/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2644238]

does anyone els think that max stirner is strangely appealing?

[Anonymous No.2644240]

It's because he's making the face and pose a classy German radical egoist would make while you sucked his cock.

[Anonymous No.2644246]

Not at all. Some anon once mentioned the similarity between Ron Paul fans and Max Stirner fans, and I'd have to agree with that. The general lack of his adherents makes him, if anything, repellent.

[Anonymous No.2644276]

>>2644246

read thought has been given to him by many philosophs

[Anonymous No.2644290]

>>2644246

is see the similarity between ron pauls political positions and Stirners Education

>amidoitrite?

[Anonymous No.2644291]

>>2644290
svp pars

[Anonymous No.2644304]

>>2644246
Equating stirner with ron paul isn't a criticism in itself. You need to explain why you disapprove of Ron Paul.

How come you didn't see that when you typed this???

[Anonymous No.2644306]

flavor of the month

[Anonymous No.2644309]

>>2644306

then enlight me

>faggot

[Anonymous No.2644323]

>filename

[Anonymous No.2644332]

>>2644323

wut

[Anonymous No.2644339]

>>2644304
I didn't equate Stirner with Paul, hoss. I noted that I agree with the comparison of their fanbase. This thread is about Stirner's appeal which is based on a number of things (several of which are separate from his writings), not about how good of a thinker he is.

[Anonymous No.2645616]

>>2644332
This is a sketch by Engels, if I'm not entirely mistaken, which depicts a group of thinkers in Vormärz Germany who called themselves Die Freien. They would get drunk and invent socialism, anarchism, liberalism and humanism.

[Anonymous No.2645619]

no because no one has read him

[Anonymous No.2645621]

>>2644246
oh shit it's not just on /lit/ that there are RONPAULR3VOLUTION-style stirnerfags?
seriously if his stuff is so good you faggots should just talk about his ideas without mentioning his name and then when i beg you to tell me where you got that from you can yell "MAX STIRNER NOW LICK THE SMEGMA OFF HIS DEAD GERMAN COCK" and i will, because THEN you have me, not by yelling RAED MAX STINER 2012 in every fucking philpsophy thread
FUCK YOU STIRNERFAGS

[Anonymous No.2645642]

>>2645621
okay. Basically Stirner says that you should do whatever you want, morals, rights and values are just people trying to get up in your shit. Historically, this criticism was made with respect to the invention of humanism, where liberals thought by being atheists but believing in universal human rights and the state etc., they weren't just getting rid of one system of domination in exchange for another, with Stirner totally calling them out on their bullshit. The amazing part is that still today the vast majority of people in the western world are emotionally and/or intellectually incapable of realizing the fundamentally heteronomic nature of humanism.

[Anonymous No.2645649]

>>2644238
What's so strange about his appeal? He makes the most thorough case for personal freedom in the history of thought.

[Anonymous No.2645653]

>>2645642
>implying collectivism isn't superior to individualism.

it's all about solidarity, bro. this "do whatever you want, humanism is just another way to control you" bullshit is for third graders. Humanism has made the world more peaceful to live in. You really want a bunch of motherfuckers running around, doing whatever the fuck they want with the kind of technology we're playing with today?

[Anonymous No.2645655]

>>2645649
So with the moral of murdering people is bad out the window, what kind of conditions do you think will prosper? Oh, that's right. Likely the same conditions we have now. Even if the world were overrun with Stirnerfags, a gang of more powerful people would eventually come together and lay down their law.

[Anonymous No.2645659]

>>2645653
You don't? Beta.

[Anonymous No.2645676]

>>2645642
this is true but incredibly banal
"values" are a fun game to play, does stirner think i should be doing something else if that's a good time?

[Anonymous No.2645696]

>>2645642
>Basically Stirner says that you should do whatever you want
No. Stirner says that everyone actually does. You can still be an hypocrite consciously or unconsciously, though.
Why defend altruism? I mean, if you're an hypothetical altruist you should be ok with me being an egoist. I want my benefit, you want my benefit, everybody's ok. Why try to convince me to care about you? Maybe because you're an egoist too?
>morals, rights and values are just people trying to get up in your shit
Not exactly. Morals, rights and values are created by humans. They're just tools. So you shouldn't forget that's all what they are, like a phone or a car, they should be useful to you, not you be useful to them.

I'm ok with the rest of your post.


