/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6412790]

>you will have heard of Stirner's book, The Ego and Its Own...And it is certainly true that we must forst make a cause our own, egotistic cause...we are communists out of egoism also, and it is out of egoism that we wish to be human beings, not mere individuals.

This is what Friedrich Engles said to Karl Marx on the 19th November 1844. Is this compatible with egoism?

[Anonymous No.6412818]

>>6412790
Marx sure didn't think so.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6412822]

Stirner wants something akin to communism, but Marx sees the individual as merely a cog in his class with no choice in the matter, whereas Stirner sees the individual as something very special. For Marx, everything is class; for Stirner, everything is the individual.

[Anonymous No.6412832]

literally anything you do is 'compatible' with egoism

[Anonymous No.6412853]

>>6412790
>It is out of egoism that we wish to be our spooky idea of "human beings"

"Whoso is full of sacred (religious, moral, humane) love loves only the spook, the “true man,” and persecutes with dull mercilessness the individual, the real man."
-Stirner

[Anonymous No.6414364]

hey mom i bumped the thread again!

[Anonymous No.6414384]

>>6412853
Mmm, that's a pretty quote

Don't tell anyone I said this.

[Anonymous No.6414935]

Daily reminder that Stirner is the actual end game of philosophy

[Anonymous No.6414972]

>Stirner wrote the word Unmensch, which is translated by Byington as "Unman"
>in German Unmensch implies being inhuman, a monster
>Stirner believes in being a monster

Best fucking shit

[Anonymous No.6415001]

STIRNER
T
I
R
N
E
R

[Anonymous No.6415010]

>>6412832
Yes

[twinshia No.6415063]

The point is the communists want to destroy the "Verein" which is Christian Germany,
and replace it with the "Verein" which is Communist Germany.
Stirner simply says he does not care for Communism, because he already has his "Verein".

[Anonymous No.6415301]

>>6414364
is that a Paulie Pepe?

[Anonymous No.6415327]

>2015
>still worshiping this meme philosopher

How long have you been here, anyway?

[Anonymous No.6415347]

>>6415327
Oh yeah dude nice tactic, if you spam enough that Stirner is a meme philosopher you'll control the discourse and restore your spooks atop the throne of 4chan.

Keep it up dude, your spooks need all the help they can get in battle

[Anonymous No.6415459]

>>6415301
Ye

[twinshia No.6415487]

>>6412822
Stirner claims he already has his Union.
"Ich hab' mein Sach' auf nichts gestellt".
He has nothing left to do politically because he sees no reason to change his place in Christian Germany.

[twinshia No.6415493]

>>6414972
not-human,
as in some one who no longer thinks of himself as human, but rather as some thing singular and undefinable.
An anomaly.

[Anonymous No.6415662]

>>6415493
I know what the term means already

[Anonymous No.6415857]

Stirner is the Death Grips of philosophy.

[twinshia No.6415918]

>>6415662
I infer that he did not mean monster,
which you claimed.
It meant that which is not human.

[Anonymous No.6416480]

>>6415918
but a monster is not human

[Anonymous No.6416723]

>>6415918
You're wrong. You're implying the translation you read was correct

When, in translation, you read "Unman", the word being translated is the German "Unmensch", which is possible to translate as "Inhuman", along those lines, a noun that's inhuman and monsterous. He means that to be truly yourself, you will seem monstrous to other people, like how Christians will call you a heretic and shit.

It's just him playing with words.

[Anonymous No.6416745]

>>6415857
How do you make this comparison?

[twinshia No.6416770]

>>6416480
Neither is a duck,
and yet Stirner was not referring to a duck,
in so far as I am aware.

[twinshia No.6416777]

>>6416723
Perhaps.
I did read it in German and that was what I inferred (my inferral is my property [joke]).
You may be correct.

[Anonymous No.6416794]

>>6415857
They're both pretty good and are only disliked by people who view them as a meme?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6416844]

>>6415487
Eh? Then what is The False Principle of Our Education about?

[Anonymous No.6416869]

Oh Stirnerists, how does one deal with massive ego boosts? As of the past few months, my company and tine has been much sought after. Today, a friend of mine had me act in his short film with no prior acting experience (though he has seen me play-acting before). The kind folks there lavished me with compliments upon finding about my inexperience. Everyone else on the shoot were regulars and I have already been offered extra parts in other projects. Furthermore, a girl I met on the shoot has been messaging for the last two hours. I am not used to such attention and was fine without it. How can I avoid the crushing delusions that such encounters will likely bring? I used to be socially inept, but something within me has changed unintentionally.

