/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17153160]

Is Stirner a pseudo-mystic? I haven’t read his works, but from what I understand his philosophy deals with the self, but this self isn’t anything like the self I expected. It seems closer to Hinduism/Buddhism than anything. Can someone more acquainted with Stirner’s thought explain it to me?

[Anonymous No.17153249]

>>17153160
>me all that matter
>me smart

[Anonymous No.17153502]

>>17153160
Nothin pseudo about him

[Anonymous No.17154519]

>>17153249
This but unironically

[Anonymous No.17154699]

>>17153160
his self is the absolute spirit of hegel personified

[Anonymous No.17154734]

>>17153160
>I haven’t read his works
Read Der Einzige und sein Eigentum and form your own opinion you lazy human.

[Anonymous No.17155303]

>>17153160
Or even the Standford edu page on him? Anyways, to keep it short, he's an ethical egoist who argues that the individual is measure of all things. He argues for a nihilistic attitude towards sociological questions such as the role of the family, culture, history, morals, religion, the state, community, society, and argues for individuals to have the courage to discard or not care about these "spooks" for selfish interest such as using empirical evidence to measure action against the individuals own desires. It is a complete denial of humanism; the belief that humanity essentially has value, and to be held as sacred. Just read his book and make up your own mind.
>>17153249
Prove him "wrong" - pro tip, you can't

[Anonymous No.17155333]

>>17155303
>Prove him "wrong" - pro tip, you can't
you are not even the master of your desires

[Anonymous No.17155346]

>>17153249
Imagine thinking Stirner, the guy who influenced Nietzsche, was a fucking "leftist." For fucks sake, retard, Marx wrote a book dedicated to refuting him longer than his original piece. Leftists have always hated Stirner. Also, his work is still being translated; some pieces were released this month.

[Anonymous No.17155360]

>>17155333
What the fuck does that mean, you psuedo

[Anonymous No.17155410]

>>17155360
It means that you are bound to be spooked.

[Anonymous No.17155475]

>>17155410
You don't really understand Stirner's method. You seem to caught up in the concept of just calling things "spooks" when his social criticism is the negation of them. To Stirner, "spooks" are ideas, beliefs, that indoctrinated to you through the family, the community, the state education system, religion, enlightenment humanism (the sacred beliefs of "Private property" , "natural rights." Saying someone is "spooked" doesn't mean much because it doesn't tell you anything. The question is why you're doing something, and who told you to do it - for what reason. Usually, its because you're duped into doing things because other people tell you do these things out of the "love of man" or "god" or the state in some sense. Instead, he points out these callings are egotistical ones, the collective wants to dupe you into doing things out of the sake of its own survival in lieu of yours. Your head is haunted because you care so much about what they want you to do, and not what you want to do.

Stirner's argument is you can think for yourself, you can disregard what people tell you, this includes philosophers, and boil down all existential questions down to shear force and wit. To Stirner, there's no god, no afterlife - you just live to drink, eat, have fun, and then you die without remembering anything. Everything else is distraction from that truth. From the bible, Ecclesiastes 1 makes the same argument.

[Anonymous No.17155523]

>>17155475
>To Stirner, there's no god, no afterlife - you just live to drink, eat, have fun, and then you die without remembering anything. Everything else is distraction from that truth.
But if you hold this believe today you are just as spooked. Why would I listen to him if it feeds my ego that I live forever?

[Anonymous No.17155548]

>>17155346
Stirner-ists have always been associated with the left, it is a simple historical fact. And since left-right is nothing but associations then stirner-ists must be leftist.

[Anonymous No.17155549]

>>17155475
>To Stirner, there's no god, no afterlife
i dont remember him making an argument against God- only against religion as a spook

>you just live to drink, eat, have fun, and then you die without remembering anything
Nope, you live to do whatever you want, if you want to do those things then good. If you want to be a monk you can be a monk as long as it serves your self interest and you get something out of it

[Anonymous No.17155553]

Like, if you don't understand Stirner's life or historical context he lived in you will not understand where he's coming from. Stirner did not have a great life; he lost his father at an early age, his poor single mother raised him. He lost a child. He lost his business, he died poor. His saw his friends die in the revolutions of 1848 which failed to actually complete the republican revolutions of his time; that were championed by the Left Hegelians "The Free Ones". His book was a product of those circumstances. He was also a history teacher; he knew about past revolutions, and their failures - and he simply used that historiography to show that "progress" and "change" are not what they are all hyped to be. Humans have always had reformers, social justice heroes like Arnold Ruge and Bruno Bauer; who argued that a simple revolution would alleviate and solve the problems of existence. But that has never been the case.Instead, revolutions replace one tyranny of consciousness, of thought with another. Some philosophers, some utopians have always argued that is possible to make the world harmonic and just "work" without pain and suffering - but that's not the case and never will be. There are just too many competing lifeforms with their own takes on life. What your job is to simply survive using whatever skills you have; like any animal ought to.

