Is "The Ego and His Own" based and worth reading?

[Anonymous No.18819524]

[Anonymous No.18819528]

No, but it's worth doing.

[Anonymous No.18819578]

It's worth reading but I regret it. Stirner isn't wrong but agreeing with him put me into an existential crisis I still haven't recovered from.

[Anonymous No.18819586]

>>18819578
How so?

[Anonymous No.18819604]

Read the unique and it's property, it's the same thing but a much better translation.

[Anonymous No.18819609]

I've never read stirner, isn't he just a meme? What is he even speaking about in his books?

[Anonymous No.18819619]

>>18819578
Makes me feel great, makes me feel free.

[Anonymous No.18819633]

>>18819609
Spooks

[Anonymous No.18819644]

>>18819633
Nothing means anything? Is that it?

[Anonymous No.18819653]

>>18819644
no, things still mean stuff for Stirner

[Anonymous No.18819727]

>>18819586
On a personal level, egoism seems like a solution. It liberated me from the tribalism and "labels" every vapid post-Enlightenment moral structure tries and ultimately fails to impose on us. But on a broader level, practicing egoism practically accelerates every single thing wrong with the Enlightenment.
Ayn Rand is the modern political equivalent of Stirner.
You can't reconcile hatred of the Enlightenment with a support of Stirner. It's impossible to do both without being part of the problem.

[Anonymous No.18819753]

>>18819609
read it. the first chapter alone was enough to keep me awake at night.

[Anonymous No.18819795]

>>18819727
>practicing egoism practically accelerates every single thing wrong with the Enlightenment
I don't think that's true. I can do a Friedrich Schiller or a Voltaire as an egoist. I can be pro enlightenment. What's to stop me? Those roles are available and I'm a talented actor. The stage is mine.

[Anonymous No.18820227]

>>18819795
I get what you mean, that's why I loved the book at first. It makes me immune from being pigeonholed or subordinated to some kind of ideological boogeymen/all other kinds of spooks. But there's no end goal to egoism. It's just an individual escape. Egoists can't enter into relationships based on any shared values or principles because all of those are obviously spooks. They can just pick and choose what fits them in any situation from a buffet of convenient beliefs, but just because that's better than being a slave to one fixed set of beliefs doesn't mean it's a good thing. Nietzsche was an egoist but at least laid out a somewhat coherent path to transcending all this. Stirner sort of says "anything goes" and everyone who disagrees is propagating some kind of spook.
>The stage is mine.
Do you really want to live in a society full of people who think like this? Egoism made me feel like I could be an independent thinker without owing anyone anything but I feel like it's just a kneejerk reaction to cope with the collapse of Aristotelian virtue ethics post-Enlightenment/bombardment of political tribalism. I don't see any return from that collapse in our lifetimes so maybe egoism is the only alternative, but I think deep down we all need to find a "spook" worth following, we just don't see one so egoism is like a middle finger to everything else and the more I see people who are so pompous about it the edgier it seems.

[Anonymous No.18820232]

>>18819524
1/2

[Anonymous No.18820236]

>>18820232
2/2

[Anonymous No.18820327]

>>18820227
>Nietzsche was an egoist but at least laid out a somewhat coherent path to transcending all this.
its impossible you think this by yourself. stop mimicking others. nietzsche didnt transcend anything. completely random example.
> egoism is like a middle finger to everything else and the more
egoism is what you really believe its true. if you come to the conclusion that nothing is true then you have a problem but you should accept is what you believe after all. you are the kind of person who want to believe spooks are real once you see by yourself that they are just ghosts. you are desperately asking to be deluded, and you probably do with a happy agreement to whatever happy big scheme of things that make everything harmonious all over again. very sad. its like you fuckers dont want to know what is true but what is socielly convenient.
>edgy boy who regrets believe in societal bullshit instead of being brutally sincere

[Anonymous No.18820337]

>>18820227
>Do you really want to live in a society full of people who think like this?
It's impossible for most of the population to adopt a true egoist attitude, humanity will inevitable always be in constant inner and outter conflict between different ideologies, religions and other spooks.
>but just because that's better than being a slave to one fixed set of beliefs doesn't mean it's a good thing.
What is this "good" you speak of? Good to who?

[Anonymous No.18820444]

>>18820337
>>18820327
>>18820227
Do you guys seriously that calling all ideologies a spook will somewhat free your spirit? You really are foolish enough to think that you can escape your phenotype? Best case scenario for midwits like you is to become slaves of your reason, and that reason's origins arent yours, they will never be.

