Which is the accurate translation? Also, are there any better translations than these two?

File: 227 KB, 1200x900, The Ego and The Unique.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 01:13:54 2021 No.19307508 [Reply] [Original]

Which is the accurate translation? Also, are there any better translations than these two?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 01:17:42 2021 No.19307516 Unique is generally regarded as the better of the two, with near-accurate translations and thorough annotations. I haven't read ego, but I was satisfied with Unique if that helps.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 01:20:21 2021 No.19307522 >>19307516 Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 01:22:34 2021 No.19307529 >>19307522 No worries :)

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 03:47:47 2021 No.19307889 >>19307508 Why is Stirner so popular on this board, no Academic takes him seriously.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 03:53:28 2021 No.19307906 >>19307889 >no Academic takes him seriously ok?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 03:57:12 2021 No.19307923 >>19307889 No stirnerite takes academia seriously either so it balances out

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 04:00:09 2021 No.19307934

>>19307508
Stirner's beliefs are not taken seriously; he's a bit of a meme. There are not many translations of his work. If you want an indepth analysis of his work though I recommend "On the Path of Doubt" by Lawrence Stepelevich. He also has a twitter; he's based as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 04:18:38 2021 No.19308008 >>19307889 Wow institutional hierarchy perpetuated by imaginary legitimacy doesn't like the opposite school of thought how crazy

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 07:19:51 2021 No.19308521 >>19307889 Because Stirner conducts the greatest thought experiment of all times. because reading his work will change your life, totally reset your mind. Be careful though, after Stirner you either become suicidal or start having faith.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 07:21:37 2021 No.19308525 >>19307889 he didn't like public schooling at all or academic; they fucked him out of a phd

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 07:33:18 2021 No.19308544 >>19308521 >Because Stirner conducts the greatest thought experiment of all times. Which is?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 07:42:59 2021 No.19308561 >>19307934 nice spooks nerd

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 08:14:21 2021 No.19308640 File: 2.22 MB, 3024x4032, IMG_20211016_091355.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19307508 >not reading it in german

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 08:24:18 2021 No.19308668 Will his works help me detach myself from the scientistic, materalist mindset that dominates the west?

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 08:24:54 2021 No.19308672

>>19308544
Stirner basically goes back to the 3 years old mentality of the "why" bringing it to it's final conclusion when taken in an anti-metaphysical way.
>killing a man is wrong
says the father
>why?
asks the son
>because it's not moral
says the father
>why?
asks the son
>because it's written on the bible/constitution
says the father
>why?
asks the son

and right where parents just tell their children to shut up Stirner gets to his conclusion, there's no why, if there's no God or any superior metaphysical being, making the assumption that all that exists is just matter and meaningless cause and effect then the individual is free, free from morality, family, the state, free to do whatever he wants because, on the material level, taking care of a baby or killing one makes no difference, the (proposed) objectivity has no inherent value over my subjectivity.
This obviously was a very short analysis of his work so I highly suggest you to read it yourself.

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 08:35:23 2021 No.19308705

>>19307889
This is a popular trope, but Stirner pops up relatively often in academia after all. Of course, he doesn't have classes dedicated to him, but you'll have no problem finding PhD theses or recent books on him and philsophy student have heard his name and/or read passages of him, and least the voluntary union off egoists part of the book

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 08:59:29 2021 No.19308787 >>19307889 And no academics lurk /lit/, so that's a win-win.

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 09:03:24 2021 No.19308798

>>19307508
The truth is that there isn’t much further on the (moral) nihilist path you can go. If you set your morality acceptance conditions sufficiently high, you can reject every moral claim, and then your philosophical endeavour is basically concluded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 09:18:47 2021 No.19308841 >>19308672 This is such a basic bitch line of argument that seeing it treated as something illuminating on this board feels bizarre. I've seen no reason yet to not put Sterner in the same bin as Sam Harris.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 09:20:03 2021 No.19308848 >>19308841 >This is such a basic bitch line of argument that seeing it treated as something illuminating on this board feels bizarre He's not illuminating, he's just funny because he made Marx seethe

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 09:27:17 2021 No.19308867

The arguments made by Stirner were made by Thrasymachus and Yang Zhu. He did not say anything new, its just who he said it to is what makes it so powerful because people keep forgetting about Thrasymachus and the arguments made by the sophists against conventional morality, philosophy, justice et cetera. No one seems have a response dealing with a person who accepts being irrational and violent as a way to get your way.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 09:31:28 2021 No.19308879 >>19307508 The Only One and his Property (Ownness)

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 09:45:12 2021 No.19308919 >>19307889 and that makes things even better

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 10:01:30 2021 No.19308966

>>19308867
I think, unironically, that Plato came closest. Regardless of whether or not you accepts his arguments, it has to be admitted that if you want to argue that a person should be just, you have to argue that being just is a good for the 'soul' (or whatever concept fits your preferred metaphysics), not that justice gives you tangible benefits - because clearly it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 11:09:10 2021 No.19309295 File: 25 KB, 474x477, Max Pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19307889 the book itself is a shitpost

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 11:29:09 2021 No.19309396 >>19307889 >no Academic takes him seriously. Noooooo my academarinoossss

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 11:56:36 2021 No.19309520 >>19308672 >has the intellectual capacity of a 3 year old wow what a genius

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 12:45:13 2021 No.19309715 >>19309520 >return to children its not a bad idea desu

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 12:46:41 2021 No.19309717

>>19308705
Yeah, it isn't super true. Saul Newman is one I can think of off the top of my head. David Leopold is another. But he definitely isn't a big deal, the vast majority of students will only encounter him when covering Marx. Somewhat like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 14:34:33 2021 No.19310194 >>19307508 What all do you have to read on know before you can read this book?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 14:35:41 2021 No.19310199 >>19310194 or know*

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 14:37:14 2021 No.19310203 >>19309717 >Somewhat like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. wat

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 15:10:17 2021 No.19310346 >>19310203 Schopenhauer is usually only taught as a bridge to Nietzsche. To be clear, I was comparing Schopenhauer to Stirner and Nietzsche to Marx.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 15:29:53 2021 No.19310422 >>19309715 >based return to child, no. becoming-child, yes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 17:28:36 2021 No.19310890 >>19310422 Kek. Never knew I needed a Stirner-Deleuze synthesis.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 17:36:07 2021 No.19310913 >>19310346 >Schopenhauer is usually only taught as a bridge to Nietzsche. In what kind of ass backwards country does this happen

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 17:40:04 2021 No.19310933 >>19310890 Touching child?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 17:51:45 2021 No.19310973 File: 33 KB, 440x286, DFS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19310933 Took me a moment lol. Also Checked.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 18:07:05 2021 No.19311026 Stirner is a philosophy of sociopathy

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 18:32:37 2021 No.19311148 >>19311026 more like philosophy of not being a serf of sociopaths

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 18:39:24 2021 No.19311169 >>19311148 He encourages a mode of action to deny philosophies that work on the principle of helping each other out and instead to seek how to exploit them for personal gain. This edgy rebelliousness of it is what appeals to teens.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS Fri Oct 29 18:44:43 2021 No.19311192 File: 249 KB, 1017x709, 16AC610E-AC05-45C3-8466-22D33428A246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19311169 It is a sensible take on humans at their base. It doesn’t go down the ugly stupid path that Ayn Rand made.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 18:50:42 2021 No.19311208 >>19311192 Based. I would like to say that >>19311169 hasn't read Stirner, seeing as he literally praises a "mode of action" that operates on cooperation (the Union of Egoists). >>19311026 >>19311148 In a weird way, both of you are right lol

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 19:06:19 2021 No.19311272 >>19307889 >no Academic takes him seriously. and that's why you should take him seriously

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 19:16:06 2021 No.19311313

>>19311208
the Union of Egoists quickly disintegrates into a spook which every egoist should try, by Stirner's ideology, to abuse to their favor.

It's why I am saying Stirner's is himself a shill. Everyone can believe whatever they want and follow whatever they want, but he insists their beliefs are silly, that everything with an order is following a spook and he rather be above it. It's constant rebellion for the sake of it while keeping a facade of agreeableness.

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS Fri Oct 29 19:23:34 2021 No.19311340

>>19311313
It seems to be the case now and I often here from you people that it cannot be otherwise. But what Stirner has is a way we can become conscious of our spooks, all of us. And for all of us to bend them as we see fit. The lovely chaos of a series of neighborhoods using direct democracies and a free economy, with endless partings (usually by the restless youth) and rejoining of the communities would endure
If we ever got it off the ground

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 19:29:41 2021 No.19311365

>>19311313
>The Union of Egoists is a spook...
How so? I thought that the UoE's point was that it was an arrangement designed by the given individuals to 'optimise' their egoes. Nothing about that seems necessarily dogmatic, especially since it can be altered or liquidated at any time.
Not trying to argue btw - im just curious about your perspective.

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 19:54:41 2021 No.19311491

>>19311365
It conceptually doesn't differ from any other arrangement that are in the form of country's laws, yet in his philosophy he calls it a control on the ego by someone else. There should be no change at all from an unconscious egoist becoming conscious, yet he is pushing his truth(spooks) that all concepts are made by others to control us, irrelevant whether concepts are legitimate in their conceptual rights. It's a state of perpetual rebelliousness against order or a mode of sociopathy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 20:00:34 2021 No.19311519 >>19311491 Thanks for elaborating anon. Was sort of confused, but your last point and >>19311340 helped to clarify things

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS Fri Oct 29 20:03:51 2021 No.19311537 >>19311340 >I often HEAR from you people Geez

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 20:05:33 2021 No.19311545 be honest how many of you have actually read the book

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 20:11:25 2021 No.19311575 >>19311545 Me, but in German.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS Fri Oct 29 20:45:55 2021 No.19311706 >>19311545 I have.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 20:50:12 2021 No.19311725 >>19311545 Reading it was the biggest mistake I ever made

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 20:55:08 2021 No.19311739 [DELETED]

>>19311313
>But he insists their beliefs are silly, that everything with an order is following a spook and he rather be above it.
You're doing the same thing by calling him a shill, again, Stirner says the world is a "war of all against all." One of the Stirner points so clearly is that his critiques deny they are not egotistic, that they do not have a self-serving agenda when they attack a person for being selfish. Stirner's critics were all humanists, socialists, anarchists and even the liberals of his day that made a priori assumptions about how a human ought to live. Stirner points out, like Nietzsche, that assumption is silly.A man, a person can simply use their own instinict, their own intitution to make their own existance meaningful.

