/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5309355]

Is Stirner actually worth reading or is this just an epicmeme?

[Anonymous No.5309364]

>>5309355
Yes.

[Anonymous No.5309366]

The epicest of memes

[Anonymous No.5309368]

>>5309355
/lit/ has 2 or 3 threads each day on Stirner. What does this tell you?

[Anonymous No.5309376]

>>5309368
That it is an epic meme

[Anonymous No.5309468]

>>5309355
He's a forerunner is post-structuralism, so I have been told. To me though, he is definitely a pre-postmodenist now there's a contradiction in terms in the sense that he is takes apart meta narratives and doesn't really seem to create any.

[Anonymous No.5309480]

>>5309355
Both.

[Anonymous No.5309491]

He can’t think, he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent.

[Anonymous No.5309614]

>>5309491
Talent is a spook.

[Anonymous No.5309619]

>>5309355
He's an important proto-existentialist, like Kierkegaard, but on /lit/ he's just an epic meme.

[Anonymous No.5309622]

>>5309614
Egoism is a spook.

[Anonymous No.5309670]

>>5309622
>>5309491
>I can't read
>oh no I just swallowed my oun tongue pls halp

[Anonymous No.5309804]

>>5309468
>He's a forerunner is post-structuralism
No fucking way, he's a Hegelian and a forerunner of existentialism.

[Anonymous No.5309951]

Regardless of /lit/ may-may value, The Ego and Its Own is god-tier edgy philosophy. Not that god isn't a spook, but it's a measure of quality.

[Anonymous No.5310618]

>>5309951

I challenge you to explain to someone what Stirner's philosophy is in real life without them thinking you are an asshole.

It's like describing Hitler's personal life in detail...having such knowledge will make people suspicious of you whether you had sinister intentions in learning such things or not.

[Anonymous No.5310777]

>>5309468
>>5309804
he's literally not a forerunner to anything

>>5309619
he is nowhere near as important or interesting as Kirkegaard

>>5309355
Neither. Source: myself. I have never read him and I never will.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5310786]

>>5310777
>Neither. Source: myself.

[Anonymous No.5310822]

>>5310777
>he's literally not a forerunner to anything
>he is nowhere near as important or interesting as Kirkegaard

>Neither. Source: myself. I have never read him and I never will.

[Anonymous No.5310835]

It's just marketing.

[Anonymous No.5311116]

>>5310618
>I challenge you to explain to someone what Stirner's philosophy is in real life without them thinking you are an asshole.

You just go "for example, women shouldn't be judged as representatives of the concept of 'woman', but as unique individuals who hhefhefhrgjr-" etc. Show them how removing spooks serves their particular interest. They'll like it.

[Anonymous No.5311175]

Read it so you could stop shitposting like many others about him each day, all because you didn't read it and want to try to know what does it say in it, even discuss it or disagree with it, what's probably the most ridiculous aspect of constant shitposters.

[Anonymous No.5311723]

>>5311175
>reading every memeauthor

[Anonymous No.5311728]

>>5309355
I enjoyed my read of Stirner and apply his thinking to my observations

[Anonymous No.5311734]

>>5310618
But we hear it all the time

Do what makes you happy (because you're already doing it)

[Anonymous No.5311744]

>>5310835
Yeah, he's just spamming his own shit every day to make people buy his book.

>>5310618
>having such knowledge will make people suspicious of you whether you had sinister intentions in learning such things or not.

>He knows a lot about Stirner... These evil egoists they're just trying to trick me into being free of delusions and doing whatever I want!

[Anonymous No.5311746]

>>5309468
what a pretentious bunch of nonsense

[Anonymous No.5311761]

>>5310618
Most people already live their lives by Stirner's philosophy for the most part anyway.

[Anonymous No.5311802]

>>5311761
Most people live their lives by spooks for the most part.

[Anonymous No.5311809]

>>5311802
I think he meant most people are egoists even if they aren't aware of it.

[Anonymous No.5311843]

>>5311809
I know what anon meant, but an "egoist" today is not really Stirner's egoist, they are a slave to average values (and/through spooks that follow from them), they don't dare to doubt them in their actions.

[Anonymous No.5311855]

>>5309355
I bought into the stirner threads. It was readable, I didn't find it good because you are given the lifes story of a guy that does nothing. He doesn't even tell his daughter to quit drinking for example. Very fucking weird.

[Anonymous No.5311859]

>>5309355
I haven't read anything about him, but his face seems rather punchable.

[Anonymous No.5311886]

>>5311855
>you are given the lifes story of a guy that does nothing. He doesn't even tell his daughter to quit drinking for example.
What or who exactly are you talking about here?

[Anonymous No.5311924]

>>5309468
John get off /lit/, this is ridiculous

[Anonymous No.5311951]

To-do list

1. Post Stirner thread
2. Tell someone to read the Greeks
3. read a book

[Anonymous No.5314092]

>>5309804
It's just what I've heard. I don't think he's a Hegelian, though he was certainly influenced by him. Then again, Hegelian can mean many things. It isn't as simple.

