/lit/ - Literature

Can ego be an illusion of the consciousness if it is the consciousness?

>>8437943
Stirner actually says the ego is a spook.

>>8437972
Are spooks a spook?

Is there anything that isn't a spook?

>philosopher so irrelevant that there aren't even real pictures of him
>retards on /lit/ love him

>>8437991
>retards on /lit/ love him
i think they just love the memes. i doubt most people have read him

>>8437943
It would only be funny if Nietzsche says "yeah, well, that's just, like, your perspective man".

>It's an Anon confuses the psychological ego and the creative nothing thread.
Nigger he explicitly addresses this in the book. How many fucking are we going to have to go through this shit? Do you need a chart?

>>8438147
post rare jays

>>8438147
post nude jays

>>8437991
>>8438019
he's fairly popular on /pol/ too

>>8438159
huh? really?

maybe they've just bought into the memes

>>8438152
Post Bailey Jays.

>>8438197

she's a W H O R E

>>8438147
a chart would actually be nice

>>8438166
Of course they have. /pol/ isn't smart enough to actually read Stirner.

I think probably most people on this board have read little if no Stirner. Some probably thumbed through the Ego and Its Own.

It's weird because I read Stirner in college and I'm not entirely sure why he is so fucking popular here.

Pretty garden variety anarchist/nihilist edgelord.

Actually I guess I answered my own question.

>>8438299
Any good English translation of the Ego and Its Own?

>>8438306
As I don't read or speak German I'm not so sure. I read the Cambridge blue book one.

>>8438159
He's posted slot on leftpol, though I don't notice him posted much on pol

>>8438213
>she

>>8437991
To be fair, he is pretty well known.
My library has a few books on him.

>>8438159
Leftypol

>>8438306
Avoid anyone which translates Spuk with spook.

>>8437972
Source?

Stirner effectively amounts to nihilism. No wonder he died like a bitch.

>Stirner planned and financed (with Marie's inheritance) an attempt by some Young Hegelians to own and operate a milk-shop on co-operative principles.
>This enterprise failed partly because the dairy farmers were suspicious of these well-dressed intellectuals.
>The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.

What did Stirner mean by this?

>Stirner
>Nihilist

When will the meme end?

Replace 'spook' with 'meme' and Stirner's philosophy makes equally as much sense

>>8438416
Never because it's a perfect summary of what Stirner amounts to.

>>8438427

Stirner is the opposite of a nihilist, though.

>>8438409
>The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.

tfw spooks literally caused his business to fail

>>8438299
What do you believe in anon?

>>8438299
>why he is so fucking popular here
Critique of hegelian/cantian autistic ethics, liberals of various kinds and ideologies in general. He provides a great framework for a contrarian.

>>8438429
He's a nihilist with the alibi of private language. As far as communication between one Stirner/Stirnerites and someone else (including another Stirner/Stirnerite) has more than 0% success rate of transferring information, he's a nihilist to the degree he allowed himself (against his better judgement!) to enter the arena of common language with the expection of successfully exchanging information and coming to a mutual understanding.

There is no meaning without common language, only empathy or lack thereof. Stirnerites revert to animalism which a scientist can merely behavioristically examine and come to the conclusion that S. e.g. prefers one behavior over the other with a certain group and if that behavior is human-like enough on some level of abstraction, the scientist may anthropomorphize that behavior and share with the world that S. is, say, altruistic. But that would be our language, not the Stirnerite's. Mutual empathy is the best you can get when one party refuses to seek a common language.

But nihilism is negation of meaning which is fundamentally a matter of language. As the adage goes "Life has no meaning. So what?".

But Stirner/Stirnerites purportedly speak a private language. "Ain't gonna make a servant of truth out of me" and so on.

>le dilemma face

Stirner is nihilism (to the -- Max) as far as this conversation ís to you that which it is to me. Inside your head, assuming you're a Stirnerite, he can mean anything you want him to. But if you were you could have denied any of the basic premises I made in this post in which case I just talked at a brick wall. That's ok though, sane people are reading too.

>b-but Stirner is not a solipsist
Indeed. He's an animal (a rather sexually repressed one). Animals are nihilistic by their nature and relation to us via medium of language, q.e.d. We may still pet them and cuddle with them however :3

>>8438493

Spooked af senpai

>>8438493
You are an animal too, anon

>>8438299
That's exactly why he's popular, with one addition; he's also plausibly right. That is, he wouldn't be popular if he was shit.
>>8438306
There's only one. It's okay.

