[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 25 KB, 535x668, stirner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3230632 No.3230632[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

describe Stirner's The Ego and his Own in a few sentences, covering the most important points of his ideology

>> No.3230633

Fuck spooks, get ego.

>> No.3230641

Stirner's gonna stirn

>> No.3230639

>>3230633
define 'spooks'
define 'ego'

>> No.3230640

>>3230639

No.

>> No.3230642
File: 173 KB, 745x541, stirner25.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3230642

Can't be done. And it's not ideology, it's philosophy. Just read his work.

>> No.3230643

>>3230640
we're getting nowhere then, with this kind of attitude.

>> No.3230646

>>3230643

I like it here.

>> No.3230648

>>3230642
>And it's not ideology, it's philosophy.

the definition of ideology -

Political, legal, moral, aesthetic, religious and <s>philosophical</s> beliefs and ideas system.

>> No.3230651

A) It's not an ideology.
B) Fuck ideology.

That's basically it.

>> No.3230653

>>3230651
wait, wait

is this what he actually talks about in his book, or are you defending his ideology by saying that it's NOT a work of ideology?

my head hurts.

>> No.3230656

>>3230651
It's still an ideology, lol.

>> No.3230662

I like to call Stirner a 'cognitive materialist', because his criticism of everyone else revolves around rectifying their delusions as to how ideas exist. Ideas exist by being thought, and they are thought by actually existing, concrete, material individuals. So, by having the power to think or not think of them, to think of them as true or false depending on your choice, you basically gain a lot of power as opposed to 'oh no, I have to do X and not Y because of religion/morals/democracy/patriotism/class'.

Now let me quickly address two criticisms:

a) Marx said 'the egoist is just a new ideal'. That is not true insofar as the conscious egoist is not something Stirner asks people to become, but he tries to give them the necessary insights to embrace this mode of self-relation out of their own volition. In order to do this, he wrote his book. This is also the solution to the problem that Stirner's ideas don't actually lead to any change, because spooks continue to rule over you through everyone else's belief in them. That is why you write a book and try to make them see the light (Stirner is a radical enlightenment figure, although people will deny this in order to defend their spooks).

>> No.3230664

420. Er'day.

>> No.3230673

>>3230643
No, YOU are not getting anywhere.

>> No.3230674

>>3230653
>>3230656

It's both. Also, as to why it's not an ideology, see my other post:

>>3230662

cont.:

b) Using the Unique One as the ultimate fundament of everything is incorrect because there is no free will (scientistic criticism) or because there is no individual (New Age faux bhuddist criticism). Our entire relation to the world exists in the form of experience that is fundamentally anchored to one specific pair of eyes, one specific brain, etc. Although other brains and eyes occur as objects in my experience as well, they do not have this privileged role. I experience myself as acting, whether or not I 'have' free will really doesn't matter. If 'no free will' was a reason not to talk about the actions, decisions, and intentions of individuals, it would also be a reason to not talk about anything at all, or talk about everything.

>> No.3230681
File: 29 KB, 482x800, 1344470343207.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3230681

>>3230662
>>3230674
intriguing; i am convinced. will try to read his book asap

>> No.3230690

>>3230674
Could "spooks" be anachronically understood here like some sort of fragmented version of Lacan's Big Other? I never read Stirner, but this is what I'm getting.

>> No.3230722

>>3230690
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34580/34580-h/34580-h.htm#Page_50

>> No.3230731

>>3230722
Thanks, will take a look.

>>3230708
You made a new thread, but I got your answer. Yeah, seems uncompatible. It's absolutely nothing like Lacan would ever say.

I'm still not getting why you say it's not an ideology though...

>> No.3230736

>>3230722
not that guy, but

>Behind the existing world they sought the "thing in itself,"
>"thing in itself"

should one introduce himself to Kant before attempting to read Stirner?

>> No.3230746

>>3230736
>hould one introduce himself to Kant before attempting to read Stirner?

No, that kind of logic was invented by academic philosophers in order to justify their life-choices. You don't need to read Kant, there is very close to 0 Kant in Stirner.

>> No.3230775

>>3230746
what if an individual isn't familiar with the 'thing in itself' (Kant's terminology, after all), should he read a brief description of its meaning in the dictionary and continue with Stirner? what are you proposing? are you saying that reading Kant wouldn't be beneficial to understand Stirner even in the slightest?

>> No.3230782

>>3230775
no one's familiar with the 'thing-in-itself', so it's no problem

>> No.3230785

>>3230782
i guess... ok, whatever, i'll just read it and report back.

>> No.3230788

>muh spooks

>> No.3230791

>>3230775

I recommend using this resource:

http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/enee.html

That is the full text, but the site also has pretty cool essays on the reception of Stirner's thought. As for the thing in itself, I am reasonably sure that Stirner uses it in a common-sensical way, not specifically Kantian. That is one aspect of why Stirner is so good, he refuses to speak in the mangled vocabulary of philosophy and instead uses normal language. This of course relates to Hegelian philosophy, before some analytical fanboys start crying.

>> No.3230793

lel

i'm going through The Ego and his Own book's amazon reviews and

>Ayn Rand mentioned multiple times
>Machiavelli

not so sure if i want to read it anymore ;_;

>> No.3230797

>>3230793
>not so sure if i want to read it anymore ;_;

Don't worry, these people don't know what they are talking about. Instead of amazon reviews, read this:

http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html

>> No.3230798

>>3230797
on it

thanks

>> No.3230813

>>3230798

There's a mistake in the English version though, Stirner wrote in the 1840s, not the 1940s.