>>2645653
>Humanism has made the world more peaceful to live in.
Yeah, the Enlightenment values really worked. Just a pair of world wars, capitalist crises and meaningless shit.
>You really want a bunch of motherfuckers running around, doing whatever the fuck they want with the kind of technology we're playing with today?
Welcome to 2012

[Anonymous No.2645710]

>>2645653
>Humanism has made the world more peaceful to live in.
Compared to..?

>You really want a bunch of motherfuckers running around, doing whatever the fuck they want with the kind of technology we're playing with today?
Yeah, because nobody does that already!

[Anonymous No.2645712]

>>2645655
Sure, I've got no problem with that. The personal realisation and thereby liberation is enough, I've never viewed Stirners thought as something that should be universally applied. It does have an almost therapeutic value on the personal scale though. A Stirnerite worldview rids one of a lot of hang-ups and serves as armour against the manipulation of others.

>>2645676
Stirner would probably agree that it's fun. It's just that he warns for the point where the game gets you under its spell and you turn out to serve your values, instead of your values serving you.

[Anonymous No.2645713]

>Individualism
>Good

You bitches know you can only pretend that individualism has any kind of good because thousands of years of collective labor and effort have put you in a comfortable enough position to do so, ye?

[Anonymous No.2645716]

>>2645713
Individualism =/= Nobody is allowed to work together under any circumstances ever. And how do you know that the world would have been worse if individualism was prevalent rather than collectivism?

[Anonymous No.2645719]

>>2645696
>Welcome to 2012
Ah, yes, we are truly in an age of anarchy where nobody obeys laws, power structures, or conforms to societal norms.

[Anonymous No.2645722]

>>2645713
>>2645713
"Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my concern! You think at least the "good cause" must be my concern? What's good, what's bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me. The divine is God's concern; the human, man's. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is - unique , as I am unique.

Nothing is more to me than myself!"
-The Ego and Its Own

Even if what you state is true, this is of no consequence. You seem to imply that there is somehow an indebtedness to the past.

[Anonymous No.2645723]

>>2645710
>Yeah, because nobody does that already!

A majority of people DON'T do that already and even the ones that do often have their personal limits and morals, which would apparently go out the window under Stirner's ideas.

[Anonymous No.2645724]

>>2645719
>implying the authorities aren't the motherfuckers doing what they want

[Anonymous No.2645727]

>>2645722

Why do you people actually find this institutionalized sociopathic garbage enlightening again?

>LOL IT'S ALL ABOUT ME GUIZ, WATEVA WATEVA I DO WHAT I WANT

It's time to grow up, Stirner.

[Anonymous No.2645728]

>>2645722
>complete bullshit

I guess it depends on how bad you don't want to be raped by the "unique" stirnerite who thinks that the sanctity of your asshole is "not altogether his concern!".

How can grown adults even take a quote like that seriously? It's telling you what you want to hear. "You're unique. You have no place in society. Other people's concerns are not your own!"

It's nihilism for prima donnas.

[Anonymous No.2645729]

>>2645727
True /v/-tier arguing right here

[Anonymous No.2645730]

>>2645723
Who says Stirner's ideas are to universally followed? Also, who says Stirnerites don't experienced love, friendship and altruism? It's just that they do this because they feel so themselves, not because someone says they ought to feel that way in every situations because that is dictated by Duty.

[Anonymous No.2645732]

>>2645724
No. The authorities don't do whatever the fuck they want. Some do, some don't. Most "authority" is so compartmentalized that only very few at the top truly have unchecked power, and while that is shit, it's still much better than the irresponsible idea of not being concerned for anyone but yourself.

[Anonymous No.2645735]

>>2645729

You're upset because you've realizes that's all it takes.

[Anonymous No.2645736]

>>2645730
Well, how good can a philosophy be if it can only be applied to a small group without fucking up a bunch of shit?

[Anonymous No.2645738]

>>2645735
What are you even trying to say?

[Anonymous No.2645740]

>>2645727
>stop being naughty, being naughty is immature

Okay.

>>2645728
It's not nihilism when the self is clearly valued. There is a hierarchy of values, just not a very complicated one. Therefore it is not nihilism.

Also, it is kind of typical that you suggest the victim role in a case of lawlessness. When I think of the absence of such obstacles, I think of all I would be able to do. You seem to think of all the things that can be done to you. I look for freedom, you look for safety. In the latter case herd morality is indeed often the better choice. That said, I don't want to risk my hide uslessly. I rather be a wolf amongst sheep than a wolf amongst wolves. I'd rather be the only Stirnerist than one of many.