The Greek Sophists make this exact same arguments against Plato, Socrates and Aristotle who rage aganinst, and assume men must follow specific ethical, moral or even rational guidelines. The reason why people keep misunderstanding these arguments because they don't understand this issue of what to do here goes back to debates these philosophers in the Republic, Georgis, and the Dialogues. People make ethical assumptions that are ultimately a priori, stick to them as a dogma, and then extend these assumptions to other fields such as economic, psychology, sociology et cetera with/without realizing that they do necessarily achieve results that useful to everyone. Stirner points this out, and he argues that ultimately philosophy is a tool, a rheocratic tool, to shape these arguments for the utilization of man his own life's obstacles. The content does not matter, the logic does not matter, the language does not matter. Like the sophists, all that really matters in the end is how persuasive your arguments are in accomplishing your goal - an ultimate truth or transcedental value, progress or conclusion has to be found. Like, even more so, this discussion isn't even necessary for one to accept the argument made by Stirner because oen simply ignore everything philosophical, rational, or ethical to make decisions that are the most benefitial to them using their own instinictial abilities.

You keep assuming there has be some solution peaceful solution to conflict for an argument for existence to be sound but that doesn't really have to be the case. More so, you misunderstand what Stirner means by the word "spook" which is a mis-translation and a misunderstanding of argument being made.

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 21:04:16 2021 No.19311791

>>19311545
I have. It's pretty good, I think most of the anons criticizing him either didn't understand what they have read or just didn't read it at all. It just made me see that I am doing everything for my best interest. I didn't change anything in my behaviour though, including acting "moral", because these make me happy and confident. Stirnes is not against this, he just wants us to realize that none of this has any higher meaning. You can still act moral if that's what makes you happy.

Anonymous Fri Oct 29 23:19:11 2021 No.19312328

The biggest problem for a lot people is that they can't adapt his ideas for the current age. You can totally, and if you want to see what this may look like - check out The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information Age by Davidson

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 23:53:45 2021 No.19312448 >>19311575 >>19311706 >>19311725 >>19311791 Can you read it without having touched a single book in your before?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 29 23:55:09 2021 No.19312458 >>19312448 your life before*

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS Fri Oct 29 23:57:18 2021 No.19312464 >>19312448 Maybe. Might be on the hard side for that. Try it though. Easy fun read alternative is Thomas Paine

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 00:07:43 2021 No.19312506

>>19312458
Not really desu. Stirner technically doesn't have any pre-reqs, but you have to at least be familiar with what philosophy is all about. Unironically start with the greeks because of this -- Euthyphro is simple, and gets an indirect response from Stirner -- and just read/ research whatever seems interesting from there.

I don't recommend reading him first though - if you take his words on board, you'll only find value in a few other texts. Everything before him virtually becomes unsalvageable

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 05:58:21 2021 No.19313547 >>19312506 The complete Greek?

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 06:37:48 2021 No.19313637

>>19313547
Stirner spends an entire section talking about the Greeks called the Ancients. You should famaliarize yourself with the people he brings up. The Stoics, The Skeptics, the Epicureans, the Cynics, and most importantly - the Sophists( Callicles, Thrasymachus and Protagoras), but pretty much every sophist has a fragment of Stirner's thought; he combines them to make his arguments. I would famaliarize yourself with as much Greek philosophy, poetry, religion as possible as well as understanding his critics and the context around the revolutions of 1848. Knowing Nietzsche's work also helps a lot too because they are very similar, although have different conclusions to what to do with what they both realize. Nietzsche, Stirner , to connect the two thinkers, to understand their immense praise for the greek sophists - what they did and said. To give a hint - learning the difference between rhetoric and dialetic in argument is crucial.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 06:43:36 2021 No.19313654

Being famaliar with Hegel is important too, but I say his relation to Stirner is not as sigificant as the Greeks are - they are foundational Stirner's premise. Stepelevich's "Stirner and the Last Man" along with his excellent "Stirner as a Hegelian" can help you out here with him. He also wrote a book called "On The Path of Doubt" which further elobrates Stirner's arguments, and relation to Hegel, very verbosely. But, if a lot of this too much for you, I recommend reading his tact on the last man. That's probably the most important aspect of him IMO because it shows his connection Nietzsche, and how Stirner predicted Nietzsche's arguments against socialism, democracy, liberalism but also went beyond them.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 06:49:49 2021 No.19313671

>>19313547
If reading Stirner is your only end-goal, then no. Some of the socratic dialouges should be more than enough (Euthyphro, Crito and Apology come to mind. The Republic and Nomoi as well if you're up to the challenge). Aristotle is also pretty important, but redundant when approaching Stirner.
Ultimately, he's not trying to supplement their ideas; instead, he's dismantling the basis on which they operate. If you can familiarise yourself with this basis, then your're ready for Stirners nominalism.

If not, then I would suggest reading the main works of the Greeks (/lit/ has you covered here). Look into Epicurus as well, as he effectively anticipated Stirner.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 06:52:59 2021 No.19313682

>>19307889

Making abstraction of Stirner's work, you shouldn't take academic recognition as a reference point because more often than not Academy is just meant to promote the popular agenda of the time with anything that goes against popular belief being discredited.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 07:00:18 2021 No.19313705

Greek poetry helps with understanding Stirner because he often references it in the book i.g. several references he makes are to Homer's works.Odysseus fits the standard trope of an egoist, and isn't a coincedence.

In fact, one thing that is underappericated about him is his understanding of poetry, art, and even religion which were things he dabbled in. His phase "all things are nothing to me" is straight from Ecclesiastes; in fact you could argue Ecclesiastes 's philosophy is on cue with Stirner's for the most part. One of Stirner's jobs was writing book reviews, and often referenced his arguments when critiquing these books. Some of these articles can be found on anarchist library, but not all of them. "Max Stirner: On The Path of Doubt" has some of them that are of interest if you have the time. His job as teacher meant he was quite the polymath, so, he dabbled a lot in cultural and historical works from the Greeks, Romans, the Renassiance religious disputes and even contemporary history for his day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 07:15:35 2021 No.19313752 >>19313705 Based as fuck. Is Ecclesiastes a long read? Never knew about that phrase detail (I thought he ripped it from Goethe), and reading it seems interesting now.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 09:15:55 2021 No.19314109

>>19313752
No, Ecclesiastes is a very short read and I wholesome recommend it. I'm not a Christian, but its a part of the bible that I have a lot of respect for - it was a book Martin Luther was a great fan of, and Luther's nominalism is a theme in Stirner's second part of the book.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 09:31:05 2021 No.19314153

>>19313752
>Never knew about that phrase detail (I thought he ripped it from Goethe)
Goethe's poem title is about Ecclesiastes (Vanity of Vanities) - the title of poem is the latin translation of Ecclesiastes I. This was done on purpose, by Stirner, because Ecclesiastes's outlook towards the world is essentially Stirner's view. Life is short, philosophy, wisdom is something pursued in vain because of the shortness and complexitiy of life. Both Ecclesiastes and Stirner argue you should use life's gifts to make the most of it. His book is basically a self help book, a common sense manual if you will that follows that same logic. This similarity could also point to the fact that Epicurus may have influenced that versus - as some scholars have pointed out. Again, there are so man y references Stirner makes so many things; you won't appreciate it much if you don't all the references by just slowly reading the book. Its not something you can understand in one go. Another cool connection - the first translator of the "Ego and Its Own" (actually the Unique and Its Property) was a Christian priest. Ironic, but I believe its becaue he also saw the connection.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 09:35:58 2021 No.19314169

Ernst Jünger's Eumeswil, and few other of his books, explores Stirner's ideas and plays with them a bit. One of things you'll realize, people like Evola, Robert Anton Wilson and Junger, who were greatly influenced by Stirner, typically are people who have a type of unique style of communication, or thinking, that uses Stirner's creative nothingness as basis to create new and interesting ideas or even lifestyles based on their personal experiences

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 13:41:34 2021 No.19315048 >>19313671 >Look into Epicurus as well, as he effectively anticipated Stirner care to elaborate?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 13:49:51 2021 No.19315094 >>19307508 egoism in and of itself is a spook

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 15:17:29 2021 No.19315455 >>19308008 im extremely out of touch with philosophy (haven't read any since my early 20s), what are some examples of concepts or ideas he put forward that they disagree with?

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 16:26:57 2021 No.19315736 [DELETED]

>>19315455
A recent critic of Max Stirner from this year argues that Stirner is wrong because objective ethics and morals do exist.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/146/All_Things_are_Nothing_To_Me_by_Jacob_Blumenfeld
>Moreover, Stirner’s quest for absolute autonomy alienates him from any moral truths outside of his own subjective property-making. Yet to deny objective moral truths is both counterintuitive and counterfactual.
Which is silly, obviously, because Stirner's argument is the same as Thrasymachus - one does not even have to acknowledge conventional morality to get their way and to say its counter-inutitive makes little sense also. Certainly, lying, cheating, and murder are all immoral acts; yet one can these things and benefit. Had Socrates lied during trial; had he ignored popular justice i.g. conventional morality - he would have lived (Stirner makes this point too).

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 16:28:17 2021 No.19315739

>>19315455
https://philosophynow.org/issues/146/All_Things_are_Nothing_To_Me_by_Jacob_Blumenfeld
>Moreover, Stirner’s quest for absolute autonomy alienates him from any moral truths outside of his own subjective property-making. Yet to deny objective moral truths is both counterintuitive and counterfactual.
Which is silly, obviously, because Stirner's argument is the same as Thrasymachus - one does not even have to acknowledge conventional morality to get their way and to say its counter-inutitive makes little sense also. Certainly, lying, cheating, and murder are all immoral acts; yet one can do all of these things and benefit. Had Socrates lied during his trial; had he ignored popular justice i.g. conventional morality - he would have lived (Stirner makes this point too).

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 17:13:54 2021 No.19315922

>>19314109
>>19314153
Thanks guys. I'll check out Ecc. when I get the chance (shouldn't be too far off).
>>19315048
I can't do Epicurus much justice, seeing that most of his material was either lost or destroyed. Regardless, Epicurus and Stirner overlap on various themes:
-a rejection of divinity (two approaches to the same conclusion - see Epicurus' paradox and 1.1/ 1.2 of the egobook).
-an emphasis on living a fulfilled life in the face of this vanity (pleasure is arguably the centerpiece of both of their systems).
-collectivising for a combined rational end, rather than dogma (Epicurean communes and the UoE*).
The two do have some differences, yes; but Epicurus' influence on Stirner shouldnt go unrecognised.

