Any good critiques of the Stirnerbird? (No, the German Cry-deontology is not good.)

File: 286 KB, 750x733, Ohyes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 07:25:51 2013 No.4284087 [DELETED]

Any good critiques of the Stirnerbird? (No, the German Cry-deontology is not good.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 08:05:52 2013 No.4284144 >>4284087 Bump for interest, I never heard of a good one either.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 10:26:02 2013 No.4284390 >>4284087 Well, there's Marx's and Engel's The German Ideology. But you said "good", so I dunno...

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 10:32:02 2013 No.4284406 >>4284087 What is with all the stirner threads lately? From the ashes of obscurity Stiner's popularity rises up in /lit/ ?

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 10:36:02 2013 No.4284419

>>4284406

/lit/ has been the Max Stirner fan club for years now.

I, too, would be interested to see a GOOD critique of Stirner. Because all the ones I've read fundamentally misunderstand him, or are simply just retarded (Camus, I'm talkin' 'bout you).

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 10:39:02 2013 No.4284429 >>4284406 >>4284419 Stirner's been known and discussed on /lit/ since forever, but that's more a relation of love/hate than an actual fan club.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 10:40:02 2013 No.4284430

The problem with Stirner is that a lot of other thinkers prefer to give him the silent treatment because it's a whole lot easier than taking on his ideas. When you look at how deliberately and systematically he is ignored by almost everyone you can't help but get a craving for tinfoil.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 10:43:03 2013 No.4284435 >>4284419 >or are simply just retarded (Camus, I'm talkin' 'bout you). To add to the tinfoil: The section of Camus' The Rebel on Stirner is omitted from the majority of English editions including Penguin's.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 10:43:03 2013 No.4284436 Max Stirner's Egoism by John P. Clark

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 10:45:02 2013 No.4284441 >>4284436 Could you give an idea of what his criticisms are?

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 10:56:03 2013 No.4284465

>>4284441
It's not looking good:

This is a great book if you're looking to ignore what Max Stirner actually wrote, put words into his mouth the opposite of what he intended, and fundamentally misinterpret his critique.

Because he never understood what Stirner was doing, John Clark jousts with a make-believe ghost of Stirner that he has dreamed up in an attempt to make some minimal sense of Stirner's work for himself. However, in order to do this Clark is forced to argue throughout that Stirner advocated a philosophy of the (generic) ego. And he does this all the while ignoring completely the meanings of Stirner's own text and Stirner's insistence that he was advocating, not another philosophy, but a critique of the "fixed ideas" required for the creation and development of any and all possible religion or philosophy.

Contrary to all of John Clark's baseless assertions, Max Stirner's critique is simply not founded on an idea or concept -- of an "ego" or of anything else. It is founded on a preconceptual level of lived experience. Not the lived experience of an idea of one's self, but on the actual experience of living, which Stirner is at pains to point out can never be conceptualized (without oversimplifying, abstracting, and thus falsifying it). The central figure of Stirner's critique is not an "ego," a word which he never even mentions. It is the "Einzige," which literally translates as "the unique" or "the unique one," and is meant only as an "empty" name for "who" he is or "who" a person is, not as a concept which in any way could describe or explain what one is. For Stirner the Einzige is a name for the phenomenological experience one undergoes before the conceptualization and symbolic description of that experience. That preconceptual experience may contain acts of symbolization, but the experience itself is always prior to any symbolization, as Stirner repeatedly points out.

Stirner presents a fully phenomenological and fully dialectical critique of all reification of lived experience. He presents a completely novel and relentlessly consistent anti-religious, and anti-philosophical criticism of every possible "fixed idea." (Phenomenological and dialectical in the generic senses of these words, not in the Husserlian, Hegelian or Marxist senses.) The closest approximations I've seen to Stirner's point anywhere in the history of writing is probably in the Taoist and proto-Taoist traditions where nominalism was sometimes taken to the same extreme that Stirner takes it -- especially in the Yang-Chu, the Lao-Tsu, the Chuang-Tzu and the Lieh-Tzu.

(cont)

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 10:57:02 2013 No.4284469

>>4284465

To be fair to the miserable interpretation of Stirner presented by John Clark, he is only treading in a well-worn path pioneered by Stirner's earliest critics. Ludwig Feuerbach, Moses Hess, Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx also had no clue as to what Stirner meant, as they were all only interested in defending their own highly reified, ideological (ultimately indefensible) positions, and had no interest in understanding what it would mean to cleave to no fixed ideas at all as Stirner does.

In Max Stirner's Egoism John Clark doesn't have a clue and is so clueless he doesn't even know it. This book is wrong in almost every one of its major theses, and many of its minor theses as well. Read Max Stirner's own work if you want to understand what he is saying. But you have to read it with an open mind and refuse any preconceptions in order to do so. Nearly all of the secondary literature on Max Stirner is completely full of each writer's own refusals to take Stirner at his own word. It all spars with various ghosts of Stirner constructed to be more easily knocked down -- all in order to avoid dealing with Stirner's actual words in any honest, intelligent and thoughtful ways.

>>4284436
However, I too am curious.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 11:01:02 2013 No.4284476 File: 238 KB, 960x720, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4284441 From chapter 1, the ontology of the ego

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 11:02:02 2013 No.4284478 File: 232 KB, 720x960, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 11:05:02 2013 No.4284483 File: 227 KB, 960x720, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 11:05:02 2013 No.4284484

>>4284465
>>4284469
Thanks bruv. As expected, I'm afraid.

I've looked up the review you quoted, that guy makes a lot of sense. I agree on the parallels between Stirner and early Daoist texts he mentions as well.

I'm afraid that the "Ego" translation has done a lot of harm in the Anglosphere's understanding of Stirner.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 11:08:03 2013 No.4284490 File: 243 KB, 960x720, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 11:08:03 2013 No.4284491 >>4284476 He just seems to go the wrong way right from the get-go.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 11:21:49 2013 No.4284511 The problem seems to be that he's trying to pull a concept of the self out of TU1+HP, despite Max's ego/self being non-conceptual.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 11:26:49 2013 No.4284525 File: 251 KB, 960x720, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4284511

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 11:29:50 2013 No.4284535 File: 228 KB, 960x720, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4284525

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 11:46:50 2013 No.4284570 File: 87 KB, 288x420, stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I really like these comparisons of Stirner to taoism and zen and stuff.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:00:17 2013 No.4284968 >>4284511 >TU1+HP Noice.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:08:18 2013 No.4284981 >>4284435 The section on Stirner was omitted from the first publications of The German Ideology as well...

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:10:18 2013 No.4284987 /lit/ is full of lousy bandwagoners why is there a goddamn fucking thread about stirner on page 0 all the goddamn time now, what the fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:11:17 2013 No.4284992

>>4284511
>TU1+HP

Sorry, I don't get it, what is that?

As for the OP, the book by Karl Schmidt is supposedly good, Das Verstandestum und das Individuum, but I haven't read it unfortunately. You can get it here: http://www.gegensatzpress.com/individual.html

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:11:17 2013 No.4284993 >>4284987 Just read the books, baby boy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:12:17 2013 No.4284994 >>4284993 i did, long ago didn't make any thread about it, though. you stirnerbabies are taking /lit/ over and making it mediocre as fuck

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:12:17 2013 No.4284995 >>4284992 The Unique One And His Property, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:16:17 2013 No.4285008 >>4284994 Well props 2 u for not attempting to discuss literature I guess. If you really want to whine productively there are a lot of threads more deserving of it though.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:19:18 2013 No.4285014

>>4284419
>/lit/ has been the Max Stirner fan club for years now.
>>4284429

These actually aren't accurate. I've been on /lit/ for three years or more, and there sure as shit wasn't 50 Stirner threads a day even so much as a year ago.

In fact, there wasn't even one a week.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:19:18 2013 No.4285016 >>4284430 Just like we prefer not to give radical skepticism any serious thought.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:22:18 2013 No.4285020 >>4285014 It's just going to be like this for one or two weeks. Remember a few weeks or months ago? We had Vonnegut threads every day.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 15:50:24 2013 No.4285092 >>4285014 but that's wrong

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:01:23 2013 No.4285310

can someone explain to me what Sirner's philosophy is

Or just point me to a good overview of it online.

I've been on /lit /for years now and seen a million Sirner threads come and go, and I still only have a vague idea of what he's arguing for, basically some form of egoism and that all ideaologies are spooks and to be disregarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:11:22 2013 No.4285343 >>4285310 how about you read a fucking ____________book

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:15:23 2013 No.4285349 >>4284465 >>4284469 Ooh, so Stirner is a phenomenologist? I really thought he was going to have something less flimsy to rely on. Disappointing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:25:13 2013 No.4285379 >>4285343 I'd prefer to know what I'm getting into before I dive into some post Hegelian philosophy thank you very much

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:32:13 2013 No.4285404 >>4284987 cry harder jew

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:33:14 2013 No.4285407 >>4285310 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Max_Stirner http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Stirner http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/ http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:35:14 2013 No.4285416 >>4285349 Yes, draw your conclusions based on a review of a book about the book containing the philosophy you're judging.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:41:13 2013 No.4285437 >>4285416 All books are spooks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:45:13 2013 No.4285450 >>4285416 conclusions are spooks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:51:13 2013 No.4285470 >>4285437 >>4285450 same einzige kill yersel

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:51:13 2013 No.4285475 >>4285349 phenomenology is a spook, if Stirner does anything you can't describe it in human spoken or written language, you must dance it in the same space-time continuum.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 17:57:02 2013 No.4285493

>>4285014
Most Stirner images used on /lit/ are old as fuck.
Doesn't it tell you something?
There still aren't 50 Stirner threads a day. You just happen to see them. But during these last 3 years there have been Stirner threads from time to time. I know because I've participated in some of them.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 18:02:02 2013 No.4285508

/lit/ had some dude who wrote his diss. on stirner a while back. He managed to convince some other assholes to read stirner. Since this brought the grand total of books these shitbirds had read to three (the other two being The Philosopher's Stone, and the Hungry Caterpillar), and since Stirner appealed to their childish, self-centered beligerence in the face of parental authority, they went on to post about Stirner rather a lot.

For the rest of the world, stirner was basically a still-birth, notable only in that Marx wrote an overly long but entirely damming critique of him. If this hadn't happened, it's doubtful stirner would have been heard of anybody at all, even as an obscure, bad joke.

tl;dr - nobody worries about stirner, because egoism is retarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 18:05:01 2013 No.4285521 >>4285508 >scaredy cats mentioning how marx utterly demolished stirner so they don't have to engage with his work himself >even though marx failed miserably erry time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 18:08:02 2013 No.4285525 >>4285521 It's hard not to mention, since it's basically the only notable thing about Stirner's work.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 18:08:02 2013 No.4285527 >>4285508 >dat in-depth critique of moral egoism Whoa, you must be like a genius since you know all that about Stirner's actual philosophy and all, p sure you're not some butthurt undergrad :^)

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 18:18:01 2013 No.4285566

>>4285527
OK, a brief pointer why, say, Nietzsche is more interesting than Stirner. For Nietzsche, the ego is a very uncertain touchstone. You can't experience the ego, you can't in truth make the argument 'I am thinking', because all you have in experience is the thought. One can only say, 'thinking is happening'. Even Stirner, an egomaniac, couldn't describe the ego, but Stirner, being a pathetically bad philosopher, just took it as a dogmatic truth and based an entire ideology on its pupported existence.