[Anonymous No.2645741]

for the first time on this board, stirnerfags are actually explaining his ideas in a useful way
and these ideas are so obvious and boring to me that i think stirnerfags are... fags. for being so worked up about this shit
and yet people here are not brushing the ideas aside as banalities, but as childishness
this amuses me... maybe the stirnerfags have a point
but why would you want others to think like this if they don't already? it makes no sense

[Anonymous No.2645745]

>>2645736
If it has value for me personally than that is enough. That's part of the whole egoism thing, you see. Not being universally applicable is no argument against an individualist philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2645746]

>>2645738

It's called a typo. Don't be dense.

Oh, Stirnerfag, nevermind.

[Anonymous No.2645749]

>>2645746
Not a Stirnerfag. And were you trying to say that your shitty argument is all it takes to disprove Stirnerism? Because that argument isn't good enough to prove 1 + 1 = 2, let alone that Stirnerism is false.

[Anonymous No.2645750]

>>2645741

>and yet people here are not brushing the ideas aside as banalities, but as childishness

I'd say they're being treated as both. And rightfully so.

[Anonymous No.2645751]

>>2645741
You should read Stirner before judging Stirner's philosophy, not just 4chan. I don't there's ever been someone who has actually read Stirner who wasn't worked up about it.

As to your question, it seems a bit counterintuitive indeed. But I would say one does so for the sheer enjoyment of doing so. Stirner's own intention for writing the book might shed some light on the matter:

"Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it.
If your weal lay at my heart, I should act as the church did in withholding the Bible from the laity, or Christian governments, which make it a sacred duty for themselves to 'protect the common people from bad books'. But not only not for your sake, not even for truth's sake either do I speak out what I think. No —
I sing as the bird sings
That on the bough alights;
The song that from me springs
Is pay that well requites
I sing because — I am a singer. But I use you for it because I — need ears"

[Anonymous No.2645759]

>>2645751
you seem to be implying (via stirner) that fellating the ghost of stirner on 4chan is your reason for living...

[Anonymous No.2645760]

>>2645741
I find it more interesting that you think Stirnerfags have a point because they're dismissed as childish. I'm curious as to why that stuck out to you.

[Anonymous No.2645763]

>>2645760
from what the stirnerfags are saying i understand his position as follows: "everybody is doing whatever they want, thus (and more importantly it seems) denying this is hypocrisy"
but this is banal, of course this is true, the point is that something must be built on top of that (in order to have something interesting to do) -- does stirner say anything about that i have no idea (the stirnerfags haven't told me yet)
but that others could see the basic statement and cry "childish!" means that it mustn't be as banal as i think, if it is fundamentally disagreed with
it could just be that it is misunderstood, or seen as something else, or i haven't understood him, or the 4chan stirnerfags don't know what they're talking about, of course

[Anonymous No.2645784]

One should keep in mind with Stirner that the Young Hegelians had very heated debates and wrote powerful polemics. His denial of moral obligation is written against the logical implication of Humanism that private property must be abolished, etc. and the idea that the individual is obliged to sacrifice itself for the revolution that is to bring about true Humanism (what we today would call socialist utopia). Stirner denied that the individual should sacrifice themselves. As another example of how drastic the polemics were back then, in his reply to Stirner Marx denied that to change one's consciousness has any effect on the state of things. However, with Stirner's help people can realize that it is not their duty to die for anything, but to live for themselves.

[Anonymous No.2645842]

>>2645741
The way the argument is made in Stirner is significant philosophically. The argument of the Young Hegelians before him were classical philosophical developments of arguments, etc. Stirner's Egoism includes a radical critique of language in which he asserts that no term or label can express him. He is not merely a human, not merely a man, etc. No words express him (which seems intuitively obvious, but at that time and especially for philosophy it is significant). He asserts his own existence as prior to language, which is significant also in light of recent shenanigans like Derrida's il n'y a pas d'hors-texte or Lacans contention that language is prior to the self, and similar bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2645849]

Yes, I want his dick.

[Anonymous No.2645882]

>>2645653
>You really want a bunch of motherfuckers running around, doing whatever the fuck they want with the kind of technology we're playing with today?

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/morgan_j_p_chase_and_company/index.html

[Anonymous No.2645893]

>>2645882
This Reddit-level logic has already been addressed, hoss. Keep up.

