/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10615057]

What does /lit/ think of this man ?

[Anonymous No.10615157]

>>10615057
2-dimensional

[Anonymous No.10615184]

>>10615057
a god amongst men.

[Anonymous No.10616157]

>>10615057
I miss when stirner threads were a common occurence.

[Anonymous No.10616162]

The ol "everything proof shield" kid.

[Anonymous No.10616163]

>>10615057
Engels alter ego

[Anonymous No.10616167]

>>10616157
Turns out muttering spooks for every argument isn't a sustainable philosophy

[Anonymous No.10616220]

>>10616167
all is nothing to me

[Anonymous No.10616231]

>>10616163
no hez real

[Anonymous No.10616243]

More complex and subtle than people give him credit for. He's working in the shadow of Hegel and makes in-jokes on his work

[Anonymous No.10616260]

>>10616163
shut fuck up

[Anonymous No.10616463]

>>10616167

[Anonymous No.10617653]

>>10616167

>He hasn't read the better translation that came out this year which gets rid of that stupid word
>He thinks that Stirner wasn't eloquent enough to defend his refusal to be held down by the tyranny of spirit.

[Anonymous No.10617670]

>>10615057
sexy

[Anonymous No.10617685]

he's the man

[Anonymous No.10617774]

>>10615057
am the foremost stirner expert ama

[Anonymous No.10617777]

>>10617653

Why didn't anyone tell me a new translation had come out.
Is it good?

[Anonymous No.10617787]

>>10617777
its pretty good but I like having both

[Anonymous No.10617790]

>>10615057
Don't like this drawing of him.

[Anonymous No.10617800]

>>10617787
>its pretty good but I like having both

Thanks. I too like having multiple good translations.

[Anonymous No.10617942]

>>10615057
I'll be doing my MA on this meme so I'd say he's pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.10617958]

>>10617653
>>10617787
How about you learn German already?

[Anonymous No.10618990]

Where do I start with Stirner
Is he even worth reading

[Anonymous No.10619004]

>>10615057
espouses light-weight-but-not-wrong philosophy

is unfortunately mistaken for a rightist just because he accomplishes some of the things rand failed to do

[Anonymous No.10619481]

Stirner is favored by misfit youths who find consolace in his egotism. And the smarter ones will argue endlessly that his watered down hegelianism is actually humanitarian, when the actual fact is that all he accomplishes is a convoluted justification of autofellatio.

[Anonymous No.10619489]

>>10619481
>Consolace

[Anonymous No.10619492]

The shanty shack of of 19th-century German political philosophy. "dude everything is a social construct haha like bro just associate voluntarily with equally unscrupulous people like me haha".
It sickens me seeing this meme philosopher get pushed into this boards mainstream.

[Anonymous No.10619537]

>>10618990
He has literally two books and one is a reaction to the critics of the first book. Start with Hop on Pop, anon.

[Anonymous No.10619568]

Pretty cool dude if you can into nominalism (at least with regard to the self), someone on /lit/ suggested thinking of him as "a materialist on steroids" which I think is pretty accurate. He was also kind of a cheeky fuck that was more interested in making fun of Feuerbach than really laying out a "system." Anyone who thinks he said something like "dude everything is a spook lmao" probably didn't actually read him.

[Anonymous No.10619611]

Obligatory reading: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03d.htm

>at the end of the ancient world, “spirit” “again foamed and frothed over irresistibly because gases” (spirits) “developed within it and, after the mechanical impact from outside became ineffective, chemical tension, which stimulate in the interior, began to come into wonderful play”. (Stirner)

>This sentence contains the most important data of the “unique” philosophy of nature, which on the previous page had already arrived at the conclusion that for man nature is the “unconquerable”. Earthly physics knows nothing about a mechanical impact which becomes ineffective — unique physics alone has the merit of this discovery. Earthly chemistry knows no “gases” which stimulate “chemical tensions” and, what is more, “in the interior”. Gases which enter into new combinations, into new chemical relations, do not stimulate any “tensions”, but at most lead to a fall of tension, insofar as they pass into a liquid state of aggregation and thereby their volume decreases to something less than one-thousandth of their former volume. If Saint Max feels “tensions” “in” his own “interior” due to “gases”, these are highly “mechanical impacts”, and by no means “chemical tensions”. They are produced by a chemical transformation, determined by physiological causes, of certain mixtures into others, whereby part of the constituents of the former mixture becomes gaseous, therefore, occupies a larger volume arid, in the absence of space for it, causes a “mechanical impact” or pressure towards the outside. [That] these nonexistent “chemical tensions” “come” into extremely “wonderful play” in Saint Max’s “interior”, namely, this time in his head, “we see” from the role they play in “unique” natural science. Incidentally, it is to be desired that Saint Max would no longer withhold from the profane natural scientists what nonsense he has in mind with the crazy expression “chemical tensions”, which moreover “stimulate in the interior” (as though a “mechanical impact” on the stomach does not “stimulate it in the interior” as well). (Marx)

[Anonymous No.10619643]

>>10615057
Good meme.