*will note that >>19311491 did have a pretty good counterpoint against this.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 17:28:56 2021 No.19316006

>>19315922
>an emphasis on living a fulfilled life in the face of this vanity (pleasure is arguably the centerpiece of both of their systems)
stirner doesn't place pleasure in the center, but the ego
here's one specific sentence from his work that confirms you're wrong:
"You can affiict me with torture, you can threaten me with hell and eternal damnation, you can wear me down so much that I make a false oath, but you shall not squeeze the truth out of me, since I will lie to you, because I have given you no claim and no right to my honesty"
by epicurus' logic he should stop his own torture
>collectivising for a combined rational end, rather than dogma
no, they collectivise for their egos
did you even read "the ego and its own"?

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 17:33:57 2021 No.19316032

>>19311491
>yet in his philosophy he calls it a control on the ego by someone else
as >>19311365 said UoE can be liquidated at any time, so it can't be a control on the ego
>There should be no change at all from an unconscious egoist becoming conscious
what do you mean by this?
>irrelevant whether concepts are legitimate in their conceptual rights
he already analyzed the concept of rights in 2.2.1
looks like you haven't read the book

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 17:37:18 2021 No.19316046

>>19316006
>"You can affiict me with torture, you can threaten me with hell and eternal damnation, you can wear me down so much that I make a false oath, but you shall not squeeze the truth out of me, since I will lie to you, because I have given you no claim and no right to my honesty"
That has nothing do with Epicurus; I don't think you understand Epicurus. Stirner's statement is reference to the fact he rejects conventional morality, and the peer pressure that would force them not do so otherwise. That is what that statement is exemplfying by pointing out how Christianity, and how Kantian ethics make these catagorical imperatives - with Stirner rejecting with anti-normian egoism. Not even that Anon, but I don't even think you've understood the work even though you have allegedly read it. Reading one thing, comprehension is another. Also, the "Ego and Its Own" is not even the name of the work. You might want to get that right before you criticize people not reading the book.
More so, Stirner says he sets his life on his own self enjoyment; which is again pretty much an Epicurean belief.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 17:37:30 2021 No.19316049 >>19316006 I was working with generalities, anon; apologies that I didn't clarify that. But for a beginner, the two translate nicely when nuance isn't involved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 17:41:55 2021 No.19316071 >>19316049 Just ignore what they idiot said, and just enjoy the book

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 17:45:04 2021 No.19316091 >>19316046 >>19316071 Thanks for helping out. Just got up now, so I wasn't bothered to digest what they said lol

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 17:49:45 2021 No.19316116

>>19316046
>That is what that statement is exemplfying by pointing out how Christianity, and how Kantian ethics make these catagorical imperatives - with Stirner rejecting with anti-normian egoism
and the statement showcases that he is willing to endure torture (which isn't a pleasurable thing) instead of saying the truth which would release him from the pain
even if we fixate on the moral aspect, it still stands that he's putting the ego, himself, above everything, including pleasure
i will concede however that he is similar to epicurus in one sense - in one part of the book he says how we shouldn't overeat since that would be us submitting to our urges and not being in control, but even then he's not advocating this out of some submission to "balanced pleasure", only because he prioritizes the ego
>Reading one thing, comprehension is another
i never implied the opposite
> Also, the "Ego and Its Own" is not even the name of the work. You might want to get that right before you criticize people not reading the book.
you're really grasping at straws here, i'm using the name that's most often used here
even people who haven't read the book can be aware and some of them are aware that "ego and its own" (not only the title but the specific translation) isn't a good translation and that there's a better one
>Stirner says he sets his life on his own self enjoyment
"For me, there is nothing greater than me"
again, he claims that ego is the main thing (not only for him but for every other human), ego=/=pleasure, even if pleasure is a part of it

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:00:37 2021 No.19316175 At last, a Stirner thread with some actual discussion.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:06:28 2021 No.19316194

>>19316116
>and the statement showcases that he is willing to endure torture (which isn't a pleasurable thing) instead of saying the truth which would release him from the pain
One of the things he makes clear about his anti-normian arguments is that courage, Callicles, makes the same argument against Socrates, can over-rule the conventional morality of the day (of the many). The statement on torture is a figure of speech to show the tenacity of his resolve. More so, torture can be completely compatiable with pleasure. There are many pleasures people will torture themselves for selfish reasons such as gluttony, sex, freedom, social validation et cetera because they see it as worth it as a stepping stone for their goals. Stirner gives an example of this when speaks of a slave who allows themself to be whipped - even though they know its bad for them. Why? Because, he shows the slave learns from the master who to endure him for the pleasure freedom as he finally finds an opportunity to escape his rule.

Pleasure can be harmful, and doing harm to yourself in the short term can mean infinite pleasure in the long term if you understand your cirumstances. Risk-taking is a fundmental part of Stirner's whole outlook. The man, after all, put himself through hardship, get rich off of a milk business, only to be fail and poor for the rest of his life. He took plenty of risks to publish even his works because at the Germany did not even have freedom of the press; yet he endured such punishments because the pleasure of his writing and the seeking of wealth outweighted the potential punishments of torture he would have faced in the dungeons of the Prussian keeps.

>"Sheep are connected, but they have to will. Rip one of our submissive people into shreds and we will all be filled with a feeling of connectedness with that individual.Show the horrors committed by the authorities elected by the people, those living in their comfortable homes with their children and do not wish to be imposed upon with these events, and these people will undermine every belief short of the one in the spirit to forget what they have heard and so they are dependent. Only when a human feels lost and alone will he rise up and realize such things; an urge will then flow through his muscles and his courage will swell and he will realize who he is and the power he possesses. Have the courage to be destructive and you will soon see which wonderful flowers grow out of the ashes of what you have torn down."

One thing to note; when Stirner is talking - he's not talking about himself directly. He is describing scenarios in which his ideas could be applicable to a person's specific scenario. Stirner is not making universal claims on action; he is a strict norminalist thinker; he's actions and thoughts do not follow some uniform rythem; they deify, reason, logic, and even accepted conventional philosophical norms.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:07:07 2021 No.19316201 File: 138 KB, 800x533, 5614BE00-4CA9-40CC-B8F0-5B3DAE2AFAD5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19307889 This, so much this! I only read academic-approved philosophy

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:08:56 2021 No.19316211

>>19316116
>>19316006
Ok, I've taken the time to read through what you wrote, here's just a couple of thoughts:
>ego=/=pleasure, first point of 19316006
I'll concede to this. Although I was only working conceptually before, there is something to say about Stirners approach to pain against Epicurus' approach.
>they don't collectivise for a combined rational end, rather they collectivise for their egoes.
Isn't the development of ones ego a rational end though?

Thanks for being chill about this by the way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:10:05 2021 No.19316218 >>19308672 Good post

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:11:41 2021 No.19316228 >>19308966 Justice and the soul are spooks

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:12:47 2021 No.19316233 >>19316201 What's the image supposed to imply?

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:17:24 2021 No.19316264

>>19312506
I agree with this. Started with the Greeks, found them boring, then moved directly to Stirner. I do think that reading the Greeks helped though (I read some of the Socratic dialogues and part of Nicomachean ethics). Just don’t get caught up in it. I think if I forced myself to continue reading Plato and Aristotle I would’ve quit philosophy altogether. You can get like 90% of what you need just by reading the first book of The Republic and watching this: https://youtu.be/8rf3uqDj00A
Then just read what interests you

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:20:13 2021 No.19316279 File: 792 KB, 1242x1223, 61A4BCD7-5473-4F8F-9BD0-FD90C477E0E3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19316233 Nothing I just think monkeys are funny

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:21:01 2021 No.19316281

>>19316194
>>19316116
>"In childhood, liberation takes the course wherein we try to find the reason for things, to get at what’s “behind things”; therefore we spy out the weaknesses of all, for which, as everyone knows, children have a sure instinct; therefore, we find pleasure in breaking things, in rummaging through hidden corners, prying into what is covered up or out of the way, and trying our hand at everything. Once we get at what’s behind things, we know ourselves with confidence; when we discover, for example, that the rod is too weak against our defiance, we no longer fear it, we “have outgrown it.” Behind the rod, more powerful than it, stands our—defiance, our defiant courage. We slowly get at what’s behind everything that was weird and scary to us, behind the weirdly dreaded power of the rod, the father’s stern look, etc., and behind all of it we find our—tranquility, i.e., imperturbability, fearlessness, our counter-force, superior strength, invincibility. Before the things that once inspired fear and respect in us, we no longer shyly withdraw, but take courage. Behind everything, we find our courage, our superiority; behind the sharp command of parents and bosses, our courageous choice or our outwitting cunning still stands. And the more we feel ourselves, the smaller that which once seemed insurmountable appears. And what is our trickery, cunning, courage, and defiance? What else but—mind!"
>"Thus, the sophists, with courageous impudence, speak the encouraging words “Don’t be perplexed!” and spread the enlightening teaching: “Use your reason, your wit, your mind, against everything; with good and practiced reasoning one gets on best in the world, prepares for himself the best lot, the most pleasant life.” They recognize in the mind the human being’s real weapon against the world. This is why they so strongly hold to dialectical agility, language skills, the art of disputation, etc. They proclaim that the mind is to be used against everything; but they are still far from the sacredness of the mind, because they value it as a means, a weapon, just as cunning and defiance serve children for the same purpose; their mind is incorruptible reason."
>"The Greek poet Simonides sings: “Health is the noblest good for mortal man, the next after this is beauty, the third is wealth acquired honestly, the fourth the enjoyment of social pleasures in the company of young friends.” These are all the good things of life, the joys of life. What else was Diogenes of Sinope looking for if not the true enjoyment 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.”
You have to pay really close attention because he makes these tautologies over and over again thoughtout the text.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:24:12 2021 No.19316296 File: 52 KB, 568x540, Doubt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Would it be right to say that Max Stirner, or atleast his writings, is the epitome of an Individualist?

