/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22776608]

Are there any worthwhile critiques of Max Stirner/ egoism that isn’t Marx or addressed in Stirner’s critics?

[Anonymous No.22776932]

>>22776608
yes. everyone, and i do mean *everyone* is a broken retard full of self-doubt and often not even in control over their own actions. this fact makes both egoism and vitalism ridiculous. it's like watching a worm act tough in front of other worms.

[Anonymous No.22777009]

>>22776932
if everyone's retarded then so is the critics critique. pretty weak

[Anonymous No.22777723]

>>22776608
the only good critique about stirner / egoism is the fact that it turns retards into sociopaths, if you can think further than your crooked nose you become free
anyone who critiques egoism is literally trying to shill you some other shit that is tailor made to subjugate or put you inside a hierarchy, egoism doesn't acknowledge any hierarchy because it knows they're literally just people trying to convince you into taking a role in a pyramid scheme, yes even the benevolent ones make you submit to the pyramid of hierarchy so they're inherently subjugating
i don't care how benevolent your dictator is you're still doing his bidding, i don't care how equal and just your republic is you're still submitting to their authority by partaking, i don't care how equal your communism is you're still descending onto their level and hindering yourself to fit in
all ideologies, forms of government and religions demand that you submit to authority of another, when you realize this and the fact that their benevolence is 99% of the time lipservice you have nowhere to go but personal egoism, that doesn't mean you should become a retard who lacks foresight, it just means that your strings are cut off and you're no longer a wooden boy mr pinnochio, if you choose to partake in any system after that you do it with the knowledge of perks and cons and that's fine, freedom doesn't limit you into being a hermit who throws shit at bystanders it just makes you aware when you're bending the knee so you don't become the work mule of some fat bastard

the reason people don't like stirner is because he calls them out for being a subservient cuck of the pyramid despite being at the bottom of it

[Anonymous No.22777755]

>>22777009
Fallacious

[Anonymous No.22777764]

>>22777755
>everyone, and i do mean *everyone* is a broken retard full of self-doubt
he's the one who leaned into it being "everyone", take his argument as he presented it instead of trying to wipe his ass

[Anonymous No.22777773]

>>22777764
>retard says the sky is blue
>fellow retards point out that he's retarded so he shouldn't be talking
??

[Anonymous No.22777781]

>>22777773
Kek

[Anonymous No.22777785]

>>22777773
>a broken clock is right twice a day
>truth doesn't care who uttered it
true, but in his case he is saying that egoism is ridiculous because in his argument everyone is a automated retard drone who doesn't know wtf they're doing
how is having anyone tell them what to do going to be any better if the ones telling them what to do are just as retarded
seriously in his hyperbole example what's the difference between a retard smashing his thumb with a hammer and someone telling a retard to smash his thumb with a hammer?

[Anonymous No.22777788]

>>22777777

[Anonymous No.22777799]

>a-achtually there are some smart people who should be telling the retards what to do
and how has that worked out so far for them, do the retards have any better lives just because some cigar puffers are telling them to work hard and retire old?
egoism just acknowledges that system are there to use you and spit you out after they've gotten their use out of you, or at the very least to control you enough so you're not a threat to the status quo, all of them are like that and all of them want something out of you
do as they do, not as they say, be free for yourself and only partake in systems that actually benefit you with the knowledge of what you're giving up in partaking in them, only thing that really changes is that you'll no longer work free overtime and kiss the ring without being compensated or knowing that you're being coerced

[Anonymous No.22777836]

that's basically the core of egoism in a nutshell, stop being a fucking cattle and own up to your own chattels and know that you chose them by submitting

[Anonymous No.22777843]

>>22777785
Yes but they can still point out the truth
Most of your daily life is automatic and doesn't require conscious effort. Your actions and urges are guided by your unconscious mind more than you think.

[Anonymous No.22777848]

>>22777843
>people are victims of impulse and routine
>you're unconscious mind is unconscious
you can be aware of your impulses and know your routine, what's your point?

[Anonymous No.22777872]

>>22777848
What difference does it make?

[Anonymous No.22777880]

>>22777872
>even if everyone is retarded sometimes the retarded critics can say facts
what are the odds of that happening and how would the retards know what facts are?

