[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 9 KB, 194x260, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8670590 No.8670590 [Reply] [Original]

Give me your serious opinion of Max Stirner. No memes.

>> No.8670592

His perspective seems interesting, but personally considered incomplete and lack of internal argument. But it is a good author.

>> No.8670602

>>8670590
His philosophy cured my depression and autism. Facing the world with confidence is infinitely easier from his perspective. He's kind of my hero desu.

>> No.8670618

>>8670602

Really? Or bait?

>> No.8670632

>>8670618
Actually not bait. Stirner taught me how to be selfish. Selfishness enabled me to choose to be selfless. Before him I was a muddled fuck spooks.

>> No.8670633

Let him deconstruct your shit so you can learn to ask "Why?" more frequently and thus reorganize your thoughts from scratch

>> No.8670634

>>8670632
*of spooks. This is a better description here >>8670633

Stirner is a medicine that cures dogmatic thought.

>> No.8670639

>>8670590
His philosophy lines up very closely with the one I sort of personal outlook I developed through my life, so I like him, but that's just confirmation bias.

>> No.8670644

>>8670632

Nice.

>> No.8670652

>>8670590
Stirner was an important part of a certain phase of my life.
It's pattern that repeated itself several times and in several contexts:
First comes ignorance, I do things the way I learned them, usually without questioning them but sometimes even very convinced.
Then comes the moment of liberation. I feel anger towards those that "spooked" me (or whatever). I usually turn around completely.
But eventually that feeling of liberation wears off, and then comes insecurity: What now? And often, I realize that things weren't so bad before after all.
Thus I talk about the Good and Justice and Virtue, etc. like Plato, not because I'm deeply convinced that it is that way but because I think it's nicer to think about it like that. Thus I try to be nice to other people, not because I think I will burn in hell otherwise, and not because of some Epicurean golden rule, but simply because it feels good.
I like Stirner because he fits both in the middle and the last phase of what I just described.
(sorry for bad englando and so on and so on)

>> No.8670666

Stirner is basically right about everything as long as you also read Stirner's Critics and use that to correct for all the Hegelian leftovers in EAIO (Ego and Its Own). If we want Stirner to be useful to us today, the most important task is probably to adapt his critique of spooks to a more 'perfomative' struggle against 'microspooks'. Stirner's spooks are the State, God, the Human etc., these are the most abstract aspects of the 'society of the spooktacle'. Conversely, his joyous outcry and shrugging off the spooks is extremely concrete, bodily, and comes before any symbolic expression. We have to actually struggle through the vast range of things between that and destroy those parts of our lives that are dominated by irrational injunctions. A good way to understand what I mean is to read Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality.

>> No.8670670

>>8670666
>vast range of things between that
lie in between those two poles

whoops, forgot a part

>> No.8670694

>>8670590
I like to take bits and pieces from his philosophy. As an author he's a pretty entertaining read, but I feel like he tries too hard to be edgy and provocative and as a result comes off as almost nihilistically self-centered.

Important thought I think he had: clearly define your ideals, and do not let them control you

A person who does not understand what they want is doomed to be manipulated by others. This requires constant vigilance, because it is too easy to fall into a trap of filling others' desires while thinking they're your own. If a politician you previously supported does something you cannot abide, you must disavow them. If a friend is constantly dragging you out to places and events that you cannot stand, you must stop hanging out with them.

By understanding your values, you can make clear and informed decisions regarding them. Perhaps you don't value going to nightclubs, but you do value the relationship you have with your friend. You can make the conscious decision to go out with them to a nightclub once in awhile because the value you gain by reinforcing the friendship outweighs the value you lose by going to a place you don't like.

Every person has their own value system. A person is not stupid or crazy if their values happen to be polar opposites to your own. Idiocy and insanity can only exist if you consciously and consistently act against your own values. Own your own ideals, seek them out in like-minded people, but refuse to belittle or insult people who authentically follow their own ideals as well, just the same as you would refuse to have done to you.

>> No.8670701

>>8670666
how do you reconcile a therapy with stirnerism?

>> No.8670703
File: 3 KB, 124x124, 1477453519637s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8670703

>>8670666
ayyy spooky digits

>> No.8670708

>>8670701
>how do you reconcile a therapy with stirnerism?
This specific books is pretty cool not only because the theory is a nice and highly productive addition to 'Stirnerism' but it also includes a second part which are exercises you do yourself in order to become more aware of the habits you have acquired of blocking your own creative impulses and thus prohibiting yourself from making meaningful contact with your environment and living situations according to your needs instead of performing fixed scripts which you have internalized. Seriously, it's the direction Stirner reception should go in it has so much fucking potential.

I'm actually writing a paper on Stirner right now, but I'm still extricating myself from the reading of Stirner as comparable to post-structuralist anarchism (which he is in some ways and very different in others and it's interesting but I want to move beyond it to be honest) but I'm sneaking in a hint that Gestalt Therapy is where it's at.

5,200 words, I need 7-8k, wish me luck fellow Egoists.

>> No.8670711

>>8670703
check out my meme-titled paper if you like: https://www.academia.edu/11021623/Would_the_Real_Max_Stirner_Please_Stand_Up

>> No.8670713

>>8670708
no, guy, you are shit. i don´t wish you luck at all.

>> No.8670714
File: 34 KB, 404x600, Kek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8670714

>>8670694

>As an author he's a pretty entertaining read, but I feel like he tries too hard to be edgy and provocative and as a result comes off as almost nihilistically self-centered.