[Anonymous No.6416878]

>>6416869
Same here man, ever since I stopped giving a fuck people like me more. I just continue to not give fucks and abuse them for my own gain

recently I tried to fuck a girl who was enamored with me, she said some very empowering things to me, but said she was looking for something long-term and wants to wait until marriage, so I said "I don't think we're compatible" and dropped her like a spasmic cat.

[Anonymous No.6416885]

>>6416869
>>6416878
Oh, and she still wants to talk to me. And I made her pay me money to tutor her. Life's good

[Anonymous No.6416899]

>>6416885
Girls never cared much for me until as of recent. It is annoying that they start caring when I stop caring. My past self would have been euphoric (sic) upon receiving such attention. I have been delving into Buddhist thought as well as existentialism (I know, I am so edgy), so I do not even care for pleasure any more beyond intellectual pleasures (I am not intellectual, but you can catch my gist).

[Anonymous No.6416906]

I find that Stirner's philosophy comes from a privileged position. The people who espouse egoism are usually white, middle class, male, etc. Stirner routinely denigrates all kinds of broader love for humanity but without such sentiments, or spooks as they may be, we would never have made our incredible strides toward equality for women, minorities, the poor, and so on. Ultimately it takes a very special type of solipsism, one not fitted for philosophy, to say, "I care only for myself and my individual freedom"

[Anonymous No.6416907]

>>6416899
Yeah, same here. It's the whole Costanza thing, like that episode where acts the opposite of normal and women like him and all.

Fuck em, though. I'm building an empire, son, this is America.

[twinshia No.6416908]

>>6416844
My inferences in regards to Stirner's work are based on "Ego...",
not that.
The two seem incompatible,
considering he ends "Ego..." with "Ich hab' mein Sach' auf nichts gestellt".
Perhaps he changed after reading Feuerbach.

[Anonymous No.6416913]

>>6416906
yeah dude, totally, you got that 100% dead correct, actually. good criticism. now do you think i give a fuck about it? the move to universality is hegelian stupidfuckery

[Anonymous No.6416917]

>>6416906
>equality for women, minorities, the poor
spooky, why would i hold that value higher than myself?

[Anonymous No.6416923]

>>6416899
Buddhists can still have sex. Practice tantric orgasms. Furthermore, I think buddhism wouldn't approve of intellectual pleasures as they amount to mere masturbatory speculation and they are a distraction from the pleasure of experiencing reality itself.

[Anonymous No.6416937]

>>6412790
The only thing to take from Stirner is an ANALYSIS of a certain aspect of human behavior.

[Anonymous No.6416945]

>>6416937
>Holding that value higher than your unique

AYY LMAO and that's a dumbass value to be a slave to as well

[twinshia No.6416955]

>>6416906
>I find that Stirner's philosophy comes from a privileged position.
True. Stirner saw nothing in Communism because it was a Union for those who were not aware of their own individual possibilites,
mainly because they lacked Bildung/ Education.
Stirner simply does not care because he has attained Bildung/ Education.

>The people who espouse egoism are usually white, middle class, male, etc.
I fulfill all categories,
yet it seems unnecessarily ethnocentric,
not to mention "class" is irrelevant,
it has to be with how enlightened/ educated/ gebildet you are and what you have brought or were given through violence(which is the basis of a Right).

>Stirner routinely denigrates all kinds of broader love for humanity but without such sentiments
How do you mean?
Stirner comes to the conclusion that any love is a construction of an individual mind,
as the individual can and does only live in his own singular world that is separate from any other entity, aside from perhaps God,
but even the notion of God is a construction of the individual's mind.

>we would never have made our incredible strides toward equality for women, minorities, the poor, and so on
Equality is irrelevant. This is one of the points,
if I am not mistaken.
Or rather, all individuals have naturally equal possible liberty,
considering all phenomena are potential wealth in the mind of a thinking entity.

>Ultimately it takes a very special type of solipsism, one not fitted for philosophy
How is not fitting for philosophy?

Are you a stalinist? Sounds like it.
Genuine question.

[Anonymous No.6416961]

>TFW rape isn't immoral because nothing is moral or immoral

[twinshia No.6416962]

>>6416923
Isn't one of the main practices within the Buddhist traditions to avoid all earthly desires?