[Anonymous No.22777884]

>>22777723
Correct take, wonder if nietzsche ripped him off

[Anonymous No.22777903]

>>22777884
nietzsches overman is a direct rip off, he just put "and he wants to impose new values onto others after freeing himself" on top of voluntary egoist and called it his own, people asked him if he ripped stirner off and he basically pussy footed around it, he definitely had read stirners works and pretty sure it is obvious for everyone that he ripped it off and just added his own nametag on top of it
that's why he wasn't a "overman", because no one who has freed themselves would want to impose that chattel of ideology onto other (unless they're some fucked up from birth cunt), most people would rather either share the freedom with others or just be free by themselves, imposing new values onto others is some cult leader tier shit
even if you would argue that "the retards need codex to follow" there is no such codex that couldn't be finessed and turned against them, history has proven as much, you're better off taking the chance of them becoming a sociopath or them becoming free than letting them languish in chains
if their life's are really shit and they're coerced between a rock and hard place or if religion is the only thing keeping them alive you might want to consider letting them keep the veil on to keep them alive

[Anonymous No.22777916]

>>22777723
>>22777903
I don’t think egoism turns people into sociopaths, if they were going to hurt or manipulate someone they would probably still do it, just have some inane justification behind it

[Anonymous No.22777935]

>>22777916
it turns some people who lack foresight into sociopaths, if the only thing keeping you from doing "bad things" was the fact that you actually believed in the rule of law or in sin and hell then egoism will remove that last barrier, or if the idea of being truly free means you go around kicking puppies then yeah you most likely were like that before and just found your excuse to indulge in it, they would have done the same shit unconsciously anyway now they can just direct their malice better
you're correct but by "turn them into sociopaths" it is pretty much meant to be taken as "well now the veil is gone and they'll do it consciously"

[Anonymous No.22778052]

Why tf would anybody critique egoism when it's just cope?

[Anonymous No.22778074]

>>22778052
Are you saying egoism is cope or the critique is cope?

[Anonymous No.22778095]

>>22778074
Sounds like egoism

Also if you verbalize it becomes something else completely

[Anonymous No.22778103]

>>22778095
You did not answer my question

[Anonymous No.22778133]

>>22778095
>if you call it what it is it becomes an ideology
you're not wrong but you know what they mean when they say voluntary egoism, it's not supposed to be a dogmatic gospel just a recipe for breaking the chattels of systems and ideologies, it's the same thing as anarchy or skepticism, the more you define it the further from it you get

[Anonymous No.22778746]

>>22777723
i already intuitively believed this without having to read a book about it, is it really an entire philosophy? why read stirner?

[Anonymous No.22778757]

>>22778746

[Anonymous No.22778789]

>>22777836
>and know that you chose them by submitting
Explain this.

[Anonymous No.22778813]

>>22778789
>either starve on the streets or work for a pittance
>ill work for a pittance
>good goyim
what is there to explain
>ill give you good money but you will have 1 week of vacation during the whole year and i can call you at any time and tell you to come to work
>yes mister boomer
what is there to explain?
>obey these rules or we will throw you in jail with murderers, thieves, rapists and corrupt guards
>yes mister lawman
>good citizen
what is there to explain
>we will spy on your electronic activity, draft you to die on a foreign land and decide all of the country's major decisions while only giving you an illusion of having a say in any of it
>yes mister politician
what is there to explain
>i'm going to cheat on you, turn your kids against you and steal 50% of your fortune at the price of you getting to pass on your genes
>yes ma'am
what is there to explain?

in each case you chose to submit, there is nothing to explain there you chose to not walk away from that or to go against the grain, you made your bed now sleep in it

[Anonymous No.22778827]

>>22778813
You're most likely the most retarded man on the planet.

[Anonymous No.22778828]

that is the essence of coercion and the system relies on you picking the "favorable" option, that's why they eliminated your choice to shit and shittier, only if everyone would walk away from shit deals there wouldn't be shit deals, people who chose to work at amazon and walmart without piss breaks for a pittance are the reason it is one of the top 10 in fortune 500
people who agreed to work with 1 week of vacation a year all the way to their retirement are the people who made that possible for boomers
people who bend the knee to unjust laws are the reason the line gets pushed further each year
people who let government spy on them without raising hell are the reason why vault 7 shit got wiped under the carpet and why your government spies on you with impunity
people who marry skanks are the reason why fat bitch with 2 prior kids act like they are entitled to a safety net instead of kissing the ground you walk on

they all made their bed and everyone in the same situation of having to try to pick the best option suffers for it, too many doormats, let them eat jackboot and dirt and wait for it to implode because it is unsustainable

[Anonymous No.22778832]

>>22778827
i see that you chose to attack me instead of my argument / point, good call because i doubt you have much to say that would have added to the conversation, look in the mirror fuckwad

[Anonymous No.22778836]

>>22778832
You made no argument. Kust a bunch of retarded claims. Do you even know what an argument is?