All good German thinkers are like this. See: Nietzsche

>> No.8670716

>>8670711
>mfw the title is relevant
I Stirnerpost irl too. You're making the world a better place, son.

>> No.8670721
File: 37 KB, 400x320, Die_Freien_by_Friedrich_Engels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8670721

>>8670694
>he tries too hard to be edgy and provocative and as a result comes off as almost nihilistically self-centered.
This is because of the debate context of young hegelians which consisted of constantly being edgier than the last guy and beating on your drum very hard. They mostly developed their theories in drunken discussions, as can be seen in this famous drawing.

If you want the sober, non-edgy and clear version of what Stirner believes, read Stirner's Critics. This text is absolutely mandatory for actually understanding Stirner and unfortunately even many scholars have readings of Stirner which don't take this text into account and thus fail to capture what Stirner is going on about.

>> No.8670723

Where to start with Stirner?

>> No.8670724

>>8670714
The first most critical mistake that all young males make is they read too much Nietzsche.

The second most critical mistake that all young males make is they do not read enough Nietzsche.

>> No.8670737

>>8670723

Read his books.

>> No.8670741

>>8670723
>Where to start with Stirner?

Either this:
>>8670737
>Read his book[no "s", it's just one].

or if you've heard about him and already know the stereotypes of petty bourgeois egoist etc., you could even read this before the book:

https://sites.google.com/site/vagabondtheorist/stirner/stirner-s-critics/stirner-s-critics-1

>> No.8670747

>>8670708
>blocking your own creative impulses
you don´t see the spook?, really?

>> No.8670752

>>8670747
I sing as the bird sings
That on the bough alights;
The song that from me springs
Is pay that well requites.

No spooks now, just shitposts.

>> No.8670787

>>8670711
i like the reading.
Do you think Stirner would consider himself an anarchist if he can?
>i think not

Also, i always considered "the union of egoists" the most blurred part of his work. Stirner is really good in her critical position not in the constructive one. i mean. when you read it, you can feel the motive why he`s writing is to shitting around to "sacred concepts" (and he doing it right), but not to give "the union of egoist" idea to the world. you know what i mean?.

>> No.8670832

>>8670590
you really just need to grasp the concept of spooks, it's one of the only useful things in philosophy that you can use in life. would help retards with OCD

>> No.8670835

>>8670590
He's very misrepresented by both memers and people who actually read his works.

He doesn't really bring anything ''new'' if you've already lurked enough philosophy. But I like the way he presents his ideas.

He's a bit of a cheeky cunt at times:

''If I had before me Jews, Jews of the true metal, I should have to stop here and leave them standing before
this mystery as for almost two thousand years they have remained standing before it, unbelieving and without
knowledge. But, as you, my dear reader, are at least not a full-blooded Jew – for such a one will not go astray as far
as this – we will still go along a bit of road together, till perhaps you too turn your back on me because I laugh in
your face.''

>> No.8670837
File: 24 KB, 339x457, MM05-2002-pic7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8670837

>>8670835
>Jews of the true metal

>> No.8670845

>>8670837
kek

>> No.8670856

>>8670747
guy who hasn't read stirner alert. stupid fucking tards on this board.

>> No.8670857

>>8670835
>He doesn't really bring anything ''new'' if you've already lurked enough philosophy.
Which philosophers said what Stirner said??

>> No.8670862

>>8670857
He shares concepts with Buddhism and various Esoteric traditions. I do not mean that there is no novel aspect to his thoughts. But let's take his concept of ''The creative nothing'' for example; and compare it to the Buddhist ''No self''

>> No.8670868

>>8670590
Overrated trash

>> No.8670886

>>8670868
I know you are but what is Stirner?

>> No.8670911

>>8670886
He's dead. RIP lil' homie.

>> No.8670927

>>8670832
>tfw have OCD and it has helped

>> No.8670957

>>8670602
>>8670632
>>8670633
>>8670634
You guys seem pretty damn spooked.
>>8670639
That's not what confirmation bias is at all.
>>8670694
Those are like the least important things you could take away from Stirner.

Look into the "property" thing: it's key to everything he says.

Also this:
>but refuse to belittle or insult people who authentically follow their own ideals as well, just the same as you would refuse to have done to you.
is spooked.

>I feel like he tries too hard to be edgy and provocative and as a result comes off as almost nihilistically self-centered.
But that's what I like about him.

Actually, I like the little excerpts of his life he inserts into the text more. Like some random reference to the milkmaid yelling through the window as he writes, or sitting opposite him as he waits.
>>8670723
You can just jump in. It helps to know what the fuck he's responding to, but it's not necessary for two reasons:
1. His reasoning applies to anything nowadays, too.
2. He goes into a fair bit of detail building up the opposing arguments before he casts them down.

>> No.8670992

>>8670862
I would even go as far as comparing the Madhyamaka idea of Sunyatta (literally emptiness, lack of inherent existence) to Stirner's idea of spooks. Both look at concepts and say they are nothing but concepts, do not get attached to them there's literally no reason u fkn pleb, only difference is Sunyatta goes further and rejects inherent existence in all material things as well.

>> No.8671046

>>8670832
>>8670927
I have OCD, but it doesn't help. OCD, at least mine, does not operate on a rational basis. In German it's called Zwangsgedanken/Zwangshandlungen (forced thoughts/forced actions), which I like more because it captures that aspect. If it could be defeated by recognition or reason, then it wouldn't be "forced".

>> No.8671050

>>8670590
Makes sense, but I personally feel like he unrealistically ignores the way in which individuals are intricately entangled with society and conceptual identities.

