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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 80 KB, 626x792, 448584585.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4423626 No.4423626 [Reply] [Original]

>muh self-enjoyment

So in the end, Stirner is simply a hedonist?

>> No.4423645

He is the capitalist version of Bakunin

>> No.4423657

>>4423645
Stirner was not a capitalist at all.

>> No.4423659

>>4423657
He is okay with ego

>> No.4423669
File: 14 KB, 200x307, 1387735036018.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4423669

>>4423659
Yes but if you read the Ego and Its Own the guy evens mentions the theory of surplus value and remarks that workers cannot fully embrace their own egos under the domination of capitalists.
Not all egoists are capitalists. Renzo Novatore and Bruno Filippi certainty were not.

>> No.4423682

>>4423669
How about the Objectivist version of Bakunin

>> No.4423685

>muh spooks

>> No.4423692

>>4423682
No not at all.

>> No.4423728

>>4423626
>My intercourse with the world consists in my enjoying it, and so consuming it for my self-enjoyment. Intercourse is the enjoyment of the world, and belongs to my—self-enjoyment.

>Let us take up the same thing from another side. When one is anxious only to live, he easily, in this solicitude, forgets the enjoyment of life. If his only concern is for life, and he thinks "if I only have my dear life," he does not apply his full strength to using, i. e. enjoying, life. But how does one use life? In using it up, like the candle, which one uses in burning it up. One uses life, and consequently himself the living one, in consuming it and himself. Enjoyment of life is using life up.

>Now—we are in search of the enjoyment of life!

>A vast interval separates the two views. In the old I go toward myself, in the new I start from myself; in the former I long for myself, in the latter I have myself and do with myself as one does with any other property,—I enjoy myself at my pleasure. I am no longer afraid for my life, but "squander" it.

>Henceforth the question runs, not how one can acquire life, but how one can squander, enjoy it; or, not how one is to produce the true self in himself, but how one is to dissolve himself, to live himself out.

Yup.

>> No.4423733

>>4423645
>>4423659
>>4423682

kill yourself. or at least read

>> No.4423749

>>4423728
>What else was Diogenes of Sinope seeking for than the true enjoyment of life, which he discovered in having the least possible wants? What else Aristippus, who found it in a cheery temper under all circumstances? They are seeking for cheery, unclouded life-courage, for cheeriness; they are seeking to "be of good cheer."

It's also fitting that Stirner includes these guys in his shout-outs.

>> No.4423823

Stirner is nothing but a spook.

>> No.4424739

>>4423823
Wrong

>> No.4424999

>>4423626
Well, that's not the point of the book, but I guess he falls under the category since he doesn't develop the subject and shit appears to point at that direction. But I don't think moral egoism (the theory, separated from Stirner himself) is necessarily hedonist.

>> No.4425004

>>4423823
yer mom is a spook

>> No.4425012

i don't get why you guys keep bringing this guy up. his philosophy is unoriginal and despicable. that something is a "spook" is an idiotic argument.

>> No.4425372

>>4425012
>unoriginal

Name someone who did it before

>> No.4425424

>>4425372

epicurus, spinoza, godwin

>> No.4426131

Stirner is not a capitalist he rejects the notion of private property.

>> No.4426637

>>4425424
Tepekek you havent read stirner

>> No.4428161

>>4423626

>muh self-consciousness toward absolute-freedom

Stirner was a Hegelian.

>> No.4428166

>>4428161
Freedom is only a means to an end for the Maximator:

>"Does not the spirit thirst for freedom?"—Alas, not my spirit alone, my body too thirsts for it hourly! When before the odorous castle-kitchen my nose tells my palate of the savory dishes that are being prepared therein, it feels a fearful pining at its dry bread; when my eyes tell the hardened back about soft down on which one may lie more delightfully than on its compressed straw, a suppressed rage seizes it; when—but let us not follow the pains further.—And you call that a longing for freedom? What do you want to become free from, then? From your hardtack and your straw bed? Then throw them away!—But that seems not to serve you: you want rather to have the freedom to enjoy delicious foods and downy beds. Are men to give you this "freedom,"—are they to permit it to you? You do not hope that from their philanthropy, because you know they all think like—you: each is the nearest to himself! How, therefore, do you mean to come to the enjoyment of those foods and beds? Evidently not otherwise than in making them your property!