[Anonymous No.22778837]

>>22778836
i made a point, you called me a retard instead of addressing or disproving any of it, which part do you disagree with specifically or did you just come here to knee jerk like a little double digit retard you are?

[Anonymous No.22778841]

see i can call people names too and ad hominem how you're mentally challenged due to your low IQ, now were you going to point out what part do you disagree with or are we done here?

[Anonymous No.22778847]

>>22778837
I'm sorry but all of these points ARE retarded.
The alternative to taking a shitty job isn't starving on the streets it's taking a different job. Skilled labour is in record demand. It's your own fault for not acquiring skills.
Same goes for cintract negotiations like vacations.
As for politics the fact that people vote for things you disagree with doesnt mean we are only given an illusion of say in it.
Men cheat more than women and once again not signing a prenup is your own failure.
You are a massive bitch and no you have not made an argument for any of it.

[Anonymous No.22778858]

>>22778847
>ivory tower
>boomers not picking the guy who takes the shit deal instead of the guy who tries to wiggle room
>politicians that run for office make the policies instead of just doing what they're told and reading the lines given to them
>b-but men cheat, prenup works
thank you for proving that you're either out of touch with reality or just plain old blind

[Anonymous No.22778899]

>>22778858
You have an odd definition of chattels if it is defined by two people voluntarily entering a relationship.

Also sorry for having been so insulting. 4chan habit you didn't deserve that.

[Anonymous No.22778908]

>>22778899
The path of least resistance is the path of least change. The quote 'The path of least resistance is the path of least change' highlights the idea that when faced with a choice, it is often easier for someone to go with a familiar option that does not require much effort.

Like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, Kant understands the state’s function as essentially coercive and, in justifying state coercion, he adopts a narrow conception of political freedom that formally preserves the right to choose while denying that the range of choices one actually has can be a matter of justice. As a result, Kant cannot identify various forms of social pressure as potential injustices even as he recognizes their power to create and sustain troubling inequalities. For both Kant and the neoliberals, the result is that economic relations almost never count as unjust forms of coercion, no matter how unequal they are. Views that identify coercion as the trigger for duties of justice are thus particularly ill-suited to orient us to contemporary inequality.

[Anonymous No.22778913]

>>22778908
I don't understand your point here.

[Anonymous No.22778917]

if the system offers you a "easy" path that is detrimental to yourself and a god awful alternative did you really have a choice or were you coerced through environmental pressures to take the path of least resistance, a man born into wealth can snub a job offer that has unfavorable terms and bide his time to wait for a better offer, a man with family to feed at home and limited savings does not have this luxury, his kids need to eat monthly and he has bills to pay, he is coerced to take the best deal offered and if all the deals offered are shit he will have to make do with what he can get because he cannot afford to let his family starve and the government to kick them out on the streets, if he dibs into his savings he is putting himself at risk of any minor inconvenience to pull the rug out from under his finances and a car breaking down can make him bankrupt

>>22778913
if i create an environment where there is no drinkable water around and offer to sell you a bottle of water at 500k a bottle and you buy it because you have to, did i not coerce you to buy it or did you have a choice?

[Anonymous No.22778943]

>>22776608
Man cannot live alone so egoism means death. Tis a nice thought experiment with some implications for small individual interaction on the larger societal scale.
Really tho it is not a feasible creed to live or think by.

[Anonymous No.22778949]

>>22778943
don't write it in stone, don't give it dogma, understand that the entire goal is to just make you aware how systems are inherently subjugating and it will make you see coercion where it is present and no one can pull your good boy strings to make you dance like a puppet on stage by appealing to whatever ideology you thought you could ride on autopilot

[Anonymous No.22778985]

>>22778917
>where there is no drinkable water around
Now see here you introduced a new variable not pressnt in the other more first world examples. I'm not denying coercion I'm saying you claim hierachies where none exist. Hence the cheating point. The last woman on earth may coerce men into whatever but if your choices dwindle to one woman who you are so dependent on that you cannot set the parameters of the relationship that is mostly your fault. Same with employers and work contracts. A skilled professional can very much negotiate his own contract. There are billion dollar industries revolving solely around employers trying to persuade employees.