>> No.8671066

>>8671046
I think it's less the reason than having that internal narrative of "that's just a fuggen spook!" Stirner memeposting gives a kind of humourous perspective to look at the ridiculous thoughts that try to force me into action. Hasn't played a very big role though, it's just one of those small things that helps.

You're right though, the thoughts are completely irrational and can ultimately only be avoided by removing yourself from them and seeing them for what they are, than debating them. No matter what it tries to hold you hostage with, you just gotta say no, even though it's the hardest thing in the world. It's rough shit mayn. Sympathies fellow OCDbro.

>> No.8671105

>>8671046
You as the imaginary observer of your thoughts may recognize them as irrational, but consider that you are in fact your thoughts, and as Stirner points out; they are not fixed, thus the creative nothing. How can there be a ''you'', if it is a collection of repetitions of thought?

Concerning your OCD, as you clearly understand the irrational nature of these thoughts, i.e: the fact that they serve no actual purpose, and may even act in detriment. You fail to realize that without taking action from this realization, no change will be brought about. The next time you *need* to do or think something, try observing the thought without judgement, as to see its pointlessness, but also restrict yourself from acting on it. With enough time you will stop reacting/having these thoughts. It's not easy at all, but it works.

>> No.8671122

>>8670590

Just like Nietzsche, extremely misunderstood

>> No.8671124

>>8671105
They could be talking about the like touch the doorknob 100 times 100 different ways and nervous ticks type of OCD

Or it could be their evil spirit twin trapped in the nether world fighting for control of the joystick of their ying yang soul

>> No.8671128

>>8671066
>>8671105
I have tried, trust me friends. It's a cursed thing. I can resist, but it sucks the joy out of everything. Giving in means reinforcing it, and also I give myself a lot of shit over it afterwards, but not giving in means reinforcing the nihilistic feelings that plague me anyway.

>> No.8671131

>>8671046
Dude, just next time you are having your OCD, just think "i dont want this OCD, it is a spook", just dont have your OCD, why cant you just do that?

>> No.8671142

>>8671128
Balance my nigger. Try what I posted, and keep trying. In what you posted just now, you clearly show a schism of thought, this will be resolved by balancing it out with the methods I mentioned.

>> No.8671161

>>8671142
I have tried, I really have.
I can stop engaging with my OCD. I can let thing be contaminated, I can let the contamination spread, I can stop considering things holy and cursed/disgusting, truly set my cause on nothing etc., but at that point I really don't even need to live anymore.
And it's easy to think that what you are reading is the writing of someone who is scared, and you would be partially right. But it's not just that. I know well that there are some things that you cannot understand from a certain perspective. It's easy to think that, if only I did that, the OCD would disappear eventually, but it doesn't. I speak from experience. Years and years of it.
OCD truly is not a spook. "I have to do this because otherwise I will burn in Hell" - that is a spook. A muscle twitch is not a spook. OCD more resembles the latter than the former.

>> No.8671164

>>8671142
But thanks for trying to help, forgot to say that.

>> No.8671168

>>8671161
Emotional contamination OCD is horrible.

>> No.8671169

>>8671161
I gave advice based on experience as well. What you have seems to be way more fucked up. If you don't mind; what is the nature of these tics?

>> No.8671245

>>8671169
Reading it again, I realize how unclear my post is.
I have a couple of related things, and at it also evolves and morphs, so perhaps it's easiest to start with where it started:
I make mental associations between things. Like some people, if they go on vacation and listen to a song there, that song will in future remind them of their trip. But for me, this happened with many things, and eventually I realized that it was happening with bad things as well, and that was the fatal moment, because as soon as I started fearing that it would happen, it happened more and more often. What eventually happens as well is that your values get polarized: you fear the uncomfortable because it might ruin things, which in turn makes them far more uncomfortable. Similar for the good, by contrast it becomes more good. I observe little children who seem to be completely comfortable around boogers or stuff (I actually don't want to type anything worse), and it makes me realize just how far this has gone.
Eventually the fear of bad things got so big that whenever I saw something bad or disgusting, it would haunt me for days. And for days I would be afraid to even think of anything I liked, lest the two become associated. I am afraid of enjoying things, because the "forced thought" always comes of "What if this would be associated with [one of my greatest nightmares]?"
I don't think I can even convey how deeply some things, even harmless things (since it spreads) disgust and scare me.
I began lying to myself. Denying reality. Altering what I had seen to something more pleasant whenever I saw something uncomfortable. This just made it worse, because it reaffirms the negative value you've placed on those things you deny.
It spread to other more common forms of OCD as well like general contamination, also physical (and I started obsessively washing my hands for some time, though I managed to stop this for the most part), obsessively imagining horrible things, also at times ticks and rituals (though I managed to overcome those as well).
I can let go, I can give in, and for a period of months I went full in on this idea, but it didn't work. And it robs me of what little joys I have in life. I can recognize that there is no inherent connection between two things, or that something isn't inherently dirty, that it is all just in my head, but it doesn't stop the fact that it reminds me of something horrifying or makes me feel deep disgust, and it doesn't make that any less uncomfortable.
Perhaps it can be overcome that way, but how long would it take? Like I said, I have tried for several months like that, I'm not sure I'd last for much longer.
To a degree I've accepted that if I am going to live life, it will be life like this.

>> No.8671247

>>8670590
According to the biography John Henry Mackay wrote, Stirner was a pretty friendly, quiet and polite man, that everyone, from back then till now, misunderstood as some smug edgelord.

Also, Stirner was blonde, I don't know why all depictions, apart from the Engels sketch, depict him with black hair.