Marx, also, was either sceptical or silent about the cogito, and philosophers from Hegel, to Kant, to Heidegger have treated it as a central point of inquiry. Stirner, on the other hand, being not all that great at this kind of thing, just went off on one about it, without ever stopping to think that his idea of the ego might just be another (to use his frankly crankish phraseology) 'spook'.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 18:22:02 2013 No.4285588

Briefly, why the politics is inane - Stirner makes the basic mistake of neoliberalism in believing that the individual exists seperable from the whole. Unlike Hegel, for instance, who developed a complex account of the genesis of self-consciousness in the master-slave dialectic, Stirner just treats it as a political given, prior to politics.

Tactically, this is awful, since it prohibits sensible discussion and group-decision making, and basically ensures nothing gets done.

Generally, this is awful, because it traps human beings in a sort of super-empiricist monad where they only have opinions, subjective experiences, and subjective fantasies, for no better reason than that Stirner is a dogmatic moron..

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 18:48:02 2013 No.4285673 >>4285566 You are so far out of your league, baby girl. It's noticeable by how you treat the Einzige as a conventional concept of ego. Are you quite sure you've read Stirner?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 18:53:35 2013 No.4285691 >>4285566 lol you really misunderstand Stirner's Einzige back to the books!

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 18:54:35 2013 No.4285695 >>4284087 All of them.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 18:54:35 2013 No.4285697

>>4285588
>why the politics is inane
Which politics? Stirner's? And what politics are they according to you?

>Stirner makes the basic mistake of neoliberalism in believing that the individual exists seperable from the whole. Unlike Hegel, for instance, who developed a complex account of the genesis of self-consciousness in the master-slave dialectic, Stirner just treats it as a political given, prior to politics.
You misunderstand Stirner's Einzige.

>Tactically, this is awful, since it prohibits sensible discussion and group-decision making, and basically ensures nothing gets done.
Except it doesn't at all, hence the Union of Egoists.

>Generally, this is awful, because it traps human beings in a sort of super-empiricist monad where they only have opinions, subjective experiences, and subjective fantasies, for no better reason than that Stirner is a dogmatic moron..
And, well, these are conclusions based upon your lacking grasp of his philosophy.

Read his work.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:00:34 2013 No.4285724

I'm having trouble understanding Stirner's idea of the self/unique one/ego and egoism. Granted I'm just reading that Stanford article right now...

>Stirnerian egoism is perhaps best thought of, not in terms of the pursuit of self-interest, but rather as a variety of individual self-government or autonomy. Egoism properly understood is to be identified with what Stirner calls ‘ownness [Eigenheit]’, a type of autonomy which is incompatible with any suspension, whether voluntary or forced, of individual judgement. “I am my own”, Stirner writes, “only when I am master of myself, instead of being mastered … by anything else” (153). This Stirnerian ideal of self-mastery has external and internal dimensions, requiring both that we avoid subordinating ourselves to others and that we escape being ‘dragged along’ (56) by our own appetites. In short, Stirner not only rejects the legitimacy of any subordination to the will of another but also recommends that individuals cultivate an ideal of emotional detachment towards their own appetites and ideas.

This seems too radical to be possible. How can we step back from all material, social and ideological influences on ourself and 'own' ourselves in this manner? If I am understanding this correctly, it sounds impossible and even inhuman. For me, a great part of what it means to be human is to be a social animal, with obligations and connections to our families, friends and so forth. This radical individualism seems to be the opposite of that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:00:34 2013 No.4285725 >>4285566 >>4285588 You've never read his book and it shows. I hate charlatans like you who can't even actually read but still feel the need to argue.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:02:34 2013 No.4285733 >>4285724 If we are social animals, then it is our own intuitive will that we have connections with families and friends. Stirner just wants you to get rid of the abstract ideals that say you HAVE to do this.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:03:34 2013 No.4285737

I really don't get why so many people on /lit/ appear to be allergic to deontology. It is self-evident to me that it is the superior view - it agrees much more with base human intuition, and of course it is the far superior view, rationally speaking. I guess you guys are just contrarian.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:05:37 2013 No.4285745 >>4285737 >for the life of me i can't comprehend why people like things i don't like because my views are of course better amusing disposition, frater

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:10:35 2013 No.4285767
File: 44 KB, 875x572, stirner love.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4285724
Your sentiments aren't incompatible with Stirner. See pic related, an excerpt of The Ego and Its Own.

I haven't come across a summary of his thought that does justice to the nuances. Stirner is really one of those people of who you need to read their own phrasing to understand them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:11:35 2013 No.4285772 >>4285733 Societies are created just as much by ideas, myths and taboos as by human intuitive affect. Stirner would have us destroy everything that acted as the foundation for human society, even hunter gatherer and possibly even pre human societies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:18:37 2013 No.4285798 >>4285508 >because egoism is retarded Why?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:19:37 2013 No.4285804 >>4285772 >Stirner would have us destroy everything that acted as the foundation for human society, even hunter gatherer and possibly even pre human societies. [citation needed]

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:23:35 2013 No.4285812

>>4285772

>Societies are created just as much by ideas, myths and taboos as by human intuitive affect.

To be honest, I doubt this. Maybe capitalist, feudal, societies are created so.

What people don't seem to realize is that if everyone on earth right now accepted Stirner's ideas we'd basically have utopian communism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:26:36 2013 No.4285820 What is there to critique? It's mostly assertion after assertion. Psychological egoism is circular and anarchism leads to warlordism. There isn't much there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:26:36 2013 No.4285821 File: 80 KB, 626x792, 448584585.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4285767 >those tender words

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:29:36 2013 No.4285834 File: 89 KB, 425x375, 1357193643219.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4285812 >implying utopia isn't a spook

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:31:36 2013 No.4285843

There's not much to critique in Stirner from a technical perspective, since he basically says 'there's this thing, and it works like this, and here are its implications'. If you don't agree that there is such a thing, then Stirner's not going to do anything for you. If you agree that there is such a thing, but think it works differently, again, Stirner's going to be useless.

He's the park-bench schizo of philosophy. And not in a good way.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:31:36 2013 No.4285844
File: 23 KB, 390x302, Aristocatsmouse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4285566
>>4285588
I hate being late at the party specially when I'm the one you were responding to, but let me join the other fags who laugh at you:

>ego
>neoliberalism

Hahahah! Look at him, guys! Look at him and laugh!

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:33:35 2013 No.4285853 >>4285820 >Psychological egoism is circular Ok. >and anarchism leads to warlordism 1) No. 2) What does this have to do with Stirner?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:37:35 2013 No.4285870 >>4285843 You realise that criticism could be made against any philosophy, and any use of language for that matter?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:42:35 2013 No.4285899 solipism is an indestructible idea, it is very difficult to reason against it if it is not using pragmatists arguments aka spooks

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:46:37 2013 No.4285912

>>4285724
The main point is:
The society you live in, your ideals etc. Why do they matter? What's their value? Well, intrinsically, we don't really know. But they have a value to you, don't they? Why do they have a value to you? Because you get something from them. All those human creations are just tools and tools have value as long as they're useful. Useful to whom? To you. So what happens when you sacrifice your whole life for an idea or a construct that wasn't what you really want (e.g. sacrificing your life for your loved ones counts as something you really want)? You are just letting those tools to use you.

You will do whatever you choose to do, and it's ok. But you should be aware of it: you do it because YOU want. It's stupid to use excuses like the common good, God, etc. You do it because you choose to. Your interests will be egoistic anyway. The only difference is that psychological pleasure some get from tricking themselves into thinking they're doing it because they're morally good people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:46:37 2013 No.4285914 >>4285899 Who says? I think solipsism is stupid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:48:35 2013 No.4285917 >>4285899 >solipsism As stupid as indestructible. And unrelated to moral egoism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:50:35 2013 No.4285924 >>4285853 Do you think Stirner is statist?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:52:35 2013 No.4285933 >>4285737 nope, there's no "rational" way to resolve the action/omission problem except "muh feels" which is a totally valid way to respond but isn't a totally rational way to respond, whatever that means

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:54:36 2013 No.4285941

>>4285912
Or, in proposition form,

P1: The society you live in has ideals.
P2: They are tools for your use.
Uh,
P3: Ideals have value.
C1: Ideals have value because they are useful.

P1: Actions are always your choices.
P2: Ideals are complex forms of self-interest.
C1: You always act in your self interest.

As you can see, the argument looks pretty hairy when you actually seperate it out.. You have to believe a whole load of propositions that don't actually recommend themselves.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:56:36 2013 No.4285945

>>4285941
Yeah, this is the problem with Stirner. You have to agree with a whole load of things that just aren't either likely or easy to believe to get along. And his arguments mostly involve repeating himself or going around in circles (All action is selfish, so spooks are selfish, so all action is selfish, etc).

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:56:36 2013 No.4285946 >>4285899 >stirner >solipsist Lellito Mussolini.bmp

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:58:36 2013 No.4285959

haven't read Stirner but I'm getting the feeling from this thread that he's a bit shaky - are there any books II could read to give me some perspective so I dont get suckked in and hoodwinked?

I read a lot of books that have had me as a strong believer and only later realized they were retarded .. would like to avoid doing so again

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 19:59:35 2013 No.4285964

>>4285924
No. He's an individualist.
The state is unnecessary for a moral egoist, good if you take profit out of it, bad if it takes profit out of you. On a hypothetical community of egoists it wouldn't really be necessary, since it means a set of crystallized social relations meant to maintain privileges. A union of egoists would consist on a society where relations are free and totally changeable.

Anyway, Stirner isn't an anarchist. He's a precedent of individualist anarchism, but this doesn't imply the humanitarianism found in anarchism that justifies that states shouldn't exist. For an individualist it's difficult to find class consciousness through which unite with others to revolt (since there's no reason to subjugate your personal interests under class interests) . This is the main reason why Marx hated him.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:01:35 2013 No.4285969

>>4285959
Don't read Stirner. Seriously, there are a world of interesting, influential philosophers out there. Stirner is not very influential at all, and not particularly interesting. He's not even a particularly good writer. He's of local interest to people studying the Young Hegelians, or some strains of anarchism.

I honestly don't see what /lit/ sees as so noteworthy in his work. He's less influential than, say, Malebranche, and much less interesting.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:02:35 2013 No.4285976

>>4285737
I'm ok with other people being deontologyfags. It's the moral of the sheep, it's like the way you have to express your natural instincts through your morals.

But for me, such morality is unacceptable. I don't like duties. I prefer to do whatever I want whenever I can.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:04:35 2013 No.4285983

>>4285969
Important Q: Why do you choose to read one book over another?
Because you think it's the best?
Because you have it in your hand?
Because it will help you in some course of study?
Because it will help you in some project?