[Anonymous No.22778987]

>>22778985
>Now see here you introduced a new variable not pressnt in the other more first world examples
*being the lack of alternatives of course

[Anonymous No.22779005]

>>22778985
>>22778987
>you can always live on the streets and starve
see here you refuse to see reality that majority of low income houses are facing, if we want to make an ideal case then small loan of a million dollars but we are trying to make the case for majority and from a start that isn't based on good fortune in the hand dealt to you
do you believe that most people aspire to be baristas, burger flippers, customer service people and shelf stackers?
environmental coercion forces them to take what they can get even if they have education for a different field, problem tends to be limited amount of openings to well paying jobs, high competition for the available spots leading to nepotism and cronyism and then "well someone has to do it" attitude to shitty jobs that should have been automated years ago

[Anonymous No.22779121]

>>22779005
>shitty jobs that should have been automated years ago
NTA, but I work in a factory.. I hate this job and I think nobody should work in a factory but we really have nowhere else to go.
A solution I thought of is maybe a system where only young people work these shitty jobs while during college, and then move on to more fulfilling careers later in life. You’d probably see that as a form of coercion but the way I see it, as long as agriculture exists, the state will exist

[Anonymous No.22779137]

>>22779121
>automation into UBI didn't even cross his mind, immediately pushing the boulder onto the younger generations shoulders
builds character to pull yourself up by your bootstraps doesn't it

[Anonymous No.22779171]

>>22779005
>you can always live on the streets and starve
And now you are back to pretending it is either take this job with this conditions or starve. You even claim its so for a majority. Can you show me a single person in the last 50 years in any first world country that starved over rejecting work conditions?
The same necessity exists for the employee. Hire someone or your company goes down. It's not a hierarchy but a mutual contract.
There may be a hierarchical DYNAMIC for example if you are an incapable person or in a catastrophic situation with no alternatives, or if there is a shortage of qualified personnel and companies have to compete for employees (we are here) but these are dynamic hierarchies that can be overcome.
You see yourself as enchatteled where you are not because it is easier than to engage with your own choices amd requirements to improve your position.
With the internet it's easier to find which skills are in demand and to acquire them cheaply than ever.
Your views on dating examplify how your position is based on perceived personal inadequacy and not a real engagement with possibilities.

[Anonymous No.22779227]

>>22779171
the majority of your post is either extreme ivory tower effect or just flat out outdated views on the work environment so i won't even bother trying to tell you otherwise you keep believing that most people are poor out of choice
if you're forced to take work to not end up homeless then yes you are coerced and chattel'd to your job, living in the streets is not a fucking option if the government has made it illegal to live on the streets, you will end up in jail
>your views on dating exemplify
when was the last time you went to the dating scene, you may not know it but most women in that scene are entitled, come with years of experience and baggage and usually have a few kids in tow, they are not there to look for a prince charming they are there to look for a safety net because the deadbeat they had kids with wasn't cut out to raise them with her and she's desperate
the leftovers in the market that are single past 30 are not a pretty sight, there's a reason they're called christmas cakes, at the end of the day you're a wallet for her and that's it

[Anonymous No.22779276]

>>22779227
>Voluntarily pick one job over another
>You are chatteled

Your views on dating are so self refuting it is baffling
>most women have a couple kids but need a safety net
>women demand 50% of your income to pass on your genes
At some point you have to take responsibility for your own life. Or you continue to blame everyone else.
Neither men nor women start dating at 30. Your failure to attract a mate in her 20s is noones fault but your own.

[Anonymous No.22779282]

>>22779276
>picking from the shit options you have is voluntarily
>marrying at 20 is expected norm
>"b-but i didn't say married, i said dating"
where do you think the women in their 30's with kids came from?

[Anonymous No.22779316]

>>22777723
>the only problem with egoism is that turns [almost everyone] into sociopaths

seems like a not-so-insignificant problem

[Anonymous No.22779323]

>>22779316
>[almost everyone] are retarded
they're retarded because they follow ideologies that do not serve their best interests like morons because it is easier and "safer" than making your own decisions, it would be more accurate to say "almost everyone is subservient" because that was genetically bred into most people for centuries

[Anonymous No.22779382]

>>22779282
It's your fault you only have shit options.
The other part is just gibberish.

[Anonymous No.22779387]

>>22776608

[Anonymous No.22779391]

>>22779382
if the table has 10 holes and you have 50 balls, 1 hole can fit 1 ball inside it, how many balls will make it to the hole if accuracy is not a factor?

[Anonymous No.22779398]

>>22779387
This is the worst written garbage I have ever read. He helped others because he wanted to help others. There was no deontological reasoning or utilitariam calcucation. He just did what he thought right. Egoism promotes exactly that.

[Anonymous No.22779403]

>>22779391
Shit analogy. Dig your own hole, fill one of the empty holes, qualify for new holes.
This might even solve your dating problem.