>>8438518
Category error but yes, that is a correct observation. Just not relevant to what I said.

A hammer that shatters the shallowness of complacency.

Stirner goes at it tooth, claw and nail in the philosophical rooms of pretension stripping the layers of wallpaper one by one. Christianity, Socialism, Liberalism, Morality, Belief, Virtue, Ideology, Nationalism, Patriotism are all consigned to the trashcan of history.

Marx hated him, both for his iconoclasm and for disassembling Marxism. Belief in forces laying outside of the self were the anathema, god is as laughable as the proletariat, both exist as wheels in the head.

Therefore, what remains? Existential nothingness, the dread of being. The feeling of being trapped or released from your own thoughts, the zest of being alive. The world is composed through the individual who is thrashed, psychologically derided and nullified until they accept their place in the hierarchy. This is all an illusion and exists as a form of mass hysteria in peoples heads. They back it up with weaponry and zeal but there belief system means nothing in the sum totality of the universe. The first stage in recognition of the multiplicity of freedom.

Stirner is the man who went through the wallpaper, through the pain, and found the coated layers of plaster underneath - unsullied. He shares many of the same qualities as Nietzsche, except Stirner was the first to reach the cold North Pole and plant his flag.

>>8438510
Enjoy your animal dasein, friend.

>>8437949
"If consciousness is an illusion then who is being fooled?"

>>8438531
Psychologists would have a field day with Stirnerites. I would actually pay hard cash to see some existentialist weenie reveal his cognitive dissonance again and again while showing all the signs of delusions of grandeur and depression at the same time.

I can't even

>>8438555
>>Psychologists would have a field day with Stirnerites.
So would cannibals, what's your point?

>>8438493
Oh, it's you again. Poor man.

>>8438543
>"If consciousness is an illusion then who is being fooled?"
It's not illusionary, it's ontologically nonexistent. Consciousness is an "illusion" like the wetness of water.

>>8438558

>>8438555
>Psychologists would have a field day with Stirnerites
Same could be said about your post there buddy. But to be honest I'd like to see some coherent arguments against Stirners philosophy.

>>8438583
>>8438561
Why can't I hold all this lowbrow ;___;

>>8438585
Oh, you're delusional, ok.

>>8438583
>But to be honest I'd like to see some coherent arguments against Stirners philosophy.
There is no private language. You can't say things mean what you want them to mean. The meaning of a word is its use in the language. The mere fact that you understood Stirner means you contradicted his philosophy.

I can fix his philosophy with one sentence however: "What you do outside of language is up to you.".

But *that's* not very fancy huh..

>>8438529
>he wouldn't be popular if he was shit.

Exploitable epic may may waiting to happen.

>>8438147
linguistic reification

stirnerfags are closeted cartesians and won't take the big leap but talk a big talk

put it in the fucking garbage

>>8438147
> the Ego and SEMANTICS are not spooks

there's a reason stirner isn't read outside 4chan

>>8438627
>stirnerfags are closeted cartesians
Nigga how top kek

>>8438555
>>8438555

>Psychologists would have a field day with Stirnerites.

So might Homeopathists and Astrologists.

Doesn't mean I have to take them seriously though.

I don't know what Stirnerites even want in threads like this. If you were a fundamentalist (I don't know anything about you so I can only argue per proxy against the book) you wouldn't participate in any such discussions since they are a violation of your dogma of the self as creative nothing. I would have no access to you, literally.

So, if you are here this means you are still on the fence. But what is it that you are unsure of? What needs explanation? I hear "prove him wrong, prove him wrong" in every thread. What do you want to hear? Stirner preemptively denies institutionalized value and the axioms of a common language.

Protip: That's a closed belief system. Like nihilism or materialism or psychological egoism. You can just deny, deny, deny all day long by inflating the definitions of what it means to have no meaning, nothing outside matter, no action that is not selfish respectively.

Do you think those "damn SJW" philosophers in Cambridge and Stanford or whatever shudder in fear when they hear Stirner's name? No, into the trash he goes because his philosophy is uninteresting and offers exactly -zero- accessible explanation of the world or anything. Zeeerooo. Ok?

Does that make sense?

???

>>8438555
>Psychologists would have a field day with Stirnerites.
And Nietzsche was a psychologist.

>>8438648
>Doesn't mean I have to take them seriously though.
Never said you had to but you might care about your mental health.