[Anonymous No.6416963]

>>6416923
I am not totally put off by the idea of sex. It is just that now I do not see it as the endpoint, the proud achievement or high ideal that I once craved. Also, I agree on what you say about intellectual pleasures. However, my passion is for reading and for conversation. I would not see much point in living without such mindful masturbation. I must be one of those foul people who pick and choose what they please from ideologies.

[Anonymous No.6416968]

>>6416955
>True. Stirner saw nothing in Communism because it was a Union for those who were not aware of their own individual possibilites,
>mainly because they lacked Bildung/ Education.
Communism wants to make us all raggamuffins, it's the philosophy of the most raggamuffinly raggamuffins. And Stirner is right.

[twinshia No.6416970]

>>6416937
How do you mean?
It is a solipsistic system he constructed to describe his honest Weltanschauung.

[Anonymous No.6416973]

>>6416945
What? How is that a rephrasing of what I wrote?

[Anonymous No.6416975]

>>6416906
>love for humanity but without such sentiments, or spooks as they may be, we would never have made our incredible strides toward equality for women, minorities, the poor, and so on. Ultimately it takes a very special type of solipsism, one not fitted for philosophy, to say, "I care only for myself and my individual freedom"

Empathetic is the most egotistical you can be, for what can be more egotistical than pretending you can understand how others feel. To put one's self in another person's shoes.

[Anonymous No.6416979]

>>6416961
That's accurate

But compassion exists, and out of compassion I don't like rape

[Anonymous No.6416983]

>>6416973
You tried to imply there's a value, a principle (sic: spook) about how anybody ought to read Stirner. Nobody has to do that. You're trying to spook us. Trying to spook them, into believing that phrase has power.

It doesn't, you're just showing your dominion over the unworldly ghosts.

[Anonymous No.6416991]

>>6416975
It turns the other into a spook, the "real" other human is a monster, they are--unhuman.

[twinshia No.6416995]

>>6416961
And yet Right only exists in so far as you can violently take it.
If you feel you can overcome the legal system,
then of course you have the Right to rape,
because you have violently overcome the legal system.

[Anonymous No.6416999]

>>6416995
Looks like we have our plan laid out for us.

[twinshia No.6417008]

>>6416968
Hmm.
Certain people in the Verein/ Union are wishing to make the property which appears unto them as phenomena in to a tool which they can use through violent means e.g. Demagogues such as Stalin.
Then there are of course the religious marxists/ feuerbach fans, who actually believe that such people are not Egoists.
Most people who are in itself gebildet/ educated/ enlightened are in fact Egoists.
Engels admits this and Marx absorbed it in to his writings.

[twinshia No.6417018]

>>6416991
That's a really Stirnerian way of saying----things.

[twinshia No.6417025]

>>6416999
What is the purpose of Rape?
Seems pointless,
just a sedative.
I prefer Enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.6417028]

>>6416983
Yet the reality is that we all hold certain values and truths and we are constantly bombarded by sensual information that changes us.
How do you oppose physical reality?
Your comment is either absurd or a joke, I hope its the later.

[Anonymous No.6417029]

>>6416999
lets be honest, if you wanted to rape people you would already have done so

[Anonymous No.6417033]

>>6417008
You're damn right about that

[Anonymous No.6417044]

>>6417018
Hell yeah it--is.

>>6417025
I agree, it's just humor to push out the babies

[Anonymous No.6417052]

>>6417029
I'm being funny anon xD

[twinshia No.6417059]

>>6417028
>we all hold certain values and truths
Provied scientific evidence, please.
Sounds like you believe in innate grammar.
Wittgenstein may want a word with you.

>we are constantly bombarded by sensual information that changes us
Phenomena.
So? For what purpose do you mention this?

[Anonymous No.6417063]

how do you de-spook your friends
I got my friend all hopped up on basic nationalist shit a few years ago and now I sort of regret it

[Anonymous No.6417065]

So funny how teens on 4chan adore Stirner.
Are you gonna lick Ayn Rand's cunt as well?

How does it feel being a certain typical subset of teenagers?

[Anonymous No.6417070]

>>6417065
Ayn Rand is a bit spooky, anon

[Anonymous No.6417072]

>>6417065
grouping ayn rand with stirner is like grouping jesus with evola

[twinshia No.6417078]

>>6417063
I have never understood Nationalism.

