>marx ww egoist bros@ get in here

File: 10 KB, 279x305, stoiner.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 05:41:39 2015 No.6245413 [Reply] [Original]

>marx

ww egoist bros@ get in here

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 05:51:39 2015 No.6245441 File: 946 KB, 1440x900, sopranos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] STIRNER T I R N E R

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 06:23:25 2015 No.6245505
File: 121 KB, 650x475, stop hitting yourself.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>I secure my freedom with regard to the world in the degree that I make the world my own, 'gain it and take possession of it' for myself, by whatever might, by that of persuasion, of petition, of categorical demand, yes, even by hypocrisy (emphasis mine), cheating, etc.; for the means that I use for it are determined by what I am. If I am weak, I have only weak means, like the aforesaid, which yet are good enough for a considerable part of the world. Besides, cheating hypocrisy, lying, look worse than they are. Who has not cheated the police, the law?

ayyy lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 06:25:51 2015 No.6245509 File: 144 KB, 803x688, 4ec.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6245413 >Implying communism and Stirnerism aren't inseparable

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 06:27:16 2015 No.6245511 >>6245509 >implying my post wasn't >implying marx as though marx is a joke, which he is

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 06:29:30 2015 No.6245515 >>6245509 Well Stinrer's conception of property is totally different from liberal conception, so it's hard to say. Stirner makes ownership and use synonymous and temporal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 06:45:55 2015 No.6245541 >>6245515 They are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 06:50:09 2015 No.6245549 >>6245541 For Stirner's use of the term "property", which isn't synonymous with moral or legal property, Just because you're using my computer doesn't make it your property, just because you're renting my house doesn't make it your property.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 06:55:00 2015 No.6245565 >>6245549 Of course not, that form of property is a total spook

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:09:25 2015 No.6245663 http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html WWU@NIGS

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:11:10 2015 No.6245667 >>6245441 There is only one person in that picture that's not a fucking cunt

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:14:23 2015 No.6245672 File: 376 KB, 1920x1040, well_thats_just_like_your_opinion_man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6245667

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:23:16 2015 No.6245685
File: 146 KB, 760x536, tsar tank.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Edmund Husserl once warned a small audience about the "seducing power" of »Der Einzige« -- but never mentioned it in his writing.

Stirner: the God who authored the secret Bible of philosophy; he is all enchanting--never spoken. He is the final depth of thought, the purest enlightenment, the--creative nothing.

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:24:40 2015 No.6245687
File: 37 KB, 630x428, historical-photos-pt3-tiger2-germany-tank.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Leszek Kolakowski said that Stirner, next to whom "even Nietzsche seems weak and inconsequent," is indeed irrefutable; nevertheless, he must be banished at any cost, because he destroys "the only tool that enables us to make ethical values our own: tradition." Stirner's aim of "destruction of alienation, i.e. the return to authenticity would be nothing but the destruction of culture, a return to an animal state ... to a pre-human condition."

Hans Heinz Holz warned that "Stirner's egoism, were it to become actualized, would lead to the self-destruction of the human race."

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:26:38 2015 No.6245691
File: 150 KB, 245x320, stirner.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Apocalyptic fears might have driven Jürgen Habermas in his younger years to condemn the "absurdity of Stirner's fury" with furious words -- and since that time never to mention Stirner again, even in texts about Left Hegelianism.

Theodor Adorno, who saw himself driven back at the end of his philosophical career to the -- pre-Stirnerian -- "standpoint of Left Hegelianism," once cryptically remarked that Stirner was the only one who really "let the cat out of the bag," but in no way referred to him in any of his works.

Peter Sloterdijk took note of none of this, only shaking his head at the idea that the "brilliant" Marx had "grown angry in many hundreds of pages about those, after all, simple thoughts of Stirner."

STIRNER
T
I
R
N
E
R

>>	STIRNER Mon Mar 9 08:35:24 2015 No.6245704 The most extreme assertion was put forward by Eduard von Hartmann; Nietzsche was Stirner's plagiarist, he said. Any who had grasped Nietzsche's actual achievement chose to remain silent.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:44:55 2015 No.6245721 >>6245691 >>6245687 >>6245685 We're changing the history.

