/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3633253]

Hello friends.

I'm currently rerereading The Ego and Its Own since I got into the habit of being spooked too much again. I'll follow it up with Stirner's Critics and in the meanwhile I'm also reading Mackay's biography of him.

In addition to that I'm reading Novatore and have read a few little things by James L. Walker and Benjamin Tucker, although I'm not sure they're worth it.

What comes next regarding Stirner? Secundary literature? Other authors that were inspired by him? What did he leave standing in his wake? Should I go post-structuralist or something?

[Anonymous No.3633277]

Somehow, Rand is a troll who is loathed while Stirner is embraced and even lauded.

Can someone tell me why this is?

[Anonymous No.3633279]

>>3633277
because rand encourages people to work

the faggots who come here obviously don't like work

[Anonymous No.3633283]

>>3633277
Because
1. one had original and valuable thoughts while the other's were derivative and toxic and
2. they aren't really anything alike at all

[Anonymous No.3633293]

>>3633277
Because Stirner's egoism isn't just about being some dick who fucks over everyone. Objectivism would just be another form of slavery to Stirner.

[Anonymous No.3633303]

>>3633277
Stirner is an actual philosopher who said things unsaid before of great impact and importance, Rand can't really think at all.

If German Stirner anon is around: I'd be glad to hear your opinion on the OP. Also, how is that essay coming along?

[Anonymous No.3633307]

>>3633293
>Because Stirner's egoism isn't just about being some dick who fucks over everyone.

And nor is Rand's. I guess you haven't read Rand at all and that you're informed by other uninformed dolts on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.3633317]

>>3633307
Rand didn't grasp that egoism isn't compatible with rights. Rand wrote this:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

She's an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3633864]

ok, sell me on Stirner.
What does he have to say that others haven't said before? I'm serious, all I have heard about him seems to point that he is some kind of modern Cynic, skeptic and moral nihilist who advocates a type of hedonistic egoism.

Why do so many on /lit/ have a hard on for him?

[Anonymous No.3634006]

>>3633864
He does this trick where all concepts are laid bare as merely that. That might sound obvious, but Stirner has a way of getting under your skin and sabotaging all ideals and dogma in such a repetitive and hypnotising way that after reading him you can never really believe in some greater cause to which you can sacrifice yourself. He murders ideology. Diogenes shows how the things we own end up owning us. Stirner shows how the thoughts we have end up having us. He cleans your mind.

[Anonymous No.3634020]

>>3634006
In addition to that: Stirnerist egoism is better described as 'selfist' than 'selfish'. Ultimately I think that he is more akin to Bodhidharma than to Ayn Rand.

[Anonymous No.3634104]

>>3634020
>Bodhidharma

Interesting, what's his concept of self/ego like? Does he like Nietzsche and the Buddhists, realize that it is ultimately a construct superimposed on a stream of ideas/thoughts/sense impressions?

[Anonymous No.3634109]

>>3634104
I meant, Stirner of course, not Bodhidharma

[Anonymous No.3634214]

>>3634104
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Max_Stirner#The_Self

[Anonymous No.3634365]

>>3634214
>creative nothing
>without foundations
>dat emptiness

I think we understand each other

[Anonymous No.3634423]

>>3634365
I think we do.

>mfw before I was born

[Anonymous No.3635468]

>>3633303
>If German Stirner anon is around: I'd be glad to hear your opinion on the OP. Also, how is that essay coming along?

I was going to post anyway. Honestly, if OP just wants to un-spook himself, I think it's not necessarily an effective path to go and read more philosophy... I am still working on the parallels to post-structuralism, there is definitely a lot of interesting stuff there, but I think this is mostly interesting as an intellectual exercise.

Personally I think a good diet and some exercise go a long way, also try to get laid. The main weakness from my point of view is that Stirner seems very unconcerned that it should be difficult to get rid of spooks. There are two sides to this, the rational argument, where he destroys idealism and I'm pretty sure we can agree with this, no one has been able to refute him. The other side is the problem of psychological attachment. Here Stirner exhibits a pretty good instinct by pointing towards libido and the body as the places where spooks can be fought off (instead of speech or thought, a joyous cry. Also, see the episode of the young girl whose sexuality frightens her because it collides with her ideals and this suppression makes her vitality wilt).