>If you think it over rightly, you do not want the freedom to have all these fine things, for with this freedom you still do not have them; you want really to have them, to call them yours and possess them as your property. Of what use is a freedom to you, indeed, if it brings in nothing? And, if you became free from everything, you would no longer have anything; for freedom is empty of substance. Whoso knows not how to make use of it, for him it has no value this useless permission; but how I make use of it depends on my personality.

>I have no objection to freedom, but I wish more than freedom for you: you should not merely be rid of what you do not want, you should also have what you want; you should not only be a "freeman," you should be an "owner" too.

>> No.4428223
File: 40 KB, 400x237, AYN THE RAND FACE.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4428223

MAX STIRNER IS THE AYN RAND FOR PERSONS WHO LACK A MOTIVE AND DO NOT CARE TO DETERMINE IT/DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WANT AND DO NOT CARE TO KNOW.

>> No.4428237

>>4428223
What's your motive?

>> No.4428241
File: 11 KB, 100x100, AREIZOO 100x100.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4428241

>>4428237

REGARDING WHAT?

>> No.4428257

>>4428241
>A MOTIVE
An example?

>> No.4428258

>>4428223
>WHO LACK A MOTIVE

REGARDING WHAT?

>>4428241
fucking doofus

>> No.4428259
File: 33 KB, 296x289, AREIZOO.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4428259

>>4428257

DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT "MOTIVE" MEANS?

IF NOT, SEARCH THE DEFINITION IN A DICTIONARY; WHY ASK SOMEONE ELSE?

>> No.4428267

>>4428259
I know what the word means, I don't know what you mean. Therefore, could you give an example of such a motive?

>> No.4428273

>>4428267

SUCH A MOTIVE REGARDING WHAT?

>> No.4428280

>>4428259
>>4428267
>>4428273
who's on first

you're both fucking retarded

>> No.4428282
File: 9 KB, 725x374, 0pf6HO5.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4428282

>>4428273
Eugenetics for example.

>> No.4428288

>>4428282

I WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD POPULATED BY GENETICALLY, AND BIOLOGICALLY OPTIMAL PERSONS.

>> No.4428291
File: 169 KB, 640x623, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4428291

>>4428282
Or becoming a proper academic

>> No.4428292

>>4428288

What is "biologically optimal"? What does that mean to you? I shouldn't need to tell you that you sound retarded right now.

>> No.4428295

>>4428288

THAT DESIRE DERIVES FROM MY PRIME MOTIVE –WHICH PROBABLY IS TO WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING WITH YOUR EARLIER QUESTION– WHICH IS TO PERFECT, AND TO BE PERFECT.

MY EXPLAINING THIS TO YOU STEMS FROM THAT PRIME MOTIVE.

>> No.4428825

>>4428295
>>4428288
You are retarded. Take a high-school level biology class please. And until that point please keep your thoughts to yourself.

>> No.4428828

>>4428288
What do you think natural selection is?

>> No.4428830

Sorry I know you guys probably get this all the time but where do I start reading Stirner? I haven't read much philosophy before...should I start with someone else?

>> No.4428859

Hedonism is a very self-structured form of egoism; it is based around the principle that enjoyment is the only good and that holiness is the maximal amount of good minus the minimal pain.

Stirner, on the other hand, fits the concept of hedonism within a greater societal struggle. While hedonism thinks it fine that one would obey laws, adhere to social norms, in order to prevent pain, Stirner holds that it is not only negative to adhere to these structures but in fact necessary to ignore them. So no, Stirner was not a hedonist, he was an egoist.

>> No.4428873

>>4428830
How about you start trying to believe in something, before you reject belief all together.

You should be guided by your heart as a young man, then you can naturally grow into a rational cynic in defense against a hostile world later.

Start with Nietzsche.