Didn't place any real significance on Hegelian dialectic other than a rough framing tool.

He seems to reject historical context in the sense it is not worth paying attention too for the individual. He is much more about taking meta-narratives apart, getting rid of metaphysical boundaries, etc. That said, he uses it examining how people are controlled through the ages.

He has aspects of a Hegelian, but he is much more critical of it and doesn't really have the same interests as the other Hegelian. He isn't interested, like Marx or Hegel, in history for example and neither has a teleological view of the world. The creative nothing is all about the endless recreation of the self.

He exists within the Hegelian tradition, but as a reaction to it rather then a follower. Kind of like Marx. So he is and isn't a Hegelian, in a sense.

I will agree he is a forerunner in existentialism, but I don't think he really influenced the movement. I think it may have been more coincidental. But, this is mostly a hunch.

>>5311746
What a pretentious retort! You sure showed me.

The guy asked if he was worth reading. Just because I'm using compact terms, doesn't mean its nonsense.

>>5311924
Sir, I'm afraid your haunted by spooks. That is not John you are conversing with. John is merely a figment of your imagination who you associate with an assemblage of words, which create the textual persona you call John. Might I recommend calling your local ghost buster?

[Anonymous No.5314176]

This thread lacks of beard, if you know what i mean...

[Anonymous No.5314880]

At the risk of jumping into a discussion without reading the rest of it (as I find Stirner threads to be terribly obnoxious) I was just going to share my own experiences lately reading Stirner. I decided to read Stirner because I've always identified as a Left Anarchist, and I've thought of Stirner as one of the more respectable critiques of Left Anarchism in its valuation of communism. Thus I was curious what he had to say and I had recently managed to read and I do believe understand some of Hegel so I thought I had the background. I also like Nietzche. That said I haven't quite finished the Ego and Its Own though I'm a good ways through it. It's a reasonably readable book but I have to catch myself frequently from reading too quickly through it and missing points. I think some of it is very relevant, both in a political and philosophical sense. That said I often think of more post-modern philosophies I've read as posing questions that Stirner would never be equipped to answer. Probably my favorite section so far in the whole book has been the bit on the French Revolution which I thought was an incisive and interesting analysis. The critique of Bauer and the elevation of "Man" is also well written. Basically it's a good/interesting book but I wouldn't base my life on it, and it is a meme but that doesn't mean you shouldn't read it. Just don't read it expecting it to answer all your questions and live up to the high praise it receives (here at least). Personally I see the praise here as being reactive to its general lack of prominence in modern literary/philosophical cannons and thus understandable. It's exactly the sort of book /lit/ would like.

[Anonymous No.5315463]

>>5314880

/lit/ = right vs left anarchism

Stirner is a right anarchist

They're called right because they're wrong, left = the left hand = the devil = the one you wipe your ass with, because left anarchism is shit.


Insightful post, though. I liked reading it.

[Anonymous No.5315471]

>>5315463

called right because they're right*.

fuck me.

[Anonymous No.5315506]

>>5309468
'Postmodernism' is not a philosophical category, pace Lyotard's attempt to provide a definition of it in philosophical terms.

Postmodernism belongs far more to architecture and painting than philosophy and literature. If 'postmodernism' is a rejection of meta-narratives, then postmodernism can be traced back as early as Protagoras of Abdera and the early sophistic anthropologists and materialists, and of course, to all of the great 19C precursors, i.e. the irrationalists, anti-Cartesians, anti-Hegelians, even, in the end, in some measure, logical positivism has some kinship with this, and even more so than Carnap and his lot, Heidegger, whose philosophy is a rejection of metaphysics.

Stirner's philosophical egoism is ultimately the kind of apolitical opiate of the /lit/ 'intellectuals', who, for the most part, are only slightly more cultivated than /pol/, i.e. they reject their politics, but withdraw into a kind of literary conservatism, perhaps with nostalgic tendrils kissing the feet of anarcho-capitalism.

[Anonymous No.5315514]

>>5315463
>right anarchism

0/10

[Anonymous No.5315549]

>>5314880
>Personally I see the praise here as being reactive to its general lack of prominence in modern literary/philosophical cannons and thus understandable. It's exactly the sort of book /lit/ would like.

[Anonymous No.5315816]

>>5315514

Left anarchism isn't actually anarchism. It's just angry leftists who feel left out and want to start over so they can be at the top telling everyone what to do and deciding everything.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5315837]

>>5315816
So you're pissy about the need for community efforts in your anarchy, right?

[Anonymous No.5315932]

>>5315837

Yes. Community is a spook. It is disgusting and artificial.