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:46:21 2015 No.6245726

Joël was forthright: "Stirner" is for many non-theological philosophers a code word for what theologians call "the devil".

Joël writes: 'The Ego' is the "most rampant heretic book a human hand has ever written", and Stirner laid with it the foundation for a veritable "devil's religion."

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:47:44 2015 No.6245729 >>6245721 Yes, anon, we need to preach, preach the devil Stirner loud and far.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:49:17 2015 No.6245734 >a spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of a ghostbuster

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:55:26 2015 No.6245747

Nietzsche's much-admired "new morals", Hartmann wrote in a sensational article, in the end yields "by no means something new, since it was already presented in 1845 by Max Stirner [...] in a masterful fashion and with a clearness and frankness which leaves nothing to be desired."

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:57:23 2015 No.6245750 >>6245747 the critics are raving!

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 08:59:39 2015 No.6245753

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.'"

NIETZSCHE BTFO

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 09:12:26 2015 No.6245769 File: 88 KB, 374x446, schopenhauer-wolverine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html holy fuck guys did nietzsche lie his tits off about schopenhauer? did fucking stirner do this to nietzsche?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 09:17:47 2015 No.6245781 >>6245769 He didn't "lie". Nietzsche simply didn't think the "will to nothingness" was aesthetic enough, also life-denying.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 09:25:02 2015 No.6245803 >>6245781 spooky

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 09:53:40 2015 No.6245859 >>6245505 LOL

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 10:11:59 2015 No.6245900 >>6245859 xD

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 13:57:32 2015 No.6246448
File: 83 KB, 319x750, 1424617382924.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

STIRNER BEST HUSBANDO

>What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the Good Cause, then God's cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never to be my concern. "Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!"

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 14:07:10 2015 No.6246477 File: 319 KB, 803x688, 1423138557483.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >egoism enjoy dying alone reminder he couldn't even get a milk shop to run

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 14:09:30 2015 No.6246485 /r/ing the greentext picture where a guy loses his girlfriend because of stirner something like: >i whisper in her ear, that she is mine

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 14:10:17 2015 No.6246488 >>6246477 lel, this self-awareness Your own cause is to don't dying alone, it's your egoist cause. If the people, the man, the society said to you that you should die alone, because you are immoral, would you accept it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 14:11:18 2015 No.6246494 >>6246488 don't die*

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 14:11:18 2015 No.6246495 File: 326 KB, 476x536, 1422964524601.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6246488 I was memeing you, but it looks like I got your goat :^)

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 14:11:42 2015 No.6246499 >2015 >Reading Sankt Max >taking Sankt Max seriously you know Marx bodied him right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 14:13:40 2015 No.6246508 >>6246499 >thinking that you can make an egoist bend-over to pure reason and arguments naive and idealistic as fuck, your arguments are sacred, for an egoist they aren't

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 15:36:48 2015 No.6246771 >>6246495 >implying egoists give a fuck what you do don't be so narcissistic, dude

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 15:55:20 2015 No.6246843 >>6246499 Have you even read his criticism? He voluntarily misreads Stirner. It's pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 15:57:51 2015 No.6246863 >>6245781 >will to nothingness >intentional misreading intensifies

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:04:58 2015 No.6246897

>>6245549
>, Just because you're using my computer doesn't make it your property, just because you're renting my house doesn't make it your property.

ye, but by the same token its not your property because you bought it from someone else. that transaction was just by way of coercion. it's your property because you maintain it and control it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:10:36 2015 No.6246928 File: 69 KB, 998x766, 1409380226186.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You're in this club and THIS guy slaps his own ass. What do you do?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:10:47 2015 No.6246929 Can someone explain this meme to me? I dont have the full picture.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:11:25 2015 No.6246934 someone please post the Stirner dinosaur

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:14:06 2015 No.6246949 >>6246929 Cont: as far as i understand it, it has something to do with trolling Karl Marx, anarchism, egoism, left-libertarians and ancaps.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:14:54 2015 No.6246952 >>6246928 im going to use that bro

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:15:37 2015 No.6246957 >>6246929 rationalizing being a lazy and cowardly person

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:15:38 2015 No.6246958 >>6245413 Who /meme/ here? /meme/ general thread?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:16:32 2015 No.6246963 File: 39 KB, 360x539, 187.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6245413 >still no-one has bothered to rebute even one page of Marx's critique, all the while yelling his critique is butthurt bullshit.