Frankly now I think about it, I don't think Stirner would fit well for any of these justifications.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:05:35 2013 No.4285987

>>4285969
He's not influential because he was very controversial. That's what makes him interesting. People deliberately ignored him and tried to make his philosophy disappear. First they banned him, until they found out leftists disliked him too. Have you read his critique against liberalism, communism and humanism? It's practically flawless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:07:35 2013 No.4285995 >>4285969 It's because Stirner looks like the medic from tf2. Oh, and maybe because his writing makes alot of sense so theres that too.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:08:35 2013 No.4286000

>>4285987
Marx was very controversial - people chased him all over europe.
Locke was very controversial - people tried to chop his head off.
Dostoevsky was very controversial - he got sent to siberia.
Gramsci was very controversial - he wrote most of his work from prison.

Max Stirner garnered some harsh responses. He's not controversial, he's just bad.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:08:35 2013 No.4286001 >>4285959 So you want to get hoodwinked by some other book instead of Stirner's book? I don't see what's useful about that. >>4285969 Kek, there would be no marxist materialism without St. Max. Arguably there would also be no Nietzsche as we know him.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:10:36 2013 No.4286010 lol people in this thread using the german word for 'ego' and pretending it's a different thing.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:10:36 2013 No.4286011

>>4285964
>On a hypothetical community of egoists it wouldn't really be necessary, since it means a set of crystallized social relations meant to maintain privileges. A union of egoists would consist on a society where relations are free and totally changeable.

Doesn't seem functionally different from anarchy as you put it. No central government to enforce laws as social relations are free and changeable at a whim. And how doesn't this dissolve into warlordism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:11:36 2013 No.4286015 >>4286000 By your logic Nietzsche wasn't controversial either. Which is ridiculous.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:12:36 2013 No.4286020

>>4285945
>mostly involve repeating himself or going around in circles
It's called dialectics.

>>4285941
>P1: The society you live in has ideals.
Yes.
>P2: They are tools for your use.
Well, they were tools created by other people to take benefit out of it before your parents were even born.
P3: Ideals have value.
C1: Ideals have value because they are useful.
Yes.

P1: Actions are always your choices.
Not always *your* choices (when others force you to do something it's not your choice), but when you have to choose, you choose what you prefer (when you do something you don't want, you usually do it because the other options are shitty).
P2: Ideals are complex forms of self-interest.
Well... kinda. They are tools. Like a hammer or a pen. But conceptual instead of physical.
C1: You always act in your self interest.
Not exactly. You always CHOOSE according to your self interest. Your actions aren't always chosen by you. But again, when you act for others' interests, it likely is because the other options aren't much better.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:13:35 2013 No.4286023 File: 494 KB, 1173x596, risky max.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4286011 Stirner doesn't come with the humanist indignation against warlordism, so that wouldn't be an objection.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:14:35 2013 No.4286026 >>4285983 Maybe just because you're interested in a particular subject and taken from a particular perspective. Or maybe because it was recommended by a reliable source.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:16:35 2013 No.4286036 >>4286000 >he's just bad. Yeah, this is why Marx wrote that long-ass critique just to discredit him, because he was bad and uninteresting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:18:35 2013 No.4286045 >>4286011 Anarchism doesn't necessarily end up in a war. Only stupid people can make anything end up in a war. And in a world full of stupid people anarchism is logically impossible.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:20:35 2013 No.4286048

>>4286015
Nietzsche isn't controversial, just often misread. Controversial figures get banned, they get their supporters rounded up in witch-hunts. They actually have supporters. Nietzsche, for all the brilliance of his work, is influential only in the academy. (Teenagers reading him are, I think, influenced by their hormones). Max Stirner is influential in a few geocities websites I guess.

>>4286001
>Kek, there would be no marxist materialism without St. Max. Arguably there would also be no Nietzsche as we know him.

This is why Max S is the park-bench schizo of philosophy. He sat there babbling for thirty years, while people tried to ignore him, then got honoured by association.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:21:35 2013 No.4286051 >>4286011 Also, when you talk about warlordism what do you mean exactly? Something like feudalism, which developed into capitalistic-driven democracy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:22:35 2013 No.4286055 >>4286036 > long-ass critique You know, this is generally explained as down to the fact Marx thought Stirner would be much more important than he turned out to be. But I agree, the critique is way too long.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:24:36 2013 No.4286062

>>4286023
>Stirner doesn't come with the humanist indignation against warlordism
I'm a moral egoist myself, and I find warlordism retarded. This is why I don't like contemporary geopolitics.
>so that wouldn't be an objection.
Having a brain and making it work by yourself. It's difficult, I know. But some of us can.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:25:36 2013 No.4286071 >>4285508 Stirner might've been the single biggest inspiration for Nietzsche, who is easily one of the most famous philosophers to ever live.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:25:36 2013 No.4286073 >>4286055 >Marx thought Stirner would be much more important than he turned out to be Do you know why he thought that? Because he knew Stirner's ideas were pretty spot on, and hi didn't like it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:26:36 2013 No.4286079 >>4286048 >says stirner isn't influential >get's reminded that he is >he's just honoured by association doe That's pretty much how recognition of influence works.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:29:35 2013 No.4286086

>>4286062
>I'm a moral egoist myself, and I find warlordism retarded. This is why I don't like contemporary geopolitics.
Okay.

>Having a brain and making it work by yourself. It's difficult, I know. But some of us can.
What? I didn't say people can't have objections against warlordism, I just said Stirner's philosophy doesn't necessarily included. Easy on indignation, moral egoist.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:31:40 2013 No.4286095

>>4286073
I'm not very well-versed in Marx just yet, but to my understanding, the stuff about species-being and human nature that you see in, say, the 1844 Manuscripts starts to disappear around the time of The German Ideology.

In essence, human nature is a spook.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:33:40 2013 No.4286099

>>4286071
This is why nobody takes you guys seriously. I quote: "no mention of Stirner is known to exist anywhere in Nietzsche's publications, papers or correspondence"

And yet here you idiots are calling him the biggest influence.

Plus, the whole idea that there is a plausible connection between the two is based on a stupid, but very common misreading of N's work. Nietzsche isn't talking about the liberation of the self from moralism. He doesn't believe in the self, he believes in a complex of drives, of which the self is a logician's conceit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:34:39 2013 No.4286103 >>4286010 I'm German and you're a retard.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:34:39 2013 No.4286105

>>4286086
>Stirner's philosophy doesn't necessarily included
Indignation? More like exasperation. Do you need Stirner to tell you why warlordism is wrong to realize you don't like it? Stirner talks about ideas and how silly is to attach yourself too much to them. That's all. What he says has nothing to do with warlordism being right or wrong. That's something you should be able to deduce by yourself. He's not gonna tell you what to do, he's not a moralist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:36:40 2013 No.4286111 >>4286010 p sure 'unique' and 'ego' are different words.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:37:40 2013 No.4286114 so stirner's basically the guy you read when mommys no longer there to tell you your a special snowflake?

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:37:40 2013 No.4286115
File: 45 KB, 279x305, 1360343426248.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>meet cute girl
>end up dating
>she becomes my girlfriend
>one day I post-coitally murmur in her ear that she is my property
>she says that she is her own person and can do as she pleases
>i tell her she doesn't understand and that there is only me, that I am unique and that she, among other things, is my property
>she tells me I'm a male chauvinist pig
>i tell her such concepts are merely spooks
>she looks at me like i'm crazy and gets up to leave and mockingly tells me to have some other girl as property
>i say that everything belongs to me already, i've merely to attain power over it
>she asks me who the hell i think i am
>i say that i'm the creative nothing which cannot be named
>she says i'm an asshole
>i say no attributes can properly describe the creative nothing which is the unique one
>she asks me where i get all this shit from
>i tell here that i have stated my case on nothing
>she leaves

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:40:39 2013 No.4286133 >>4286086 "A complete human being has no need to be an authority" -- Max Stirner, The False Principle Of Our Education

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:40:40 2013 No.4286128 Today I learned that I do not respect people who read Stirner.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:40:40 2013 No.4286130

>>4286099
>a plausible connection between the two is based on
Actually, it's based on a letter some Nietzche's friend wrote. Also, it's pretty self-evident at times. Read the genealogy. You see the part where uses races as metaphors of behaviors? Guess who did it first. Also, the whole moral of the slave stuff is practically taken from Stirner.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:40:40 2013 No.4286131

>>4286105
That's my point, booboo. I merely said that a possible return to warlordism can't be seen as a flaw of Stirner's thought if he isn't concerned with stopping a return to warlordism in the first place. It has nothing to do with my personal preferences.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:41:39 2013 No.4286135

>>4286099

I literally just read the Wikipedia article a few days ago and it mentions that Stirner most likely was a 'huge inspiration' for Nietzsche, to the point that he actually got accused of plagiarism, who completely denied him. If the entry is filled with wrong information then please point to another source, since atleast for me Wikipedia has been relatively reliable.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:41:39 2013 No.4286136 >>4286128 Yeah, it's better to criticize stuff based on assumptions. Reading is for faggots lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:42:39 2013 No.4286142 >>4286115 >unique one >suecie sne >speqia snow >speciae snowe >special snowefl >special snowflake

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:42:39 2013 No.4286145 >>4286133 Do you think that translates into warlordism being bad? That would suppose that Stirner considers incompleteness to be morally wrong.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:44:39 2013 No.4286157

>>4286131
The point is: you don't need humanist indignation. Warlordism implies a hierarchy, and a moral egoist wouldn't like to participate in it (except, maybe, if he was the supreme ruler, which would make it all impossible if all were moral egoists).

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:44:39 2013 No.4286161

>>4286145
A common mistake is assuming Stirner is a moral nihilist. He isn't. But he has an extremely novel and interesting view on morality:
>characterisations of Stirner as a ‘nihilist’—as rejecting all normative judgement—would also appear to be mistaken. The popular but inaccurate 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 judgement.
--Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:44:40 2013 No.4286154

My take on the whole "anarchism" would just end in war debacle.