Personally, I feel that I am luckily relatively unspooked, but there is a combination of residual attachment to values (family, society, etc.) and their efficacy in society (whether this is because others believe in them, or because they too are scared to admit it because they think they are alone in their disbelief, I cannot tell) that effectively lead me to pursue a path that is a compromise between spook-life and goat-life.

[Anonymous No.3635496]

>>3635468

Basically, the main problem with implementing Stirner's ideas would be located in how our psyche functions, the interface between our bodily existence (as a kind of animal) and society (as an abstraction that gains material efficacy through consensus [or lateral invisibility...], this might be what Marxists call 'Realabstraktion', I'm not sure). If you want to pursue this direction further, I recommend Bernd Laska, who relates Stirner to la Mettrie and pre-orgone Wilhelm Reich in the way their discoveries of a radical atheism (that extends to morals as functionally religious) were suppressed in the history of thought. You can google him, his homepage has some good articles.

Personally, I like Gestalt Therapy, although I haven't been able to look into that in detail yet, but unlike psychoanalysis, it does place that huge a weight on the unconscious but deals with how you can navigate consciousness in a more healthy way, and it has the cool feature that exercises exist that you can do yourself without a therapist. I also would like to try to get Korzybski into the boat, but I haven't read him yet. Those two are more recommendations based on intuition than experience...

[Anonymous No.3635499]

>>3635496
>*does

doesn't, sorry.

[Anonymous No.3635519]

>>3635496
You should read Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson, it serves as a good introduction to General Semantics as well as other things you may be interested in.

[Anonymous No.3635536]

>>3633253
Rand had the audacity to claim moral high ground (or any morality at all).

[Anonymous No.3635539]

>>3635468
>>3635496
Helpful as always, thanks. I'll look into those names. I think a certain emphasis on a deliberately grounded physicality is a good approach as well. Sort of like both the Cynics and the Cyrenaics did, however contradictory that may seem. Perhaps even akin to the whole zen buddhist 'constant pointing to things while keeping your mouth shut' sort of endeavours. As far as that's concerned zazen and Stirner may go very well together.

[Anonymous No.3635574]

>I do not want the liberty of men, nor their equality; I want only my power over them, I want to make them my property, i.e. material for enjoyment. And, if I do not succeed in that, well, then I call even the power over life and death, which Church and State reserved to themselves – mine.

Why do people call Stirner an anarchist? If he is one, then any fascist can be one too, as long as they don't think of themselves as subservient to the State and the rest of fascist ideas and ideals.

[Anonymous No.3635578]

Could somebody give me Stirner's philosophy in a nut-shell?

[Anonymous No.3635588]

>>3634006

That sounds super interesting. I rented Ego and His Own from my library but his style of writing can be somewhat difficult.

[Anonymous No.3635596]

>>3635519
>Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson
>serves as a good introduction to General Semantics
you gotta be shitting, nigga

[Anonymous No.3635597]

>>3635578
stirner philosupy b cool n shit eyo
ego n shit n spoox aye aye

fuck off

[Anonymous No.3635598]

>>3635574
He's more of a forerunner of individualist anarchism. I wouldn't call Stirner himself an anarchist in a conventional sense. It's the individualist or egoist part that should be noted if you want to place him in the anarchist tradition though. He rejects all authority but doesn't keep a sort of collectivist ethic around to replace it. He is very thorough in the rejection of such baggage. Most anarchists are idealists and utopians working towards some preconceived state. Stirner merely frees himself of all artificial inhibitions in this very moment. These notions taken to their practical extremities lead to illegalism and such, but this way of thinking is just as compatible with the life of Diogenes as that of Alexander.

[Anonymous No.3635602]

>>3635588
Yeah, it takes a little while to warm up to his circle and jab sort of kaleidoscope, but once you get the hang of it it's quite enjoyable.

[Buddhanon No.3635695]

>>3635539
I haven't read Stirner, but it seems like the main difference between him and Mahayana is that he wants to eliminate 'spooks' while in Mahayana, you don't eliminate them, rather you realize their emptiness and then continue to live in/with them. I mean, Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyikakarika goes to great lengths to explain how EVERYTHING is empty, including the four noble truths, the dharma, the Buddha, etc. But that doesn't seem to be a basis for him to reject any of it, rather to embrace it in a new light.