[Anonymous No.18820508]

I'd greatly recommended it.

[Anonymous No.18820533]

>>18820444
Absolutely spooked, trips are wasted on you.

[Anonymous No.18820534]

>>18820444
>Nooooo!
>do you really think not continuously charging at windmills and not getting beat up because you didn’t bow down to the town slut in a run down hospice makes you better than me?
>You Need some spook!!!!! NOOOOO

[Anonymous No.18820585]

>>18820533
>>18820534
rofl i absolutely forgot the average audience of stirner. reading these posts was the funniest reminder. In other words ex christian kids have finally found their own moral compass, and now they are able to live their lives at its fullest. Godspeed kids.

[Anonymous No.18820609]

>>18820227
I'm the anon you replied to.
>Egoists can't enter into relationships based on any shared values or principles because all of those are obviously spooks.
I believe it's the opposite (don't you just love when you can say that with a snarky voice?): Egoists are very zen like: don't attach. They move in and out of relationships effortlessly. They move freely because they are not weighed down by "holy" ideas. You can talk about God and hang out with people who seriously believe in God without believing in God yourself. I think mormon friends would make a pretty good safety net for a heroin addict. I always tell my friends right away: Listen guys, I'm an egoist, as you well know by this point, that means I don't believe in any ideas or values, not in God, not in Freedim, not even in the Enlightenment - but let's have a good time anyway! and I jump up from my swivel chair and give them a big hug (fools that they are! my fingers crawl around their pockets in search of booty). The world is not that weighty - or: the world is a stage, as Marlowe famously said, and we are all the players. What role do you wish to play? Go, you are free to choose. And here is another thing: What if you want to "be" a christian, instead of merely playing one? Well, so be it.

[Anonymous No.18820613]

Egoism is a spook for pseuds with dellusion of grandeur, an easy to swallow pill. I haven't met a crazy left bitch that was not aware of Stirner.
>I am an egoist anon
yeah sure you are basic cunt. you would be better starting from Kant, going into a Fichter and slowly deeper into german idealism. After you are done with them follow the timeline until you reach our times. people who praise stirner are clueless and have only heard of foucault, deleuze, derrida, russel, wittgenstein and all the neo pragmatists.
Egoism is for the lazy, an easy and fast solution that grands immediate access to a dellusion of freedom.
>Bu but in the end it doesnt matter, we are all coping right?
No.

[Anonymous No.18820618]

>>18820585
>ex-christian
this is some anglo cringe.
You idiot unironically think Stirner wrote against Christianity xDDDDDDDDD
you retarded nigger

[Anonymous No.18820623]

>>18820609
> (don't you just love when you can say that with a snarky voice?):
Hard proof of this >>18820613

[Anonymous No.18820641]

>>18820613
faggot, Stirner is the antidote for all the Kant’s, Fichte’s and their prodigies’ philosophies (specifically the young hegelians).
Stirner has the most scathing critique that made them all seethe into oblivion (see Marx: deutsche ideologie).

[Anonymous No.18820667]

>>18819727
>Ayn Rand
Kill Urself my Dood

[Anonymous No.18820692]

>>18820618
Nah i have read him, i know what he wrote, i used christianity as a reference to a certain type of morality that surrounded you while growing up.
>>18820641
Antidote? See the problem is you think the world is out there to poison you, while it barely gives a fuck about your existence, except once a month that it gives you your wage. Gathering knowledge in order to later form unoriginal but somewhat your ideas is the only way. I am not telling you read and preach Kant or Ficthe or anyone. Dislike them all you want, but you need to have a foundation if you want to masquarade your stupidness as intellectualism. If someone told me i am an egoist that sentence alone would mean nothing, i would only assume that he started reading philosophy inspired by his left friends who are probably illiterate.

[Anonymous No.18821362]

Did Stirner do any crazy stuff?

[Anonymous No.18822144]

>>18820692
>I only believe the strawman of that notion exists therefore if you say you share that notion you fall under my strawman prejudice

[Anonymous No.18822366]

>>18819524
it's worth reading, but throughout you must keep in mind that he presupposes Hegel, and that hegelianism is a questionable presupposition.

[Anonymous No.18822412]

>>18819524
>worth reading?
Yes

>based?
Hell no; the ego and his own is what snowflake US-lefties (= privileged capitalist children in denial) read. You will never see a sane person memmeing Stirner's book.