>> No.8671278

>>8671245
I was very similar for a long time, especially the ''associations''. It took me 2 years to control it, and 2 or so more years to apply the methods I've posted. I still recommend to you these methods. It is not about knowing it or even applying it. Before the application you must fully understand.

>> No.8671289

>>8671245
>To a degree I've accepted that if I am going to live life, it will be life like this.

The Truth exists. You exist. Acclimation relatively occurs and it doesnt, with your help and without.

>> No.8671446

>>8671245
Good post. The articulation of your experience helped me understand what it's like to have OCD. I'm sorry anon. Mental illness is a stone cold bitch.

>> No.8671456

>>8670862
I've always thought of his Unique One as the Atman.

>> No.8671465
File: 227 KB, 1128x1048, 1475963762669.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8671465

>It is a social construct, thus it is meaningless

I disagree.

Anyway, I mentioned him to my philosophy teacher. Shit was gucci

>> No.8671551

>>8671465
Shit was overpriced middle class trash?

>> No.8671564

>>8671465
>>It is a social construct, thus it is meaningless
>I disagree.

At least read Stirner before using him to win good boy points with your teach.

>> No.8671591

I would never mention Stirner in a serious discussion about anything even when i agree with him in almost everything.

>> No.8671607

>>8671591
Smart. Never reveal that you agree with anything he says. Plebs just assume you're some sociopath or some nonsense.

>> No.8671617

>>8670590

I like his stuff and try to follow it. It's enlightening, but it's also hard to follow with all the "programming" that has been drilled into us in society for so long.

>> No.8671863

>>8671617
>thinks he can escape ideology

my god

>> No.8671883
File: 82 KB, 499x499, 1450389174304.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8671883

>>8670590
I would anyone come here if not for the memes?

>> No.8671893

>>8671883
what did they mean by this?

>> No.8672224

>>8671893
idk but its kinda spooky

>> No.8672236

>>8671893
"Why would anyone come here if not for the memes?"
referring to OP's request for no memes.

t. internet retard comprehension wizard

>> No.8672241

>>8671883
Why is there a /lit/ board on an image board website? Life is full of idiots. No wonder Hiroshimoot is going to abandon ship and shut this shitshow down.

>> No.8672248

>>8672236
Why did he call 'why' 'I'?

Is this a philosophical statement?

>> No.8672257

>>8672248
Auto-correct on smartphones cause typos this.
Millenial philosophy comes with gnome man pics, not pepes.

>> No.8672264

>>8672257
Who is gnome man?

>> No.8672279
File: 15 KB, 223x226, millenials sigh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8672279

>>8672264
This guy.
That was an overgeneralization, pepes come with philosophy sometimes, but it's typically purposefully contrarian philosophy.

>> No.8672345

>>8671245
They're ultimately never going to accept that mental illnesses are actual illnesses, and cannot be fought by sheer willpower.

These are the kinds of people who read Stirner to "better themselves". They aren't interested in impossibility.

Take many drugs.

>> No.8672362

>>8671247
>I don't know why all depictions, apart from the Engels sketch, depict him with black hair.
Because he looks like some smug edgelord, and black is the edgiest colour. His hair just *looks* so damn black.

>> No.8672593

>>8671050
>society and conceptual identities
both spooks

>> No.8672884
File: 1.75 MB, 614x743, 1469715026440.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8672884

>>8672257
>Millenial philosophy
It's literally been just (Me) though. I haven't seen anyone else use G-nome child macros in un/post-ironic philosophical discourse. Perhaps the indolent repetition of images has bamboozled you into believing there was more than one person, that the memes were spreading--a comprehensible data loss due to compression caused by habitual thinking.

Regardless, and to make this post not-sageworthy, one of my favorite things about Stirner is that he isn't damaged, but enhanced by the memes stemming from him. In fact he'd probably be happy that we're using him so much.

>> No.8673041

>>8670592
>incomplete and lack of internal argument
Isn't that kind of the point?

>> No.8673365

>>8673041
>Isn't that kind of the point?
What did he mean by this?

>> No.8673614

>>8673365
That Stirner's philosophy is not supposed to be exhaustive nor justified.

>> No.8673740

A nihilist who is only good to counter any duty towards an ideology or idea. A good tool but not a good foundation.

>> No.8673878

>>8673740
That's what nihilism is you dongle.
>>8673365
The building is in the tearing down.

>> No.8674253

>>8673740
Foundation for what?

You're implying an ideology in which things ought to be founded, it seems.

>> No.8674357

>>8670590
I think he is very shallow. People claim that Nietzsche ripped him off, or that he is a better Nietzsche, but he's more like a severely watered down and solipsistic form of Nietzsche that derails the majority of meaningful discussion with his idea of "spooks" — basically a radical materialist solipsist.

>> No.8674371

>>8674357
I know you're memeing, but I actually think it's a shame he's so resolutely un-solipsistic. His anti-materialism is spot-on, though.

>> No.8674417

>>8674357
I'm a bit thrown that /lit/, being the argument inspectors that they are, hold in highest esteem two thinkers who's claim to that title rest on assumptions which amount to "it's [current year], so believe what I say." Or, "it's [current year], time to whips the slate clean with feels."

>> No.8674420

>>8674417
no? what a poor summary

>> No.8674438

>>8674420
you're an individual. don't ever forget that.

How was that? I'm trying to make fun of them you know.

>> No.8675406
File: 15 KB, 201x300, 16 Year Old John Henry Mackay (6 februari 1864 - 16 mei 1933).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8675406

>>8670711
> Black Flame
>One of the most sectarian works published where the author even was revealed to be a neonazi.
Why have you taken one of the most sectarian and biased works of anarchist theory anon? Why that book of all the god damn anarchist books?

