[ 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: 133 KB, 523x452, 1559126568419.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13412602 No.13412602 [Reply] [Original]

>Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!
I literally cannot argue his point on the fact that the individual is nothing to a collective

Are morals and ethics in fact spooks?

>> No.13412610

Is the concept of spooks in fact a spook?

>> No.13412626

>>13412610
It is.
Due to it being the first in self-discovery

There can be good spooks and bad spooks
Not all spooks should be followed but others cannot be denied for the individual to continue to prosper

You live with spooks, and you overcome spooks until all ghosts are no longer spooky

>> No.13412648

Stirner and Nietzsche play a natural second fiddle to the titanically reductive form of naive individualism known as Objectivism; that is, Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
Where Stirner and Nietzsche acknowledge the basic network of cooperative relations which constitute a Modern subject as necessary (if to be refined and in some senses not yet existing) to proper subjectivity, Rand takes a deeply Sadist position on the matter of individuality and declares a Cretan/Cretin Law of sorts.
>“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
More to the point, she sees no inherent value in life (Stirner's humanism is dull and Nietzsche anti-humanism is even more pathetic, Rand's ahumanism is the only palatable form of individualism):
>Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.
Or more succinctly put:
>A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.
Rand exists in the space of primal humanity, while the coffee-table individualists, the anti-commercial Nietzsche or anti-tyrannical Stirner, are eternally stuck in the early industrial whirlpool of post-enlightenment.

>> No.13412652

>>13412610
Yes, it exists only in your mind.

>> No.13412695

>>13412648
Why doesn't rand strip naked and run through the wilds of africa is she loves to be so primal

>> No.13413253

>>13412648
All. this is all sorts of wrong wtf.
>Rand takes a deeply Sadist position on the matter of individuality
What does that even mean? Rand argued the potency for exercising benevolence has to begin in individual agency.
>More to the point, she sees no inherent value in life
Utterly, completely off the mark. She said life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself, and that it fulfill the concept of an ultimate value from which all others proceed. She used this to tackle Hume's is/ought problem.
>Rand exists in the space of primal humanity
What you state does not follow from what you quote. Rand was very polemical to philosophical traditionalism and premodernism.

>> No.13413303

>>13412602
You just like him because he has a meme portrait

>> No.13413353

>>13412602
https://discord.gg/sJpcEqV

>> No.13413411

>>13412648
>Stirner's humanism
What, have you even read the book?

''What they've planted in their head, what is one supposed to
call it other than-a fixed idea? Indeed, it "haunts their heads." The
most oppressive phantasm is the human being. Just think of the proverb, "The road to ruin is paved with good intentions." The intention
to completely actualize humanity in oneself, to completely become
human, is of such a ruinous sort; such are the intentions to become
good, noble, loving, etc.''

There is much more of course.

>>13412695
He's wrong, but that's a proper retort to anything.

>>13412610
A spook is a fixed idea. Also read ''Stirners Critics''

>> No.13413486

>>13413303
I feel like he would be less popular here if he had a surviving photo and he just looked like a regular guy.

>> No.13413491

>>13413486
The meme sketches are actually pretty accurate.

>> No.13413623

>>13412602
>the individual is nothing to a collective
Explain Bezos, Trump, and Kaczynski. The collective, should it concern itself with the affairs of the individual, is certainly something of value to the collective, be it negative or positive. If the collective is so willing to quash the individual, even if for the collective's sake, then the collective gives up its power to the individual for as long as it takes to resolve the conflict with the individual.

>Are morals and ethics in fact spooks?
Yes, but that doesn't mean cast them away in haste. Merely, they are concepts that exist outside of your own self-interest.

>Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!
I love this line. It is impossible for the narcissist to attain a high position without sacrificing parts of himself. In his self-pursuit, he must, at least in part, abstain from a pure egoism in order to attain a much better position to greater express this egoism. Certainly Stirner meant to mock the voice of the collective, but that's only in context.

>> No.13413653

>>13413623

>Certainly Stirner meant to mock the voice of the collective, but that's only in context.

Not really the collective though.

''What is not supposed to be my affair! Above all, the good cause, then
God's cause, the cause of humanity, of truth, of freedom, of humaneness, of justice; furthermore, the cause of my people, my prince, my
fatherland; finally even the cause of mind and a thousand other causes. Only my own cause is never supposed to be my affair. "Down with
the egoist who only thinks of himself!"
Let's see then how they deal with their cause, those for whose
cause we are supposed to work, sacrifice ourselves, and be filled with
enthusiasm.''