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:18:48 2015 No.6246968
File: 94 KB, 348x437, 1409380164725.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6246929
Max Stirner was a psychological egoist (meaning he believed everyone is an egoist whether they want to be or not, and even asserted that if God exists, God must be an egoist). He was a moral nihilist, and said even might didn't make right because right and wrong don't exist. He rejected family, nation, society, law, and the property of others as "spooks", that is concepts people use to trick themselves into believing they aren't egoists. Max Stirner believe you own whatever it is you use, be it an idea, person, feeling, thing, etc. for whatever reason (love, conservation, or anything else). But that any claim of ownership beyond use was just a spook and made a god of property for crypto-egoists to kneel to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:21:07 2015 No.6246980 >>6246968 that's retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:21:36 2015 No.6246981 >>6246963 Karl Marx's argument that anyone could compose as well as Mozart (on the basis that someone else finished his Requiem) and therefore we aren't individuals is pretty stupid, m8. If that were the case, why weren't Mozarts mass-produced?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:22:36 2015 No.6246987 File: 14 KB, 680x489, 1409380288022.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6246980 He argues it pretty well.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:23:56 2015 No.6246992 >>6246968 Oh, ok thanks!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:24:33 2015 No.6246994 >>6246981 >Karl Marx's argument that anyone could compose as well as Mozart Different anon here, while I'm certainly not a marxologist, I'm pretty sure he never said anything to that effect.

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:32:52 2015 No.6247032

>>6246994
He did, in his polemic against Stirner's love of the creative individual.

>Here, as always, Sancho is again unlucky with his practical examples. He thinks that “no one can compose your music for you, complete the sketches for your paintings. No one can do Raphael’s works for him”. Sancho could surely have known, however, that it was not Mozart himself, but someone else who composed the greater part of Mozart’s Requiem and finished it, and that Raphael himself “completed” only an insignificant part of his own frescoes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:34:35 2015 No.6247039 >>6247032 >In proclaiming the uniqueness of work in science and art, Stirner adopts a position far inferior to that of the bourgeoisie.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:38:01 2015 No.6247051 >>6247032 Ok and how does that even imply that anyyone could compose like Mozart?

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:38:15 2015 No.6247055

>>6246963
>still no-one has bothered to rebute even one page of Marx's critique, all the while yelling his critique is butthurt bullshit.
Actually all of Marx' critique was rendered obsolete by 'Stirner's Critics' published in 1845 (unlike Marx' critique, which wasn't published in Marx' lifetime).

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:38:56 2015 No.6247056

>>6247032

That's a pretty ridiculous argument. That's like saying an artist that uses draftsmen to complete his paintings isn't producing original work. There's a difference between adding in the details of a project whose basic lines have already been set down, and creating a new project at the highest level.

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:42:11 2015 No.6247071

Stirner is the last realization that a man can have in the earth. For us it's extremely childish to prove you wrong or right to others, it's like that child that tries to prove that killing animals is wrong to his grandfather and feels impotent while doing it. Guess what, the grandfather doesn't care about it, he just does it because he can, he doesn't need to be right or correct to do whatever the fuck he wants.

And if you want to stop the grandfather, you will have to enter in that dialectic, in the struggle for power and influence. So go ahead marxists, moralists, etc, try to prove you that you are right and pure, while everyone just don't take you seriously since you don't have the power to make it true (true in the sense that it happens).