[Anonymous No.2645900]

I like Stirner, but don't support Ron Paul.

Stirner, in fact, didn't have a problem with communism. He just believed it could rise out of everyone's self-interest.

Personally, I'm an individualist-leaning anarchist, but don't think capitalism could exist without the state.

Things that spring to mind about Ron Paul which Stirner wouldn't agree with:

>homophobia
>anti-abortion (Paul dances around the issue by saying he wants the states to decide, but in reality wants to define abortion as murder, then let the states decide whether or not to allow murder)
>anti-immigration

Also, Stirner didn't believe states had a legitimate right to exist in general. Paul just wants smaller government.

tl;dr Max Stirner was not a Republitarian. Stop that.

[Anonymous No.2645902]

Egoism/individualism as Stirner envisions it isn't incompatible with collectivism in the political sense.

The individual can absolutely support society. The individual should not, however, be subjugated to, or worse, obliterated in favor of society.

[Anonymous No.2645905]

>>2645759
I'd rather say that spouting my own thoughts is one of the ways I enjoy myself, /lit/ is one of the outlets or tools if you will to do this.

Defending Stirner is interesting, because most of the the objections one seems to encounter are rather knee-jerk emotional insults instead of reasonable objections, which is partly because most of the people who try to dismiss Stirner haven't read his works, but still feel kind of disturbed by what he represents.

[Anonymous No.2645907]

>>2645905
> most of the the objections one seems to encounter are rather knee-jerk emotional insults instead of reasonable objections

There have been plenty of reasonable objections in this thread.

[Anonymous No.2645910]

>>2645900
>stop that
B-but, nobody compared Stirner and Paul...nobody at all.

[Anonymous No.2645928]

>>2645910
Ah. I misread. Just comparing their fans. Okay, never mind.

Anyway, I genuinely like Stirner's philosophy, but I do think it's a bit... light. Like an appetizer for what should be a much more substantial philosophy. I wish someone else would take the ball and run with it.

Anyone else feel this way at all?

[Anonymous No.2645934]

>>2645928
Not the same person you're replying to, but it's cool. Nice to see someone on /lit/ admitting a mistake.

Also, I feel exactly the same way about Stirner. It's like he took 350 pages to say what he could've said in 200, then stopped when he should've written 500 more.

[Anonymous No.2646064]

>>2645928
>>2645934
Stirner is indeed rather wordy in presenting his case. In his defense, I think this was exemplary for the time, especially in the light of Hegel's influence.

>>2645907
I've only seen people argue the undesirability of his thought, not necessarily objections to the structure of his argument. What would you say is an important objection to Stirner's line of thought?

Also, what is this similarity people see between adherents of Stirnerism and Ron Paul sympathisers? Is it merely the rather fanatic backing of their hero's or is there something more substantial to it? I'm not very aware of what goes on in American politics.

[Anonymous No.2646157]

>>2645907
>reasonable objections
lol all of them were properly proved bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2646183]

>>2646064
"revolutionary thinker"
"maverick, doesn't give a fuck about vested interests"
posts face shot constantly
says people should check him out without explaining why, and if so only in a vague, retarded way (this thread is a nice change that i had to demand)
and yes, the fanaticism

[Anonymous No.2646224]

>>2646183
Not all people who like Stirner's theories frequent /lit/.
In fact, outside /lit/ I've never met anyone who knew Stirner before I told them about him (except the professor that told me about him).

[Anonymous No.2646247]

>>2646224
Same here, I've never met any Stirnerists in the bar or something. Or maybe they were cunning and silent about it.

>>2646183
As somewhat of a Stirner enthousiast I'll keep this in mind. Although I take great joy in Stirner's mischievous face popping up without much inclination to do so. He's sort of a trickster archetype kind of guy.

[Anonymous No.2647567]

The other day I asked for more like Stirner and someone suggested SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED. Where do people get the similarities between Rand and Stirner? Rand's Objectivism is really not that much like Stirner's egoism. I can see vague surface similarities but that's it.

[Anonymous No.2647580]

Doesn't Stirner's case depend on being a clairvoyant? Assuming every humanist doesn't do what they do out of egoistic reasons. When I read Stirner's book I thought the main ideas are something most modern people do already.

And stirner defenders seem to also ignore the fact that Stirner used immoral examples as potential outcomes of his philosophy. And prophesied having a big destructive influence on the future that has certainly not come to pass. Isn't his philosophy simply self defeating past the personal level? Then why keep showing this nonsense to others?