>>6417065
>Are you gonna lick Ayn Rand's cunt as well?
I have read Atlas Shrugged in German,
for what ever reason.
I think I wanted to improve my German.
I started getting Libertarian ideas from it.

>How does it feel being a certain typical subset of teenagers?
I am twenty one.
I do not really care.
This is what I found to resonate with me.
To change my mind based on what image I project to other people would be pointless.
A sedative.
I think I understand why people become interested in Marxism.
Every one else thinks it makes sense so it must be correct.

[Anonymous No.6417087]

>>6417059
The best way to understand Stirner and the unique is to understand phenomenology in his day. He's a preconceptual phenonemonologist and the unique is just your preconceptual experience

Stirner would resist defining the unique though, he treats it as nominalistic terminology

[Anonymous No.6417098]

>>6417065
Abind b8 m8

[Anonymous No.6417111]

>>6417059
>proof
Welcome to social studies and social statistical analysis.
Oh yeah, people behave a certain way and make choices based on information they received and synthesized into a world view.
Our opinions and thus values and what we consider to be this way or another way change.

You cannot escape the pragmatic truths of physical reality. Sure, even under the current circumstances you can doubt anything but there is nobody to move objects away from you cause you dont believe they are there.

Stirner is like a cool joke about being skeptical that people here started taking seriously.
This is why people need preparation before reading certain texts.

[Anonymous No.6417117]

>>6417065
you don't understand either of the two if you are trying to make a comparison

[Anonymous No.6417122]

>>6417065
rands a stupid libertarian cunt

[Anonymous No.6417125]

>>6415857
Well, they might as well be, since I love both and laugh at poor retards who dismiss them as memes without getting some truly unique shit.

[Anonymous No.6417137]

>>6417117
Its just the same amateur understanding of the world that leads young people into taking both seriously.

[Anonymous No.6417144]

>>6417111
I'm rather well read in philosophy and I disagree. Stirner addresses the "freedom" issue you speak about directly in the unique and it's property.

Simply, all phenomenon are yours, and you don't have any complete dominion over anything. You can do whatever you want as long as you can exert that power, no more no less. It's nowhere near as incompetent in that regard as you're implying right now.

Try reading him as well, I know it hurts to realize that philosophy has no absolutes and it's all just playthings for intellectuals, but that's all it is.

[Anonymous No.6417149]

>>6417137
Cool ideological pioneering dude, you're trolling us real smashing with these devastating opines

[twinshia No.6417155]

>>6417111
>You cannot escape the pragmatic truths of physical reality.
How do you mean?
You infer some thing is physical from its constancy.
How can you know any thing to be constant but your own self awareness and that phenomena will appear.
The notion of Self Awareness and Phenomena are physical in themselves.
The words that refer to them are not.

>This is why people need preparation before reading certain texts.
Get off your high horse.

[Anonymous No.6417158]

>>6417144
But all you have stated is obvious.
The funny part begins when people try to build some sort of life philosophy out of stierner's ideas or numbing discussion because spooks..

[twinshia No.6417161]

>>6417137
I was under the impression that is what Marxism is,
but okay.
Please enlighten us as opposed to spout Ad Hominem.

[Anonymous No.6417162]

>>6417158
>But all you have stated is obvious.
so why are people still talking about morals on this board

[twinshia No.6417168]

>>6417161
*spouting

[Anonymous No.6417200]

>>6417155
Aha, that is entertaining. Tell that to yourself next time you feel you need to go to the bathroom or need a drink of water.
Like I wrote before, these musings are interesting and useful for expending one's mind and perspective but answering with these types of statements or questions constantly just shows you are still enthralled by them, you are still digesting.
Yes, we get it, we can be skeptical about physicality, about the physical world about any idea. Now lets get past and and agree that sometimes we purposefully assume things are a certain way despite knowing they might not be, in order to inspect certain ideas or come to pragmatic solutions to things that seem to transcend our skepticism ;)

Ultimately, beyond mental exorcises lie problems and physical needs we cant seem to escape from no matter how open minded we are.

[Anonymous No.6417203]

>>6417162
Because this board and most of 4chan in general is comprised of people closely hovering around the age of 20.

[Anonymous No.6417220]

>>6417158
Stirner says "be a hypocrite". It's all about power. I argue for spooks all the time.