[Anonymous No.22779413]

>>22779403
>solution to being coerced and chained to your job? become a freelancer, try harder, study to be a specialist
only the first one was good advice, the rest was literally just elbow grease tier boomer platitudes
>dating problems
so what you're saying is that if i have a bigger annual paycheck i can have access to a wider dating pool of women who are either younger or who don't have prior kids and aren't gold diggers? curious

[Anonymous No.22779418]

so you need to have a lot of money but it isn't about the money for them that's just natural baseline, right?
i'm trying to wrap my head around the issue of women being after your money and how having money is going to solve that problem, date young women and don't show them how much you make?

[Anonymous No.22779842]

>>22776608
His union of egoists is an incoherent idea, as there is no form of social organisation that allows everyone to do whatever he wants, all the time. Hence social hierarchy is inevitable.

[Anonymous No.22780050]

>>22778949
I guess but wording it like that it sounds like nihilism applied that allows you to be a relativist.

[Anonymous No.22780436]

>>22776608
IDK, but thats probably because stiner was never that influential outside of low level internet memers who repeat the common knowledge that people do what they want like its a profound take.

[Anonymous No.22781186]

>>22780436
The sheer levels of world historic asspain to devote swathes of text dedicated to refuting him by Marx was highly influential beyond low level internet memers. It makes a mockery of the moral cant couched in terms of what is simply a program of criminal conspiracy to overthrow governments and install oneself and one's comrades as slave tenders, because why not when you're inverting Pascal's Wager?

[Anonymous No.22781209]

>>22781186
I know Stirnerites love to brag about how Marx had to write something longer than Stirner's book to "refute" him but Marx also basically just put the same inherent philosophy into effect with the whole seizure of the means of production and ended up actually making Stirner's philosophy successful for implementation. This was something Stirner couldn't seemingly do since he thought accounting was a spook. I was always under the impression an inversion of Pascal's wager was Hedonism for all intents and purposes, Stirner and Marx both had aims of advancement in mind with their writings which is more of a focused objective than a mindless and circuitous enjoyment loop.

[Anonymous No.22781216]

>>22781209
accounting is a spook.

[Anonymous No.22781221]

>>22781216
Well debtors prison wasn't.

[Anonymous No.22781244]

>>22781221
>Well debtors prison wasn't.
I wasn't expecting that. Still, talk to an accountant and you'll see.

[Anonymous No.22781450]

>>22777723
It's in my egoistic interest to make you into an anti-egoist.

[Anonymous No.22781498]

>>22778746
not at all actually, read his book. At the end of the day, there's only the self and the spook.

[Anonymous No.22781509]

>>22777723
>the reason people don't like stirner is because he calls them out for being a subservient cuck of the pyramid despite being at the bottom of it
what if i climb to the top of the pyramid? i am aware of my deficiencies as a human, i have every complex imaginable... but i can do more than others can, i can think and act in ways others won't, i judge myself to be more competent than the many incompetents in my surrounding. Why not just push everyone down while playing along with the system to live a nice and easy life? why should i care about bringing down a system if i can use it to my own interest? Even if the system's values are not my own, it doesn't mean i cannot exploit it.

[Anonymous No.22781519]

>>22781450
not the guy you're replying to, but "anti-egoist" is a spook. It doesn't exist, a person is always egoist.
>but i'm an altruist
you only are because it pleases your ego, nothing more. You chose to not act in your own interest because you have been disillusioned by the "anti-egoist" spook.

[Anonymous No.22782028]

>>22781519
So then it’s a completely worthless philosophy if it applies to everyone. This is like making a philosophy out of eating food

[Anonymous No.22782087]

>>22777723
This, it is important to combine Stirner with Wittgenstein though so that you can understand the comprehensive boundaries of humans in conjunction with the proliferation of spooks

[Anonymous No.22782121]

>>22782028
>So then it’s a completely worthless philosophy if it applies to everyone
not necessarily, you don't have to believe it, you could see it as a spook and let your mind make its own conclusions, its own "creative nothings", as Stirner says. In this regard, my philosophy(or what i explained in my previous post) would be akin to a spook from your perspective.

[Anonymous No.22782317]

>>22782121
I understand what you are saying, but now it just feels like we have gone completely full circle

[Anonymous No.22782549]

You're not smart enough to create your own set of values to adhere too, you can't see the long term implications of your actions.

[Anonymous No.22782553]

>>22782549
t. subhuman

[Anonymous No.22782777]

Stirner threads are always polluted with /v/-tier subhuman.

[Anonymous No.22783477]

>>22778813
>either starve on the streets or work for a pittance
You have a broader range of choices. You can rob a bank, steal, blackmail, cheat the system, write some hit songs, find yourself an older rich woman etc etc. You are still thinking inside the equation but you have other options.