War is simply a political meens to an end. "We make war, that we may live in peace" - This the mantra of civilized nations as we have learned from the ancients, and is unlikely to change no matter what political system is in place. What ounce of civilization do you find in African warlords? Simply to exterminate them all would do us a world of good. The anarchism of the warlord is not that of civilized people, and thus should not be associated with the real anarchist ideas of civilized people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:44:40 2013 No.4286155 >>4286142 >Stirnerism >Snirnerism >Sniwferism >Sniwflaism >Snowflakism

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:44:40 2013 No.4286156

>>4286099
Nietzsche's closest friends and other people near to him were perplexed. No one could remember ever having heard the name of Stirner from Nietzsche's mouth. There are dozens of letters in the archives that bear witness to the confusion of his friends. They understood well enough why Nietzsche had been publicly silent about Stirner, but why did he, given his "habitual communicativeness" (Overbeck), never mention him even in the most familiar circles? Only Overbeck's wife Ida remembered in 1899 a discussion she had with Nietzsche about twenty years earlier, during which he unintentionally let escape the remark that he felt a mental kinship to Stirner. "This was accompanied by a solemn facial expression. While I attentively observed his features, these changed again, and he made something like a dispelling, dismissive movement with his hand, and spoke under breath: 'Well, now I have told you, even though I did not want to speak of it. Forget about it. They would talk about a plagiarism, but you will not do that, I'm sure.'" (33)

One other statement was taken: that of Adolf Baumgartner, who had been Nietzsche's favourite pupil in his early years at Basel, though he had soon become alienated from him. Baumgartner, at the time a professor of Ancient History in Basel, recalled that he had borrowed Stirner's 'The Ego' from the Basel university library in 1874. He stated that he had done this at Nietzsche's recommendation. It was possible to confirm his borrowing of the book by checking the old lending registers. Baumgartner said nothing about his reading of the book, however, nor about any subsequent events, for instance discussions about it with Nietzsche. In any case, after a period of twenty-five years he remembered clearly the book and Nietzsche's words of recommendation, "this is the most consistent, which we possess". Baumgartner's later enigmatic statement that Nietzsche had, "for the first time [...] turned the big wheel" inside him may be related to this event. (34)

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:45:39 2013 No.4286164 >>4286142 >>4286155 >implying you can shame stirnerists with collectivist rhetoric

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:46:40 2013 No.4286167 >>4286128 >I don't respect Edmund Husserl >I don't respect Carl Schmitt >I spout bullshit on a messageboard because I don't understand what people are talking about can you please off yourself already

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:47:40 2013 No.4286172

>>4286154
>The anarchism of the warlord
What do you think of the anarchism of the warlords of today? The point is: right now anarchism is only allowed for a few. I want to be an anarchist too, but in this capitalistic society I would need to be a millionaire to become one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:47:40 2013 No.4286174 >>4286157 You don't have to be at the top for the hierarchy to work in your favour, so that's wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:47:40 2013 No.4286175 >>4286128 So you also disrespect everyone who critisized Stirner, since those people have obviously read his works aswell? Do you sometimes think before you post something or does it just sputter out of your anus in a fountain of gory glory?

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:48:40 2013 No.4286177

>>4286156
This sounds like bullshit. I mean, if nobody ever heard him say the man's name except Overbeck's wife, once, then why the fuck are we supposed to take that as proof that Stirner was super influential?

At most, the second paragraph indicates that it's possible that Nietzsche read the book, not that he thought it was really very important.

TO ALL WHO ARE INTERESTED Tue Nov 19 20:48:40 2013 No.4286179
File: 70 KB, 395x398, stirner2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

There are severe levels of ignorance concerning Stirner in this thread, and it's making my head hurt.
If you have about 50 minutes of spare time, watch this video on Stirner by Saul Newman, a post-anarchist whose writings and interpretations of Stirner are well-respected and accurate: http://vimeo.com/45351090

If you don't have the time, or are not interested in the video, here's a great article on Stirnerian Egoism by the ever-elusive anarchist author Wolfi Landstreicher: https://sites.google.com/site/vagabondtheorist/the-egoist-encyclopedia/egoism

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:49:40 2013 No.4286184 >>4286099 >>4286156 you got fucking rekt son

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:50:40 2013 No.4286186 >>4286156 Some pretty crazy reasoning going on here. I think Occam's razor basically cuts the fuck out of both those arguments.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:50:40 2013 No.4286188 >>4286177 Maybe because the differences were so little that people kept talking about plagiarism, which would also give Nietzsche a very, very good reason not to mention Stirner to anyone ever.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:50:40 2013 No.4286189 >>4286177 so what? how many artists, thinkers were recognized several years after they dead? Nietzche knew the guy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:51:40 2013 No.4286190 >>4286177 Did you miss the part where he generally did everything he could to not even hint at Stirner out of fear of plagiarism? Of course it's not definitive proof, but there isn't any in this situation and there will probably never be.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:52:40 2013 No.4286196 >>4286172 I think the anarchism of the warlord is a byproduct of their stupidity. A real army wishes to be disciplined and commanded by one strategic spirit. The anarchism of the warlord is the byproduct of a failed dictatorship.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:52:40 2013 No.4286197 >>4286188 ... Dude, Nietzsche self-published, and the similarities really aren't there. First off, Nietzsche doesn't believe the individual exists, like, right from day one in the Birth of Tragedy. That's a pretty serious dissimilarity.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:53:39 2013 No.4286199

>>4286186
Friedrich Albert Lange (1828-1875) mentions Stirner in his famous Geschichte des Materialismus (1866) with few, but carefully chosen words. He assesses Stirner's book as "the most extreme, that we have knowledge of", referring to its "ill fame" before quickly coming to an end by maintaining the lack of any closer relationship to materialism. (24)

The mention of Stirner in these books of Hartmann and Lange are the most important ones in those four decades of underground obscurity. They are particularly important for our topic because Nietzsche studied precisely these two works with exceptional thoroughness.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:54:39 2013 No.4286203

>>4286023
Good, I'll concede this. But Stirner's philosophy turns ahistorical then as the conditions and social relations it puts forth couldn't have produced the philosophy that lead to it. It couldn't have because Stirner was a product of the society he critiques and it is merely spook.

>>4286045
Survey the places without a strong state and inevitably you see a pattern of warlordism. Government serves as a neutral arbiter during disputes, without this function you get generational familial disputes i.e. blood feuds. I didn't understand your last two sentences.

>>4286051
Warlordism like you see in failed states, present-day Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:56:39 2013 No.4286206 >>4286174 I doubt warlordism would work in my favor if I wasn't at the top.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:56:39 2013 No.4286208

>>4286190
>>4286188
Also, somebody not doing something is really not evidence to anyone who isn't a Stirnerite retard.

I don't say anything about Oscar Wilde. Not because he's actually my secret No.1 heart-throb/mentor, but because I have no interest in what I've heard of his work.

Your argument, worthy of Stirner himself, would hold the fact I've never said anything about Oscar Wilde as evidence that I actually really liked the guy. Which is totally fucktarded.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:56:39 2013 No.4286209

>>4286197

I can't comment on that at all since I haven't read either's work. Like I said earlier, I took this information from Wikipedia and it doesn't matter whether or not you thought there were parallels, Eduard von Hartmann definitely thought there were. It's impossible to judge for me whether or not that is true, I'm just going by the information I have that is confirmed by more or less credible sources.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:58:39 2013 No.4286219 File: 69 KB, 640x480, 1384736620708.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4286179 >http://vimeo.com/45351090 why is the sound quality so fucking shitty?

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:58:39 2013 No.4286221

>>4286199
This is a major fucking climb-down here. You've gone from:
-Stirner was the biggest influence on Nietzsche
to
-Nietzsche was so influenced by Stirner he never spoke a word about him
to
-Nietzsche owned and read a book that mentioned Stirner once.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 20:59:39 2013 No.4286223 >>4286197 Did you really read Stirner? Your assumptions tell me not. Also, read the fucking genealogy, son. Then compare it to The Ego and Its Own. You'll see for yourself.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:00:39 2013 No.4286231

>>4286208

>everyone who disagrees with me is a Stirnerite retard

>Stirnerite retard

I haven't even read any of his works, you're just a massive bullshitting faggot.

The other person you quoted also added that 'of course it isn't proof' and still you go out of your way to repeat yourself and give us some lackluster example as to why we're wrong and you're right. To sum this up: You're full of shit :~)

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:00:39 2013 No.4286233

>>4286203
>But Stirner's philosophy turns ahistorical then as the conditions and social relations it puts forth couldn't have produced the philosophy that lead to it. It couldn't have because Stirner was a product of the society he critiques and it is merely spook.
Not sure where you are going with this. Stirner can't want certain things because if those things would have existed in the past history wouldn't have lead to the position he is in now to make that argument? Because that goes for everything ever.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:01:39 2013 No.4286237 >>4286203 The whole world is ruled by warlords. In developed countries there's no need for war, since the winners are already controlling the means of production. The whole world is at war.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:02:40 2013 No.4286242 >>4286221 He is not the same guy I am. There's about three different people. I have only made one point based on information from Wikipedia (I'm saying this for the third time because faggots like you cannot read).

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:03:40 2013 No.4286245

>>4286221
I didn't make the first statement, just jumped in to contribute some of the reasons why one could say that Nietzsche was influenced by him.

I do think he was familiar with Stirner though, Nietzsche studied that work very, very thoroughly and certainly isn't the type to disregard a book that is described in such a menacing way.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:04:40 2013 No.4286248

>>4286203
My last two sentences mean warlordism is a consequence of stupidity of the masses who let themselves be ruled by tyrants. And you say anarchism would end in warlordism, but warlordism is already a thing. And the stupidity of the masses (which allows warlordism) makes anarchy impossible, so it's already absurd to assume anarchy is possible in the world as it is right now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:05:40 2013 No.4286253 >>4286248 is nice how sometimes I find this posts full of truth on /lit. Few times but there are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:06:39 2013 No.4286255 >>4286231 ...'of course it isn't proof' really doesn't cover the fact that they just used evidence that, prima facie, indicates Nietzsche didn't read Stirner, as evidence that he did. It's not proof. It's crazy doublethink. Also sameperson.

>>	TO ALL WHO ARE INTERESTED Tue Nov 19 21:06:39 2013 No.4286257 >>4284465 >>4284469 This right here. THIS IS QUALITY POSTING. It's posts like these that reaffirm my ever-so-slight faith in /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:07:39 2013 No.4286260 >>4286248 more like, anarchism would end warlordism. But humanity is not ready.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:08:40 2013 No.4286265 >>4286196 I meant, why fear a possible turn to warlordism from anarchy, when we already have it on own present?

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:08:40 2013 No.4286269

>>4286223
Not him, but I know what your talking about. When I first read The Ego I was thoroughly familiar with Genealogy and it was almost eery how much Nietzsche seemed to channel Stirner.

If Nietzsche truly wasn't familiar with Stirner the likelihood of such similarities would be almost unbelievable. If we would apply Occam's razor as someone in this thread suggested, with what we know, it would be silly not to presume Nietzsche has read Stirner.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:09:40 2013 No.4286271 >>4286265 >on own present? on our own* >>4286260 Agreed.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:09:40 2013 No.4286273

>>4286248
But anon, stupidity of the masses as you describe is really just self preservation, which is an intelligent trait. One man can't go up against a warlord. No use to throw your life away. As it has be stated above ITT, the anarchy of the warlord is the byproduct of a failed dictatorship.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:10:39 2013 No.4286278

>>4286255

In the first paragraph there clearly is a woman confirming that they talked about Stirner, meaning Nietzsche knew him. In the second paragraph he recommends the book wholeheardetly to his favorite student, which means he must have been familiar with it. This doesn't mean that he was influenced by it, but it is not 'crazy doublethink' or whatever you call it. It simply is evidence that he read it. Whether or not the book influenced him can only be clarified when comparing both works next to each other, obviously.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:10:39 2013 No.4286279 >>4286257 >yfw it was copy pasted from an Amazon review pls don't kill yourself tonight

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:10:40 2013 No.4286277 any, uh, post-lefties in this thread...?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:11:39 2013 No.4286282 I find Max Stirner's critique of language to be very similar to John Zerzan's, which is interesting because Zerzan doesn't have a high opinion of Stirner.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:12:39 2013 No.4286287 >coming to this thread from anarcho-tumblr

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:12:39 2013 No.4286291 >>4286265 I'm not one to fear anything but fear itself. That is my only opinion of the word fear.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:13:40 2013 No.4286293 >>4286282 Neither did Marx and he owed his entire philosophy to Stirner. It's a common trait. People never forgive Stirner for having read him.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:14:40 2013 No.4286298

>>4286273
>just self preservation
Nope. Self preservation isn't stupid. Going to some shit-hole at the end of the world to risk your life because some millionaire (who would never risk his balls in a remotely similar situation) told you so IS stupid.
>the anarchy of the warlord is the byproduct of a failed dictatorship.
This is true. We live in a failed dictatorship (specially in my country, Spain).