People get mad about spook spam because people legitimately argue by using absolute polemics ">IMPLYING PEOPLE WHO READ NIETZSCHE AREN'T FEDORA-TIPPERS"

Well, that polemic only works by the implicit assertion that fedora-tipping is "bad". Only I can decide whether fedora tipping is bad, it's not an objective quality. But he's trying to imply that it is, so he's asserting that spook.

And that's how it goes on 4chan. Everyone on 4chan believes they have accessed some sort of universal principle of action (sic: morality) and they get edgy and mean when you whisk away their ghosts by bringing them to light.

The only argument I agree with other people is that if I'm going to spam spooks, I should take the time to explain the spook. I think that value is something I could get along with as an idea, but knowing me I'll get frustrated when explaining why "OMG WOMEN SHOULD BE EQUAL" is a spook for the 40th time.

[Anonymous No.6417231]

>>6417200
TL;DR what's your point? The rants of antiStirnerfags never make sense

[Anonymous No.6417235]

>tfw there will always be dumb people who think things like "you must wear a funny hat" are a legitimate argument

[Anonymous No.6417252]

>>6417220
or maybe you "follow" stirner because you are a shut in/loner who barely engages with others and thus has not experienced comradery or empathy in a long time.
You "following" stirner is a result of your actions and life style not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.6417258]

>>6417252
Not that guy, but you can have empathy without believing in objective morals

[Anonymous No.6417261]

>>6417235
The other anon postured about skepticism, but he was too shy to accept how purely skeptical one can be. That's why I always advocate Stirner bros take the time to study Sextus Empiricus. Sextus had a large influence on Stirner (Stirner goes so far as to directly compare egoism to a form of Ataraxia, a direct reference to skeptics)

What you realize is that ALL forms of argumentation are ultimately one of a few things; they are:

1. Appeals to absolutes (truth, etc) via a polemical dialectic
2. A logical or dialectical extension of an absolute that is agreed upon by both parties

In other words, you can legitimately be skeptical about any view to infinity. Anything. The only "true" absolute is your experience without concept applied to them.

David Hume almost got it perfect with the is-ought and sentimentalism, but he couldn't resist the absolute of mathematics

[twinshia No.6417271]

>>6417200
>Tell that to yourself next time you feel you need to go to the bathroom or need a drink of water.
Why would I?

>Now lets get past and and agree that sometimes we purposefully assume things are a certain way despite knowing they might not be
That is unscientific. I seek Enlightenment, not the pretense of a supposed "reality".

Your post is unscientific.

[Anonymous No.6417272]

>>6417252
I work two jobs, am going to junior college, finishing with a near-perfect GPA and attending a top tier university with a massive scholarship in the fall. I'm well liked at work and earn the highest wages, and train the new employees. Everyone says I'm incredibly smart because I am. I have no problem finding sexual partners. People really enjoy to buy gifts for me, too.

I enjoy my life, anon. You may want to reconsider your perspective, because you reek of ressentiment

[Anonymous No.6417275]

>>6417231
My point is that the only people who think they can build a life around Stirner's ideas are spoiled people who never had to fully engage with the world.
People who did have to, find Stirner's ideas interesting but realize, as they live and engage the world, that There is no way to calculate what is in your favor and how to act. You cannot be conscious of every action and decision you make.
People here discuss stirner as if he is the second coming of jesus while his ideas are simply an analysis of how people behave and have always behaved or use it as an excuse to deny anything, like little kids showing off their new toy.

[twinshia No.6417277]

>>6417252
>appeal to emotion
Disintegrate.
Make an actual scientific argument.

[Anonymous No.6417279]

>>6417272
Have you been to the moon yet?

[twinshia No.6417284]

>>6417275
>People who did have to, find Stirner's ideas interesting but realize, as they live and engage the world, that There is no way to calculate what is in your favor and how to act.
How could you know this?
How do you know what "People" think?
You are calling us delusional when in fact all your arguments are based on presuppositions.

[Anonymous No.6417302]

>>6417284
Im not calling you delusional, im calling you infatuated.

[Anonymous No.6417306]

>>6416937
If you accept the obvious truth of psychological egoism then Stirner's amoralism must naturally follow.

[Anonymous No.6417309]

>>6417275
You're wrong. Some people engage with the world amorally and succeed

[twinshia No.6417310]

>>6417302
Perhaps,
but it is irrelevant.
As I read over time I may find a new author-idol to transport my infatuation on to.
I could remove myself of it,
or journey toward it,
but it seems irrelevant or a hindrance toward my conception of an absolute scientific system in actuality.