>It is impossible for the narcissist to attain a high position without sacrificing parts of himself. In his self-pursuit, he must, at least in part, abstain from a pure egoism in order to attain a much better position to greater express this egoism.

Nothing is really sacrificed, and narcissism is not a good term here. As long as the subject in this case does not actually buy into the idea, he loses nothing, ''nothing exhausts him''.

>> No.13413689

>>13413653
>Not really the collective though.
>"Let's see then how they deal with their cause, those for whose cause we are supposed to work, sacrifice ourselves, and be filled with enthusiasm.''
Not strictly the collective, but it seems to be more so the case than not. That's just me being unclear though.
>long as the subject, in this case, does not actually buy into the idea, he loses nothing, ''nothing exhausts him''.
Moral posturing is the first example that comes to my mind. Saying/doing whatever it is to gain that very high position of power to pursue egoism. The narcissist has a hard time admitting fault due to a desire of maintaining personal image, but might admit fault in pursuit of a higher position. Compromising the ego to eventually arive at a better self-servitude.

>> No.13413728

>>13413689
>Moral posturing is the first example that comes to my mind. Saying/doing whatever it is to gain that very high position of power to pursue egoism.

Note that one but in the book where he tackles the Kantian murderer-at-the-door dilemma. He does not sacrifice anything in lying about the whereabouts of his friends, precisely because has nothing to lose by the act, he has set his cause upon nothing. Egoism is not perused, as in the aforementioned example ''truth'' is not perused, one is not subordinated but subordinates [the idea/process] to what is in him essential yet also unfixed with regards to mediating notions and their affects. Though all of this gets rather interesting when you consider that fixed notion of affect and genetic predisposition, such as would be the case for the narcissist, though Stirner does touch on that in at least one segment, which then extends into his more, for the lack of a better term, Taoist-esque concepts.
But all this may just be semantics in this conversation, regardless its rare to have real discussion in a Stirner thread so why not get ab it verbose.

>The narcissist has a hard time admitting fault due to a desire of maintaining personal image, but might admit fault in pursuit of a higher position. Compromising the ego to eventually arive at a better self-servitude.

The narcissist is the most spooked personality condition you can imagine, if you really read into it. I'd wager you actually mean stuff like dark triad personality and all that stuff.

>> No.13413747

>>13413411
What attribute would an idea have to have to be a spook? If idea A is a spook, and idea B isn't, what is the thing that seperates them?

>> No.13413859

>>13413747

''What, then, is called a "fixed idea"? An idea
that has subjected people to itself.''

>> No.13415467

Bump

>> No.13415476

What if Stirner was just beaten more as a child?

>> No.13415500

>>13413728
>the Kantian murderer-at-the-door dilemma. He does not sacrifice anything in lying
I could posit some moral value of honesty, but that's just me being antagonistic for the sole purpose of trying to be right
>Egoism is not perused, as in the aforementioned example ''truth'' is not perused
That's an absolute misunderstanding on my part then. I'll read through his work again, especially since I don't remember
>though Stirner does touch on that in at least one segment, which then extends into his more, for the lack of a better term, Taoist-esque concepts.
Thanks for being honest in discussion.

>> No.13415501

>>13412602
>the individual is nothing to a collective
Nonsense. The individuals and family units of the collective care deeply for individuals and individualism.

>> No.13415560

>>13415500

https://libcom.org/files/Stirner%20-%20The%20Unique%20and%20Its%20Property.pdf

Here's newer/better translation, if you didn't know.


https://libcom.org/files/Newman_Max_Stirner.pdf

This is also neat.

>> No.13415565

>>13413859
What do you mean by subjectation? Have he subjected ourself to logic?

>> No.13415565,1 [INTERNAL] 

>>13413859
>''What, then, is called a "fixed idea"? An idea
that has subjected people to itself.''

so spooks are spooks because the idea "spook" has subjected people (stirnerites and individualist anarchists) to itself.

again, the idea of a spook is spooktacularly self-undermining and the only people who believe this crap are people that haven't done much philosophy. It's babby tier bad ethics on par with first year undergrads who unironically believe moral relativism while carving out special values for themselves that they hold as better than other values (muh tolerance, muh leftism, etc).