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:24:39 2021 No.19316299

>>19316194
>The statement on torture is a figure of speech to show the tenacity of his resolve
it wasn't just a hyperbole, him enduring torture because of his ego fits his own worldview
>There are many pleasures people will torture themselves for selfish reasons such as gluttony, sex, freedom, social validation et cetera because they see it as worth it as a stepping stone for their goals
absolutely, but stirner's torture scenario specifically isn't like those examples you mentioned
>Because, he shows the slave learns from the master who to endure him for the pleasure freedom as he finally finds an opportunity to escape his rule
no, it's because he values his own ego and he could potentially cease to exist if the master got angry enough with him to kill him
it has nothing to do with some higher idea of "pleasure of freedom"
to quote:
"I am not free from them; but I endure them only for my benefit, perhaps to deceive him and make him feel safe with my sham of patience or, again, to avoid rousing anger against myself through my insubordination. But because I keep an eye out for myself and my self-interest, I grab the first good opportunity by the forelock to crush the slave-owner."
it's all for his own benefit, for his ego
>because the pleasure of his writing and the seeking of wealth outweighted the potential punishments of torture he would have faced in the dungeons of the Prussian keeps
i agree, and this "balancing" (e.g. don't give in to pleasure X because it will lead to suffering Y later, or suffer Z because pleasure H will come) is something similar to epicurus', but epicurus still differs with his conception of pleasures which stirner would call spooks
>Stirner is not making universal claims on action
he is universalizing the ego as a concept and that's noticeable throughout his book
he isn't saying "all should do X", but, for example, "if one's ego is such that he feels like doing X he should do it" - remember his example about the women who denied themselves sex because of a spook related to chastity etc.
>they deify, reason, logic, and even accepted conventional philosophical norms
i don't understand this sentence, can you improve the grammar (i noticed you made certain other mistakes related to grammar but you were still understandable (e.g. "he's" instead of "his")

>>19316211
>Isn't the development of ones ego a rational end though
that would still be subscribing to the idea of a rational thing, which would be a spook
the ego itself is the point, regardless of our specific concepts, e.g. he would advocate for uoe even in a world where the development of the ego would be defined as irrational (and it is defined so in our current world by some people since there's many varying viewpoints)
>Thanks for being chill about this by the way
np anon

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:28:09 2021 No.19316313

>>19316281
his historical analysis is very lacking, especially when it comes to interpreting the views of certain philosophies from ancient greece
e.g.
"The well-being (hedone) of the Epicureans is the same life wisdom the Stoics teach, only craftier, more deceitful. They only teach another behavior against the world, only admonish taking a cunning attitude against the world; the world must be deceived, because it is my enemy."
it's true that epicurus did think we should control our pleasures, but it wasn't a philosophy that takes an attitude against the world
on skeptics:"There is "no more truth to be recognized" in the world; things contradict themselves; thoughts aboutthings are undiscriminating (good and bad are all the same, so that what one calls good another finds bad); so knowledge of the "truth" has ended, and only the person without knowledge, the person who finds nothing to recognize in the world, remains, and this person just lets the truth-empty world be and takes no account of it. "
skeptics don't say that we should deny the world and focus on our spiritual side
it's obvious that he was fitting his interpretation into the tripartite dialectical structure (which some claim is a satire of hegel's system)

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:42:49 2021 No.19316369

>>19316299
>he is universalizing the ego as a concept and that's noticeable throughout his book
This is where I believe your mis-understanding here comes from. He is not a rational egoist. In Stirner's critics he attacks the notion that his egoism is rational - that is a charge that Hess brings against him. Stirner's "ego" is not universal because it is not sacred. He believes one's self interest is unique to their cirumstances. He shows this in The Unique and Its Property by saying the poor are just as selfish as the rich because they demand wealth they are not entitled to, and that the poor would do the same if the cirumstances changed.

He explictly shows this too by rejecting Ficthe's notion of rational egoism.

>"When Fichte says, “the I is all,” this seems to harmonize perfectly with my statements. But it’s not that the I is all, but the I destroys all, and only the self-dissolving I, the never-being I, the—finite I is actually I. Fichte speaks of the “absolute” I, but I speak of me, the transient I."

If you read that in mind; the slave example and torture example can not be seen as universal examples because what's in one's self interest is determined by what is possible by their conditions, and also their natural abilities such as their wit and their instincts. He also makes this point in the Unique and Its Property by talking about how these play a part in his thinking:
>"I safeguard my freedom against the world to the extent that I make the world my own, i.e., “win and take it” for myself, by whatever force it requires, by force of persuasion, of request, of categorical demand, yes, even hypocrisy, fraud, etc.; because the means that I use for it depend upon what I am. If I am weak, I have only weak means, like those mentioned above, but which are still good enough for a considerable part of the world. Anyway, fraud, hypocrisy, and lying look worse than they are. Who has not deceived the police, the law? Who has not quickly put on the appearance of respectable loyalty upon encountering the sheriff’s henchman, in order to hide an illegal act he may have committed? Whoever has not done this has simply let violence to be done to him; he was a weakling from—conscience. I know that my freedom is already diminished when I cannot exercise my will on an other (whether this other be something without will, like a rock, or something with will, like a government, an individual, etc.); I deny my ownness when—in the presence of another—I give myself up, i.e., I give way, stand aside, submit; thus, by devotion, submission. For it is one thing when I give up my present course because it doesn’t lead to the goal and so diverts me down a wrong path; and another when I give myself up. I get around a rock that stands in my way, until I have enough powder to blow it up; I get around the laws of a people, until I’ve gathered the strength to overthrow them."
The "ego" is not a objective thing; its the creative nothingness

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:43:23 2021 No.19316375
File: 26 KB, 480x343, Witty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19316299
Thanks for clarifying anon. I was approaching it from the angle that the ego constitutes what is rational/ "good for itself", rather than rationality existing as a rigid idea. Probably caused some misunderstandings there lol.

t. Someone who hasn't read Wittgenstein

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:44:03 2021 No.19316378 >>19315048 Epicureanism is a proto-egoism where you give up ideals, morals, fear of afterlife etc and live only for yourself in the moment or your pleasure

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:50:46 2021 No.19316406 >>19316175 Kek

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:52:23 2021 No.19316413

>>19316369
>Stirner's "ego" is not universal because it is not sacred
this has nothing to do with sacredness, it's that every human has an ego, at least if we aren't taking the solipsistic view which stirner isn't (or at least doesn't claim that he does)
>He believes one's self interest is unique to their cirumstances
yes, and this is something universal
the sentence about fichte which you cited doesn't contradict what i'm claiming
>because what's in one's self interest is determined by what is possible by their conditions
yes, and stirner specifically mentioned the one case that we're talking about, if it was a different one (where the slave had a specific advantage for his ego by not enduring the whips) it would be a different story, but the concept of protecting the ego still stands behind all the various cases, it's still an universal thing
>I deny my ownness when—in the presence of another—I give myself up, i.e., I give way, stand aside, submit; thus, by devotion, submission. For it is one thing when I give up my present course because it doesn’t lead to the goal and so diverts me down a wrong path; and another when I give myself up. I get around a rock that stands in my way, until I have enough powder to blow it up; I get around the laws of a people, until I’ve gathered the strength to overthrow them.
yet again we have a fixed, universal concept of ownness, so i don't see how this contradicts what i'm talking about
>it's the creative nothingness
which itself is an objective thing, or so stirner behaves

>>19316375
i haven't read witty myself either so i didn't have him in mind when giving that example

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:53:24 2021 No.19316418 >>19316378 >epicureanism >live only for yourself in the moment cmon, you really should read a thing before discussing about it

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:54:28 2021 No.19316421

>>19316313
Some have pointed out Stirner's understanding of Greek philosophy was a bit rusty - I believe Marx did, and some other scholars. That's a valid criticism of him, but I don't believe it takes away from the point he's making. In the Philosophical Reactionaries, he makes it clear he is using the knowledge he has to make his feelings clear - to take ownership of philosophy to make his own meaning.

He attacks the fact that philosophers have twisted language in such a way that forces him to be creative to be even understood. Which is why he goes out of his way to defend the Greek sophists in the work because they did the same to get their way.

Ironically, being verbose hurts Stirner because he is really annoyed with the fact that philosophers waste their time caring about things and asking questions instead of using rhetoric to advance their position.

Hegel's system, any philosophical, to Stirner, is simply a tool to be used depending on the needs and cirumstances of the individual. Say, one does not serve ideas, but ideas serve their ends - the sophists again made this point over and over to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who could do nothing to challenge this by creating a conventional morality to deal with the challenge presented by the rhetorical trauncing of dialetical argument by sophistic thought.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 18:56:52 2021 No.19316431
File: 166 KB, 556x544, 1635348222331.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19316418
>I'm smarter than everyone else and will be a jerk if you don't hold my exact same interpretations of this particular obscure author whose only fagments survived
clap clap

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 19:05:20 2021 No.19316465

>>19316421
>but I don't believe it takes away from the point he's making
he's simplifying a lot of the philosophies of that time to fit them into his specific historical worldview, the same being tied to the point he's making
>Which is why he goes out of his way to defend the Greek sophists in the work because they did the same to get their way
i didn't get that idea from reading his take on sophists, it seems to me like he praised them for focusing on how to use your mind for your egoistic ways
""Use your reason, your wit, your mind, against everything; with good and practiced reasoning one gets on best in the world, prepares for himself the best lot, the most pleasant life." They recognize in the mind the human being's real weapon against the world. This is why they so strongly hold to dialectical agility, language skills, the art of disputation, etc. They proclaim that the mind is to be used against everything; but they are still far from the sacredness of the mind, because they value it as a means, a weapon, just as cunning and defiance serve children for the same purpose; their mind is incorruptible reason."
>because he is really annoyed with the fact that philosophers waste their time caring about things and asking questions instead of using rhetoric to advance their position
>who could do nothing to challenge this by creating a conventional morality to deal with the challenge presented by the rhetorical trauncing of dialetical argument by sophistic thought
can you elaborate on these claims?

>>19316431
i welcome different interpretations but not all of them are equally viable, some of his writings literally contradict your claims
>posting basedface
don't ruin this thread with that shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 19:05:57 2021 No.19316470 >>19316465 tl;dr

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 19:12:41 2021 No.19316492

>>19316413
>this has nothing to do with sacredness, it's that every human has an ego, at least if we aren't taking the solipsistic view which stirner isn't (or at least doesn't claim that he does)
Not quite - sarcedness to Stirner is the belief language, philosophy itself can be subjected to textualism or conventional reason. That is why he dialectically shows in the begining paragraphs of the book how one becomes a concious egoist by becoming unreasonable. Solipsism isn't sophism. He's being a nominalist thoughout the text.

Even the idea that Stirner's words can be subjected to literalism, like you're trying to do, makes little to no sense because he even mocks Christians who do the same with the bible in his work. He anticapted people would have debates like this - because people are obessed with what he said, not using what he says a tool to advance their interests - that is problem he has with philosophy and religion in general. Philosophers are swindlers using morality, and logic, to sastify ultimately selfish ends. They appear "logical" and "rational" because you let them by subjecting your instincts to phantasmic rationalism.

>the sentence about fichte which you cited doesn't contradict what i'm claiming
It does, because it shows Stirner's "ego" is not a thing - its a linguistic placeholder to express his thoughts about his life, but also to show how one's cirumstances shape one's world view.
There is no objective, transcendental wisdom, "egoism" to be found in Stirner's works. That's why he says the world is war of all against all. Endless conflict is the fundamental aspect of Stirner's thought - be it through argument, fighting et cetera. Like Nietzsche, he does believe there is any social combination that will sasitify everyone, and fighting is something human beings will always do until death dissolves them into nothingness.