[Anonymous No.6417313]

>>6417302
You can yell and shout all you want, we don't care.

[twinshia No.6417322]

>>6417309
She/ he does not seem to realise that even after going through the absorption of Stirnerian notions one can still become a Humanist or whatever,
but provided those absorbed notions remain with them,
they are still Egoists.
They are still accepting the Humanist spook only because they find being associated with Humanism to be necessary in what ever their Sache may be.

[Anonymous No.6417323]

>>6417279
Unfortunately no.

[Anonymous No.6417326]

>>6417322
There's a difference in my view in abiding by humanism, liking it's values personally and believing the spook. You don't have to believe the spook to be a humanist.

[twinshia No.6417330]

>>6417326
That is the point I was making.
I infer that you mean to say that idolatry of Stirner is pointless and yet in the same way idolatry of Stirner is therefore not a negative thing.
One can absorb Stirnerian ideas through idolising Stirner,
and considering idolatry in itself is not inherently negative a priori,
why should it matter?

[Anonymous No.6417333]

>>6417284
Yes lets ask for "hard evidence" for any trivial statement even if we agree on it, just for the sake of sounding smart.
What is there to understand beyond, "You dont have to do anything in life but you have to do something, just realize that no matter what it is, its not any more meaningful then anything else".

This is what people do anyway. It sounds like a suggestion but its just an analysis.
People try to do what they think is best based on the information they have. If someone fooled me into liking something and i like it its all still just as well according to stirner's ideas.
You cant not be an egoist, no matter what you do.
Its actually more like a statement against people here thinking they found some sort of golden path to enlightenment or something(at least that is the impression i get from reading some of the comments).

[Anonymous No.6417340]

>>6417330
Again, "hypocrisy is not as bad as it seems"

My idolatry is semi-ironic, it's all just about letting myself do what I feel like, only retards insist I somehow act how they want me to and not do what I do (lol)

[twinshia No.6417342]

>>6417326
Also, Humanism/ Anthropocentric thought is no different from Ethnocentric thought.
You categorise what is important or with in your "lump".
Aryans are then on the same level as Humans.
What is the difference between pretending to be ethnocentric,
defending the safety of the aryan peoples and defending people in general?
It is the same conclusion. You find or purport the pretense of haveing found a similarity between yourself and extension.

[Anonymous No.6417343]

>>6417275
>There is no way to calculate what is in your favor and how to act

What is "in one's favor" has no relevance whatsoever. It's not a matter of being a rational actor. It's a matter of acting according to one's desires unhindered by reified ideas and ideals.

[Anonymous No.6417344]

>>6417333
Enlightenment is a spook

[twinshia No.6417352]

>>6417340
False.
I was not aware I was idolising him.
In retrospect,
you could categorise it as idolatry.
Through Idolatry I managed to trust him enough to absorb his ideas.
This may be necessary to absorb ideas in the first place.

[twinshia No.6417355]

>>6417342
*having

[Anonymous No.6417360]

>>6417352
I wasn't really talking about you dude.

[twinshia No.6417362]

>>6417344
Sounds overly Kantian.
The notion "Enlightenment" has its use in the way in which I know it,
based on how I violently asserted its "Meaning".

[twinshia No.6417364]

>>6417360
Stirnerians on 4ch in general?

[Anonymous No.6417373]

>>6417333
Essentially, since most people at least in a calm and composed state, will do what they thing is right, you will stop thinking about stirner immediately after reading, grasping and agreeing with his ideas.
Those of you still obsessed with stirner have not yet fully taken them in.

[Anonymous No.6417382]

>>6417364
I was talking about my own experience.

[twinshia No.6417390]

>>6417373
No.
I still think there can be people who are Humanist with out realising that Humanism is unintelligible.
That is the difference between absorbing Stirnerian notions and not.

[Anonymous No.6417392]

>>6417343
Nope since what you said is impossible. We all act because of certain beliefs.
Stirner's ideas are a mental exercise meant to calm you down so you dont feel too bad fabout whatever it is you are doing or have done.

It is like an analysis that says that " this is the inescapable human condition dont feel bad since you cant escape it anyway".

[twinshia No.6417396]

>>6417382
So you might categorise yourself as a "post-stirnerian"?

[Anonymous No.6417402]

>>6417390
Wrong. That person thinks that humanism is intelligible so he is a humanist. He is being a Stirnarian.
You think Humanism is unintelligible so you do not practice its tenants, you are a stirnarian...
Again what is to be taken from stirner's ideas is an analysis of human behavior.