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:46:40 2015 No.6247094

>>6247071

I'm not on Marx's side on almost any issues, but this seems a bit myopic. Sure, people can do what they want. But what happens when 'might' operates through language, and chooses the promotion of a moral order as its project? What if it knows how to play to inherent features of the human mind, like empathy, tying its edicts into this inherent pre-moral features of the brain? If such a project succeeds what we have is something that functions basically like an 'objective' morality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:47:52 2015 No.6247100 >>6247071 >dialectic don't use that word, it's inappropriate in this context and it it's appropriate context, it's bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:47:54 2015 No.6247101 >>6247094 What you just said is spoken in Genealogy of the morals which is closely related to Stirner anyway read Stirner and that book, you will enjoy it

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:49:50 2015 No.6247105

>>6247094
>What if it knows how to play to inherent features of the human mind, like empathy, tying its edicts into this inherent pre-moral features of the brain?
Well, you can indoctrinate children pretty well and it's not clear whether they can actually overcome that indoctrination on an 'emotional' level. Stirner is pretty optimistic here (compared to other moral nihilists like la Mettrie).

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 16:56:55 2015 No.6247133

>>6245769
>>6245753
>>6245747
>>6245726
>>6245704
>>6245691
>>6245687
>>6245685
>>6245663
I used to spam Laska links, so I appreciate the fact that you guys read him. I can only recommends getting the books (heimlicher hit / dauerhafter dissident), they are full of good stuff.

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 17:19:41 2015 No.6247206

>>6246843
> Its pathetic
So, something a proper stirnerist would not care of?

Marx embodies the spirit of Stirner even when he attacks him: his completely egoistic intentions in stabbing a strawman to death caused him a great deal of self-enjoyment whereas obeying to "intellectual honesty" or other spooks would only rattle him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 17:28:31 2015 No.6247233 >>6247206 >Being a proper Stirnerist >proper Jesus, just go and read the book

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 17:36:16 2015 No.6247251 >>6246963 I did that for the first chapter on here like last week

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 17:50:56 2015 No.6247291 >>6246963 >he thinks we are butthurt instead of laughing at him

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 18:04:21 2015 No.6247345 >>6247100 It works in a certain Hegelian context if one renders dialectic as master-slave dialect.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 19:48:33 2015 No.6247667 >>6247291 Sums up the relationship between Stirnerites and antiStirnerites fairly well

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 20:10:33 2015 No.6247760 Marx wrote more criticizing Stirner than Stirner even wrote. That sounds more like butthurt than laughter to me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 21:14:14 2015 No.6248089 File: 77 KB, 500x360, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6247760

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 21:17:37 2015 No.6248108 >>6247667 >>6247291 Marx is the greatest and most influential thinker of all time, Stirner is only remembered by losers on 4chan dot org

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 21:20:41 2015 No.6248119 >>6245413 Lads, just got the cambridge version any pre-readings required. I only have 2 weeks

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 22:25:15 2015 No.6248347 >>6248119 How familiar are you with hegel?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 22:26:10 2015 No.6248348 >>6248108 LOL GOOD ONE BRO TIPS FEDORA I BET YOU MADE THOSE STIRNER GUYS REAALY RAGEFACE TROLLFACE XD CLAPS HOOVES

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 22:27:36 2015 No.6248357 >>6248119 He does reference other philosophers, e.g. he says the egoist demand the state "get out of the [egoist's] sun", a clear reference to Diogenes and Alexander. Not a complicated reference but there nonetheless

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 22:29:19 2015 No.6248367 >>6248119 why only 2 weeks?