You keep making the same mistake of Stirner's critics by applying heuristics to a text that tries its hardest to avoid it. What he says can not be described in words - it is simply a descriptive work that is meant to be used a rhetorical tool to sastify's ones own needs.

You are entitled to your own interpretation of the work. I find it lacking though. It limits the options he gives with it by attempting to find some deeper meaning than realize the text is a tool.
Marxists, anarchists, philsophers, sadly have this tendency to treat a text as "holy" or "sarced" - but nothing is really sarced when you have the courage to shake off popular opinion or even conflicting thought.
>"Do with it what you will and can, that’s your affair, and I don’t care. You’ll perhaps only have sorrow, struggle and death from it; a very few will draw joy from it. If your welfare lay at my heart, then I’d act like the church did, which withheld the Bible from the laity, or the Christian governments, which make it a sacred duty to “protect the common people from bad books."

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 19:15:16 2021 No.19316502 >>19316413 Witt. postulated that most philisophical disputes arise from misunderstandings in language; thats something I likely perpetuated before. I can't say much else though because thats all I really know about him.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 19:20:53 2021 No.19316533

>>19316465
>i didn't get that idea from reading his take on sophists, it seems to me like he praised them for focusing on how to use your mind for your egoistic ways
You're mis-understanding the point I'm making. He praises the sophists because the sophists make the argument that philosophy, conventional morality is a tool for the strong to control the weak. He praises the sophists because he realizes they are concious egoists who realize this and do the same to get their way in life using their wit. He praises them because they emphasize his point, and what he's trying to explain to you in the text. Stirner's not some monotone - if you're famaliar with Zen koans; they have a similar extrapolation of meaning. They to undermind the confidence of the reader by being as anti-philosophical as possible to force people not to treat language, or even what's considered "conventional."Language, conventional meaning from morals, philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, ontology are not authoritative on this work. There is no "authority" on Stirner on what says because again what he says can not be expressed in words; the reader has to come to their conclusions based on their cirumstances.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 19:27:39 2021 No.19316572

>>19316492
>sarcedness to Stirner is the belief language, philosophy itself can be subjected to textualism or conventional reason
wrong, sacred is anything that is above yourself, i.e. your ego
"Alienation is a hallmark of the "sacred." In everything sacred, there is
something "eerie;' i.e., alien, in which we are not quite familiar and at
home. What is sacred to me is not my own, and if the property of others,
for example, were not sacred to me, I would look upon it as mine and
would take it for myself when a good opportunity arose; or, on the
other hand, if the Chinese emperor's face were sacred to me, it would
remain alien to my eyes, and I would close them at its appearance."
>That is why he dialectically shows in the begining paragraphs of the book how one becomes a concious egoist by becoming unreasonable
yes, but unreasonable in relation to the spooks of certain others
"What does your unreasonable demand, what does
the call to be a human being which you issue to him, concern him? "
also i don't see what this has to do with what we're talking about
>not using what he says a tool to advance their interests
people will if they follow his philosophy of egoism, this requires them to interpret properly his viewpoints related to the ego (which is universal in a sense that every human being has it, not that it's the same in everyone and by that i mean that not every person will have the same desires (be they material or non-material))
>its a linguistic placeholder to express his thoughts about his life
if you define it like this then one is always losing by using language to communicate, which is a viewpoint that makes no sense and also misses the point of his philosophy
stirner did dislike specific use of language but he didn't deny language outright
>Endless conflict is the fundamental aspect of Stirner's thought - be it through argument, fighting et cetera. Like Nietzsche, he does believe there is any social combination that will sasitify everyone, and fighting is something human beings will always do until death dissolves them into nothingness.
what does this have to do with our current topic? how does all that negate the talk about ego as an universal concept?
>It limits the options he gives with it by attempting to find some deeper meaning than realize the text is a tool
>some deeper meaning
interpreting his text doesn't mean i am making it sacred or trying to find "some deeper meaning" (which is a confusing choice of words since it's as if we established a proper meaning and i'm looking for something deeper)
also how exactly does this limit the options? what more options does your interpretation offer?

>>19316502
i know that simplistic summary of his philosophical system, but it's nowhere near enough for me to be able to discuss him, recognize certain views that align to his and connect his views with others through pattern-seeking

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 19:31:58 2021 No.19316592

>>19316533
>because he realizes they are concious egoists who realize this and do the same to get their way in life using their wit
which is what i essentially claimed by saying "it seems to me like he praised them for focusing on how to use your mind for your egoistic ways", so what's the problem here?
>There is no "authority" on Stirner on what says because again what he says can not be expressed in words; the reader has to come to their conclusions based on their cirumstances
your statement is an authority on stirner, so you're contradicting yourself
stirner kind of contradicts himself in his work because his ego and the ideas related to it are sacred to him, "above him" because he follows them
if we take his dissipating ego (an "i" that changes from moment to moment) in a literal sense then his entire worldview falls apart because in certain other time his ego won't agree with the points that he makes in his books
you can call this "zen koan" or however you want, but it doesn't change the fact that his views have problems with consistency
the endgame is realizing that there always needs to be a spook, it's that stirner is advocating for his specific ones, he puts himself in the spot that's taken by the concept of god or human
even if he isn't advocating and is just talking about himself and not claiming that his egoism is what others should follow as well (if you consider this then i don't know why you're discussing his work in the first place), he's still making a contradiction

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 19:34:59 2021 No.19316611

>>19316592
>>19316533
by the way, forgot to mention that your interpretation of the passage on sophists (which i agree with) has nothing to do with criticism of language, but focuses on how they used the language as a means to their end, which brings us to what i already mentioned a lot of times throughout the discussion, and that's how for stirner, it all begins and ends with yourself, the ego

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 19:47:49 2021 No.19316670

>>19316572
>wrong, sacred is anything that is above yourself, i.e. your ego
I don't think you understand - by placing the authority of an interpretation above your own subjectivity is sacredness. Even saying something is "wrong" is silly here - wrong according to whom? Protagoras is in agreement with Stirner - the individual can determine what is "wrong" , what is "right" - he is the measure of all values of and all meaning, and nothing stops him but his own assertion.
>people will if they follow his philosophy of egoism
He's not a philosopher - which is why you misunderstand his so called "philosophy." He makes it very clear he doesn't care for philosophy in the Philosophical Reactionaries - its just a tool for him to abuse for his own selfish ends.
>"Do you philosophers actually have an inkling that you have been beaten with your own weapons? Nothing buy an inkling. What retort can you hearty fellows make against it, when I again dialectically demolish what you have just dialectically put up? You have shown me with what “eloquence” one can make all into nothing and nothing into all, black into white and white into black. What do you have against it, when I turn your neat trick back on you?"
You don't "follow" Stirner's philosophy - that would make you a duped egoist because you are obsessing, possessed with a sarced thought. The whole point of Saint Max is to do away with the hierarchy of authoritative beliefs. He is not a normative egoist - as you claim him to be. Its to be aware of things.
>what does this have to do with our current topic?
I think you're missing the self awareness aspect of this argument. What are you think we're doing? There is a metalinguistic compotent of this discussion you keep missing, a bit of irony with the discussion happening between me and you, which is demonstating Stirner's point here. You don't seemingly get the implicit thought being made here as we discuss. Its a crucial part of Max's argument here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 30 19:48:50 2021 No.19316681 >>19316592 >your statement is an authority on stirner, so you're contradicting yourself No, you made the implicit. I'm just fighting yours. I said you can have your own. Again, maybe its a language thing - you don't seem to get implictiness in a text.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 19:53:23 2021 No.19316702

>>19316670
>>19316681
your viewpoints are obviously self-contradicting (e.g. your interpretation related to my interpretation of sacredness is what you put above your subjectivity, because if you don't you wouldn't argue with me about it in the first place), and if they really are stirner's (which i doubt since i don't agree with your interpretation and the sentences which you cite are irrelevant to your case) then he's self-contradictory as well

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 20:02:43 2021 No.19316748

>>19316702
Stirner can be "contradictory" - are you not aware of how sophists argue? Its actually consistent to be "contradictory" - he's a nominalist. There's no form, uniform, or anything to his thought that follows some narrow train of logic - you just keep missing the forest for the trees. Like Nietzsche, he uses aphorism to play with the text, and undermine philosophical authority.

The formalism of philosophy is what he escapes here, and you can not, because you hold rationalism to be sacred. That's why the text is oblivious to you. Your methodology of analyzing the text is lacking here. You don't see the irony - you don't understand the joke because you are attempting to make Stirner into a man of wisdom; he's simply a "wise guy" - a flounder of language, a finesser.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 20:05:39 2021 No.19316763

>>19316748
these things you mention are not difficult to "get", it's just that the things i've said still stand
you're like someone who, when asked to what category he belongs to, responds with "i belong to no category" - he belongs to the category of people who say they don't belong to no category
stirner can't escape using universal concepts and can't escape the spook (assuming your interpretation of his work is correct)

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 20:17:40 2021 No.19316811

>>19316763
People live everyday with self contradictory thoughts be it religious or political. It really does not matter. Being "truthful" doesn't really nor does being consistent. What matters is how persuasive you are - again this is the same argument was made by the sophists. Knowing what tactics work on what people is part of the game of wit Stirner is playing here, and like the sophists, he uses it away that is meaningful to him. He can escape everything, and so can you, as long as you assert yourself against the world. That's why Calliclean principle of using your courage and intelligence is such a crucial aspect of Stirner's point here. You can stand whatever you want, but if I push you, are you still there?

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 20:17:44 2021 No.19316812

>>19315739
sounds very interesting, i don't disagree on an intellectual level. i guess my question i always ask with philosophy is how accepting a specific philosophy as correct or true should impact the way i live in the world (behave, interpret events, react etc) ? am i supposed to suddenly stop trying to be a "good" person once i accept that there is no objective morality or just learn to accept my own personal definition of what it means to be good

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 20:18:51 2021 No.19316817

>>19308672
>there's no God or any superior metaphysical being, making the assumption that all that exists is just matter and meaningless cause and effect then the individual is free, free from morality, family, the state, free to do whatever he wants because, on the material level, taking care of a baby or killing one makes no difference, the (proposed) objectivity has no inherent value over my subjectivity
Wait... So it's actually the Stirner who was the OG postmodernist truth-killing Jew who believed in nothing?

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 20:39:01 2021 No.19316894

>>19316702
To be clear, you're also missing another thing. So, I'm using a conventional way, some what, to describe Stirner's "ideas" for an audience who are interested in style of philosphical discussion they are used to - argument. However, the delivery of Stirner's ideas more stylistic could be understood as a Taoist induced one. There is difference between how I express Stirner's ideas, and how he sees his ideas in practice which are pretty Taoist with its contradictory style - to our sense.