[Anonymous No.2647585]

>>2647580
>And stirner defenders seem to also ignore the fact that Stirner used immoral examples as potential outcomes of his philosophy. And prophesied having a big destructive influence on the future that has certainly not come to pass. Isn't his philosophy simply self defeating past the personal level? Then why keep showing this nonsense to others?
He also said that unselfishness does exist. And every time humanity goes through a major change, society goes apeshit as it adjusts. He did use immoral examples, but never said anything along the lines of "know what's cool? Being a dick." Stirner was rejecting dedication to a list of ethical rules, and his prediction was basically saying "even if this happens, people are better off than they would be as mindless slaves to ideology."

[Anonymous No.2647588]

>>2647567
Their only similarities are that they both produce similarly selfish and irresponsible douchebags.

[Anonymous No.2647590]

>>2647567
It goes a bit like this:

>hurrr egoist assholes all the same I haven't read shit

[Anonymous No.2647593]

If the egoist isn't an asshole, then he's not an egoist.

[Anonymous No.2647595]

>>2647593
Only if you define asshole by humanist/altruist standards. According to the egoist worldview an egoist isn't necessarily an asshole, he's just a rational person.

[Anonymous No.2647597]

>>2647595

So what you're saying is, he's an asshole.

[Anonymous No.2647598]

>>2647597
No, I'm saying he's wonderful.

[Anonymous No.2647609]

>>2647598

Wonderful according to a fringe, narcissistic, insane, incredibly small minority view.

To the rest of us, he's an asshole.

[Anonymous No.2647621]

>>2647609
>Wonderful according to a fringe, narcissistic, insane, incredibly small minority view.

As with anything great on this earth.

[Anonymous No.2647625]

>>2647609
>STOP THINKING WHAT I DONT THINK!!11!!!1
pleb

[Anonymous No.2647630]

>>2647625

Of course you should stop thinking what I don't think. I'm the greatest human being on Earth and you should all be kowtowing before my greatness.

[Anonymous No.2647635]

>>2647609
Altruists are often such a hateful, intolerant bunch. The (passive) agression towards egoists is ironic. The altruists hates everyone that isn't like him, while the egoist at most faintly smiles at the altruistic endeavours of his fellow man.

"That the lambs are upset about the great predatory birds is not a strange thing, and the fact that they snatch away small lambs provides no reason for holding anything against these large birds of prey. And if the lambs say among themselves, “These predatory birds are evil, and whoever is least like a predatory bird, especially anyone who is like its opposite, a lamb— shouldn’t that animal be good?” there is nothing to find fault with in this setting up of an ideal, except for the fact that the birds of prey might look down on them with a little mockery and perhaps say to themselves, “We are not at all annoyed with these good lambs. We even love them. Nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.”"

[Anonymous No.2647638]

>>2647635

>complain about passive aggression
>post passive aggressive paragraph

[Anonymous No.2647683]

I try not to be a dick because I feel bad when I hurt other people. I do nice things for other people, because it makes me happy. I don't do nice things because I believe I "should."

I consider myself an egoist and not an asshole.

[Anonymous No.2647691]

>>2647683
Cool, so do most people. But they wouldn't look for a label for it to prove their individuality to others and themselves.

[Anonymous No.2647692]

>>2647638
a) it is not passive aggressive
b) it is Nietzsche, not Stirner (just in case anyone didn't know, it is from the first Abhandlung in Zur Genealogie der Moral)

[Anonymous No.2647696]

>>2647692

>a) it is not passive aggressive

It totally is.

[Anonymous No.2647752]

>>2647580
>Isn't his philosophy simply self defeating past the personal level?
It is.
>Then why keep showing this nonsense to others?
I do because I really think that a society of individualists would be more responsible and difficult to manipulate, thus becoming "better" according to my standards.

>>2647593
lol if you say so. I'm an egoist and my friends and family wouldn't agree with you.

>>2647691
That label is for a philosophical perspective. Just like humanist, naturalist, vitalist, pessimist, utilitarian,...

[Anonymous No.2647757]

>>2647683
>I feel bad when I hurt other people

So you're still a slave to social conditioning and aren't self-realized.

Not an egoist.

[Anonymous No.2647766]

>>2647752
>I do because I really think that a society of individualists would be more responsible and difficult to manipulate, thus becoming "better" according to my standards.