[twinshia No.6417403]

>>6417392
>Stirner's ideas are a mental exercise meant to calm you down so you dont feel too bad fabout whatever it is you are doing or have done.
False. We are not knowing what Stirner meant.
Stirner was mainly refuting Feuerbach's writings.
It is anti-humanist literature,
as far as I can tell.

[twinshia No.6417414]

>>6417402
True.
The Stirnerian who has absorbed Stirnerian notions is however enlightened.
He/ She has attained a part of an absolute scientific system in actuality as opposed to the unconscious Stirnerian.

[Anonymous No.6417424]

>>6417402
Because the way humans exist means that we all have values and beliefs that get changed or updated. You need ot do what is good for you but how do you decide what is good for you? why does something makes you feel good or you desire it? Because of social queues and ideas you received from others. We cant help but absorb ideas because we live in society.
All you can do is knowledge it as i am doing now.

That is all there is to take from stirner.

[Anonymous No.6417426]

>>6415327
He BTFO Marx. Marx wrote more pages criticizing and denouncing Stirner than Stirner's entire body of work. Marx is the one spooked put kook.

Stunner is at once postmodern while being the antithesis of our current embodiment of it. We turned to spooks to shield us from it. Stirner embraced it.

[Anonymous No.6417430]

>>6417403
Well I cant link all my posts but i was always trying to reiterate what of his ideas is worth preserving.

[twinshia No.6417439]

>>6417424
The Individual, not humans.

[Anonymous No.6417447]

>>6416906
There is nothing more privileged than putting out groups above your in group. It's only possible from a position of decedence, where your needs are met so well that you turn towards those that you exploit and wonder what you should give back.

[Anonymous No.6417456]

>>6417403
If you examine his ideas in light of our modern day knowledge and understandings you realize that his anti humanist critique is pointless.

All that is left is the acknowledgment of the working of the individual.
This is also irrelevant now since it has been absorbed into psychiatry, sociology and culture.

[Anonymous No.6417475]

>>6417261
Thanks for the recommendation anon, I'm writing it down to get on my next book buy.

[Anonymous No.6417476]

>>6417275
>There is no way to calculate what is in your favor and how to act

Stirner isn't about calculating "what is in your favor" or "how to act".

Stirner especially would never advise anyone on "how to act":

"No sheep, no dog, exerts itself to become a 'proper sheep, a proper dog'; no beast has its essence appear to it as a task, i.e. as a concept that it has to realize. It realizes itself in living itself out, in dissolving itself, passing away. It does not ask to be or to become anything other than it is."

[Anonymous No.6417477]

>>6417447
This is why i compared him to Ayn Rand. If you are lucky and privileged both give you excuses why being an asshole is just fine.

[Anonymous No.6417488]

>>6417477
And if you're poor and oppressed, he gives you plenty of excuses to kill the rich and expropriate their property. It goes both ways.

[Anonymous No.6417489]

>>6417396
Not really, I wouldn't attempt classifying myself like that

[Anonymous No.6417490]

>>6416878
what do you mean by not giving a fuck?
what behavior have you effectively changed?

[Anonymous No.6417500]

>>6417476
>It realizes itself in living itself out, in dissolving itself, passing away

So you have to do SOMETHING. How do you decide what to do? Do what you like? why do you like doing something? Because you were influenced to by society and other individuals.
Everyone of us has certain values and ideals if we want to or not as a result of the influence of society and other people.

Again, all that is left of his ideas is this acknowledgment that is nothing novel.

This is why i said at the begining that such ideas are dangerous if you are missing perspective. you might think it makes sense being an "egoist" even though you are always an egoist and its in fact an inescapable state.

[Anonymous No.6417503]

>>6417403
Yes.

[Anonymous No.6417513]

>>6416878
hah see an example of someone who thinks that there is something deeper about being a sternarian as oppose to just being an asshole. they are the same.

If you take stirners ideas to their conclusion based on what we know today you realize that there is nothing special or more pure or individualistic about valuing being an egotistic jerk over being a nice person.

[Anonymous No.6417514]

>>6417500
>Everyone of us has certain values and ideals if we want to or not as a result of the influence of society and other people.

Stirner doesn't deny this. The individual for Stirner doesn't exist in some vacuum, forming concepts and ideas for himself.