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 20:40:10 2021 No.19316898

>>19316817
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/
>"Recently, Stirner has been identified as a nascent poststructuralist (linked not least with Deleuze), rejecting the idea of a universal human nature, employing a genealogical critique of humanist discourses of power and identity, and opposing various forms of state-centric thought"

Anonymous Sat Oct 30 21:08:35 2021 No.19317021
File: 1.10 MB, 3840x2160, 1106991-Max-Stirner-Quote-If-it-is-right-for-me-it-is-right-It-is-possible.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>19316898
Post-structralism gets a bad rap from the right, but it can used by them as a weapon against their opponents. Can you not use such language to tearn down the language, the conventional morality of liberals and leftists? Fascist thinkers did a lot that, like Schmitt, to attack democracy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 00:55:43 2021 No.19318082 File: 25 KB, 716x428, Think.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Would it be right to say that Max Stirner, or atleast his writings, is the epitome of an Individualist?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 00:58:54 2021 No.19318103 >>19316296 >>19318082 I wouldn't imagine so, but I can't think of any counter-examples right now. So I guess yeah?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 01:01:47 2021 No.19318123 >>19318103 P.S. when I said 'I wouldn't imagine so', I'm coming from a position where I could be naive. Theres always a bigger fish, y'know?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 01:05:56 2021 No.19318155 >>19308672 It's a bit more subtle than that, and it has nothing to do with gods or murder. His work is about how everyone holds axioms in their mind, assuming them to be universally true.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 06:23:30 2021 No.19319169 >>19316296 >>19318082 If not Stirner, then who else?

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 08:31:53 2021 No.19319532

>>19317021
If you're a right winger you're supposed to defend what's there. But if you're a self-destructive nihilistic cunt, then you're unconsciously doing the job of your "enemies." But the fact is that you have no enemies and Fascists are nothing but schizophrenic mongrels that serve as fuel for leftist rhetoric.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 08:38:27 2021 No.19319549

>>19317021
>Can you not use such language to tearn down the language, the conventional morality of liberals and leftists?
Are you baiting or genuinely an idiot? If they agree with post-structuralism and deconstruct morality etc. then what's left for them to defend ("conserve")? They would be shooting themselves in the foot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 08:44:43 2021 No.19319564 File: 45 KB, 518x592, Stirnerchad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19319532 Based. Using Stirner to justify spooks is one the saddest things i've seen on /lit/ to date. Also; >tearn down gave me a good laugh.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 08:45:52 2021 No.19319567

>>19316670
>He is not a normative egoist
From Standford:
>Judged against this account of egoism, characterisations of Stirner as a “nihilist”—in the sense that he rejects all normative judgement—would also appear to be mistaken. The popular but doubtful description of Stirner as a “nihilist” is encouraged by his explicit rejection of morality. Morality, on Stirner’s account, involves the positing of obligations to behave in certain fixed ways. As a result, he rejects morality as incompatible with egoism properly understood. However, this rejection of morality is not grounded in the rejection of values as such, but in the affirmation of what might be called non-moral goods. That is, Stirner allows that there are actions and desires which, although not moral in his sense (because they do not involve obligations to others), are nonetheless to be assessed positively. Stirner is clearly committed to the non-nihilistic view that certain kinds of character and modes of behaviour (namely autonomous individuals and actions) are to be valued above all others. His conception of morality is, in this respect, a narrow one, and his rejection of the legitimacy of moral claims is not to be confused with a denial of the propriety of all normative or ethical judgement. There is, as a result, no inconsistency in Stirner’s frequent use of an explicitly evaluative vocabulary, as when, for example, he praises the egoist for having the “courage” (265) to lie, or condemns the “weakness” (197) of the individual who succumbs to pressure from their family.
Also, it's not viable to hold his views as non-normative at least in some sense because many times throughout the book he expounds normative stances.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 10:56:53 2021 No.19320040

>>19316812
To answer your question, Stirner does not ask you to consider his philosophy as "correct" or "true". What he does throughout Der Einzige is diagnose the "spooked" human condition, and present compelling arguments through the use of Hegelian dialectic in order to make fun of the entire fields of religion, politics and philosophy, criticising them for holding certain concepts as "sacred ideas", phantasms, in order to justify themselves, whether it was through God, the state, or the dialectical method itself. Indeed, his issue is that no one dared to see these ideas as they were, mere products of the imagination that have no single basis in reality, and that hold our intellect hostage to their "egoistic" will, like a puppet master holds a puppet by its strings. Yes, God is not dead; God is an egoist. Only His will is supreme, only His morality is correct, only His way of life is virtuous, only His commandments are good. What Stirner proposes, then, is to rid himself of the shackles of all phanatsms, whether they were God, the state, the commune or even morality itself, and take on the mantle of the supreme egoist. Instead of unquestionably obeying God's morality, of dedicating his life to the success of his country as a slave does to his master, of futilely philosophising about the objective truth, Stirner posits that serving himself absolutely, rather than serving phantasms, is his final cause. His will is supreme, his morality is the good and his actions are justified, as long as he is putting himself first. Stirner's argument, then, rather than being Thrasymachean, is much more aligned with Epicureanism. What matters most to him is the pleasure of his ego, not his immediate happiness, rather one which, even if he suffers now, his actions are justified as long as they are aligned with what he considers to be his self-interest. He may or may not act in a conventionally moral manner, insofar as he does not do it out of "obedience" to a sacred idea.

TL;DR: Read Der Einzige; it's illuminating and truly thought provoking.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS Sun Oct 31 11:12:30 2021 No.19320111 File: 36 KB, 456x456, 0D86BA2B-3C16-451B-8301-9136E69C5BDF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19319564 Not as sad as claiming spook on anything Stirner related

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 11:53:44 2021 No.19320293

>>19320040
>What Stirner proposes, then, is to rid himself of the shackles of all phanatsms, whether they were God, the state, the commune or even morality itself, and take on the mantle of the supreme egoist
Yes, which is exactly why we can say that he claims his own view to be correct and true, and why you are constantly making self-contradictions with this idiotic interpretation of yours.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 12:12:36 2021 No.19320388

>>19320293
No, if you had read the book you'd know that Stirner addresses this issue stating that, in the end, only an individual can know what constitutes as a spook and what doesn't. He only says that from his perspective, from the perspective of his unique ego, anything held as sacred by someone else could be a spook.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 12:21:12 2021 No.19320430

>>19320388
>only an individual can know what constitutes as a spook and what doesn't
Completely wrong. Do you have some concrete passage that confirms this interpretation of yours? By your logic, if an individual really believes in e.g. a Christian god then christianity and everything related to it isn't a spook. It would also mean that Stirner's entire work is worthless since his own view related to spooks makes no sense - if what is or isn't a spook varies from the individual to the individual then his critique is pointless because it has no real basis.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 12:34:40 2021 No.19320485

>>19320430
>if an individual really believes in e.g. a Christian god then christianity and everything related to it isn't a spook

Yes, Stirner doesn't define everything a spook in the absolute sense, only in the subjective one, that's also why he says "the world is my property" he's not saying "private property is a spook so everyone should own everything" he's saying that his egoist (subjective) perspective allows him to claim property over all of the world.
"Spooks" are the meme part of the book, I know, but if you stopped learning about him from reddit or 4chan and started reading him directly you'd understand that the real importance of Stirner doesn't lie in the definition of spooks in themselves but in the subjectivization of the world.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 12:39:40 2021 No.19320508

>>19320485
>I know, but if you stopped learning about him from reddit or 4chan and started reading him directly you'd understand that the real importance of Stirner doesn't lie in the definition of spooks in themselves but in the subjectivization of the world
Nice strawman, pseud, I've already read the book. I'm still waiting for you to post even a single passage in his work that echoes your interpretation of his concept of spooks.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 12:51:24 2021 No.19320550 >>19307508 Ego and its Own is the more kino title. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 13:02:33 2021 No.19320598 >>19307889 Not true? Not even a Stirner guy, but a search on google books and google scholar of the last 10 or 20 years makes that not the case.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 13:03:16 2021 No.19320600

>>19320430
His critique has the only real basis that counts, which is the Unique, the ego, the individual, etc. He doesn't claim that he is right and that everyone should follow his example. He only wants you to take into account the real final cause for your actions / beliefs. You can be a Christian, Muslim or Jewish if you want to, if it it pleases you. God's morality is not perfect, but it has certainly helped shape modern society and disregarding it means punishment by your peers. Stirner himself did not murder, steal or cheat during his lifetime; he behaved as a normal person would in a "civilised" society. That doesn't make him a hypocrite, as murder, stealing and cheating are punishable by law and would have got him into trouble, which wouldn't have pleased him in the slightest. He wasn't conventionally moral because of some sort of "piety" towards the law; he simply didn't want to get ostracised by his peers by getting into trouble with the law.
The Christian, too, is an egoist. He loves God because he's pleased in his love. His sacrifices himself to God because he feels happy, redeemed, by doing it. If a Christian ceased feeling pleased about his worship he will cease being a Christian. However if he still continues his worship of God even without deriving any pleasure out of it, whether through peer pressure or blind devotion, that individual is deemed to be possessed, has "bats in his belfry" , spooked. This is his point, that one needs to realize the consequences of his actions / beliefs from his own, subjective perspective. Everything else is a spook.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 13:06:13 2021 No.19320614 >>19320600 man, it's rare seeing someone misunderstand a book this much

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 13:06:25 2021 No.19320617

>>19320508
>All existing right is-alien right; it is a right that someone "gives" me, "does right by me." But would I therefore be in the right if all the world granted right to me? And yet what else is the right that I obtain in the state, in society, other than a right from strangers? When a blockhead makes me out to be right, I grow suspicious of my right; I don't like his accepting that I'm right. But even when a wise man grants that I'm right, I am still not right because of this. Whether I am right is completely independent of the fool's or the wise man's granting it.
>I decide whether it is the right in me; outside me there is no right. If it is right for me, then it is right. Possibly, this won't make it right for others; that's their problem, not mine: they may defend themselves. And if something wasn't right for the whole world, but was right for me, i.e., I wanted it, then I would ask nothing about the whole world. This is what everyone does who knows how to value himself, every one to the degree that he is an egoist, because power goes before right, and that-quite rightly.