Stay away from me with your philosophy. I just want to watch 16 and pregnant and the Kardashians while stuffing my top hole with greasy food.

[Anonymous No.2647772]

>>2647766
Since egoism is about blindly following your own will ignorant of the fact it's pre-determined you can easily do both!

[Anonymous No.2647776]

>>2647757
You clearly didn't get what's the deal. If you don't like to do something and you get no profit from it just don't do it. That's what an egoist would think. We're part of this society, most of us wouldn't enjoy harming others no matter if we get punished or not.

[Anonymous No.2647784]

>>2647772
haha it's not. That's precisely what moral egoism critiques.

>>2647766
Well, this is why I don't like democracy.

[Anonymous No.2647823]

>>2647784
>implying democracy is the cause of obesity problems and escapist television shows, and not the result of social-economic situation

[Anonymous No.2647837]

>>2647823
>Implying implications I didn't even imply.
Learn to comprehend what you read.

[Anonymous No.2648121]

>>2647823
>implying the Spartans didn't have people whipped for being fat and banned dumb entertainment and created healthy, harde people with both physical and mental strength
>implying such nurture of the general populace is possible onder democracy

[Anonymous No.2648137]

>>2648121
>Sparta
>nurture of the general people
0/10.

[Anonymous No.2648147]

>>2648121

Spartans were horrible fascist scum though.

[Anonymous No.2648157]

>>2648147
Generally any societies that put art or "virtue" on a pedestal have been horrible. I'll stick with democracy thanks, fuck your stirner and nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.2648170]

>>2648157

But... I don't like Stirner or Nietzche. And Sparta wasn't a Democracy.

[Anonymous No.2648325]

Ron Paul has more in common with Lenin than anyone, they basically both are saying "I desire the withering of the state too, put me in charge and I will do that."

[Anonymous No.2648419]

>>2648157
But then surely all societies make some kind of virtue, or collective schema, of what is considered acceptable? This is precisely what Stirner addresses. He advocates not allowing oneself to be duped into instinctively following societal virtues, and to view things from a more critical and personal perspective, right?

[Anonymous No.2648426]

>>2648325
>Ron Paul is like Lenin
so he's an even better leader than we thought?

[Anonymous No.2648429]

>>2648419
Well I don't see why a stirnerite should hate democracy then. Like many of them seem to do on here.

[Anonymous No.2648444]

>>2648429
While it is true that being an advocate of Stirner doesn't mean being opposed to democracy, it is also true that some people are merely obstreperous reactionaries, and will decry anything which is the accepted norm for no real reason.

[Anonymous No.2648448]

>>2648444
I personally hate democracy because it allows demagogues dominate the whole society through the stupidity of the majority. Democracy as we know it turns politics into a popularity contest.

[Anonymous No.2648452]

>>2648448
Cue meritocracy

[Anonymous No.2648455]

>>2648452
Cue meritocracy combined with massive educational reform.

[Anonymous No.2648468]

>>2648448
I agree, we need some kind of system whereby the intelligent and hard working are rewarded the most.

Also, we need some kind of libertarian freedom whereby people are allowed to own their own bodies without fear of being locked in a cage for ingesting certain chemicals.

I blame the bullshit propaganda and irrelevant mainstream entertainment that's being pumped into kids heads at a young age. we really need to address the issue of childrens education to save the generation of tomorrow before its too late.

[Anonymous No.2648478]

>>2648468
>"we need some kind of system whereby the intelligent and hard working are rewarded the most."

So, you mean anarchy, right?

[Anonymous No.2648508]

>>2648478
No, that other one.

[Anonymous No.2648515]

>>2648508
>fascism
>the intelligent and hard working being rewarded

Did you miss the whole 20th century?

[Anonymous No.2648517]

>>2648515
Fascism is quite meritocratic, in the sense that those who serve the state best will flourish.

[Anonymous No.2648518]

>>2648517
look up meritocracy in the dictionary

[Anonymous No.2648519]

>>2648515
I think he wants a technocracy, but he doesn't know it.

[Anonymous No.2648521]

>>2648517
Yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, in fact, far from it.

[Anonymous No.2648522]

Didn't Deep and Edgy once say nazism was the last chance for progress?

[Anonymous No.2648525]

>>2648518
Look up fascism.

Meritocracy always requires some form of measurement of merit. A state collective with a clear hierarchy of values provides this. Anarchy doesn't. Meritocracy requires a judge.