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:14:40 2013 No.4286300 >>4286293 >Neither did Marx and he owed his entire philosophy to Stirner. top fucking lol, /lit/ is so retarded. Stirner is shit, no one cares about him other than you fat pussies

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:15:40 2013 No.4286303 File: 73 KB, 600x481, nietzsche_and_the_horse_600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4286278 they were all lying doe it's a conspiricy nietzsche was completely original even if important parts of his work read like stirner copy pasta

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:16:40 2013 No.4286307

>>4286278
>Whether or not the book influenced him can only be clarified when comparing both works next to each other, obviously.
Something the fag you are responding to will never do, obviously. I wonder why he ignores my posts (the ones where I talk about actual similarities between Stirner and Nietzsche).

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:16:40 2013 No.4286308 >>4286300 He would have been a bitchmade Hegelian Idealist to this day without St. Max, friendo.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:17:40 2013 No.4286310

>>4286154
But you see, warlordism is just diffuse heirarchy. The central heirarchy of the State has collapsed, but the Spooks, the ideal constructs upon which *heirarchy is enabled* still remain, and thus manifest itself in a diaspora of micro-states dominated by warlords.

Stirnerean egoism strives for abolition of all fixed ideas, and thus with it the domination which enables heirarchy, the State, Economy, and warlordism.

(If you're into trendy, obscurantist post-modernist/post-structuralist crap, Deleuze & Guattari, Foucault, and even Baudrillard wrote extensively on this issue as well).

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:18:40 2013 No.4286315 File: 14 KB, 320x240, goldhomer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4286279

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:20:39 2013 No.4286318 I think Stirner influenced the poststructuralism and postmodernism a lot more than he did Marx and the Hegelians. There are a lot of parallels between the concepts of say, biopower/biopolitics and schizoanalysis and Stirner's "spook analysis".

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:20:39 2013 No.4286319 >>4286308 Ignore that tard. He probably doesn't even know what St. Max is

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:23:40 2013 No.4286330 >>4286318 The LBGT crowd also loves him because he's quite liberating to those who live in constant dissonance with societal spooks.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:28:39 2013 No.4286341
File: 21 KB, 300x193, tipped_scales.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Arguments against Nietzsche having read Stirner:

>he doesn't mention him

Arguments for Nietzsche having read Stirner:

>he does in fact mention him twice and specifically mentions mentioning him as little as possible
>parts of his works show a lot of resemblance to stirner's

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 21:32:40 2013 No.4286346 File: 107 KB, 610x543, mcfuck you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4286303

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 22:07:39 2013 No.4286425 >>4286319 >not celebrating St. Max's feast day every year sure is spooky in here

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 22:20:39 2013 No.4286465 >>4286425 Which date do you celebrate at, birth or death or publishing of Ego?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 22:30:39 2013 No.4286495 >>4286095 Human nature is a spook; that was a large part of The Unique One and Its Property, to criticize Feuerbach.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 22:30:39 2013 No.4286496 >>4285588 +1 also post-structuralism tends to critique Stirners's central assumptions if not responding directly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 19 22:33:39 2013 No.4286507 >>4286496 Read the criticisms to that post, they also apply to you.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 22:36:39 2013 No.4286519

>>4286177
>>4286189
>>4286221

Nietzsche did not have direct correspondence with Stirner. Nietzsche did, however, have direct correspondence with Bruno Bauer. Given this fact, and that Nietzsche's work is similar to Stirner's, it is extremely likely that Nietzsche read The Unique One and It's Property.

Anonymous Tue Nov 19 22:39:39 2013 No.4286533

Stirner was said to have had more training in Hegel's philosophy than any of the other young Hegelians (the only exception being, perhaps, Bruno Bauer), and some even say that Stirner is the only one who truly understood Hegel, the great synthesizer of modernity.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 01:30:27 2013 No.4286940

>>4286496
what a load of shit
I'd argue poststructuralism is more similar to Stirner than any other single philosopher, hell, Stirner is classified as a proto-poststructuralist. Deleuze & Guattari even give a nod to him in their book, Anti-Oedipus and Deleuze wrote in support of Stirner influencing Nietzche to a large degree.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 01:32:27 2013 No.4286944 >>4286533 If that's the case, then Stirner ironically "truly understood" Hegel by using the Hegelian dialectic in a way that is completely opposed to how Hegel intended it to be used. In other words, he parodied it.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 01:58:44 2013 No.4286988

>>4285014
>>4285092
>but that's wrong

You can actually easily check it with an archive search, dating back to as long as the archive goes, searching OP for "Stirner":

Mar 17, 2010
June 8, 2010 (3 months, almost)
June 13, 2010 (more than a week)
June 27, 2010 (more than a week)
etc, etc. one in August, two in September....

skip ahead to 2011. Know how many threads were made about Stirner in all of 2011? 12. Twelve threads.

Jump ahead to recent times:

Sept 18, 2013
Sept 30, 2013
Oct 1, 2013
Oct 2, 2013
Oct 3, 2013
Oct 3, 2013
Oct 6, 2013
Oct 7, 2013
Oct 21, 2013
Oct 28, 2013
Oct 29, 2013
Nov 3, 2013
Nov 4, 2013
Nov 5, 2013

I think you get the picture.

True, Stirner was posted about as far back as 2010, but it was not to the totally asinine and ridiculous extent that he's posted about, now. It's become almost a joke.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 02:07:44 2013 No.4287001 >>4286988 >Know how many threads were made about Stirner in all of 2011? 12. Twelve threads. gosh, do i feel like a fool bandwagoner

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 02:07:44 2013 No.4287002 Guise. I've heard many times that Stirtrtr deciphered all philosophers and their 'silly word games' as someone put it. How so?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 08:19:32 2013 No.4287348 >>4286944 And you know one's intention... .

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 08:34:06 2013 No.4287371 >>4286944 Anyway, that's from his biography.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 08:48:05 2013 No.4287393 >>4285588 >neoliberalism >individual exists seperable from the whole pick one you have no idea what you're talking about

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 09:24:09 2013 No.4287434

>>4286154

Your problem is that people only argue with you on internet forums because the state protects you through a monopoly of use of power.

Do you think more people would agree with you if the state magically disappeared one day? Of course not, instead they would beat you up, take your stuff and give it to someone who actually had the sense of reality to create a powerbase able to protect them. Or sell them drugs, or give them food.

Basing your political ideology on the assumption that if people just thought like you, or would do what you want them to do, there would be no more war/inequality/exploitation/climate change only really serves to get you mocked and ignored. And rightly so.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 09:37:07 2013 No.4287451
File: 17 KB, 250x357, 250px-Tsuji_jun.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4286179
reading some of this makes me think about Zen and Mahayana Buddhism

It seems like the Stirnerite egoist has as much freedom to act and do anything that a non egoist would do, acts of charity and duty and such, but he would just be aware of it in a different way. Kind of like how enlightened zen masters live pretty much as they did before, but internally it is a completely different way of existing in the world.

Of course, theconcept of the unique/creative nothing sounds petty much like Buddhist anatta and Shunyata as well

pic related

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 09:50:55 2013 No.4287465 >>4287451 >tfw Jun Tsuji's works aren't translated >tfw no nihilist epicurean stirnerist flute playing zen drunk jap to read

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 09:58:54 2013 No.4287474

>>4287434
I'm exactly sure how you reached that assumption about my political ideology by that one discussion.

I'm not an anarchist. But it bothered me that there was hardly any rebuttal to the 'anarchism only leads to war' statements ITT. That's all there is too it. I think you over analysed quite a bit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 09:59:54 2013 No.4287475 >>4287474 I'm not* exactly

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:09:43 2013 No.4287563
File: 16 KB, 207x243, untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4287451
>By bringing the essence into prominence one degrades the hitherto misapprehended appearance to a bare semblance, a deception. The essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for him who looks to the bottom of it — emptiness; emptiness is — world's essence (world's doings). ...."

>That feel when east and western philosophy connection

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:14:16 2013 No.4287585 >>4286940 ... Stirnerite logic. Deleuze actually said Stirner had a 'negative' influence on Niietzsche - i.e., Stirner being so shit made Nietzsche realize he had to reject some of his earlier Hegelian beliefs completely.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:20:16 2013 No.4287598

>>4286269
This is what you get reading Nietzsche without good direction. It's basically THE most common misreading of Nietzsche to think of him as a philosopher of the special snowflake (like Satre, or Stirner), because, on the face of Nietzsche's stuff, it often seems that he's arguing in favour of some kind of lolbertarian individual empowerment. It's really only when you actually pay attention to what he's saying (for instance 'happiness is for englishmen' is classically oblique, but also demonstrates a resolute opposition to all hedonism, or any notion that humans follow their interest) that you realize if there is any resemblance between N and any philosopher of special people, it's a coincidence derrived from a shared intellectual heritage (the rejection of Hegel, etc).

>>	Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J Wed Nov 20 11:22:16 2013 No.4287604 >>4287563 oh wow are you fo real you faggots are the worst, with your confirmation bias

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:24:15 2013 No.4287609 >>4287604 Stirner is shit, but there is actually an eastern connection here, through Schopenhauer. basically Schop really liked buddhism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:25:15 2013 No.4287613 >>4287604 eh I get that Buddhist emptiness is not exactly the same as Stirner, but to deny that there are similarities and that they are surely interesting is also foolish I think

>>	Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J Wed Nov 20 11:27:15 2013 No.4287617 >>4287613 Buddhist emptiness is an ideal to aspire to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:27:15 2013 No.4287618 >>4287465 yo I've been studying japanese for a while and have been thinking recently about translating some Jun. No promises yet on how much though

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:30:15 2013 No.4287629 >>4287617 no, not really, no Emptiness is a pretty complex concept, especially in Mahayana, but its not an ideal in that way, hell Nagarjuna clearly attacks any attachment to emptiness in his MMK

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:31:16 2013 No.4287631 >>4287609 >Stirner is shit Care to provide the critique OP was looking for?