[Anonymous No.17155602]

>>17155523
>But if you hold this believe today you are just as spooked.
That's meaningless, and is just a poor understanding of his method. You just don't understand his point whatsoever.
>Why would I listen to him if it feeds my ego that I live forever?
He doesn't want you to listen to him, retard. He doesn't care what you do. He literally says that in the book. Just like nobody has to care what you think or anyone thinks. der Einziger, the unique, is not defined by any idea or follows any general ideas - that is the premise of Stirner. Again, read the book. The book is an argument why I, why nobody, has to give a fuck about what anyone says. Just do whatever you want, if that means killing, stealing, lying - go ahead. Or again, don't read it. Don't do anything; because nobody has to care what you do; as long as you don't get my way.
>>17155549
He literally calls god an egoist; he is against the concept of god because religion is a form of involuntary egoism. God selfishly postulates you must do things out of his sake, and not yours. Christians make the same argument "for brotherhood" for "freedom" - but its for the freedom of the mob of Christians and not yourself.
>Nope, you live to do whatever you want, i
That's literally what that means though. You can't do any of things you want, as a human, without eating and drinking the stuff that keeps you alive.
> If you want to be a monk you can be a monk as long as it serves your self interest and you get something out of it
Yes, he did praise the vagabond lifestyle
>What else was Diogenes of Sinope looking for if not the true enjoy ment of life, which he found in having the least possible wants? What else Aristippus, who found it in good spirits under every circumstance? They are seeking for cheerful, unclouded courage to face life, for cheerfulness; they are seeking to "be of good cheer."

[Anonymous No.17155611]

>>17155475
I read Stirner a long time ago so maybe I'll say some things he covers but I don't think so. Your definition of the spook is more or less what I had in mind. But the problem here is: can you really think for yourself? Stirner wrote his book in 1844 at a time where psychology, anthropology, sociology were non-existent (or almost), and all those things seem to point towards the fact that we cannot really do that to some extent, and that family, community, etc. functions with some mechanisms that are really hard to break free from and that explains their predominance. The question of desire particularly is not really addressed by Stirner if I recall correctly and it's pretty obvious that we don't really willingly choose what we desire, I posted a pic of René Girard who explains desire through mimesis and the resolution of conflict by the creation of scapegoats, both of which could be called "spooks" and which deprive you of a bit of your liberty. I posted him because I think he's right to some extend but it's anecdotal, the point is that we are also the product of our environment and history, and that it is not always possible to break free from it.

[Anonymous No.17155664]

>>17155611
Thank you for actually having a good post. My response:
> can you really think for yourself? Stirner wrote his book in 1844 at a time where psychology, anthropology, sociology were non-existent (or almost), and all those things seem to point towards the fact that we cannot really do that to some extent, and that family, community, etc. functions with some mechanisms that are really hard to break free from and that explains their predominance.
I agree, but I would say that one can if they have the courage to do so. Its extremely difficult, and I don't make it sound as if its easy because its not. There are people who do exist can do these things; Stirner gave examples of people such as vagabonds, people like Diogenes - the lumpenproletariat essentially does something to this effect. They are people who live on the margins, outcasts - they are people who drift with no cause or pretty any purpose besides just pure survival or even hedonism.
>we don't really willingly choose what we desire,
We don't choose to be born, we don't choose our family, we don't choose our upbringing, we don't choose our own flesh and blood, yes, but we do have the ability to make choices on what we do with our lives. I choose not to kill people, I can choose to cheat on my wife, I can choose not to have kids, I can choose to pursue revolutionary politics. Or not do anything of those things. I do have some power over the things I can do with my life, and that is the power should use in lieu of my own interest.
>Criticism actually says: You must free your I so completely from all limitations that it becomes a human I. I say: Free yourself as far as you can, and you have done your part; because it is not given to everyone to break through all limits, or, more eloquently: that is not a limit for everyone which is one to the others. Consequently, don't exhaust yourself on the limits of others; it's enough if you tear down your own. Who has ever been able to break down even one limit for all people? Aren't countless pe ople today, as at all times, running around with all the "limitations of humanity"? One who overturns one of his limits may have shown others the way and the means; the overturning of their limits remains their affair

[Anonymous No.17155977]

>>17155611
And, I want to add, I did some searching of Girard's work, and he argues that religion is the cause of "discrimination" or problems we face is through spirituality?
http://bookhaven.stanford.edu/2020/07/rene-girard-the-economic-biological-or-racial-criterion-that-is-responsible-for-discrimination-will-never-be-found-because-its-actually-spiritual/
He rejects the economic determinism of Marxism; just as Stirner does, for different reasons. For Stirner, it's ethical egoism - for Girard its "spirituality." They don't think the economic base plays the dominant role in society; but that the superstructure does?
And also - psychological egoism and ethical egoism are not outdated theories; they're still seriously considered by sociologists. I would recommend "The Foundations of an Anarchist Sociology: Max Stirner and the Alternative to the Collective Human Project" by RM Simons - you can read the full paper from libgen.

[Anonymous No.17156007]

>>17154699
Absolute Spirit is a Person. Thats part of the distinction between Absolute Idea and Absolute Spirit

[Anonymous No.17156035]

>>17155346
He was a young i.e. "left" Hegelian, where do you think this stupid distinction came from?
And Marx wrote about him because Marx was a young Hegelian himself, its actually completly unknown wheter Nietzsche actually even read Stirner at all, in fact their ideas dobt have much in common, Löwith called Stirner a mediocre Bourgie in contrast to Nietzsches aristocratic genius.
Man you guys dont know anything.

[Anonymous No.17156044]

Stirner's work is especially strong considering his critics ideas all went to be total failures. Marx, Engels, Ruge, Feuerbach, every Left Hegelian that attacked him over 175 years ago, in support of liberalism and communism bringing everyone to the promised land failed spectacularly like he knew it would. He specifically pointed out communism & socialism would just create a despotism - and it did, every time

[Anonymous No.17156094]

>>17156035
>He was a young i.e. "left" Hegelian, where do you think this stupid distinction came from?
Wrong, he was a post-Hegelian. He leaves the realm of philosophy all together. He's called these "things" because you don't actually take the time to understand him; his work was ruthless criticized by all of them. You are an absolute retard. You don't even know anything about him or history. You literally skimmed the wikipedia of him to act smart when you're dumb.
>its actually completely unknown wheter Nietzsche actually even read Stirner at all, i
Its really not though. Nietzsche was friends with Left Hegelians like Eduard Mushacke who knew Stirner personally. Its not a hard argument to suggest he spoke to him of Stirner.

[Anonymous No.17156114]

>>17156035
>He was a young i.e. "left" Hegelian, where do you think this stupid distinction came from?
From idiots who don't read Stirner's Critics; when every single one of the Left Hegelians broke with him and Bruno Bauer? You do realize they all pretty much broke away from each other of seriously ideological disagreements. You are an absolute dumbass; they hated him after his book. The guy who complete attacks them all his book, and is admonished them for his arguments is apparently a "left hegelian" the "left Hegelian" who ruthlessly attacked the socialism of Marx & Engels, and the republican liberalism of Ruge for a might makes right philosophy is a "Leftist" how fucking dumb r u

[Anonymous No.17156191]

>>17155475
>To Stirner, there's no god, no afterlife - you just live to drink, eat, have fun, and then you die without remembering anything
Very inspiring.

[Anonymous No.17156213]

>>17156191
The alternative is to live, reproduce and struggle for the ideological constructions of other men for no real gain. I find that prospect of your genes being a empty homonculi to be filled with spooks much more horrific.

[Anonymous No.17156261]

>>17156213
The alternative actually brings you more fun than just intentionally "having fun". Would you rather hear a story about someone who
>drink, eat, have fun
or someone who
>live, reproduce and struggle
?

[Anonymous No.17156279]

>>17153160
>I *philosopher* X
>havent read him btw
every time. why do you go to the literature board on 4chan instead of just reading?

[Anonymous No.17156289]

>>17156261
You can participate in societies and ideological groups and projects as you wish but if you ever once view yourself as "part of something greater" or it becomes fundamental to your being as is common place to the illiterate then you become a disgusting creature whose consciousness has degraded and lacks autonomy. Thankfully the solution to this is fairly simple and if you read a bunch of books you won't be so attached to spooks, usually.

[Anonymous No.17156320]

>>17156289
>disgusting
To whom exactly?
>consciousness
>autonomy
All spooks.

[Anonymous No.17156332]

>>17156320
that aint what spooks mean, read stirner

[Anonymous No.17156339]

>>17156320
Autonomy is not really a spook, you can reasonably measure someone's adherence to simple proscribed ideals, you can measure their brain responses and chemicals when you poke and prod and those fundamental ideas. Being such a creature that responds like an animal in a pavlovian experiment is disgusting don't you think? Also Stirner isn't Derrida, not all words are spooks.

[Anonymous No.17156840]

If anyone here knows Tsuji Jun or Amadeo Bordiga; think about what they did between 1925-1949; they literally dropped out of politics during some of the most brutal conflicts and revolutions our time. That's pretty much Stirner advocated for. When Fascists and Communists were killing each other on the streets, people like them just gave up, and didn't bother with the non-sense that going on. They just kept themselves safe.