>> No.8675555

>>8673878
>That's what nihilism is you dongle.
That's exactly why I don't find him interesting.

>>8674253
For living your life and for it to have value.

>> No.8675597

>>8675555
Why do you assume lives need foundations? It's a building nor a system.

>> No.8675610

>>8670590
Shit Ayn Rand-tier philosopher.

>> No.8675616

I think he's a cool guy
He made Marx pissed as hell and doesnt afraid of anything

also has cool glasses and stuff

>> No.8675621

>>8675555
>creating spooks to aquire value

oh son

>> No.8675635

>Social Construct starts getting too mocked for it's use as a tautological argument
>I know let's call it Spooks instead, surely this will go over better with the public whose attention we desperately crave

>> No.8675646
File: 37 KB, 700x700, dexedrine dick.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8675646

>>8675635
>tautological argument
>implying

>> No.8675648

>>8671161
Get a rosary.

>> No.8675867

>>8675621
>implying living with spooks isn't worth living
>implying a spook isn't a spook in of itself that limits your ego
>implying that a system that says that everything is a spook but allows you to do anything involving spooks isn't inherently nihilistic and without value or foundation
>dude, just get more proprety

>> No.8675879

>>8675597
Without foundations, we have no obligations to do anything nor does it stop us from committing certain actions like murder or any other crime.
He's just a good rational view of nihilism and nothing more.

>> No.8675921

>>8675879
>Without foundations, we have no obligations to do anything nor does it stop us from committing certain actions like murder or any other crime.
So? I enjoy sandbox mode.

>>8675867
>implying that a system that says that everything is a spook but allows you to do anything involving spooks isn't inherently nihilistic and without value or foundation
So? I enjoy sandbox mode.

>> No.8675940

I'm now 28, I read him in college and I actually don't get what the fuss is about on /lit/. He's a a garden variety anarchist Hegelian edgelord. What's the big deal?

I really doubt most people on here have even read Stirner.

>> No.8676073

>>8675940
kys

>> No.8676120

>>8675940
>garden variety anarchist
far from it, most anarchists want to build a new cathedral to their hippie ideas

>> No.8676123

>>8675879
>Without foundations, we have no obligations to do anything nor does it stop us from committing certain actions like murder or any other crime.
He's just a good rational view of nihilism and nothing more.

You have yet to explain with this post why an objective foundation is imperative to the self.

>> No.8676169
File: 117 KB, 442x661, Me on the right.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8676169

>>8670590
>Give me your serious opinion of Max Stirner. No memes.
He wouldn't be popular at all if the meme pictures portrayed him as the blue-eyed blonde he was in reality.
The politics of ressentiment that the groupings he is popular among wouldn't allow for what is basically an aryan caricature saying that he doesn't owe anyone anything on god's green earth.

>> No.8676216

>>8676169
>this is what /pol/ actually believes
No we would still meme him. We would just meme him as an aryan who rejected race, nationalism, religion and property and that /pol/ should take after him.

>> No.8676426

>>8670590
Teaches Buddhism for pussies.

>> No.8676506
File: 58 KB, 636x674, pepner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8676506

>>8676216
>To this day the Jews, those precocious children of antiquity, have got no farther; and with all the subtlety and strength of their prudence and understanding, which easily becomes master of things and forces them to obey it, they cannot discover spirit, which takes no account whatever of things.

>Their unspirituality sets Jews forever apart from Christians; for the spiritual man is incomprehensible to the unspiritual, as the unspiritual is contemptible to the spiritual. But the Jews have only “the spirit of this world.”

>As, then, we know it by its works, the question is what these works are. But the works or children of the spirit are nothing else but — spirits.

>If I had before me Jews, Jews of the true metal, I should have to stop here and leave them standing before this mystery as for almost two thousand years they have remained standing before it, unbelieving and without knowledge. But, as you, my dear reader, are at least not a full-blooded Jew — for such a one will not go astray as far as this

>The history of the world, whose shaping properly belongs altogether to the Caucasian race, seems till now to have run through two Caucasian ages, in the first of which we had to work out and work off our innate negroidity; this was followed in the second by Mongoloidity (Chineseness), which must likewise be terribly made an end of.

>> No.8676828

>>8676506
is racism a spook?

>> No.8676848
File: 163 KB, 750x819, Nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8676848

>>8675921
>I enjoy sandbox mode.
>I enjoy doing whatever bro
Pleb.
I enjoy murdering you. That's also part of the sandbox.

>>8676123
Striner ignores the fundamental issue that while the only thing that matters is his ego, he must also protect it. His quote on loving all men shows that he doesn't really love him because he can kill them and destroy their ego just because. Nihilism lets him do it without any regards.

An objective foundation that the self is important and that one must seek to protect it, and not destroy the ego of others, is the objective foundation Striner lacks.
I wonder what he would say if I said that it brought me joy to piss on his corpse and to have his skull as my property; that all men should share their ego and life for my own enjoyment.

>>8676828
Yes.
Racism is the act of judging a man by the decision of his ancestors rather than the choices made by the individual. Being born a certain race, a product of chance, and which does not reflect his accomplishment, is a mystical justification for others to destroy the ego of others or to ignore it.
And those who are proud of their race, of the decisions made by their ancestors, to marry within their own race, shows the lack of their own accomplishments. A black man being proud that a certain invention was built by a black man while he lives under a bridge is not his own to claim. Nor does a white man shitposting on the internet that whites created civilization and that he, by virtue of being born white, is superior.