Anonymous Mon Mar 9 22:30:02 2015 No.6248377

>>6248119

You don't require pre-reading if you want to understand the meme and also understand the self-help part of the book

Maybe to understand the political parts you need to know a little about liberalism and such, but nothing that you will not understand while reading the context or on wikipedia

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 22:58:59 2015 No.6248491 someone please post the greentext picture with the girlfriend

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 9 23:53:21 2015 No.6248675 >>6248377 Yeah, Stirner doesn't need to hide spooks in fancy langauge and incoherent books, like the phenomenon-study of spooks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 00:01:09 2015 No.6248720 Stirner is fucking trash. >muh egoism What an infantile way of life. The individual is scrawny and pathetic, yet you read this garbage to feel a sense of power.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 00:05:55 2015 No.6248732 >>6245413 >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 00:23:39 2015 No.6248792 >>6248720 That's a roundabout way of calling yourself scrawny, pathetic and powerless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 00:41:06 2015 No.6248849 >>6248720 Good post mate

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 00:42:06 2015 No.6248852 >>6248732 >>>/lbgt/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 00:58:15 2015 No.6248903 File: 44 KB, 250x237, 1423980855339.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6248720 blow it out your ass, normie

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 00:59:09 2015 No.6248906 >>6248903 The beta uprising will never succeed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 01:10:35 2015 No.6248927 >>6248906 Zeta lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 01:14:32 2015 No.6248934 File: 127 KB, 560x420, new priesthood.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6245413 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03d.htm BTFO T F O

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 01:14:35 2015 No.6248936 DIE EGOIST SCUM

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 01:28:27 2015 No.6248957 >>6248934 http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics.pdf Yeah, Marx was lmao

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 01:34:16 2015 No.6248969

What is the difference between Stirner's Ego and the Ego of the psychoanalysts? Did his Ego encompass only the individual's conception of the self? Did the venture the possibility of something like the unconscious, an aspect of the self that the individual has no direct control over?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 01:37:55 2015 No.6248982 File: 28 KB, 320x417, last roman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6246968 That is self-defeating and circular. These past 3 centuries have been a bloody roller coaster.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 01:48:50 2015 No.6249010 >>6248969 STIRNER DOESN'T TALK ABOUT EGO FUCKING ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 01:50:10 2015 No.6249015 >>6248982 You're not saying anything These really are the most pretentious kind of posts

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 01:52:59 2015 No.6249024 >>6248969 Stirner is a protopsychologist. Jung wouldn't have been shit without Stirner

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 01:54:01 2015 No.6249028 >>6249010 >>6248969 Also this is correct, it's eigzig, the self.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 01:54:51 2015 No.6249035 >>6249024 ffs otto gross was an actual stirner lover

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 02:42:33 2015 No.6249164 >>6249035 psychoanalysis = love of the ego

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 02:56:08 2015 No.6249215 >>6248982 >can't into idealism you're so spooked. you are you and you can't not be you

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 02:59:18 2015 No.6249223 >>6249164 your shit is ten times more retarded than freud et alia

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 03:00:09 2015 No.6249231 >>6249223 k dude

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 03:25:38 2015 No.6249290 >>6248936 DIE MORALIST SCUM

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 11:20:20 2015 No.6250126 >>6245663 This was actually really interesting. Good to find something new in the Striner threads.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 11:34:35 2015 No.6250172 >>6245663 Fucking marx m8, he was really a pussy, how the fuck someone can be so pussified about his intellectual endeavour Marxists are truly a cancer

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 15:14:39 2015 No.6250752 File: 71 KB, 490x700, 1363465458717.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6250172 Now you know the truth, man.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 17:16:22 2015 No.6251250 >>6247032 except the good parts of the requiem are the parts mozart wrote (inroit, kyrie, die irae, and lacrimosa)

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 19:52:54 2015 No.6251884 >>6251250 duh

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 21:28:16 2015 No.6252246

I saw Max Stirner at a milk store in Leipzig yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn't want to be an involuntary egoist and bother him and ask him for precepts or anything.

He said, “Oh, like you’re being now?”

I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “spooks! spooks! spooks!” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw Sancho trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen milk bottles in his hands without paying.
The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.

When she took one of the bottles and started weighing it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to weigh them each individually “to prevent any ethical infetterence,” and then turned around and grinned at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she weighed each bottle and put them in a crate and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 21:37:06 2015 No.6252276 >>6252246 i bet you thought that was very clever

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 21:41:30 2015 No.6252281 >>6252246 >ethical infetterence That part was clever tho.