[Anonymous No.2648529]

>>2648525
>IQ

[Anonymous No.2648533]

>>2648529
Surely you must be joking. Pic related, it's your tank commander.

[Anonymous No.2648534]

>philosophy pretty much says follow your self-interests
>everybody does this already, without choice

[Anonymous No.2648537]

>>2648534
You can still be more or less skilled in following your self-interest though. Many are quite horrible at it.

[Anonymous No.2648539]

>>2648533
He would be higher up than a tank commander. What are you on about?

[Anonymous No.2648543]

>>2648537
>clairvoyance

Stirner should be added to the banned content list.

[Anonymous No.2648545]

>>2648539
Merit isn't solely distinguishable by some narrow measurement of intelligence. It needs actual judges who are capable of defining what a person can do best, or at least better than others. A lot of factors come into play. Things would need to be very organised in a hierarchical manner to achieve this. Court like. Even then, the values need to be dictated from higher up. Otherwise you end up with an anarchist comity arguing about their tastes in architecture and society stagnating.

[Anonymous No.2648550]

>people still arguing about their archaic political theories
The correct answer is weighted democracy. The power of your vote is determined by your IQ.

[Anonymous No.2648567]

>>2648550
So you would seriously bind a higher ability to solve puzzles with a competence in ethical judgement?

[Anonymous No.2648573]

Enlightened absolutism is the only way to go. The perfect ruler would probably be above humanity. An AI perhaps. Basically God running on Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.2648578]

>>2648567
Yes.

[Anonymous No.2648581]

>>2648543
>Stirner should be added to the banned content list.

Well, if we were going to ban discussion of authors just because it would make the board better, yes, but since that's impossible and this board is largely unmoderated... I mean, it's not like people don't post Ayn Rand, and it's not like we couldn't ban many other terrible topics of discussion. Fucking litmod.

[Anonymous No.2648582]

>>2648573
Escort yourself to the fiction thread kiddo, adults are discussing here.

[Anonymous No.2648607]

>>2648582
>implying adhering to benevolent despotism isn't a viable political stance
>implying self-overcoming by creating something greater than yourself is childish

[Anonymous No.2648626]

>>2648534
>philosophy says be aware that you're following your own self-interest BECAUSE everybody does this already, without choice
>philosophy says love and respect yourself, and that unselfishness comes not from dedication to an ideal of unselfishness, but from respecting that others are individual "egos" like yourself, and not commodities to be bought or sold

[Anonymous No.2648675]

>>2648626
Which philosophy are you talking about? Stirnerism says that everything that isn't you is only relevant as far as it is yours. There's no Kantian "means to an end" taboo.

[Anonymous No.2648682]

>ethics
>domain of philosophy

[Anonymous No.2648785]

>>2648682
Are you actually trying to make a point..?

[Anonymous No.2648805]

>>2648785
People are discussing ethics in a philosophy thread. I'm trying to set them straight since it's pointless.

[Anonymous No.2648824]

I saw this thread and I sneezed six times in quick succession. I'm officially allergic to Stirner since Mannheim's paradox.

[Anonymous No.2648826]

>>2648675
"Do you suppose unselfishness is unreal and nowhere extant? On the contrary, nothing is more ordinary! One may even call it an article of fashion in the civilized world…Where does unselfishness begin? Right where an end ceases to be our end…"

[Anonymous No.2648840]

>>2648824
>Mannheim's paradox
Well Stirnerites?

[Anonymous No.2648845]

>>2648840
I'm having trouble finding a clear definition of this paradox. Would you be so kind as to describe it?

[Anonymous No.2648849]

>>2648845
I'm not the guy that brung it up but I found this,
>Mannheim’s Paradox, which asks whether it is possible ever to think oneself out of one’s paradigm, because we are trapped by the very patterns of our thought process, and they themselves belong to our prevailing paradigm. It is the snake swallowing its own tail.

[Anonymous No.2648856]

>>2648849
So basically that one can never be fully free from the influence of ones environment? I don't see that as a specific objection to Stirnerism. If anything, Stirner is more concious about the power words and concepts exercise over us than most and warns us to be aware of this.

[Anonymous No.2649512]

.bmp

[Anonymous No.2649539]

>>2648856
True, the main advantage of moral egoism is that's a perspective which makes you aware of what really influences you. Moral egoism seems the easiest moral philosophy to follow from a biologicist perspective.

[Anonymous No.2650174]

So, are we done here?

[Anonymous No.2650298]

bamp