>> No.8676871

>>8676828
One of the biggest

>> No.8677047

>>8676848

>And those who are proud of their race, of the decisions made by their ancestors, to marry within their own race, shows the lack of their own accomplishments.

This is fundamentally wrong.

>> No.8677070
File: 50 KB, 600x642, Hol up.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8677070

The one thing I've been wondering about Stirner and those who argue in a similar vein is this:

Let's say tradition/laws/etc are merely 'spooks' or 'social constructs' - what then? Why must we refuse to take seriously, something that has no objective grounding in reality? Why must we, going further, disown it at all costs? Why should we insist that these things have no authority over us? I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't do this - I want good retorts for those who claim we should take spooks/social constructs seriously, as is often the case.

It is interesting to note the similarities with nihilism as it appeared in Russia:

>In the 1860s a movement known as Nihilism developed in Russia. A term originally coined by Ivan Turgenev in his 1862 novel Fathers and Sons, Nihilists favoured the destruction of human institutions and laws, based on the assumption that such institutions and laws are artificial and corrupt. At its core, Russian nihilism was characterized by the belief that the world lacks comprehensible meaning, objective truth, or value. For some time many Russian liberals had been dissatisfied by what they regarded as the empty discussions of the intelligentsia. The Nihilists questioned all old values and shocked the Russian establishment.

Was Stirner just a nihilist at heart?

>> No.8677076
File: 228 KB, 1084x1080, spookism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8677076

>>8677047
There is no accomplishment or worth to be related to actions of those who are dead. You do not owe them anything. To live your life, or marry someone within your own race, out of some vague mysticism like purity, is a spook. If you find some woman who is black or another race, and she is placed highly in your hierarchy of values, then it supersedes that spookish duty to marry within your own race. Your happiness is more important than your duty to the collective. Unless, of course, you value the future of the collective higher than your own happiness, which is stupid.

Being proud of the decisions made by your ancestors is simply a spook. It doesn't matter what they did and who they married. Live your life however you want.

>>8677070
>Let's say tradition/laws/etc are merely 'spooks' or 'social constructs' - what then?
Then, nothing, just do whatever, as any nihilist would. Murder, or do not matter, it's all a spook anyways. However, if you value your own life and ego, and recognize that others value their own life and ego, then an objective foundation can be established. Laws are placed so that no life or person or group is above others.

>Was Stirner just a nihilist at heart?
Yes.

>> No.8677110

>>8677076
You have a strange fixation on marrying within your own race being a "spook", when it is the complete opposite in most cases since people tend to marry within their own race out of preference. Are you trying to get with some white girls, Tyrone?

>> No.8677121

>>8677070
>Was Stirner just a nihilist at heart?

No. He was an egoist. Egoism cannot be nihilism.

>> No.8677123
File: 90 KB, 487x487, loli striner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8677123

>>8677110
No, I'm telling you to find a woman who represents your values and that you value her highly in your hierarchy of values. And that her race, skin color, or anything else doesn't matter so long as you love her unless you already value your race and a sense of duty towards your race above your own happiness.

Here's a question for you, if you found a girl that was quick witted, read a lot more books then you, went to a well educated school, is pretty decent in terms of looks, and you really click with her in a romantic way, would you fall in love with her even if she's another race than you?

If you value the well being and future of your collective over your own happiness, you'll say no. But if you value your own happiness over your duty towards your race, you'll say yes.

The reason I have an annoying fixation that marrying within your race is a spook is simply the concept of duty and the fact that the alt right is annoying on this subject.
>OMG, THIS PERSON WAS IN CONTACT WITH A BLACK PERSON, SHE OR HE IS IMPURE!

It's simply a collectivist tactic that is used on all sides
>this person talked to a guy who is an MRA! We feminist can no longer accept this person in our group

Do whatever you want, love someone who makes live more valuable and worth living rather than the spook of prolonging your duty towards your race.

>Are you trying to get with some white girls, Tyrone?
No, towards any girl. It doesn't matter if she's white, black, asian or an alien.

>>8677121
That's inherently wrong.

>> No.8677129

>>8677123
>That's inherently wrong.

No... no it isn't. If it was wrong, they wouldn't be separated by 2 words.

>> No.8677131

>>8677129
Moral nihilism is still nihilism.
Is murder wrong?

>> No.8677138

And I would even argue that Striner is a nihilist since he is unable to love anything because he loves everyone.
If you love everyone, then you love no one.
And on the topic of property, he doesn't care if people take or share his property. Without the concept of ownership and private property, Striner has nothing that makes him egotistical.

By not loving his own life and ego or the lives of others, Striner cannot be be an egotist.

>>8677129
Oh and before you ask, yes, a self defense murder is still wrong.
By law, you are supposed to use the minimum amount of force required to avoid harm and death. If a person comes to punch you and you shoot him dead, that's wrong.

>> No.8677145

And now that I think about it, if he had a lover and wouldn't mind sharing her as his property with others, that makes him a cuck, doesn't it?

>> No.8677165

>>8670590
I haven't read him, and although I'd like to, the memeing makes me prioritize other thinkers simply because I don't want to think of myself as some ancap manchild.

>> No.8677409

How would Stirner ask a bitch out?

>> No.8677460

>>8677409
Only to claim her as his property.
But knowing his disdain for spooks, he wouldn't care about her well being or laws and would just rape her.

>> No.8677462

Not to mention that romantic diners and 'asking a bitch out' is a spook.

>> No.8677467

>>8670694
He does not come off as nihilistic and self centred, he is so explicitly.