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 22:13:45 2015 No.6252383

>>6252276
>>6252281

look at you fucking cunts being all snarky.

i bet you never made a pasta in your life, fucking kill yourselves. The guy who wrote that shit has more passion in his pinky finger that you will have in your entire life.

fucking critics are worth less than nothing. bunch of fat faggots like marx

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 22:28:37 2015 No.6252440 >>6252383 I'm not being snarky, I thought the whole thing was somewhat funny, and that the last line pushed it into actual laughter tier.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 22:32:50 2015 No.6252452 File: 1.53 MB, 1280x696, reddit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6252383 >critics

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 22:36:37 2015 No.6252461

I like Stirner's philosophy, but is it not in the interest of the voluntary egoist to discourage others from becoming one? I think it's great for the individual, but I wouldn't want to have to deal with other assholes living spook free, that has the potential to fuck shit up big time.

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 22:40:14 2015 No.6252470

>>6252461

Why is it not in a Stirnerist's interest to make more Stirnerists?

Literally who gives a shit?

There are 7 billion people in the world and 99.999999% of them have never heard of Stirner and never will. And if they did, far fewer could possibly comprehend it- few on /lit/ even can get past that "ooh edgy" stage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 22:41:28 2015 No.6252475 >>6252461 I think you will die before that happens and people can love you for freeing them from their spooks, you can be the best advisor that they never had

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 22:48:58 2015 No.6252489 >>6252452 >implying that movie represented reality accurately at all

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:18:33 2015 No.6252680 >>6252383 >The guy who wrote that shit has more passion in his pinky finger that you will have in your entire life. I like that you created a spook and shooed that spook away: my ego, my own.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:19:58 2015 No.6252685 >>6252461 Stirner directly says "be a hypocrite". So be a hypocrite. If other people believe in spooks, g4u

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:34:02 2015 No.6252719

>>6252461
>is it not in the interest of the voluntary egoist to discourage others from becoming one?
Depends entirely, it can be, or can not. If them becoming a voluntary egoists causes their interests to align with yours, and it is easier to get these interests to align thus than by other means, then it is obviously in your interest for them to be a voluntary egoist.

> that has the potential to fuck shit up big time.
Seems like you're not quite spook-free yourself.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:38:52 2015 No.6252730

>>6252719
>Seems like you're not quite spook-free yourself
By fuck shit up I mean fuck shit up for me personally. Let's say someone realizes morality is a spook and I have a nice TV, so they take it, this conflicts with my interests. Besides I don't think anyone qualifies as spook free, can't a spook align with your causes? or does it then stop being a spook?

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:39:56 2015 No.6252734

>>6252730
Stop thinking in terms of what other people do. That's the categorical imperative spook. You want yourself to have more power and more property than others, period.

Stirner also says might is right, you don't have a right without the might to keep it. So get mighty, or get fucked.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 02:00:03 2015 No.6252931 >>6252470 >Why is it not in a Stirnerist's interest to make more Stirnerists? He doesn't care

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 02:13:06 2015 No.6252983

>>6252734
>Stirner also says might is right,
He says nothing is right, including might. Indeed, for might to be right, weakness would be "wrong", which is an extremely spook proposition. Might is not right, just, holy, or anything like that, it is simply might.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 02:22:57 2015 No.6252998

>>6252983
>He says nothing is right, including might. Indeed, for might to be right, weakness would be "wrong", which is an extremely spook proposition. Might is not right, just, holy, or anything like that, it is simply might.
In my translation he literally says "might is right". He doesn't mean might makes right, and would agree with you. He's saying it tongue-in-cheek; he's saying that "rights" can only be understood as power.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 02:24:34 2015 No.6253001 >>6252998 Yes, he does literally say that, but then later on he explains that it was only a "halfway expression" that he was only using as a figure of speech to start with for people who are skeptical of his position.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 02:35:06 2015 No.6253017 >>6253001 Of course, which is exactly why I explained the phrase in my post.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 02:45:06 2015 No.6253035