>> No.4428884

>>4428873
I'm actually 20. I'm a little embarrassed I haven't read much philosophy at this age, but Nietzsche is actually on my reading list for 2014. Specifically, these books in this order:
Beyond Good and Evil
On the Genealogy of Morality
Twilight of the Idols
Thus Spoke Zarathustra

>> No.4428887

>>4428830
For someone who hasn't read much philosophy, Feuerbach might be of use to understand what Stirner is rejecting, particularly Principles of the Philosophy of the Future: "the transformation and dissolution of theology into anthropology." Maybe read Stirner's Critics next:

"Feuerbach asks: 'How does Feuerbach allow (divine) attributes to remain?' and answers: 'Not in this way, as attributes of God, no, but as attributes of nature and humanity, as natural, human properties. When these attributes are transferred from God into the human being, they immediately lose their divine character.' Stirner answers against it: Feuerbach allows the attributes to exist as ideals — as essential determinations of the species, which are 'imperfect' in individual human beings and only become perfect 'in the mass of the species,' as the 'essential perfection of perfect human beings,' thus as ideals for individual human beings. He doesn’t allow them to continue to exist as divine attributes, insofar as he doesn’t attribute them to their subject, God, but as human attributes, insofar as he 'transfers them from God to the human being.' Now Stirner directs his attack precisely against the human, and Feuerbach ingenuously comes back with the 'human being' and means that if only the attributes were made 'human,' or moved into the human being, they would immediately become completely 'profane and common.' But human attributes are not at all more common and profane than divine attributes, and Feuerbach is still a long way from being 'a true atheist' in the way he defines it, nor does he want to be one.

'The basic illusion,' Feuerbach says, 'is God as subject.' But Stirner has shown that the basic illusion is rather the idea of 'essential perfection,' and that Feuerbach, who supports this basic prejudice with all his might, is therefore, precisely, a true christian.

'Feuerbach shows,' he continues, 'that the divine is not divine, God is not God, but only the human essence loving itself, affirming itself and appreciating itself to the highest degree.' But who is this 'human essence'? Stirner has shown that this human essence is precisely the spook that is also called the human being, and that you, the unique essence, are led to speak as a Feuerbachian by the attaching of this human essence to 'self-affirmation.'"

>> No.4428926

>>4428884
>Beyond Good and Evil
>On the Genealogy of Morality
>Twilight of the Idols
>Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Good picks

>> No.4428931

>>4428288

HOPEFULLY THESE PERSONS WOULD BE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW HOW TO USE A COMMA PROPERLY.

>> No.4429470

>>4428926
And a good order too.

>> No.4431471

In the end, we're all hedonists.

>> No.4431866

>>4428884
very concise, I recommend William Kaufman's translations.

>> No.4432306

>>4428291
>>4428282
what test is this?

>> No.4432341

>>4423659
That is a safe thing to say. I chuckled like a giddy schoolgirl after reading that

>> No.4432354

Stirner is not a capitalist at all. His conception of a "union of egiosts" is more comperable to Bakunin's anarchism than capitalism.

>> No.4432374

Has anyone read any Renzo Novatore?

>> No.4432411

>>4428884

You are fine. When I was 20 I had only read bits of Cicero in Latin class and almost nothing else. You can read Stirner by himself, instead of reading other philosophers you can add some secondary literature to Stirner. You can read this right now: http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html

Or if you want something with less of a tinfoil hat feeling, get Calasso's 49 steps, it has a section which accompanies the reading of Stirner's only book, The Ego and Its Own. The only essays by Stirner I would consider mandatory are Stirner's Critics and The Untrue Principle of Our Education.

>> No.4432445

>>4428884
Oh, and if you happen to be brilliant, I am looking to pawn off promising avenues of Stirner research to capable people. I'm doing Stirner and post-anarchism (as in Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida), but there is a definite Heidegger-angle here as well. You should be able to read either German or Italian though, ideally.

>> No.4432804

>>4432374
Yes, it's good keks.

>> No.4432927

>>4432804
Why do you derive amusement from it?

>> No.4433364

>>4432927
It's extremely edgy in an over the top way that is completely sincere.