[Anonymous No.10619714]

>>10617653
Some German words just can't properly be translated into English.

Good thing i'm Dutch

[Anonymous No.10619720]

>>10615057
I'm very glad this meme died

[Anonymous No.10619726]

>>10619611
It's funny how angry Marx got from Stirner. And in the end, he couldn't even properly refute him.

[Anonymous No.10619728]

>>10617653
The word Spooks is unironically the only reason he has any fame

[Anonymous No.10619757]

>>10619481
>implying watered down hegelianism
>implying not condensed Fichte
>posting in a Stirner thread without having read Stirner
Wenn Fichte sagt: 'das Ich ist is alles', so scheint dies it meinem Aufstellungen vollkommen zu harmonieren. Allein nicht das Ich ist alles, sondern zerstört alles, und nur das sich selbst auflösende Ich, das nie seiende Ich, das -- endliche Ich ist wirklich Ich. Fichte spricht vom 'absoluten' Ich, Ich aber spreche von Mir, dem vergänglichen Ich.
>>>10619492
>implying social construct
>mistaking hardcore nominalism for social theory
Dem Egoismis liegt das Interesse zu Grunde. Ist aber das Interesse nicht in gleicher Weise ein bloßer Name, ein inhaltsleerer und aller Begriffsentwicklung barer Begriff, wie der Einzelne?

Tl;dr: fucking pseuds fuck the fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10619765]

>>10619757
Well done, you're unspooked.
Now what?

[Anonymous No.10619771]

>>10619765
Dunno, probably masturbate

[Anonymous No.10619789]

>>10619771
Awesome, that was sure worth becoming an repugnant loser

[Anonymous No.10619816]

>>10619611
The fuck is he even saying.

[Anonymous No.10619828]

>>10619789
Es ist nötig, noch ein Wort über den Menschen zu sagen. Wie es scheint, ist Stirners Buch gegen Menschen geschrieben. Dadurch, wie auch durch das Wort Egoist hat er sich die schlimmsten Urteile zugezogen oder die hartnäckigsten Vorurteile rege gemacht. -- Ja, es ist wirklich gegen den Menschen geschrieben, und gleichwohl hätte Stirner auf dasselbe Ziel losgehen können, ohne die Leute so arg vor den Kopf zu stoßen, wenn er die Kehrseite heraus gewendet und gesagt hätte: er schreibe gegen den Unmenschen. Nur hätte er dann selbst die schuld getragen, wenn man ihn in entgegengesetzer, nämlich in sentimentaler Weise missverstanden und in der Reihe derer gestellt hätte, welche für den 'wahren Menschen' ihre Stimme erheben.

[Anonymous No.10619840]

>>10615057
a faggot. fuck him.

[Anonymous No.10619865]

>>10619816
He is talking about farts. Lrn2read. There was a southpark episode in which kyles parrents joined an exclusive club of farting into wine glasses and smelling their own rectum. Stirner boils down to that

[Anonymous No.10619883]

>>10619828
Ja, ja, Ich verstanden. Du kannst von alles macht dir frei aber was habst du dann?

Sartre was right about one thing, there's little solace in being condemned to be free

[Anonymous No.10619905]

>>10619883
Please don't embarrass yourself. Even Google Translate is usually better than that in this day and age so I'll have to assume your English input was at least equally retarded.

[Anonymous No.10619912]

>>10619757
How pseud do you have to be to intentionally obfuscate your post by using another language?

Uită-te la mine Sunt hao inteligent!

[Anonymous No.10619947]

>>10619905
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.10619953]

>>10619912
It was the easiest way for me to assert my superiority in the face of blatantly surface-level Stirner 'critics', I also don't have any translations at hand and I'm not gonna download any just to gain imaginary points on a Nootka canoe carving board on the internet.
>>10619947
you

[Anonymous No.10619971]

>>10619953
>Je parle Allemand donc j'ai raison

Absolute state of Stirner fags

[Anonymous No.10620002]

>>10619726
Marx did a very thorough critique of Stirner. Calling him out on all his bullshit. Eloquently so, but from within a marxist framework (read materealistic hegelianism). Stirner fags will argue that Marx's framework is flawed by design. Marxfags will argue that Stirners framework is flawed by design. But the fact remains that Marx tried to empower people while stirner was just stroking his own cock all along. And that is his great appeal to modern youth. Nothing else

[Anonymous No.10620009]

>>10615057

He shits on spooked plebeians.