[Anonymous No.18822425]

>>18822412
What philosophical book would you consider based?

[Anonymous No.18822435]

>>18822412
>the future of leftism lies in sanity
L M A O

[Anonymous No.18822525]

>>18822435
I didn't intended to make a policial argument about sanity, but to make visible that lefty-americans distort the actual contexts of socio-political problems because of their unconscious capitalistic world-view. Its a waste; you will never se a smart person, from the left, south american or lgtbi+ or proletarian, that doesn't feel disgust about them.

[Anonymous No.18822603]

Some people hate stirner simply because they want you and others on their side, they want you to give yourself for their cause. Simple as. They don't like the idea of individualism taken to the extreme because it does not benefit them. It only benefits you. See how angry some posters get over it? They are totally spooked. Come to my church bro, you have to join the revolution bro, we're gonna save ourselves bro. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.18822680]

>>18819644
I am.

[Anonymous No.18822682]

>>18822603
Not at all. Most people dislike Stirner because his transcendetal ego is a factual lie: the ego is an epiphenomenon, therefore, his lame-ass-tier version of schellingeanism is pure fantasy for cope-needing mongrels.

Stirner, just as capitalistic-liberal theory in general, is the sign that mentally disabled people will agree every pseudo-philosophical idea insofar it support his coping-needs.

[Anonymous No.18822701]

>>18822682
>You're just coping brooo!!!
I somehow have gotten adept at spotting the pessimists

[Anonymous No.18822711]

>>18819524
understanding his basic point is worthwhile but the book is basically him saying "everything is a social construct and you can only ever act egotistically" 100 different ways

[Anonymous No.18822712]

>>18822682
cringe

[Anonymous No.18822724]

>>18819578
>>18819727
>>18820227
please be my friend.

[Anonymous No.18822859]

>>18819524
It is worth reading if you have time. Based? Nah, idealisms are the most cringe branches of philosophy, and Stirner's and Bekerley's are the worst of them all.

[Anonymous No.18822891]

>>18819578
>but agreeing with him put me into an existential crisis I still haven't recovered from
Bro, are you retarded? I hate to say that phrase, but you simple didn't get him fully if that is the result.

[Anonymous No.18822928]

>>18822859
t. representationalist anglo bugman

[Anonymous No.18822963]

>>18822928
anon, representation is an idealist tropos.

[Anonymous No.18823281]

>>18819524
>Is "The Ego and His Own" based and worth reading?
You only have to look at stirnerites to have a answer. People who can read doesn't like stirner. People who can't read like stirner, and thats why they can't say anything worth mention about him, because they don't understand what they read; they just like him because it makes them feel like part of a internet sect. Look at this they will never explain nor criticize Stirner's philosophy because they have no idea how to do that:
>>18819578
>>18819619
>>18820618
>>18822435
>>18822603
>>18822712
>>18822724

>stirnerite >>18819727 was an exception
>and Stirnerite >>18819795 answered the most retarded thing on the thread
>well >>18820641 was the most retarded post on the thread; Stirnerites will never stop amazing you

[Anonymous No.18823335]

>>18823281
Exactly! Based! It's alot harder to dispell lies than to spend them.

[Anonymous No.18823873]

>>18819524
No. Just read the German Ideology

[Anonymous No.18824202]

It's pretty based but there's a reason why it's a meme text. It's three times longer than it needs to be, he repeats many of the same points, the terminology he uses is very archaic (Humanist Liberal for robespierre type autism and Social Liberal for Socialism for example) and can easily lead people into pitfalls.

There was one weird chapter where he goes into woo racial theories.

Some very based moments through the text though that make it all worth it.

[Anonymous No.18824281]

>>18820585
Stirner's appeal has nothing to do with Christianity.

[Anonymous No.18824290]

>>18820236
>>18820232
Very neat although hard to read.

[Anonymous No.18824302]

>>18824202
>There was one weird chapter where he goes into woo racial theories.
Wait, I can't remember that. Did these fuckers take it out???

[Anonymous No.18824309]

>>18824302
>>18824202
Probably not, it is also not super noteworthy. I think it was a Hegelian references to Caucasian/Negroid/Mongoloid race theory. That was just common back then.

[Anonymous No.18824411]

>>18823281
WOW you (you)ed 8 people, now clearly your opinion must be correct and matter.
Great insight anon. I certainly hope your post gets the deserving amount of (you)s beside the one cringe same fag and my pity (you)