>> No.8677473

>>8677467
Explicitness is a spook.

>> No.8677513

His is the "nuh-uh" worldview. It's all slave mentality underneath.

>> No.8677523

Read it, didn't like it. Wouldn't recommend to people who have to leave their basements more than once a month.

You will always stay at the bottom of the barrel with a mentality like his.

>> No.8677567

Imo Stirner is not a philosopher, his main work is skepticism/deconstructivism on the psychological level. Likewise his arguments/methodology aren't even philosophical as much as appeals to emotion and arguing from his framework of stirnerpsychology.

It's ok worldview, maybe a little childish, like he's throwing a tantrum. But when you're done throwing a tantrum life goes on and you better hope you didn't piss too many people off, for your own sake.

Philosophy in general has too much immature worldviews like this because muh individuality. My prediction is as neuroscience progresses we will make a 180 degree turn from cool individuality and idolize generic Chadism instead.

>> No.8677621
File: 58 KB, 600x399, I care so little.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8677621

My serious opinion is that I have never read him, have no interest in reading him, and wish he didn't show up on this board so fucking much for no reason. But that's my opinion on most philosophers.

>> No.8677684

>>8677567
You mean embrace determinism and nihilism?

>> No.8677838

>>8676848
>I enjoy murdering you. That's also part of the sandbox.
Sure.

>> No.8677839

>>8677621

Sad.

>> No.8677846

SPOOKY

>> No.8677850

Stirnerian egoism is NEET tier. You don't survive with that mentality in the real world. That's my opinion. Feel free to call me out on spooks but we all know in the end it's the spooked Chad who wins and not the Stirnerian who sees through the spooks.

>> No.8677859

>>8677850

Top spook.

>> No.8677864

>>8677859
Exactly. And this is why you're a loser.

>> No.8677869

Stirner falls in that category of philosophers where I am left scratching my head as to what his actual goal was. Am I supposed to feel more in control?

>> No.8677870

>>8670666
>society of the spooktacle
Lol
by Guy Debooed

>> No.8677890

>>8677869
his goal was to do whatever he wants, that's the whole point

>> No.8677899

>>8675406
>Why have you taken one of the most sectarian and biased works of anarchist theory anon? Why that book of all the god damn anarchist books?
This was before the neonazi revelations and Black Flame sparked quite a debate. Several other papers in the same volume my text was published in also argue against their platformism (Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies issue 1 2013 I think). The topic of the whole volume was anarchist canonization so their text fit the bill and was currently being discussed. Right now I'm writing a paper on Deleuze and Stirner (also because of an opportunity for publication), but my interest has moved towards Stirner and Gestalt Therapy and Korzybksi mostly.

>> No.8677914

>>8675940
>Hegelian edgelord
you clearly didn't read Stirner's Critics.

>> No.8678031

>>8677850

>win
heh stay spooked kid

>> No.8678034

>>8677123
>And that her race, skin color, or anything else doesn't matter so long as you love her unless you already value your race and a sense of duty towards your race above your own happiness.

Ad someone who hasn't read Stirner, I have a question here: why can't your sense of duty (to whatever it is, tribe, family, race, nation, political party, etc.) be an inextricable part of "your own happiness"? As such, you're not putting one above the other, but serving both to the fullest extent at the same time because they are actuallyone in the same.

On a related level, what would Stirner say if you "see" the spook, but determine that you like the spook and that you will continue to live by it? Would he say that you can't possibly be de-spooked if you continue to live by it, despite having chosen to do so? If so, that feels like a very circular argument.

I'd like to read Stirner sometime, but have a pretty long reading list already.

>> No.8678115

>>8676506
>this was followed in the second by Mongoloidity (Chineseness), which must likewise be terribly made an end of.
Historically, what is he referring to?

>> No.8678116

>>8677070
Because those things limit your freedom which is all-important.

>> No.8678123

>>8677145
Cuckoldry is a spook

>> No.8678126

>>8677850
>>8677864
Winning is a spook
But if you want to win more than you want to be free from spooks then you first have to free yourself from spooks to make that decision

>> No.8678135

I find myself agreeing with Stirner more and more and I'm terrified. Where will I be without spooks? It would be creating an incision between myself and "humanity"

>> No.8678211

>>8677864

How am I a loser? You're legitimately projecting yourself onto others on an anonymous imageboard.

>> No.8678273

>>8675879
>I need to be obligated to do things.
Literally slave morality.

Enjoy your carrots. When you get to them. Which is never.

>> No.8678281

>>8677567
>>8677850
These posts reek of ribbit.

>> No.8678298

>>8677138
Stirner doesn't love "everyone". He loves the people he interacts with and can make his own. He has no obligation to love all men, or to share anything, or to put them above himself. And sure, he says he says he loves them, but there's no reason why he can't come to reject this or that person.

Try to actually read his book some time.

>If you break the law, that's wrong.
Please be joking.

>> No.8678300

>>8678135
>Where will I be without spooks?
Same place you're right now.

>It would be creating an incision between myself and "humanity"
You're either spooked or you don't understand what the creative nothing is.

>> No.8678310

>>8678135
>Where will I be without spooks?

Free.

>> No.8678923

>>8677838
Exactly. Your skull shall be part of my property.

>> No.8678951

>>8676506
He was taking the mic out of Hegel, according to some people who've actually read him.

According to myself, he was using it as a cheeky metaphor. Not that this means he couldn't be legitimately racist, nor that it in any way matters,

>> No.8678954

>>8678123
Hahahahahaah
>I-I'm not a cuckhold guys
>cuckholdry is a spook
>it's fine if my wife has sex with multiple men instead of men, I share my property!
I'd make a meme image of this but I'm too lazy.