>17. With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact, which is unwillingly recognized by these credulous minds--namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish; so that it is a perversion of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." One thinks; but that this "one" is precisely the famous old "ego," is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with this "one thinks"--even the "one" contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the usual grammatical formula--"To think is an activity; every activity requires an agency that is active; consequently"... It was pretty much on the same lines that the older atomism sought, besides the operating "power," the paterial particle wherein it resides and out of which it operates--the atom. More rigorous minds, however, learnt at last to get along without this "earth-residuum," and perhaps some day we shall accustom ourselves, even from the logician's point of view, to get along without the little "one" (to which the worthy old "ego" has refined itself). - Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Is Nietzsche talking about Stirner here?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 14:30:09 2015 No.6254275 >>6253035 Nee chee ripped off Stirner

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 15:28:21 2015 No.6254472

>>6253035
Don't know about that passage, but he does make the same argument about a falsely constructed agent using the German 'es blitzt', meaning 'lightning flashes' (maybe thunder, I don't recall), a point that Stirner makes 1:1, even using the same example.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:11:58 2015 No.6255328 >>6254472 Haha wow

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:45:32 2015 No.6255460 Are you guys idiots? How the fuck can Stirner be reconciled with Marx?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 20:02:22 2015 No.6255503 >>6255460 Engels thought he could be. Since Marx does not recognize the family nations, or morality as substantial in his philosophy (being a materialist), I don't see how they're incompatible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 00:45:44 2015 No.6256625 >>6255460 who said that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 10:46:16 2015 No.6257766 File: 33 KB, 360x417, stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6256625

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 10:53:13 2015 No.6257783 >>6257766 I mean in this thread dingaling

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 11:16:10 2015 No.6257832 >>6257783 i wasnt meant to quote you

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 11:21:15 2015 No.6257853 >>6245413 ego isn't real kid

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 12:36:33 2015 No.6258348 What should i read form Stirner. besides the ego?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 13:09:53 2015 No.6258653 >>6258348 he didn't write much else

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 13:43:59 2015 No.6258861

>>6252461
Yes, Chesterton has a line about that.

"To preach egoism is to practise altruism."

It makes me think a true egoist who does not care about others would never write a book about it in the first place. This has interesting consequences: The best and the truest versions of egoism would never see the light of the day, it would never become a meme like Stirner became.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 13:48:29 2015 No.6258884

>>6258861
>The best and the truest versions of egoism would never see the light of the day, it would never become a meme like Stirner became.
Yes, unless if the ego likes the attention brought on by preaching their egoism. But what you're saying is what I call "the secret": every rich, powerful asshole knows it. You always preach morality and equality, and always practice the opposite underhanded. It's a secret you never state forwardly. Ever.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 13:48:54 2015 No.6258887 >>6258861 Being an egoist doesn't necessarily mean not caring about others.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 13:56:28 2015 No.6258927 >>6258861 Why? He was poor, and lost his wife and son. Maybe he was just a bit crazy and thought "fuck this gay earth"

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 13:58:25 2015 No.6258939

>>6258861
In Stirner's philosophy everyone is an egoist though. There are only voluntary egoists and involuntary egoists. To practice altruism is a selfish act and very egoist, an involuntary egoist doesn't see this and does so in the spooky name of "good" or "morality". There is no "true egoist" because truth is a spook.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 14:24:22 2015 No.6259102 any1 wanna talk about stirner and shit w me on skype????

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 14:29:56 2015 No.6259127 >>6258939 Philosophy is a spook our minds aint got no bussiness thinking like that

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 14:36:40 2015 No.6259154 >>6259127 >implying my mind's business isn't whatever I make it spooky

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 15:01:37 2015 No.6259286 >>6258348 his critics

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 15:08:36 2015 No.6259333 >>6249010 >>6249010 >>6249010

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 15:10:46 2015 No.6259347 >>6259333 What's your point? Ego works just as well.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 16:03:11 2015 No.6259688 Just picked up The Ego and his own. What should I expect?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 16:05:39 2015 No.6259704 >>6259688 memes despooking yourself shitposting "spooks" for a month or so