In this passage, Stirner attacks the concept of justice, human rights and law. Courts are amusing to Stirner. They preach absolute righteousness by bending everyone else's will to their own. Through their cooperation with the violence of the state (police force, army, etc.), the courts take control of the people's will, and crush it unhesitatingly whenever it even thinks of steering aside from its "intended path". The law, the courts' "right", is then an unquestionable arbitrator between the "rights" of the people; those whose right is sufficiently diluted in the courts' are the winners, the righteous citizens of good will. The rest, daring to possess and uphold their own right, wretched criminals. One then must differentiate between his rights, his own, innate values, and alien rights, those that are imposed on him externally.
Stirner asserts, then, that instead of appealing to a higher power, governments or courts, to grant one his rights, one should seize his rights, by his own power. He says, "what you have the power to be, you have the right to". Basically, relying on one's own power to establish one's rights, or more succinctly, might is right. For example, if one is able to overthrow the government, he has a right to. If one is not, he has no right to. Every nation's people "deserves" its government. If they are powerful, then they have a government that grants them their rights. If they aren't, then they are to be slaves to their despotic regime.
If one holds someone else to be wrong, one has to prove it. One has, through his right, to gain more power than the other and utterly crush them, if one is right and the other is wrong. Proclaiming to be right without action to emphasise it is just childish bickering with no end product. This is why most "peaceful" protests against violent oppression lead nowhere.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 13:07:58 2021 No.19320623 >>19320614 Elaborate, please.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 13:09:06 2021 No.19320631 >>19320617 How exactly does this prove your interpretation on his concept of spooks? If anything, it disproves it, since christianity has in it embeded ideas of justice, rights etc. which Stirner is arguing against in the passage you posted.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 13:28:01 2021 No.19320745

>>19320631
I'm not the poster you were arguing with. A devout Christian is not an egoist. Christianity does not serve the Unique; it serves God. God is an idea that seves itself rather than its beholder. This is the spook. Ideas that serve themselves first. And their definition is in the subjective hands of the individual.

>If the previous assumptions are to melt away in a complete dissolution, they cannot again be dissolved into a higher assumption, i.e., a thought, or thinking itself criticism. That dissolution should benefit me; otherwise they only belong to the series of innumerable dissolutions which declared old truths to be falsehoods and did away with long-nurtured assumptions in favor of others, such such as precisely the human being, God, the state, pure morality, etc.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 13:35:03 2021 No.19320787

>>19320745
>This is the spook. Ideas that serve themselves first
Exactly, which is why spook isn't a subjective term that can vary from a person to a person, as the person I'm arguing with is claiming.
>And their definition is in the subjective hands of the individual
If you don't define "spook" the way that Stirner did then of course that statement like "christianity isn't a spook" will be true. However, we are talking about Stirner's concept here.
>in favor of others, such such as precisely the human being, God, the state, pure morality, etc
Yes, which is why the examples he named are spooks, no matter how anyone else perceives them. There is no subjective quality to spooks as a concept, Stirner's concerned with subjectiveness when it comes to the ego that every individual has and the variety of preferences (since no two individuals have exactly the same wishes). The poster I am arguing with got the wrong idea, latching blindly to subjectivity as something that permeates the entirety of Stirner's work, but that would make his ideas self-defeating, as well as his analysis. I am not denying that there is a subjective element to what Stirner is talking about (he does emphasise the ego, the individual's experience), but it's not something that can be applied to literally everything that Stirner talks about, which is why that guy's interpretation of the concept of spooks completely misses the mark and gets Stirner completely wrong in that regard.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 13:55:22 2021 No.19320891

>>19320787
Stirner gave a pretty general definition of spooks here:

>The "nature of the matter", the "concept of the relationship", is supposed to guide me in my treatment of the matter or consummation of the relationship. As if a concept of the matter existed in itself, and was not rather the concept one forms of the matter! As if a relationship which we enter into was not itself unique, because of the uniqueness of those who enter into it! As if it depended on how others categorize it! But as people separated the "essence of the human being" from actual human beings, and judged the latter according to the former, so they also separate his action from him, and assess it according to "human value."

That "human value" can be anything that the individual judges as oppressive, a quality that emphasies conformity and discourages uniqueness and originality. This all depends on one's own definition of these things, and, for example, a Christian can view liberalism and atheism as values that stifle him as an individual.
I think this is what the other anon meant, but it surely is a stretch to reconcile Christianity with Stirner's view, as it's hard to ignore that God, the ultimate phantasm, is in the end its nucleus and the justification of its existence as a system of values.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 15:37:29 2021 No.19321380 >>19311192 >bitch bitchin bout bitches Shit up you caricature of a DUMB CUNT

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 15:45:11 2021 No.19321413

>>19307889
He is the ultimate dead end that every cynic or contrarian arrives at. 4chan is full of these types of people. That or maybe spiritualism.

Academics are not very cynical (or they would not stay in academia) so it is not surprising that he is being talked about. Also, Stirner only published a few books. There is only so much material you can get for a publication.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:06:17 2021 No.19322036

>>19320891
You posted a passage related to relationships, not the concept of spooks per se. Also
>a Christian can view liberalism and atheism as values that stifle him as an individual
How exactly do liberalism and atheism stifle as opposed to christianity, when the latter is way more strict (at least if you follow it properly)?

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:24:08 2021 No.19322106

>>19319567
The claim isn't being made that Stirner is a nihilist; the claim being made is Stirner is a nominalist. No one claimed in the thread he is nihilistic. Although, his nominalism could considered "nihilistic" because how it rejects conventional morality. Buddhists, Zen etc are called "nilihistic" too because they consider all phemonena to be "empty." Nilhism is just not a well defined word for it to be useful in many senses; its more of a slur if anything. And, no, Stirner does not make any normative claims in his book. Nothing he says is an "ought" - he rejects normative claims, even his authority on his on work, he leaves it up to the reader on what to do with it.
>"I love them because love makes me happy, I love because love is natural to me, it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love."
There is this tendency for readers to read Stirner, and to mis-understand his active and passive voice. When Stirner says I - he's being descripitive - he's not making a normtive claim. What satisfies Stirner is not universal; he's simply giving people examples how one can think, and express themselves, using their selfishness without being dictated to do so by any higher power - be it a society, religion or even so called "philosophers." I love chicken, Stirner loves beer. We both love these things because we find it enjoyable. We are not commanded to love either because of society, but because it feels right to us - it can not be expressed in words.

The love you have your mother, your sister, or your brother is something you feel, but its not something you can express completely in words. There are certains that are inante to our experiences as human beings that we can not express lingistically, but they are unique to us. None of us will ever live the same lives, and we can not express everything in words.

Again, he makes this explitically clear in Stirner's Critics, and because people are not aware of this work, they tend to ignore that and assume he's making normative claims.
>"Stirner names the unique and says at the same time that “Names don’t name it.” He utters a name when he names the unique, and adds that the unique is only a name. So he thinks something other than what he says, just as, for example, when someone calls you Ludwig, he isn’t thinking of a generic Ludwig, but of you, for whom he has no word.What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is neither a word, nor a thought, nor a concept. What he says is not the meaning, and what he means cannot be said."
Stirner here is saying his arguments are purely linguistic - he's simply describing how one can act; he's not saying how one ought to act. His book is an expression of his life, and shows how individuals can be nominalistic to create meaning in their own lives. He has no words for Ludwig because he can not express to Ludwig what egoism ought to be for him; that's something you and I naturally figure out through our own intelligence and courage.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:35:18 2021 No.19322168

>>19320787
>>19320891
The people talking about spooks are missing the completely point. Stirner says hierarchy is the rule of spirit, the rule of ideas. The thing Stirner is critiquing is the obsession people have with philosophical thought. People waste their time in an attempt to find "reason", "wisdom" or some deeper transcadental value to life that really does not exist, and it is not necessary for one to live a fulfilling life. People tend to care too much about humanity, and its problems, and waste so much time trying to re-arrange it to fit an ideal image that only exists in the head of the thinker and not in reality.
>"Efforts to “mold” all human beings into moral, rational, pious, human, etc. “essences,” i.e., training, have been in vogue from time immemorial. They are shipwrecked on the indomitable sense of self on own nature, on egoism. The trained never reach their ideal, and only profess the sublime principles with their mouth, or only make a profession, a profession of faith. In the face of this profession they must “acknowledge that they are altogether sinners” in life, and fall short of their ideal, are “weak people” and carry with them the consciousness of “human weakness.”
He doesn't believe that there is a progressive end to history that his opponents do; he just sees life as an ouroboros of unending conflict, and attempt to fix that is simply an effort in vain. That's why he was so critical of the French Revolution - because he saw how one class of people just replaced the old rulers and dictators. He shows this has happened throughtout history. People, to Stirner, are just exchanging who rules over the rest. That's he rejects revolution, and says its better to re-anage yourself so that no insitution can rule over you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:37:24 2021 No.19322179 >>19319549 >When you're so new to lit you don't know what Nrx or accelerationism is Welcome to the board, newfag

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:37:54 2021 No.19322180

>>19322036
Liberalism presents a standardised vision of the world, which (as dogma typically does) restricts individuals from creating any meaningful change. The most obvious example right now would be the democratic process; on both a literal (the mainstream right harping about how the election was stolen vs the mainstream left harping about 2016, gerrymandering, etc.) and meta ("my vote does nothing! Its the rich in charge, I'll tell you that!") level, virtually everyone is exhausted with how polling is done presently. While we might expect change, Liberalism suffocates this desire for reform under the expectation that individuals remain "civilised" (not necessarily talking about a call to arms here; even BLM was strawmanned last year for being "savages") - after all, "things may suck right now, but it could be worse! Being savage WILL make things worse...". In a word, Liberalism creates contradictions that naturally oppress (the need for change and 'civility' cannot coexist...)
As Stirner points out, however, Liberalism as an end does not collectively optimise egoes; rather, it optimises itself. It is a form of oppresion existing solely to oppress.