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:31:16 2013 No.4287633

>>4287613
I'd be really very wary of assigning similarities between philosophers or schools of thought. Up in this thread, some faggots have been mixing Stirner up with anyone from Marx to Nietzsche, basically because if you don't read all that much philosophy, you don't know the central disputes, and it's hard to accurately gauge what position somebody is taking on something. Further, if you read two people side-by-side, there's a great deal of contamination, lexical and conceptual, that's often not that true to the work itself..If you go so far to read somebody in the light of another, you can come out with completely unusual (and often quite useful) hybrids. For instance, there's a Nietzschean Foucault, and a Marxist Foucault, depending on preference, or -more famously- a Hegelian Marx, and an empiricist Marx.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:33:16 2013 No.4287638 >>4287633 Agreed, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it though, just that we need to be very rigorous and fair in our reading of the texts. Comparative philosophy is nothing new of course.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:44:15 2013 No.4287667

>>4287474

Actually, I replied specifically to your "rebuttal" without assuming anything about you. Let me put it simpler for you then, since you seem dense.

There is no us/them-dicotomy, warlords arise because the state collapses. In ancient Greece, the "cradle of civilization" there were continual power struggles between city states, as well as within each of these states, leading to massive suffering and a large part of the population being reduced to slavery. This only ended when peace was forced on the smaller states by empire. Historically, any absence of centralized government has increased the amount of "warlordism".

Again, that anarchists imagine a world where everyone would follow their conceptions of social justice, rather than studies of actual social/political behavior, as the solution to social problems, makes anarchism a joke, and a poor one.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:44:15 2013 No.4287668

>>4287631
Not really, no. I don't believe ideology is a simple matter, I don't believe in the individual, and I don't like polemics, so Stirner's a non-starter for me. I mean, I could spend a few months of my life doing an updated version of the German ideology (a Nietzschean attack on Stirner would be interesting, for instance) but what would be the point? You can't convince people who read Stirner of anything, because they don't have an epistemology that allows anything other than subjective experience in the weak sense, and in any case, there really aren't very many of them. So basically most of the people reading any critique of Stirner wouldn't have read Stirner in the first place, which wouldn't be good academic ethics in any case. I mean, Stirner is far more commercially popular than he is academically, so what little response you get probably won't be very interesting.

There are basically two categories of people you write about. Those like Heidegger, that you really have to respond to at some point. And those like Whitehead, who are a little more obscure, but very interesting. Stirner's in the odd position of not being particularly obscure, but not being particularly difficult to avoid dealing with - sort of like Georg Sorel.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:47:16 2013 No.4287673 >>4287668 (Or, for that matter, particularly interesting. It's hardly a novel idea to say that ethics are ways of decieving people into acting against their best interest, for instance - Callicles says as much in the Giorgas.)

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 11:54:15 2013 No.4287696

>>4287585
This is actually Deleuze being misleading here. He's basically overegging the connection between Stirner and Nietzsche so he can use their dissimilarity to draft Nietzsche into the 'anti-Hegel' camp, since basically D's project in any given work is to shit on Hegel, or failing that, Kant.

(Secondarily, he basically says that Stirner's the conclusion of Hegel's philosophy, which is, from Deleuze, a total cuss - but aimed at Hegel more than Stirner).

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 12:13:02 2013 No.4287763 >>4287618 Sounds great. Be sure to share on /lit/ when you do!

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 12:14:02 2013 No.4287771 So what's the best translation of Der Einzige? Anything I should readbeforehand, Hegel?

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 12:21:02 2013 No.4287795

>>4287598
>all these implications

Read part one of The Ego next to Genealogy and see the similarities. I would never equate Stirner and Nietzsche completely, I'm merely saying that parts of Nietzsche's work seem very much inspired by Stirner. When there is such a likeness between two philosophers from the same country from roughly the same era, and one of them certainly read works in which the other is explicitly mentioned and there are also reasons to believe he mentioned him on multiple occasions it would be nonsensical to conclude that they obviously have nothing to do with each other. Unless of course you have personal stake in keeping them separated.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 12:27:03 2013 No.4287806

>>4287771
I suppose the Cambridge edition would do quite well as far as English translations go. The whole 'ego' thing really annoys me though, it's partly responsible for all kinds of idiots thinking Stirner is referring to their conventional or Freudian concept of the ego. A lot of whom then tend to attack Stirner based on a straw man forged out of their own ignorance.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 12:29:02 2013 No.4287808

>>4287795
>personal stake
Well, I do, basically because I think reading Stirner is toxic to understanding Nietzsche. Basically, the main obstacle to understanding Nietzsche is weaning each student off the mindset that Nietzsche is a polemic against their mom and dad. Stirner literally is a polemic against mom and dad, so it's really not helpful.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 12:31:02 2013 No.4287816 >>4287808 I agree with you about Nietzsche, but I don't agree about Stirner. I think you're selling him short in the same way most people do with Nietzsche. What are your specific problems with Stirner?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 12:38:02 2013 No.4287833 >>4287808 >literally is a polemic against mom and dad If this is your main argument just fuck off already. Like he doesn't argue against anything else... Fucking retards who think a Wikipedia article is better than the book itself...

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 12:45:03 2013 No.4287854

>>4287816
Well, first off I hate the writing style. He writes like a german romantic - pretentious at best, unreadable at worst. He's not as bad as Novalis or someshit, but he's still awful.

Further, anti-authoritarian individualism is the moronic preserve of adolescents. Stirner should have known better than to believe in the 'war of all against all', which is a postulate, masquerading as a fact.

Secondly, I hate philosophy that focuses on subjective experience and preference as a general rule, since I see it as deeply compatible with capitalism.

Thirdly, I hate slogan philosophy. A philosophy book is a machine - you use a series of devices to create a new concept. Stirner doesn't do that, he just slams slogan after slogan, and the result is vague enough that there's always room to call any critique a 'strawman'.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 12:48:03 2013 No.4287857

>>4287854

>Stirner should have known better than to believe in the 'war of all against all'

Who said he did.

>I see it as deeply compatible with capitalism.

And yet Stirner's philosophy is one of the most damning critiques of capitalism...

> Stirner doesn't do that, he just slams slogan after slogan

Jesus... have you actually read him?

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 12:52:02 2013 No.4287869

>>4287857
>Who said he did.

"Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have."

Who hasn't read Stirner, now? Look, I know you're knew to all this, but a Hobbes quote is almost bound to come up in this kind of discussion, and Stirner was always going to include it.

Also
>And yet Stirner's philosophy is one of the most damning critiques of capitalism...

Is stupid. I didn't say Stirner loev capitalism. I said he was compatible with capitalism. The pope doesn't like capitalism, but supports it. Stirner supports it because there's no way a Stirnerite organization would be able to be effective in resisting capital.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:02:02 2013 No.4287886
File: 338 KB, 1237x867, stirner15.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4287854
>Well, first off I hate the writing style. He writes like a german romantic - pretentious at best, unreadable at worst. He's not as bad as Novalis or someshit, but he's still awful.
Well I can see why someone wouldn't like his style, even though I think it's delicious.

>Further, anti-authoritarian individualism is the moronic preserve of adolescents.
Dismissing thought because it doesn't fall under your concept of maturity is a bit silly.

>Stirner should have known better than to believe in the 'war of all against all', which is a postulate, masquerading as a fact.
This is an overly simplistic interpretation of his acknowledging that individuals can be and often are at odds with each other.

>Secondly, I hate philosophy that focuses on subjective experience and preference as a general rule, since I see it as deeply compatible with capitalism.
This I can understand as far as having an agenda, but at the same time I completely disagree. I'd consider philosophy that focuses on anything else to be deeply delusional. Wouldn't you hate Nietzsche for the same reasons though?

>Thirdly, I hate slogan philosophy. A philosophy book is a machine - you use a series of devices to create a new concept. Stirner doesn't do that, he just slams slogan after slogan, and the result is vague enough that there's always room to call any critique a 'strawman'.
Again I see what you mean, but I'd call this intellectual honesty and, however paradoxical this may sound, rigor. It takes true rigor to acknowledge the limits of philosophical discourse and not pretend to go beyond them.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:03:02 2013 No.4287888

Actually, add this to the list of reasons why Stirner is shit:
people who read Stirner refuse to accept any criticism of him, even if it's a criticism of something he openly believes in, but instead always say you're strawmanning or that you haven't read Stirner.

Now, I think this is because if you're a subjectivist, you react to all attacks on things you 'know' as attacks on yourself, since all experience is deeply meshed with your own identity. Further, if you're an adolescent, your self-identity is fragile, threatened by parental injunctions, and uncertain, so you must strike back with extreme force. Thus, the typical Stirner reader reacts to somebody talking about Stirner with two phrases:
-That's not Stirner
(translation: you don't know me!)
-You are an idiot
(translation: leave me alone!)

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:03:02 2013 No.4287889 >>4287869 For clarity, this is the response of the anon who's question you answered: >>4287886 Not the anon you're responding to now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:07:02 2013 No.4287898 >>4287888 >people who call someone out for not reading or grasping stirner are disgruntleds teen therefore all straw men should be acknowledged Sub-par sophisms, my friend.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:14:03 2013 No.4287910

>>4287886
>his acknowledging
Ah, but there's a much greater context to that phrase. It was the basis of Hobbes' levithian, and is the ontology behind the modern state. My criticism is basically a paraphrase of Hegel's challenge to Hobbes - for me, as with Hegel, you can't 'acknowledge' the 'war of all against all', because it's a supposed characteristic of a state of nature. In life, we experience many and varied examples of co-operation. Even when people are at war, they play football over no-mans land on christmas day. To say that there's some hypothetical base line of universal murder is perverse.

>Nietzsche
I don't read Nietzsche as an individualist at all. I mean, take for example his Dyonisian/Appoline distinction in the BoT. Dyonisus is the god that strips all conventions, ignores all constraint, and is most characteristic of the real nature of experience. However, Apollo is the god that is identified with individual experience, illusion, philosophy, and knowledge. If he were a simple individualist, Dyonisus would be identified with the individual, since it would be ontologically real in a strong sense.

>acknowledge the limits of philosophical discourse and not pretend to go beyond them.