[Anonymous No.10620017]

>>10620002
> But the fact remains that Marx tried to empower people while stirner was just stroking his own cock all along.

This is the most important thing and comes down to Nietzsche's criticism of "truth". Maybe you're right but so fucking what if you were

[Anonymous No.10620051]

>>10620002
Please explain to me how teaching that you should never let yourself be owned by an idea/ideology/whatever is not empowering people.

[Anonymous No.10620065]

>>10620009
'plebian' is a spook

[Anonymous No.10620070]

>>10619757
>>10619828
>>10619883
Will you disgusting Germans please stop speaking turkish

[Anonymous No.10620095]

>>10615157
fpbp

[Anonymous No.10620133]

>>10620051
Because all you're left with at that point is just floating aimlessly in the void

[Anonymous No.10620148]

Stirner bows to Marx

[Anonymous No.10620174]

>>10617653
i cant believe someone used the word spook instead of spirit, stirner speaks about being possesed by spirits

i read an oldass spanish translation and words like ego or spook are nowhere to be found

[Anonymous No.10620194]

>>10620174
Spook is funner to say

[Anonymous No.10620204]

meme philosopher

[Anonymous No.10620218]

>>10616162
Kek, this, which is why he's the GOAT.

[Anonymous No.10620222]

>>10619714
did you read the dutch translation if stirner?

[Anonymous No.10620253]

>>10620222
*flemish, desu.

a belgian guy translated it, the anarchist bookshop on jew broad street in amsterdam carries it

[Anonymous No.10620332]

>>10620017
>Maybe you're right but so fucking what if you were
I dont recall Nietzche saying that. Kindly enlighten me as to where he wrote those words.
>>10620051
There are two kinds of empowring. One revolves around solidarity. The other relolves around your own dick.

[Anonymous No.10620339]

>>10620002
>Marx tried to empower people while stirner was just stroking his own cock all along
Shit point based on bourgeois privacy biopolitics. The Unique isn't limited to the person and doesn't exclude experiental transcendence.

And trying to terminally empower people is ridiculous from an egoist PoV, since everyone is already an egoist.

You're criticizing Stirner for not doing things which he isn't interested in doing. He's not a philosopher of what is to be, but of what is.

[Anonymous No.10620349]

>>10620002
>stirner was just stroking his own cock all along
see the pic in >>10619004

[Anonymous No.10620350]

>>10620339
>trying to terminally empower people is ridiculous from an egoist PoV, since everyone is already an egoist
Are you a social being or are you a scoiopath? Defining everything in terms of self interest leads to what? Just because stirner used lofty words dont make his ideas less crappy

[Anonymous No.10620370]

>most of this board hates Evola
>most of this board likes Stirner
really gets my noggin joggin

[Anonymous No.10620378]

>>10620370
>Stirner
>believes in spooks
>Evola
>believes in literal ghosts

I cannot tell the difference

[Anonymous No.10620387]

>>10620349
Yes, he acknowledged the left hegelian doctrine and tried to incorporate it in his his philosophy of self and property. That still makes him an apologetic

[Anonymous No.10620391]

>>10620350
>Defining everything in terms of self interest leads to what?
The real world? Or are you going to say society isn't ruled by interest?

[Anonymous No.10620405]

>>10620391
What kind of world do you want? I will take a wild guess: the one where you have a slim chance to take maximum advantage and laugh at the ones who fail. And the more you fail the more you want it. And the more you want it the more you fail. And you get blinded real fast by property. You want to own. And the more you get the more you want. And the more you want the less you have. Can we talk about different ways or are we reduced to following the way things are just because everybody is equally stupid and unable to think beyond their own hardon?

[Anonymous No.10620415]

>>10620405
>I will take a wild guess: the one where you have a slim chance to take maximum advantage and laugh at the ones who fail.
>And you get blinded real fast by property. You want to own.
Congrats on not understanding Stirner at all.

[Anonymous No.10620436]

>>10620415
This is not about stirner. This is about some ass telling me that trying for something better than the shitfest that is reality is stupid. Which is more stupid? Accepting shit in your face and shitting back in the same manner or trying to clean it up and prevent it from repeating itself?

[Anonymous No.10620448]

>>10620070
kek

[Anonymous No.10620453]

>>10620370
Evola is a LARPer, Stirner is the anti-LARPer.