(Tho I'm not even that sure in the case of Stirnerfags)

>>8438660

>Implying psychology isn't a politically hijacked field of science anyway

>>8438653

>Do you think those "damn SJW" philosophers in Cambridge and Stanford or whatever shudder in fear when they hear Stirner's name? No, into the trash he goes because his philosophy is uninteresting and offers exactly -zero- accessible explanation of the world or anything. Zeeerooo. Ok?

You sound just like Marx when he was shitting himself, too.

I can smell the denial.

>>8438299
>I think probably most people on this board have read little if no Stirner.

Sure.

>>8438662
Sigh. Mental illness existed before the field of psychology. I am saying you might want to watch out because humans crave such things as love and I don't mean Stirnerian Jesus-love but practical, real-world "normie" affection and friendship and all that stuff.

Please don't alienate yourself because of some stupid book. Your life is worth more than that. Remember, Stirner died impoverished, alone and (as some speculate) a virgin.

You are better than this and you know that. Good luck.

>>8438680
>Remember, Stirner died impoverished, alone and (as some speculate) a virgin.
.............so what?

>>8438653
His whole point is to shatter closed belief systems. If you haven't noticed, he doesn't deny anything but boundaries imposed by various ideas (aka spooks). His point is, laws, humanism, social order, loving each other is fine and great. Just don't pretend they have any intrinsic value apart from the fact that these are making people feel good, directly or indirectly.

>>8438680

>Muh happy/fulfilled life

>>8438665
No, you are the one who is in denial. Stirner's philosophy is a closed belief system. The reason he is not talked about is the same reason Ayn Rand or nihilism don't get much attention. Reread my first post until you get it or you can muster up a counterargument.

>>8438653
>Do you think those "damn SJW" philosophers in Cambridge and Stanford or whatever shudder in fear when they hear Stirner's name?
i'm pretty sure there are no philosophers in cambridge or stanford

>>8438568
"wetness" is a physical property, use a different metaphor

>>8438606
what part of 'coherent' didn't you understand

>>8438653
>psychological egoism
Causality confirms it though, denying this would require you to have a closed belief system.

>>8438695
That is a superficial reading of the book. I see that a lot on here. That's fine. You are not a Stirnerite however, just a hedonist or similar.

>>8438680
Be honest with me, are you a woman?

>>8437972
This

>>8438680
>I am saying you might want to watch out because humans crave such things as love and I don't mean Stirnerian Jesus-love but practical, real-world "normie" affection and friendship and all that stuff.
lol what the fuck is stirnerian jesus-love

the stirnerian form of love is practical, i.e "i like you therefore will marry you and treat you nicely and maybe even die for you but I won't elevate your position as my beloved into some sort of ideal where I let that concept dictate my behavior rather than my love for you"

>Remember, Stirner died impoverished, alone and (as some speculate) a virgin.
his wife literally died during pregnancy

>>8438717
Can you provide quotes that prove my reading being superficial?

>>8438713
Good example, thanks for participating.

What you gave me: I can only assume some kind of modern cognitive woowoo muh causality definition of egoism
What you implicitly did: Hyperinflate the definition of egoism until your rationalization module resolved your cognitive dissonance because you subscribe to a closed belief system. "It must make sense, it must!"

This exact phenomenon is what I meant. thank you.

>>8438733
Superficial reading.

>>8438493
>Animals are nihilistic
Really makes you think.

>>8438733
>his wife literally died during pregnancy
C U C K
U
C
K

>>8438738
great comment fagtron

>>8438733
>"i like you therefore will marry you and treat you nicely and maybe even die for you but I won't elevate your position as my beloved into some sort of ideal where I let that concept dictate my behavior rather than my love for you"
Is there a difference though?

>>8438606
Stirner adresses this. Have you even read him?

>>8438735
You have not made any coherent arguments against it. What you did is some very poor psychoanalysis based on your own insecurities (hey look i can do it too!) It's not that ''it must make sense'' It does make sense, for the time being.

>>8438748
Yes. In the former example, you love a person. In the latter, you love the concept of a person, or driven by the ideas of the "proper" behaviour of a lover. In normal situations, your behaviour will be similar in both cases, but not always. Like there's literally no need to kill yourself (or your loved one) in most cases lovers do kill themselves or their loved ones if you're not spooked by the idea of "love", but simply do love.

>>8437949
the ego is the transcendental object of the unreflective act of reflection

>>8437975
How can spooks be real if OUR spook isn't real?