I think this is best illustrated in this short passage:

>Before I studied Zen, mountains were mountains, and water was
water. After studying Zen for some time, mountains were no longer
mountains, and water was no longer water. But now, after studying Zen longer, mountains are just mountains, and water is just water.

- Master Qinyuan, compendium of the five lamps

It may not be much of a difference however, because Stirner may just want you to be authentic in what you do and not spooked, so they are probably really going for the same thing.

Anyways, Stirner has been added to my reading list

[Anonymous No.3635697]

>>3635695
>emptiness
what
why are you playing with void concepts

[Buddhanon No.3635717]

>>3635697
It's an interesting parallel, at first glance, the theory of Shunyata, when applied to ethics, seems similar to what Stirner was doing. Though his conclusions (basically egoism no?) and the conclusions of the Madhyamikas (two truths doctrine, affirmation of altruism) differ.

Then again I've only read a few articles on the man's philosophy, so maybe some other anon could make the similarities/differences clearer.

[Anonymous No.3635724]

Stirner and Rand espouse the same ideologies. The only difference is that Rand emphasises working, which the neckbeard autists on 4chan obviously dislike.

[Anonymous No.3635936]

>>3635724
Must feel pretty bad too lack the mental capacity to comprehend or even read Stirner.

[Anonymous No.3635945]

>>3635695
Stirner didn't mean to do away with all ideas, he meant to not be possessed by ideas. Living your life in such a way that you live it in service of some ideal, of a mere concept, seemed delusional to him. A spook in this sense is basically an idea or concept seen in such a way that it is regarded as an actual entity or at least more than an idea or concept. In that way I guess you could draw a parallel between how Mahayana Buddhism and Stirner both regarded thought. Something that should one be aware of for what it is lest it be elevated to an object of idolatry and thereby becoming a havoc wreaking parasite.

[Anonymous No.3636203]

If zen-buddhists and taoists agree that by ending our desires (our will as Schopenhauer called it), or at least make pact in peace with our desires, ipso facto, we liberate ourselves from suffering. Spooks are best fought off in our libido and our body as >>3635468 pointed out. Would that be relatively short-term? Before liberating ourselves from our physical desires, we must liberate ourselves from mental desires i.e spooks via our will?

[Anonymous No.3636221]

>>3636203
Liberation lies in non-attachment, not detachment.

[Anonymous No.3636239]

>>3636221
Would you mind distinguishing the difference?

[Anonymous No.3636271]

>>3636239
Non-attachment comes down to more of a take it or leave it attitude, detachment is more of an actively doing away with stuff.

Let's say attachment is going to the liquor store everyday for your needed fix, non-attachment is having a drink sometimes and not pining for it when you have to do without and detachment is teetotalism because you fear demon rum. Both radical indulging and abstinence in this example are positions that are based in a sort of preoccupation in which the object at hand is a fetter.

[Anonymous No.3636300]

>>3636271
Could non-attachment eventually lead to detachment? By not attaching yourself to liquor everyday--you're not pining for it no longer--eventually you stop drinking liquor altogether. Myself, I am not a drinker. So if I were to never a drop of liquor in my life. Is that still technically non-attachment, or is that now considered to be detachment?

[Anonymous No.3636303]

>>3636300
never have a drop*

[Anonymous No.3636323]

>>3636300
This might be far fetched with the liquor example, but detachment can become an attachment in itself if it is becomes a burden and leads to suffering. This is a story that comes to mind regarding the difference between practising non-attachment and detachment:

Tanzan and Ekido were once travelling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.

Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.

"Come on, girl," said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.

Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. "We monks don't do near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"

"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"

[Anonymous No.3636341]

>>3636323
Ah, thank you greatly. This sort of returns to the idea of 'living in the moment', and not 'in the future'. By pining for something, you're desiring for it in the future. By taking it as it comes at you e.g drinking liquor and not pining to drink again in the future, it would be non-attachment.

[Anonymous No.3636364]

>>3636341
Something like that, yes. I've oversimplified it here though, but I'm sure there are other people here who are more knowledgeable concerning Buddhist concepts than can elaborate beyond such a basic grasp.