I will say that this is a generalised and watered-down argument (Stirner uses more nuance in the egobook), though.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:39:33 2021 No.19322192

>>19322036
>You posted a passage related to relationships, not the concept of spooks per se
That passage defines spooks on a relational basis, which for me is a clear definition of what a spook is, taking into account how Stirner views the world as a Unique in *relation* to his property.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:41:51 2021 No.19322203 >>19322180 Endnote; by 'optimising', I mean 'optimising the welfare of...'. I also referred to America only because im assuming you live there

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:49:23 2021 No.19322236 >>19322179 you have to go back, retard

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:49:25 2021 No.19322237

>>19322180
I think this is what Stirner was trying to say in criticising the free Utopian liberal state, something which has never existed and most likely never will. The liberal state, as a concept, in its naive ignorance of the fact that its inhabitants can be "inhuman monsters", i.e. egoistic "criminals", got its ideal of a "human society", a society of "law-abiding citizens", destroyed before its conception. And indeed it is. The state cannot reasonably hope to stifle the egoistic tendencies of the citizenry, that is it cannot impose on people to sacrifice their self-interest for its own sake; the law can only punish those who are caught commiting crimes, it can not prevent said crimes, hence the rampant corruption and disregard for morality everywhere, despite all the preaching about said morality and societal values. Nevertheless, it still demands from the citizenry a kind of religious fervor for its laws and "order", without any guarantee of the existence of that ideal "human society", in which everyone is an "upright" and "honest" citizen. This is the state's desperate struggle to justify its useless existence, by appealing to the "upright and moral human being" inside of the citizen, instead of trying to create an "upright and moral society", because it knows that the latter is a nigh impossible task. The "human, egalitarian and free society" is a delusion, and those deluded by this ideal are fed regularly by the state to the egoistic wolves. The deluded, then, can only scream in horror as they are savagely devoured, after their supposedly "divine" protections and rights get torn apart and completely discarded with no consequences, crying for the authorities to rescue them from their fate, and as they draw their last ragged breath, finally realising the extent of the authorities' betrayal, how they were "authorities" only by name, and how powerlessly shackled the "far-reaching hand of the law" truly is. In order to avoid this grim fate, the egoist chooses, then, to rely on nothing, count on nobody, and demand help from no one. In egoism, he bows to nothing, not even morality. He does what is in his best self-interest, no matter what it is, including what is considered to be "traditionally moral", or "immoral". The difference is that he was not "moral" out of reverent duty, nor "immoral" out of a sense of contrarianism, but he acted out of pure and unapologetic selfishness. Thus, the egoist liberates himself from the state's, and other phantasms', fraudulent hold over him.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:50:46 2021 No.19322245

>>19322180
Stirner's views on politics are machiavellian. He has an entire section discussing how one can relate to political parties. He argues that one does not need to be loyal to any political cause; that one can simply use the political process to suit their benefits and own ends. Democracy can be exploited by a concious egoist for their own gain.

Your argument doesn't make much sense, from Stirner's point of view, because you are simply moralizing about the results of democracy, and not undersanding how to utilize democracy or get around it if its in your way.

Stirner's critique of liberalism is the fact that liberals, like communists, want you, the individual, to conform to their beliefs - be it in the "human being" in the liberals, and the "worker" in the communist train of thought. Both of these are repressive because they limit your self activity through either peer pressure or the act of law.

He doesn't have a solution that make everyone happy; he accepts conflict has a given in any human arrangement. You just tells you to get by however you can, and even if that means you harm others or someone gets in your way.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:55:20 2021 No.19322274 >>19322236 Imagine being so new that you don't even know the Dark Enlightenment, NRX, r-acc regularly use post-structralist thinkers in their work. Get off /lit/ newfag, and stop shitting up the thread.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:56:44 2021 No.19322281

>>19322168
>People waste their time in an attempt to find "reason", "wisdom" or some deeper transcadental value to life that really does not exist, and it is not necessary for one to live a fulfilling life
Yes, that's what he's saying, and that by itself must be categorized as a wisdom, so he isn't escaping from the supposed mistake that the others are making, he's claiming that his own view is the correct one. Even if he disagrees (which I doubt since throughout the book it's obvious he is aware of his position), the fact still stands
>he just sees life as an ouroboros of unending conflict, and attempt to fix that is simply an effort in vain
Except that he suggests UoE as a concept to replace certain previous concepts that we've had, and he obviously analyses history in such a way that he considers a pattern (ancients -> moderns), just as he sees a pattern with the development of an individual. That's not the same as thinking that there's a "progressive end to history", as you are saying, so I do agree in that sense.
>People, to Stirner, are just exchanging who rules over the rest. That's he rejects revolution, and says its better to re-anage yourself so that no insitution can rule over you
Yes, and his work basically boils down to "there has to be someone who rules you, let that be yourself instead of anything else, be that "else" god or the idea of a human being, or something else entirely". This is, again, a specific message meaning that his work has a normative quality.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 18:58:59 2021 No.19322289 >>19322274 it's not that i don't know about those things, it's that they are pseud shit you can't be a post-structuralist and a right winger, it would be like shooting yourself in the foot

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 19:07:12 2021 No.19322330

>>19322245
I mostly agree with this (my point wasnt so great lol), saving that last part:
>he accepts conflicts as a given in every human arrangement
while flaws will always exist in all social structures, some (if not most) of these flaws can be negated simply by desanctifying ideology. I think that >>19322237 did a better job of explaining this, and it reminds me of this extract:
>The morally acclimated and settled person is not surprised and caught off guard; he behaves with equanimity, i.e., with equal heart or temper, toward everything, because his temper, protected by the caution of his ancestral custom, doesn't lose its composure. Thus,
on the ladder of culture or civilization, humanity mounts the first rung through habit; and it imagines that, in climbing to civilization, it is at the same time climbing to heaven, the realm of civilization or second nature, so it is really mounting the first rung of the-ladder
to heaven.
Of course, when this ladder starts to shake, one only needs to change its rungs...

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 19:08:23 2021 No.19322339 >>19322330 Note that the last sentence isn't part of the quote. Idk why the gtxt fucked up

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 19:14:55 2021 No.19322363 >>19307508 The publisher of the new translation refuses to print more copies of the book despite the massive demand. The only electronic version is in pdf format so it looks like ass on most ereaders. Just read one of the older translations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 19:29:34 2021 No.19322433 >>19322363 Why does he refuse to print more copies? Anarcho-retardation?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 19:35:59 2021 No.19322463 just read the german

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 20:01:07 2021 No.19322601 >>19322245 Apt summary.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 20:03:54 2021 No.19322610 File: 41 KB, 194x300, Wolfi-gross-194x300.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19322433 Pretty much, the dude is also a closet pedo

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 20:12:12 2021 No.19322646

>>19322610
Kek. Why are they always like this? I swear anarchists and other post-left retards give more attention to their gatekeeping, infighting, and overall degeneracy than to actually try to spread and hone their ideas and try putting them into practice.
It's like they get off at shooting themselves in the foot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 20:14:47 2021 No.19322665 >>19322610 I assume this is just a publication playing advocatus diaboli and Americans are blowing their fuse on it. For some reason, the Anglo brain just tilts when anyone is discussing this topic in any fashion. Never understood this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 20:17:38 2021 No.19322681 File: 51 KB, 674x360, Spookday.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Happy Spookday anons. If Stirner threads are normally this popular, would a Stirner/Nietzsche general be a good idea?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 20:26:22 2021 No.19322737 >>19322681 I don't think it would be necessary - honestly. It only makes sense to talk about these people when themes associated with them come up - mainly politics and religion. We have enough Stirner and Nietzsche threads every now and then.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 20:37:22 2021 No.19322780 >>19322665 You should read it anon. You can make generalization after the fact.

Anonymous Sun Oct 31 20:50:32 2021 No.19322853
File: 62 KB, 801x527, 665A1CB8-E3E7-4468-8E6C-DD3B7589BEB4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Stirner would be better if he attacked the independent reality of both the particular and the universal. At times it seems like he does, other times not so much. Pretty vague philosopher overall. Perhaps it would be clearer if I understood German.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 20:54:41 2021 No.19322878 >>19307508 Had to double take seeing that Stirner drawing without the smirk.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 22:45:38 2021 No.19323339 >>19322853 >he attacked the independent reality of both the particular and the universal. Any other philosopher who does that?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 31 22:52:36 2021 No.19323371 File: 92 KB, 512x384, CAE7F435-4D12-4CB0-BFFA-C4E39FA6A6F6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19323339 Nagarjuna

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 1 03:44:13 2021 No.19324239 >>19323371 Book?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 1 03:53:36 2021 No.19324265 >>19324239 mmk

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 1 03:58:26 2021 No.19324275 >>19324265 Thanks. What's the best translation?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 1 03:59:12 2021 No.19324276 File: 42 KB, 314x500, 51dso2aizyL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>19324275 imo

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 1 04:01:38 2021 No.19324281 >>19324276 Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 1 06:03:45 2021 No.19324543 >>19320614 he's literally correct

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 1 06:10:38 2021 No.19324569 >>19324543 This. Stirner literally makes anons claims clear in the prelude...

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 1 06:11:29 2021 No.19324571 >>19322610 based

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 1 06:13:02 2021 No.19324576 >>19324569 more proof that even the people posting giant walls of text haven't bothered paying attention to what they pretend to read

Anonymous Mon Nov 1 07:22:09 2021 No.19324743

>>19324576
Going back to the original message:
>He doesn't claim that he is right and that everyone should follow his example. He only wants you to take into account the real final cause for your actions / beliefs...
See the prelude to the egobook "all things are nothing to me" (from Unique here), where Stirner literally lays the case for conscious egoism. Of course, being religious and being a conscious egoist in unadvisable, but the option is there nonetheless.

>Stirner himself did not murder, steal or cheat during his lifetime; he behaved as a normal person would in a "civilised" society. That doesn't make him a hypocrite, as murder, stealing and cheating are punishable by law and would have got him into trouble, which wouldn't have pleased him in the slightest. He wasn't conventionally moral because of some sort of "piety" towards the law...
I'll concede that this wasn't in the prelude, but Stirner makes frequent of this still. I'll also concede that what the anon said right after this was also wrong (complying with the law in order to avoid ostracisation); see >>19311192 for this.

>The Christian, too, is an egoist. He loves God because he's pleased in his love. His sacrifices himself to God because he feels happy, redeemed, by doing it. If a Christian ceased feeling pleased about his worship he will cease being a Christian.
Nothing about this is wrong. Referring to Stirner:
>You are able to report thoroughly on God, since you have investigated "the depths of divinity" for thousands of years, and have seen into its heart, so that you can probably tell us how God himself deals with "God's cause;' which we are called to serve. Nor do you conceal the Lord's activities.
Of course, this devotion wanes upon garnering a sense of clarity:
>God has based his affairs on nothing, on nothing but himself. I likewise base my affairs on myself, this I who - just like God - am the nothing of all others, this I who am my all, this I who am the Unique.

>However if he still continues his worship of God even without deriving any pleasure out of it, whether through peer pressure or blind devotion, that individual is deemed to be possessed, has "bats in his belfry" , spooked. This is his point, that one needs to realize the consequences of his actions / beliefs from his own, subjective perspective. Everything else is a spook.
I'll admit that this is erroneous simply on the basis that the anon didn't suggest that people aren't 'posessed' to begin with. Apologies for that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 1 07:25:13 2021 No.19324752 >>19324743 Corrections: >in unadvisable meant is unadvisable >makes frequent of this meant frequent reference to this...

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 1 07:28:06 2021 No.19324760 >>19324743 One last change: where I said >a sense of clarity... It works as is, but a sense of sobriety is really what im getting at

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature