/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18561723]

Thoughts on Max Stirner?

[Anonymous No.18561726]

Bear wood shit

[Anonymous No.18561854]

Only bavarian philosopher to exist so he is cool in my book
making especially commies seethe is just a bonus

[Anonymous No.18561861]

>spooks are bad
>people should act in their own self-interest
What if I have an interest in being spooked?

[Anonymous No.18561873]

>>18561861
Even more importantly, what if I have an interest in the PERPETUATION of spooks?

[Anonymous No.18561890]

>>18561723
A snot-nosed brat with a very smart mouth. Obnoxiously clever, but ultimately juvenile.

[Anonymous No.18562029]

>>18561890
>Very smart mouth but ultimately juvenile
This is a thread about Stirner not about your mother anon

[Anonymous No.18562172]

>>18561861
>>18561873
You're a spooktard and you must be busted.

[Anonymous No.18562196]

>>18561861
It's voluntary, therefore not spooked but out of self intrest.

[Anonymous No.18562217]

>>18561723
Based as fuck. Very progressive socially, with the whole "don't listen to anyone" part, but probably would've called me a nigger faggot despite me not being gay or black; so the best kind of progressive.
Also he's funny.

[Anonymous No.18562276]

I've never met a Stirner fan that isn't some kind of smug mouthbreater. If you're not gonna take things seriously you're better off just working out or something like that.

[Anonymous No.18563409]

>>18561723
meme philosopher but a funny one

[Anonymous No.18563490]

>>18561861
>>18562276
>>18563409
>t. hasn't read him

[Anonymous No.18564514]

>>18561723
>Thoughts
Spook
>On
Spook
>Max Stirner
Spook

[Anonymous No.18564555]

>>18561723
Hegel copycat, uninteresting
Got btfod by Marx, and in advance he was refuted by Feuerbach

[Anonymous No.18564571]

>>18564555
You haven't read any of the names you dropped, you pseud.

[Anonymous No.18564646]

an intellectual powerhouse with a bulletproof philosophy that has yet to be refuted to this day.
people, often in the pursuit to feel intelligent, doubt and try to undermine him since they have this silly notion that the bigger a word salad a philosophy is, the more legitimate it must be. stirner just cuts the bullshit lays it out.

[Anonymous No.18564673]

Absolutely based.
Makes people seethe like no one else.

[Anonymous No.18564676]

>>18564571
Read all 4, cope

[Anonymous No.18564715]

>>18564673
This

[Anonymous No.18564783]

>>18561723
Beyond shit. Anyone saying he's "based" is because they politically agree with him. Which, by the way, also means they themselves are shit.

[Anonymous No.18565804]

>>18564673
I'd like someone to refute Redbeard too. His understanding of God as a flying spaghetti monster is cringe, but besides that I see no way to refute that might is right. Is there any? I can't untake the mightpill and Stirnerpill anymore

[Anonymous No.18566159]

Is defense the highest morality?

[Anonymous No.18566194]

>>18565804
Stirner isnt a political philosopher you moron, the two are unrelated beyond the misinfluence of Stirner on Redbeard
and a large portion of what redbeard says is either false or stupid. His main point stands though, one cant go against nature

[Anonymous No.18566334]

>>18566194
Ok bucko but is there any scenario where might is not right?

[Anonymous No.18566370]

>>18561723
meme

[Anonymous No.18566743]

>>18561723
spooked by a litle bug.

[Anonymous No.18566757]

>>18565804
What has Redbeard to do with the flying spaghetti monster??!

[Anonymous No.18566857]

i will never read stirner because I hate this picture of him so much

[Anonymous No.18566884]

>>18561854
>bavarian
Bayreuth is Franconian clay

Death to bavarian imperialists

[Anonymous No.18566996]

>>18566757
He equates god to a material wizard doing magic while floating in the sky

[Anonymous No.18567028]

Never saw the force in his ethical egoism. He can't show in what sense the egoist is a superior being to the non egoist.

[Anonymous No.18567040]

>>18561723
He's based.
'ate religion
'ate morality
'ate the state
Simple as

[Anonymous No.18567065]

can anyone give me 2 explanations of what he meant by "spook" ?
one short, preferably a sentence
one long, preferably a paragraph
please

[Anonymous No.18567102]

>>18566996
Are you seriously this stupid? I seriously can't believe someone unironically wrote this hahahahahahahahah

[Anonymous No.18567122]

>>18567102
t. illeterate who has never read him

[Anonymous No.18567167]

>>18567065
A spook is a fixed idea that is claimed to have universal, immutable, objective traits, but is actually a subjective, arbitrary value that is contingent on ideological, cultural or other transient norms. The universalizing of the subjective is what makes it a "spook" that "haunts" your mind.

[Anonymous No.18567177]

>>18567122
I read him more than any other book. You're the ""illeterate"" who can't get a mocking or irony. He doesn't believe in the Jewish God, he said he believes in Odin and other Germanic Gods. Where do you see the flying spaghetti monster?

[Anonymous No.18567220]

>>18567065
An idea or value not of one's own choosing or invention which subordinates the individual to it and infects their mind like a parasite, making them live not for themselves but for the idea which they have reified into an absolute. These ideas pose as absolute values but are really just made up and optional.

As Pyotr Stepanovich in Dostoevsky’s ‘Demons’ said, "It was not you who ate the idea, but the idea that ate you." It's an idea that eats you.

[Anonymous No.18567230]

>>18561723
His distinction between spooooooks and you're true self-interest is not argued well enough or explained. The idea of a union of egoists is stupidly utopian.

[Anonymous No.18567236]

In my opinion the spook is the greatest self-contained idea ever described by a philosopher.
I encourage someone to prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.18567257]

>>18567065
Stirner thinks that all ideals in the name of which the subordination of the self to a greater cause is demanded (loyalty to God, family, nation, humanity etc.) are phantasms and illusions, hence "spooks".

[Anonymous No.18567279]

>>18567230
>His distinction between spooooooks and you're true self-interest is not argued well enough or explained
It is. You made no thinking at all and read it just passively if you don't understand the clear distinction.

[Anonymous No.18567338]

>>18567236
It can't be refuted because it's the truth.
But the nature of the spook entails that only a few people will see through them and even fewer people will change their behavior when they do. That's why you have to expect that most will speak against it. And that's why Stirner and his philosophy will always be kind of niche. But when you meet someone who truly gets it these people usually say there is almost nothing better.