[Anonymous No.10620460]

>>10620370
>thinking there is any link between the two

[Anonymous No.10620473]

>>10620415
>>10620436
But if you want to bring stirner back in play, he offers no viable solution besides egoism, which is the root cause of the shitfest. He dresses it up in eloquent hegelian metaphysics and almost manages to justify it as the only means to harmony. But we all know shit aint like that. In the end, he becomes a lousy apologetic for egoistic sociopathic behavior. And he dresses it up in gassy metaphysics. Marx was wrong on many points but he was right about stirners metaphysics being nothing but farts dressed up as perfume

[Anonymous No.10620530]

>>10620436
Your "reality" is nothing more than a burden created by your own repression. If you were intelligent you would see that if you wanted to "empower" people you would have to let go of such realities and replace it with one in which they have been always-already in power, in which history has always been leading to this moment which retroactively modifies it. Otherwise you'll always be fighting and if your paradise ever comes you would only know how to reject it. You can't prevent things from repeating from the future. You have to do it now.

>>10620473
>he becomes a lousy apologetic for egoistic sociopathic behavior
He allows it. He does not support it. There is a difference you would understand if you weren't dependent on other people's thoughts from stopping you from doing things you know you wouldn't do anyway, since you and most people aren't sociopaths.

Not that there's anything special about sociopaths anyway. They're being in this world like any other. If humanity deems them to be unacceptable or useful so it'll be. Nothing you say now will change that, and it will all be based on humanity's actions.

[Anonymous No.10620548]

>>10620436
>>10620473
And anyway, you're spooked as fuck if you think capitalism is sociopathic. It's an extremely moralistic phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.10620597]

>>10620530
>see suffering
>spook
>muh own reality and muh propertai
>gettin rich by making other people poor be moralistic
>muh stirner
Someone say otherwise
>U spooked as fuck

[Anonymous No.10620614]

>>10620378
>>believes in spooks
His whole point is that spooks aren't real

[Anonymous No.10620620]

>>10615057
3spooky5me

[Anonymous No.10620660]

>>10620548
And now let me tell you something. Stirners metaphysics are refutable by his own methods. They are all spooks. If you embrace that idea of his and take it to its consequences you end up with Marx. Not Stirner. the only courage Stirner had was encouraging himself to play smart with demagogics.æ

[Anonymous No.10620661]

>>10620614
His post implies Stirnee believes in the concept of spooks, not that he subscribes to those beliefs

[Anonymous No.10620708]

>>10620370
??????????????

[Anonymous No.10620711]

>>10620597
>see suffering
>spook
That's not what I said at all.

>muh own reality and muh propertai
So I guess people should accept some reality that isn't their own and subordinate to it. Yeah, that doesn't sound like slavery at all.

>gettin rich by making other people poor be moralistic
You didn't even understand the quote.

>muh stirner
Most of my points are based on Zizek.

>>10620660
>Stirners metaphysics are refutable by his own methods. They are all spooks.
It's a good thing that all his metaphysics are provitional then.

>If you embrace that idea of his and take it to its consequences you end up with Marx.
Be honest, you think that about everything.

[Anonymous No.10620803]

ITT People who haven't read Stirner

[Anonymous No.10620806]

>>10620803
/thread

[Anonymous No.10620841]

>>10620803
Why would you read a meme person so irrelevant he couldn't even afford a photograph

[Anonymous No.10620848]

>>10620548
god you’re stupid

[Anonymous No.10620853]

>>10620848
Okay?

[Anonymous No.10621392]

>>10615057
I think egoism and cooperation can be inclusive. Egoism should be kept in check, and cooperation must necessarily be protected from dogma (spooks).

[Anonymous No.10621402]

>>10620803
There are three people maximum in any Stirner thread, of any length, who have actually bothered to read Stirner. The same goes for any other thread on this board that's actually related to literature

[Anonymous No.10621518]

>>10621392
this, dear anon, is exactly what the union of egoists does.

[Anonymous No.10621545]

>>10621392
>>10621518
NOPE, a union of egoists does nothing to interfere with the conscious egoistic interests of its members. They cooperate out of sheer voluntary egoism, otherwise the union has degenerated into something else, a society

[Anonymous No.10621579]

>>10620370
Stirner is on our side anon

[Anonymous No.10621608]

>>10620148
maybe on opposite day

[Anonymous No.10621987]

>>10615057
I like the elegant simplicity of his system, but Nietzsche did it all better and in a way that's more compatible with actual humans

[Anonymous No.10622106]

>>10620803
why bother reading books when i can read a few posts and conjecture

[Anonymous No.10622179]

>>10617774
Who's Stirner?

[Anonymous No.10622340]

>>10615057
a man or a beast?

[Anonymous No.10622534]

aesthetic

[Anonymous No.10622551]

>>10615057
problematic but i can see how weaklings might find help with his work

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!Srz2lnO/STC No.10623582]

>>10616167
Turns out that that isn't the philosophy.

You're just in love with your spooks and can't get over it. God is dead and good riddance.

>>10616220
This isn't the philosophy either.