Here, again, Hegel's helpful. You see, when you do this kind of speculative ban, you actually perform an act of speculation. When you say 'here's how much we can know', you have to take a position outside of the bounds of that possible knowledge. I mean, how do you know the limits of reason without employing reason to learn of them?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:16:03 2013 No.4287913 In fact, if we're going to talk about the limits of philosophical discourse, the only limit we really know for sure that philosophy must acknowledge, is that of philosophy's inability to know its own limits.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:16:03 2013 No.4287914 I think this might be the most pseudo-intellectual thread I've ever read.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:18:02 2013 No.4287918 >>4287914 to the contrary I've only read the last two lengthy posts and they seem surprisingly reasonable for /lit/'s level, much better than Marxist or Communist bickering

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:18:02 2013 No.4287919
File: 419 KB, 1100x650, 1368834948994.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4287914
/lit/ has always been a competition of name-dropping and buzzwords, which goes back and forth because neither can actually confront concepts due to their knowledge being restricted to a wikipedia article. this results in constant posturing without anything actually being discussed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:23:02 2013 No.4287934 >>4287919 This.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:26:02 2013 No.4287943 >>4287919 I think >>4287888 actually refers to people on /lit/ and online in general. People treat disagreement as a personal attack and so become totally unreasonable. This is, predictably, totally toxic to debate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:38:02 2013 No.4287958 >>4285508 >/lit/ had some dude who wrote his diss. on stirner a while back. He managed to convince some other assholes to read stirner. ahahahahah that's me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:48:03 2013 No.4287979 >>4287958 Whelp, I guess you can look on this thread as your creation and feel... ... proud?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 13:57:25 2013 No.4287996 >>4287910 >Dyonisus what is this spelling

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 14:25:25 2013 No.4288054

>>4287979

I didn't actually start it, though. I'd seen one or two Stirner threads before, and had read parts of the book, when I saw a thread that went "So, did Nietzsche just rip of Stirner?" which I thought sounded very unlikely. When I started researching, I found out that there was actually a big controversy about this when Nietzsche first got famous (one reason why the above contention that Stirner would have been forgotten without Marx is wrong - DDI wasn't even published by the time Stirner got en vogue again in the 1890s). So I only started studying Stirner seriously because of /lit/, not the other way around...

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 14:31:25 2013 No.4288065 >>4288054 So basically we need to look further back to find patient zero.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 14:36:44 2013 No.4288076 >>4288065 It's like trying to find the first sufferer of genital warts in an old person's home. Stirner and 4chan go together like adolescent angst and acne.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 14:39:43 2013 No.4288088

>>4287910
>Ah, but there's a much greater context to that phrase. It was the basis of Hobbes' levithian, and is the ontology behind the modern state. My criticism is basically a paraphrase of Hegel's challenge to Hobbes - for me, as with Hegel, you can't 'acknowledge' the 'war of all against all', because it's a supposed characteristic of a state of nature. In life, we experience many and varied examples of co-operation. Even when people are at war, they play football over no-mans land on christmas day. To say that there's some hypothetical base line of universal murder is perverse.
I don't see how that's a criticism of Stirner, he doesn't dismiss cooperation at all.

>I don't read Nietzsche as an individualist at all. I mean, take for example his Dyonisian/Appoline distinction in the BoT. Dyonisus is the god that strips all conventions, ignores all constraint, and is most characteristic of the real nature of experience. However, Apollo is the god that is identified with individual experience, illusion, philosophy, and knowledge. If he were a simple individualist, Dyonisus would be identified with the individual, since it would be ontologically real in a strong sense.
Why would you, in your reading of Nietzsche's philosophical oeuvre, put an emphasis on that strange, half grown work of dramatic theory that came into being while he was still under the firm influence of Schopenhauer and Wagner?

>Here, again, Hegel's helpful. You see, when you do this kind of speculative ban, you actually perform an act of speculation. When you say 'here's how much we can know', you have to take a position outside of the bounds of that possible knowledge. I mean, how do you know the limits of reason without employing reason to learn of them?
This leads to nothing but full scepticism. Which is fine of course, but it dismisses all philosophy just the same.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 14:40:43 2013 No.4288092 >>4288065 Stanley claims to be it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 14:41:44 2013 No.4288095 >>4288076 Marx and /lit/ go together like adolescent angst and acne.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 15:10:44 2013 No.4288168
File: 1.77 MB, 444x330, 1380536142674.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4285745

Do you deny that it is the more intuitive view? If not, then the burden of proof is on the egoists.

>>4285933

Wow fagtron you sure convinced me with those hot assertions.

>>4285976

>I want to do whatever I want
>HURR DEONTOLOGY IS CHILDISH

reference attached gif for further information on my reaction to this post

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 15:30:17 2013 No.4288216 >>4286135 >wiki >as a source baby's first high school paper

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 15:46:18 2013 No.4288269 >>4287002 because ayn rand duh

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 17:38:39 2013 No.4288600

>>4288168
I didn't say deontology was childish, I said it's for weak people. Some people need that kind of morals because they can't handle the responsibility of their own decisions. Children aren't like that, they still aren't contaminated by such inferior morals.

>>	h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 17:46:39 2013 No.4288620 The unique one is just another spook, the spookiest actually also love how you wee cunts never thanked stan christo for introducing you guys to stirner...but i forgive you

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 17:56:40 2013 No.4288637 >>4288600 but children cant handle responsability of the outcome of their actions.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 17:57:40 2013 No.4288639

>>4287668
>I don't believe ideology is a simple matter
Nobody said so. Well, maybe Marx. But not Stirner.
>I don't believe in the individual
Eh, moral egoism isn't a matter of belief in the individual. Just read again (and better).
>Nietzschean attack on Stirner
Oh, boy! Iluminate me, please.
>You can't convince people who read Stirner of anything
Aaahahahahaha... Oh God, are you for real? So you've never read Stirner? And you still criticize him? Nice.
>because they don't have an epistemology that allows anything other than subjective experience in the weak sense
I read Stirner. And Kant. And Schopenhauer, Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Quine, Putnam, Boghossian, Nozick and Millikan too, for example.
>Stirner is far more commercially popular than he is academically
That's strange, since I read him recommended by my professor once when looking for bibliography for a project, years after I heard about anyone who knew him here on /lit/.

But well, since you seem so clever, you don't even need to explain why Stirner is shit. I'll have to take your word for it.

>>	h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 17:58:40 2013 No.4288648 >>4288600 i'm 100 percent sure you have no fucking clue what deontology means

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 17:58:40 2013 No.4288649 >>4288620 have a present http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVdWXqtk484

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:03:40 2013 No.4288664 >>4288600 Think before you type. You're saying deontologists can't handle the repercussions of their actions, but doesn't this presuppose some kind of morality? Calm down and just think out your response.

>>	h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 18:04:39 2013 No.4288667 >>4288649 gangster shit ace, very blonde on blonde

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:06:39 2013 No.4288672
File: 16 KB, 378x330, 8e1208f98825.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4287888
>why Stirner is shit:
>because people who read Stirner...

Yeah, this is totally not a personal attack to people who read before discussing something.
Good job, fag.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:06:39 2013 No.4288675 >>4288620 >The unique one is just another spook, the spookiest actually How can you justify this. The Einzige is only the collection of concrete experiences of a person which cannot actually be defined with language.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:14:40 2013 No.4288686

>>4288637
>of the outcome of their actions.
No, I didn't say that. I said
>the responsibility of their own decisions
Put emphasis on the word 'own'. No matter the outcome, just the responsibility of deciding just because you felt like deciding what you did because you did, and not because you thought you were behaving like a good boy.

>>4288648
Kant is a mandatory lecture on the first year of philosophy, bro.

>>4288664
>You're saying deontologists can't handle the repercussions of their actions
Except I didn't. Deontology isn't a mater of consequentialism, you should know it.
Calm down and just think about what you read.

h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 18:15:40 2013 No.4288687

>>4288675
>The Einzige is only the collection of concrete experiences of a person which cannot actually be defined with language.

yeah ace i know what the fuck stirner says about it i just happen to possess this like, weird trait wherein i actually start to think about the shit that someone writes without immediately swallowing it whole

basically the unique one is the spook of nihilism, which actively seeks to react against all the other spooks and in doing so, appropriates an identity of its own. language is fully able of rendering out all of its facets, provided one begins analysis

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:16:39 2013 No.4288693 >>4288639 >years after Meant before.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:17:39 2013 No.4288697 File: 93 KB, 699x960, 1364229310661.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4288687 >nihilism

h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 18:18:39 2013 No.4288701

>>4288686

you might a superficial understanding of immanuel cunt but i was thrown off by your claim of weakness. deontologic practical reason requires an iron will, albeit a horribly misguided one, and thus demands great strength and resolve... so, it's definitely not for "weak people"

>>	h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 18:21:39 2013 No.4288706 >>4288697 yes, nihilism. care to object or are you gonna post me another hilarious may-may?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:23:40 2013 No.4288709 >>4288675 >actually responding to someone who only goes into these threads to troll and shitpost He's not interested in a discussion, just getting people made for fun.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:24:40 2013 No.4288710 >>4288686 Whatever dude. My point was that by focusing on these consequences you're assuming there to be a measure to which they are held. You're awfully sophistic.

>>	h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 18:27:47 2013 No.4288718 >>4288709 my intentions and productive discussion aren't mutually exclusive and are you still mad about the other day babygirl? kek

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:35:39 2013 No.4288735 >>4288709 >getting people made That's a great honor though. Then you're pretty much untouchable and can basically slap the shit out of Joe Pesci with 0 repercussions.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:44:38 2013 No.4288755

>>4288701
It would take an iron will to obey your fuhrer to death. I wouldn't call you strong, though.

When you can fool yourself into thinking you did it because it was the right thing, instead of admitting you did it because your inclinations made you want to do it, I'll call you a weak person.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:45:38 2013 No.4288758 >>4288706 Why moral egoism is nihilist? Also, >>4286161

>>	h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 18:48:38 2013 No.4288762 >>4288755 >admitting it since there is no awareness of self-deception your criticism is largely irrelevant. misguided strength of character is still strength

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:50:38 2013 No.4288768

>>4288710
Missing the point again.
Fuck consequences. We're talking about responsibility of doing what you chose to do BECAUSE you chose it. I don't have a moral justification. I don't do it because it's good, or because it's my duty. I'm not Eichmann, I don't do what I do because "I'm just doing my job". I do what I do because I, and only me, want. So whatever happens it's my only fault. I have no justification other than my inclinations. If I fuck up, I fuck up, and there's no "b-but I was doing what I had to.." bullshit to make me feel better about myself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:52:39 2013 No.4288772 >>4288762 Yeah and my dick is p strong too. Strength of character isn't MORAL strength, it's just a matter of testosterone.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 18:55:39 2013 No.4288777 >>4288768 Forgot to add this: Ethical universalism is gay. That's all.

h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 18:57:39 2013 No.4288785

>>4288758

that quote is entirely misguided. if we were to classify pure egoism as having value, after total rejection of morality (which of course involves rejection of the values relevant therein, which is why its strange that someone on stanford would choose to say that basing one's disposition on strict adherence to his own non-moral ethic is somehow meaningfully different than basing one's disposition on rejection of all other external value...while this might look like an actual distinction, it reduces to the same thing.), then we would say that the disposition of all confessed nihilists then would be classified as one to which they assign value, after all they would not be as such, rather than something else, otherwise.

the detachment of oneself from all moral norms, all spooks, nation, mankind, family, god, etc etc you are left with nothing but nihilism...

h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 19:01:38 2013 No.4288798

>>4288772

look here idiot, projecting your own moral structure on the deontologist would clearly lead you to think that your kinds of morals are the only ones to which strength can be attributed.

the kantian would say the same thing about you, and he'd probably be way more right than you since you're probably the kind of lazy i-dont-caire-bout-anything-yo douchebag.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 19:06:39 2013 No.4288803

>>4288785
Except you don't reject everything. You only reject to be chained to anything. It's ok to follow some kind of morals as long as you do it because you really want. If you actually read Stirner, you'll notice a paragraph where he argues against freedom as having intrinsic value. Freedom is only negative: you want to be free of something you don't like. But if you want it, if you really are happy with it, you can choose to be a slave.
You don't understand moral egoism. It's not a matter of rejecting everything for the sake of it. It's a matter of rejecting everything you don't really need.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 19:10:39 2013 No.4288809

>>4288798
Oh wow all those personal attacks are arousing me. I love newtripfriends.
We weren't talking about my moral structures. We were talking about deontology. Deontology is pointless if it's not meant to justify pietist nutjobery or any kind of fanaticism that makes of yourself a piece of a complex mechanism that works towards a higher end.

h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 19:13:38 2013 No.4288816

>>4288803
first off Re-read my post ace, as its clear that it flew way over your head

>It's not a matter of rejecting everything for the sake of it. It's a matter of rejecting everything you don't really need.

