Stirner experts

[Anonymous No.11017295]

Stirner posits that ideology is more or less an empty concept, and that we are to assume only in our own rationality and ego (as a precis). From his rejection of servility to the cognitively exogenous, which could include an ideology of the reference to history for reasoning, could we then conclude that a system of morality based on external inputs, including our experiences, is compromised, and thus we ought to base our morality in a coeval basis, with no a priori assumptions? An ad hoc morality if you will. Am i being retarded here?

[Anonymous No.11017341]

>>11017295

That whole thing sounds more problematic than it does in Stirner's own work, actually. From what I gather he talks more about assertion of power related to property than absolute denial of exogenous cognition. As it is apparently read, your morality relates to how much you are able to actually exert your will onto your surroundings (including others). He's not necessarily claiming "to each their own", because he realizes no one can be that powerful, and instead believes such a consortium of egoists would "unionize" into a sort of self-checking system (that he insists would not be a government because it is now a detached from dogma and "purely of necessity" continuous balance of powers). In this sense, your ad hoc morality would (no pun intended) go only as far as your hand could punch, and from there and beyond it would actually be the egotistical sound thing to do, accepting the ambient (including your lack of powers inside it) as is, with no further assumptions. I am sure someone else can elucidate this matter more though

[Anonymous No.11017360]

inb4 someone points out the picture isn't Stirner. Its the closest we got.

[Anonymous No.11017362]

>>11017341
Thanks buddy. It really helps to get thoughts on it. Since his implication of ego and society is pretty interesting.

[Anonymous No.11017378]

>>11017362
yeah maybe if you're fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.11017387]

>>11017360
no, it isn't.

[Anonymous No.11017395]

>>11017295
That image isn't Stirner.
>>11017360
The closest we got is Engels's drawings.

[Anonymous No.11017430]

>>11017378
Well I have read a lot of philosophy and he is definitely top 5 of unique and assiduous philosophers for my money. Since he arguably founded the schools of communism and anarchy, as well as influencing Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11017434]

>>11017430
>Well I have read a lot of philosophy

yep, my point exactly fella

[Anonymous No.11017449]

>>11017434
How else can one stave off the baying dogs of inanity?

[Anonymous No.11017450]

>>11017362
>pretty interesting.
literally edgy preteen-tier

[Anonymous No.11017453]

>>11017449
by reading shakespeare of course

[Anonymous No.11017468]

>>11017295
>system
>base our morality
did you read the book?

[Anonymous No.11017469]

>>11017450
there is no way anyway who can read through Hegel is writing something for a pre-teen you nonce.

[Anonymous No.11017477]

>>11017468
yeah that was a sloppy summary of my original text, which was:
>What could be considered taught morality is nothing but slavish adherence to the tenets of another, morality melded from experience is unimaginative obsequiousness to our reckoned ‘wisdom’. These are both rigmarole and folly; our morality ought to be born from the thinking of present, as each application will feature unique elements and require aboriginal rulings. Discard our remembered morality and embrace coeval, ad hoc morality, a product momentary, vestal, and incisive.

[Anonymous No.11017540]

>>11017477
there is no our or morality, and definitely nothing like our morality. but what you think youre saying, yes—that is the pay out, though he'd laugh at you for thinking like that

[Anonymous No.11017570]

>>11017360
>>11017395
do you even internet?

[Anonymous No.11017588]

>>11017540
That’s stupendously helpful. Thanks lad

[Anonymous No.11017621]

>>11017570
Why does Beckett look like a nazi villain?

[Anonymous No.11017675]

>>11017570
Why did you post a picture of Samuel Beckett?