>>8678034
>I have a question here: why can't your sense of duty (to whatever it is, tribe, family, race, nation, political party, etc.) be an inextricable part of "your own happiness"? As such, you're not putting one above the other, but serving both to the fullest extent at the same time because they are actuallyone in the same.
Oh, it can make you happy. Family, tradition, nation, etc are spook, ideas that limit you from doing whatever you want. But Striner doesn't say that because you identify idea and ideologies to be spooks that it means that you can't have a family, become nationalistic, etc. If you do that, then a spook becomes a spook in of itself. The idea that you should not be bound to any idea and therefore should not become nationalistic is spook. So if being nationalistic makes you happy, then go for it.

The use of Striner is simply as a shield from committing anywhere.
You have no idea how many times you hear
>it's your duty to marry within your own race, to only practice your culture, to follow your own tradition, etc
When they are all spooks. But that does not mean you cannot follow them. Just do whatever so long as it doesn't limit your ego. For example, tradition dictates that you must eat a certain way at the table. You can follow tradition if it makes you happy to eat with others and follow the spook of eating correctly, or you can put your feet on the table and burp without a care in the world. Do whatever makes you happy.

>what would Stirner say if you "see" the spook, but determine that you like the spook and that you will continue to live by it?
He would say to just follow your ego. You are ''de-spooked'' by simply identifying spooks, so by committing to a spook knowingly, you are following your own ego.

>> No.8678959

>>8678273
I don't need any obligation to do anything. But restrictions are needed.

>> No.8678965

>>8677070
There is no must. You should, rationally...but, that is spooked too.

Stirner tries to get around this by saying entertaining an idea is not the same as having it fixed -- thinking an idea is right, because the argument points that way, is not spooked. However, from this you do not NEED to do anything. You can continue to act like a good little Christian if that's what you want. Or even if it isn't. It's just irrational.

Also most people would call him a nihilist. Not like the rest, but a nihilist.

>> No.8678998

>>8678965
>There is no must. You should, rationally...but, that is spooked too.
Rationality is not a spook, as you use it to determine if something is a spook.
You cannot use the foundation that lets you determine that something is a spook and also claim that it is spooked.

>> No.8679011

>>8678998
M8 it's the "should" that makes it spooked.

>> No.8679039
File: 88 KB, 785x512, 1471471292024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8679039

>all these memers and their concern what a spook is and what isnt
>not realising ego-ism is ironic trap for pleps who cant into Stirner
The most spooked people are Stirnerites.

>> No.8679046

>>8679039
No shit. No one names themselves after someone else without being spooked.

You can talk about egoism without being a Stirnerite.

>> No.8679092
File: 346 KB, 451x451, Ayn-Rand-.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8679092

>>8679046
>You can talk about egoism without being a Stirnerite.
You'd be surprised.

>> No.8679244

>>8678959
>But restrictions are needed.
Needed for what?

>> No.8679248

>>8679092
Randposter pls go
And stay go

>> No.8679269
File: 51 KB, 170x170, ayn+rand.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8679269

>>8679248
Leaving is a spook.

>> No.8679272

>>8679244
To stop people from destroying my ego.

>> No.8679281

>>8679269
No it isn't. I know you know it isn't.

>>8679272
It's going to come apart regardless.

>> No.8679289

>>8679281
>It's going to come apart regardless.
Spoken like a true ancap.

>> No.8679312
File: 607 KB, 500x206, I'm not a monster.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8679312

>>8679281
>It's going to come apart regardless.
''I'm just ahead of the curve''

>> No.8679324

>Dude, it doesn't matter if laws are there to stop others from destroying your ego, it's going to come apart regardless, so fuck laws, I just wanna do whatever I want yo~

People don't go full egotistical. Laws aren't there to stop you from harming others, they're there to stop others from harming you.

Only a nihilist would not care if others can destroy your ego.

>> No.8679328
File: 40 KB, 488x599, 488px-Hendrik_ter_Brugghen_-_Heraclitus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8679328

>>8679289
Huh?

>>8679312
Nah. Eventually you're going to change. It's happening all the time.

>> No.8679335

>>8677869
He simply doesn't care what you do with what he wrote. He explicitly states himself that he wrote the book for himself and it's of no concern to him what you or anyone else does with what he had written.

>> No.8679345
File: 103 KB, 252x300, Ayn-Rand.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8679345

>>8679328
>Eventually you're going to change. It's happening all the time.
Maybe, maybe not. I change all the time, but not in a way that you would deem satisfactory. Never be so sure that I will change my position so that I will eventually embrace nihilism.

>> No.8679496

>>8679345
>I change all the time, but not in a way that you would deem satisfactory.
How do you know that? Can you read my mind?

>Never be so sure that I will change my position so that I will eventually embrace nihilism.
I don't want you to embrace anything. It would be extremely boring if you agreed with me on everything all the time.

>> No.8679526

>>8679496
>How do you know that? Can you read my mind?
No, but I can guess.

>> No.8679638

>>8679526
Sure. Guess all you want, but all you'll have is still guesses.

>> No.8680019

>>8679638
Deep.

>> No.8680097

>>8670652

>Thus I talk about the Good and Justice and Virtue, etc. like Plato, not because I'm deeply convinced that it is that way but because I think it's nicer to think about it like that. Thus I try to be nice to other people, not because I think I will burn in hell otherwise, and not because of some Epicurean golden rule, but simply because it feels good.

Good post.