The only communion between others I respect is that of the bonds of friendship and love between a few individuals in whom one sees the spark of the unique.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5315979]

>>5315932
So "a few" is a small enough spook for you. I see. But since there's no bounds to population growth, to maybe conserve resources, wouldn't we end up bumping elbows with our "spook" brethren, or rather butting heads with them for water or land?
The intangibles of life, the spooks, are sometimes all we have to make sense of our lives. Laws should be replaced with strong customs, but this only when we understand them, mold them to our liking

Some absolutist once told me he didn't want to be a slave to the ballot box, pff.

I'd rather be bound by love than state or private wealth

[Anonymous No.5316029]

>>5315979
>But since there's no bounds to population growth, to maybe conserve resources, wouldn't we end up bumping elbows with our "spook" brethren, or rather butting heads with them for water or land?

This is very academic, and honestly, not my concern.

If my area runs out of water, well, I am not retarded and I am a wealthy first worlder, so I will go somewhere that has more. Resources don't matter to me, and I think recycling is a waste of time, too, just more disgusting status signaling among hoity toity faggots who think they are saving the planet when every 2 seconds 1000 people are born who will consume 1x10^100 times what their recycling will ever save. Let them fight their own pointless battles.

I'll continue to drink out of glass bottles and ignore whatever laws I can as long as I can not get caught, be a poor citizen, follow no duties unless I want to or can't get out of, and shitpost and read my books.

[Anonymous No.5316039]

>>5309355
He's worth reading if you don't like critical thinking and are looking for a shoddy ideological framework that let's you glibly dismiss anything you don't like as being a "spook."

[Anonymous No.5316046]

>>5315506
Actually, since postmodernism is the cultural logic of late capitalism, its influence has been equally spread among architecture, painting, philosophy, literature, film and so on.

[Anonymous No.5316050]

>>5316039

Finding it painful to realize you love your chains?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5316058]

>>5316029
>I am a wealthy first worlder
I thought we were imagining our ideal anarchist future worlds.
OH You want wealth in your "anarchism"
See right there the whole thing falls apart. The worst spook of them all

[Anonymous No.5316106]

Ayn Rand for hipsters.

Fuck off with this faggotry.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5316121]

>>5316106
No.
What are you afraid of?

[Anonymous No.5316122]

>>5316121
Angsty edgelord alcoholics that can't think clearly and write in shit tier turgid prose.

[Anonymous No.5316133]

>>5316058
Oh you don't like something, I guess you're a spook.

>le ego

[Anonymous No.5316135]

>>5309355
Why does this Stirner guy keep drawing pictures of Dale Gribble and signing them?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5316144]

>>5316122
mysterious or disingenuous answer?

>>5316133
HAHAHA I don't like the spook of money so *I'M* the spook. Now you don't even understand what that is.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5316162]

>>5316135
More like Danny Masterson

[Anonymous No.5316175]

And what's his problem with spooks?

I mean granted there's some bad apples but some of them are pretty nice.

[Anonymous No.5316342]

>>5315816

[Anonymous No.5316630]

>>5314880
>That said I often think of more post-modern philosophies I've read as posing questions that Stirner would never be equipped to answer.
Could you provide some examples?

[Anonymous No.5318432]

>>5316630
i just wanted to post this. My own argument here would be that the most valid criticism of Stirner is that if you frame his point in Freudian or post-Freudian terms, it becomes apparent that he is very optimistic about the ability to overcome the super-ego. However, he does point out important links between morality and the subjugation of libido, so he's doing pretty well considering how early he wrote it. Also it's not like any of the post-structuralists hold a tremendous amount of water... they have certain sceptical elements that are similar to Stirner, but where they have the kind of theoretical apparatus Stirner lacks, this apparatus is only the result of ptolemizing things that are obviously bullshit and should just be dropped (structuralism if interpreted as more than a model, for example).

[Anonymous No.5319083]

so you fall into the epicmem, congrats

[Anonymous No.5319707]

>>5310786
Yet you post in fucking Kierkegaard threads having only read a wikipedia article.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5319743]

>>5319707
I post there asking questions to challenge the ideas I have been given (By other anonymous)

[Anonymous No.5321168]

A poorman's Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.5321177]

>>5319743
>I shitpost in philosophy threads cause I can

Am I the only namefag who doesn't do this?

[Anonymous No.5321910]

STIRNER MENTIONED

+1 Discussion

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5321945]

>>5321177
Inquiring, challenging your ideas, in a philosophy thread, seems like a fine way to go about learning.

Now, you being a namefag who drops his name to shitpost so he can exclude himself from a shitposting list, seems a little dishonest to me.

[Anonymous No.5322436]

>>5321945
>hey, let me share my opinion based on nothing but others' opinions xD

that's like eating someone's shit, throwing it up and forcing others to treat like fucking haute cuisine

[Anonymous No.5322493]

>>5309355

Max Stirner was the first hipster - he was a hipster before it was cool. That's all you have to know.

[Anonymous No.5322648]

Sure is spooky in here.