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 16:06:40 2015 No.6259711 >>6259704 a feeling of freedom and love to Stirner that is hard to describe

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 16:09:18 2015 No.6259721 >>6259688 Edgy meme philosophy for 15 year olds

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:35:30 2015 No.6260538 >>6259721 >egoism is edgy meme Loving Every Laugh

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:42:47 2015 No.6260577 Why do people who've never read Stirner assume his thought is the same as Nietzsche's? They are worlds apart

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:45:05 2015 No.6260585 is le spook man actually discussed by any professors of philosophy or is he just a /lit/ meme

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:47:38 2015 No.6260595 >>6260585 >>6245663 :^)

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:49:05 2015 No.6260604 >>6260585 A professor at my uni gave a lecture on him once as part of a series on important philosophers. None of my Hegel reading circle went, and neither did I.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:54:02 2015 No.6260631 >>6259721 I bet my balls and cock that you have never even attempted to read it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:56:18 2015 No.6260644 File: 15 KB, 320x224, Derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6260604 >>6260585 >>6260577 >>6259721 >Stirner detractors in a nutshell

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 08:13:32 2015 No.6263443 >>6260604 Wow cool story there man

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 13:44:19 2015 No.6264301 "The State rests on the slavery of labour. If labour becomes free, the State is lost." Does this remind you of something?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 13:45:47 2015 No.6264304 >>6260577 Probably because people who say things like "they're worlds apart" stop there. They don't actually try to describe and define why it's so, so nobody takes it seriously and everyone ignores the (your) post.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 13:47:20 2015 No.6264309 >>6260631 Okay, eunuch. Gimme your address so I can claim my bounty.

Anonymous Fri Mar 13 14:01:44 2015 No.6264364

>"Wild young fellows, bumptious students, who set aside all considerations, are really Philistines, since with them, as with the latter, considerations form the substance of their conduct; only that as swaggerers they are mutinous against considerations and in negative relations to them, but as Philistines, later, they give themselves up to considerations and have positive relations to them. In both cases all their doing and thinking turns upon 'considerations,' but the Philistine is reactionary in relation to the student; he is the wild fellow come to discreet reflection, as the latter is the unreflecting Philistine. Daily experience confirms the truth of this transformation, and shows how the swaggerers turn to Philistines in turning gray."

Reading this made me think of you, /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 19:38:47 2015 No.6265606 >>6264309 I'll mail it to you gladly. Take into account I'll ask you a few quations so I can prove you have actually read it and that your claim is true (you'll have to give actual arguments) in the case you have. If you fail, I'l have yours.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 19:40:22 2015 No.6265614 >>6264364 >proceeds to quote meaningless gibberish We're talking about Stirner, no Hegel, m80.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 19:42:33 2015 No.6265626 File: 44 KB, 875x572, 1424919266196.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6258861 read and weep

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 19:55:27 2015 No.6265692 >>6265614 >confirmed for not having read Der Einzige Page 106, m80.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 20:13:04 2015 No.6265769 When Stirner says "our atheists are pious people" does he mean that atheists are piously atheist or that, despite identifying as atheists, they still piously uphold religious morals?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 20:19:05 2015 No.6265789 >>6264364 This is nonsense to me. Can someone explain this to a pleb?

Anonymous Fri Mar 13 20:23:49 2015 No.6265808

>>6265789

It's related to the context, in the book he is speaking about revolutions so it's easier to understand

>>6265769

Read Nietzsche, Genealogy of the morals, he also calls atheist pious people, and it's related to the religious morals (being meek, humble, waiting for justice, etc)

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 20:30:12 2015 No.6265825 >>6265769 It's related to reference of spooks, not just right and wrong, but all spooks such as family, nation, mankind, etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 20:32:52 2015 No.6265832 >>6265825 >reverence of spooks

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 20:46:56 2015 No.6265888 >>6265769 Why couldn't it be both?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 14 01:11:24 2015 No.6266697 best Stirner thread catpcha: kamuse

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