whole book attacking him.

I think the idea I got from him here was the point of not turning yourself into another persons property.

Engage with other people based on your own individual sentiments/feels rather than serve the spooks you create around them.
Here is another helpful quote when it comes to understand how Stirners thought doesnt mean just being an ass to other people

>I love men too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them.

>>7938497
To add to this, considering other people as property is merely a way of despooking yourself and being honest with your own ego and motivations