This reduces to the same thing. The ability for something to be rejected pre-supposes lack of its inherent value. Removing the universilized value-concept of things and replacing this status with your own purely materialistic (and i hope you don't think i mean materialism as in cars cash and boats yo) desire-based standard is the definition of moral nihilism. Stop fucking posting me quotes without thinking about their implications.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 19:14:38 2013 No.4288817 >>4288809 >stan >new get the fuck out, stab yourself in the throat, douse yourself in gasoline and castrate your useless testicles you disgusting faggot pathetic piece of shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 19:15:38 2013 No.4288819 >>4288809 >newtripfriends. >doesn't know Stan. Your new is showing.

h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 19:20:38 2013 No.4288836

>>4288809

your lack of reading comprehension is embarrassing ace. your stating that adherence to deontologic morals is not strength (because of the pietist nutjobery etc etc, and you wouldn't be wrong with that) is clearly driven by your application of your own moral structure onto it.

Moral strength is inherently dependent on whichever moral structure we assume. Thus, you can't judge a kantian as having poor moral strength because you think that kantianism is bullshit, only if his adherence to kantianism was weak one.

this going in yet or not?

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 19:28:38 2013 No.4288854

>>4288816
It doesn't need to be purely materialistic. There is something that has inherent value and it's not really what one would call materialistic (well, if by materialistic you meant somehow subject to the empirical world, then yes, maybe), yourself, the agent. Moral egoism doesn't presuppose things having inherent value, but I don't think this implies it's nihilistic. There are values, the values you create. Creating values isn't nihilistic, it just doesn't suppose they need to be universal and eternal. From the perspective of moral egoism there is something with inherent value, but it's like an empty object, like an attribute ready to be attached to whatever you choose.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 19:30:39 2013 No.4288860 >>4288762 top lyl doing something because an ugly Austrian told you to doesn't make you strong it makes you a subservient whore

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 19:32:38 2013 No.4288864

>>4288817
>>4288819
Oh wow, sorry for not memorizing his trip, I'm too busy caring about stuff I give a fuck about. I stopped caring about tripfags like when brownbro died.

>>4288836
To make it clear, when I talk about strength in a moral sense I think about the cynics. Not being subject to anything other than yourself. As I see it, autonomy is strength. Deontology doesn't imply autonomy, since one is dependent on his duty.

How can dependence be strong in a moral sense? I don't try to project, I try to clarify.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Wed Nov 20 19:40:47 2013 No.4288875 what a shitty tripname jesus christ like how many times have people called you b8 or m8

h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 19:43:46 2013 No.4288876

>>4288854
>(well, if by materialistic you meant somehow subject to the empirical world, then yes, maybe), yourself, the agent

thats exactly the kind of materialism i mean and that kind of value (valuing oneself) is within all, even nihilists...within everyone who continues existing and does not kill themselves.

>but I don't think this implies it's nihilistic.

you don't think, but you would be wrong. read up on moral nihilism.

>Creating values isn't nihilistic

first off this is impossible, as we're confined within a specific kind of existence and creating values would imply the creation of a new kind of being-mode, which is impossible, i don't even know what the creation of a value would look like. all values are qualities assigned to pre- existing things. since humans all have the same biological dispositions, they are all geared towards the same general things, or all within a group are geared towards the same group-relevant things, thus all your values are derivatives of pre-existing values.
the moral egoist chooses whichever ones he wants. your thinking that i said that he rejects all might be the source of your confusion. my point was that once value is assigned a temporary statues (ie. you're not chained to it) that morally relevant quality of the value is necessarily annihilated, otherwise it would "chain you". hence moral nihilism.

>>	Deep&Edgy !!MNSR2AbfIhT Wed Nov 20 19:45:46 2013 No.4288879 >>4288875 Disregard that I suck cocks

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Wed Nov 20 19:45:47 2013 No.4288882 way to fuck that up bud

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Wed Nov 20 19:46:47 2013 No.4288883 >>4288875 >>4288875 >>4288879 Disregard these I suck cocks

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 19:47:47 2013 No.4288884 >>4288875 Stan has a new trip everyday now. Are you the real DE

>>	h8 !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 19:49:47 2013 No.4288886 >>4288884 I barely even post here >>4288875 Hey basement lord. Still 40-year old virgin status? le kill yourself

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Wed Nov 20 19:50:47 2013 No.4288890 >>4288884 >Stan has a new trip everyday now. what a mook, how's he going to topple my post count doing that

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Wed Nov 20 19:50:47 2013 No.4288893 >>4288882 Sorry guys, disregard that also, because I suck the penis.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Wed Nov 20 19:52:47 2013 No.4288897 >>4288890 It's like, just the darndest thing. I keep saying things, but like, I suck huge cocks, so you know, wow.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Wed Nov 20 19:53:46 2013 No.4288901 wow

>>	spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 19:54:46 2013 No.4288903 >>4288890 haha, don't you know that my trip first started during the night of 1000 deepandthroats? So even if i gave up life and committed myself to beating your post count, it would still be Deep&Edgy

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 19:55:46 2013 No.4288906 oh god it's happening again

>>	spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 19:56:47 2013 No.4288911 >>4288860 you're a dumbass ace, hth

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 19:57:04 2013 No.4288914 This is why I decided to drop my trip on here. At first I thought it would be useful for 1v1 discussion, but faggots can't miss the chance to derail the thread because "hurr durr tripfags".

>>	edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Wed Nov 20 19:58:02 2013 No.4288915 dude pick a new name this is ridiculous you're like 30

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 19:59:02 2013 No.4288920 >>4288876 Hey, would you consider Diogenes of Sinope to be a moral nihilist, then?

>>	edgy Wed Nov 20 20:02:02 2013 No.4288926 actually idc

>>	deeper&edgier !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 20:02:02 2013 No.4288928 >>4288915 no he's around 38-40. hey d, how old are you now, for serious?

septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 20:07:02 2013 No.4288940

>>4288920

No. He just rejected the values of his most contemporaries. He did however believe in a specific kind of naturalistic ethic, which he saw as having inherent and universilizible (and permanent) value, thus being far from a nihilist.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 20:11:02 2013 No.4288947

So Stirner's main point is essentially that you can't conceptualize experience withou crass simpl ification? But isn't that obvious? To think is all about "forgetting differences". The word tree isn't an actual tree and the ideal tree does not exist, but all these things are like tools humans have developed to interact with the environment in a more versatile way.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 20:13:03 2013 No.4288953 >>4288940 And don't you find moral egoism's materialistic "values" to be naturalistic? In other words, doesn't moral egoism resemble to cynicism when it comes to values?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 20:15:04 2013 No.4288956 >>4288947 You're talking about epistemology. Stirner talks about ethics.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Wed Nov 20 20:17:04 2013 No.4288963 >>4288914 >faggots can't miss the chance to derail the thread because "hurr durr tripfags". Never been part of a community, eh?

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 20:21:04 2013 No.4288976

>>4288963
It pisses me off when there's a thread about a certain topic I'm interested in and it gets derailed for tripfag drama. Back in the Dark Ages there were whole threads dedicated to tripfags. And it was ok, since dramas didn't derail the few good threads there were.

septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 20:23:04 2013 No.4288980

>>4288953

you're not getting it.
it this part :
>inherent and universilizible (and permanent) value
which excludes nihilism

and its this part:

>temporary, pick and choose, unable to be chained

which makes stirner moral nihilism

the substance makes no difference, merely their structural and idealistic (or on the other side, purely materialistic) form

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 20:23:04 2013 No.4288982 >>4288956 All the same. The idea of justice is just a useful tool for social interaction.

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 20:32:53 2013 No.4289008

>>4288980
But what makes values temporary, from an egoistic perspective, is the ability to change them. That creative nothingness (I think he uses these words in the book) is what has value, and it gives it to anything it chooses to. What does autarcheia mean? What's the point of self-sufficiency? Isn't that what Stirner is talking about? There's something Stirner defends after all that destructive action, the unique one's ability to feel free from external stuff he never chose. I think both are equally nihilistic. Diogenes never said his values were universal or temporary. he just freed himself from conventions he thought were unnecessary. Stirner doesn't argue in favor of nihilism (even if it can be implied), he argues in favor of the unique one's autonomy.

>>	septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed Nov 20 20:35:53 2013 No.4289014 >>4289008 >But what makes values temporary, from an egoistic perspective, is the ability to change them. thats exactly the point ace sweet jesus. please re-read everything i've written

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 20:41:53 2013 No.4289034

>>4289014
Read the rest:
>the unique one's ability to feel free from external stuff he never chose
The point of "changing" is just destroying what he doesn't need, to find what he really wants, just like the cynics!
The only thing that has intrinsic value is the unique one, he's the one who reaches self-suficiency once free from external ideals and social norms. The unique one IS an autarchei.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 20 20:42:53 2013 No.4289040 If each experience is irreducibly unique, how can people hope to understand one another? Are we all alone?

Anonymous Wed Nov 20 21:48:00 2013 No.4289215

>>4288620
>>4289040
>Each one of us is an utterly unique being, beyond description, beyond words. This does not mean that we share nothing with any other, but rather that even the way in which each of us encounters the shared thing is unique. This uniqueness does not stem from some individual essence – that would be metaphysics and imply the possibility that we might fail to live up to this essence. Thus, it would transform uniqueness into a power above us to which we must conform, and this would require the creation of a shared, value-laden language to describe what uniqueness was, destroying it as uniqueness. My uniqueness, your uniqueness, every individual’s uniqueness originates from the fact that the endless interweaving of relationships that go into creating each of us in every moment is unique to each of us. No one else could possible have precisely the same fluctuating patterns of acting, perceiving, consuming, transforming and relating as you or I going into the creation of who she is in each moment.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 21 11:31:48 2013 No.4290756 >>4288687 The Einzige is Stirner's term for for non-differentiated, prelingual phenomena. Language can't grasp it at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 21 11:32:48 2013 No.4290762 >>4288168 >Do you deny that it is the more intuitive view? Of course.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 21 13:18:04 2013 No.4291140 >>4286135 http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html

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