>I receive with thanks what the centuries of culture have acquired for me; I am not willing to throw away and give up anything of it: I have not lived in vain. The experience that I have power over my nature, and need not be the slave of my appetites, shall not be lost to me; the experience that I can subdue the world by culture’s means is too dear- bought for me to be able to forget it. But I want still more.

Do yourself a favor and actually read Stirner.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

[Anonymous No.6417522]

>>6417513
i.e you are both because of "spooks". Spooks are inescapable as we know now. You just decided to listen to the ones that say you should be an asshole.

[Anonymous No.6417533]

>>6417424
regardless of how you experience, you make ideas your property and serve only your interests

>We cant help but absorb ideas because we live in society.
that's the entire point, you absorb the fucking idea

did you take a shortcut and learn stirner off shitposting or what?

[Anonymous No.6417597]

Can Stirner help me overcome the procrastination which stand between me and my Career success?

If someone now says I should rethink the point of the latter, then I must ask the general "what's the point to life at all"-question. I feel people need something to work on or they go mad.

[Anonymous No.6417609]

>>6415857
Nietzsche more so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqcTVVUFnKQ

[Anonymous No.6417630]

>>6417597
Yes if you take the time to fully realize his views and don't bitch out

[Anonymous No.6417645]

>>6417630
What I don't get from the discussion here,
and what I also think people here mix up,

is that I think to live as a thinking human with any desire for improvement of the current position (as opposed to a farm animal, which just starts eating in the morning and goes to sleep at night - not thinking about the day after tomorrow at all) you need to formulate some goal and path - and I guess Stirner says you should do that (do what you want to do) - but as soon as anyone here formulates his personal path and perspective (may they be pro-striner or not), some other Stirnerian will criticize that via Stirner.

This raises the question: Can two Stirnerians ask each other for advice in any situation?
I feel people here only get away with "well, try to read X".
Any real arguments will have some holes per default, because it stems from some motivations that some others don't share.

[Anonymous No.6417669]

>>6417645
Dude your creative nothing. You can't tell me you don't get the impulse for greatness. Make it yours. It's all within you

[Anonymous No.6417693]

>>6417669
impulse for greatness? Oh please! I'm already destined for immortality for work I have completed.

[Anonymous No.6417703]

>>6417693
Whatever dude I don't like your attitude

[Anonymous No.6417717]

I just wish you Stirner fags would stop making the same thread over and over and over and over and over and over and over again

[Anonymous No.6417722]

>>6417703
Of course you don't. There's nothing a nothing hates more than being replied to by a something. (the truth).

[Anonymous No.6417724]

>>6417717
That's a really interesting thought you just shared

[Anonymous No.6417729]

>>6417722
Oh okay but I'm too dumb to think about your shit so you can leave anytime

[Anonymous No.6417747]

>>6417729
trolled with a hammer

[Anonymous No.6417755]

>>6417747
Oh yeah mate real good trolling, keep it up

[Anonymous No.6418098]

>>6417272
l o fucking l

[Anonymous No.6418108]

Is Stirner-worship on /lit/ a spook?

[Anonymous No.6418683]

>>6418108
nop

[Anonymous No.6418787]

>>6418108
Why the fuck would you censor the S?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6418802]

>>6418108
The worship of him, yes.

But I doubt anyone is doing that

[Anonymous No.6418859]

>>6418787
Max' Mansion is fun

[Anonymous No.6419476]

>>6416906

You forger that women, minorities and the "poor" are "oppressed" because of spooks in the first place. Its no fluke that many early feminists and homosexuals held Stirner in high regard and used egoism as the justification for speaking out against tradition.

[Anonymous No.6420111]

Okay, so I started reading the book.
Questions:

- From the introduction/motivation, to what extent does he see the god/humanity as something whcih can have a cause on it's own?
How can he claim god/humanity is egoistic (and we should put it before us)?
- I like the part with the developement from child to young adult to man. We have that child fears father/etc. things in the world, the thinking young man, with his ideals fears his conscious, the strong man is living with and for himself.
Now wouldn't it be more true to say the young man fears rejection, to a big part? Realistically, you can't reject everything, all ideals of others too, and still live nicely. Everybody is socially dependent.
- How do woman fit in the picture, he strongly has a male protagonist in his mind, in those rants. What about a womans development in this world, are the suggestion the same?
- I guess people here like Stirner because they want to change/improve their life by acting differently, and that by thinking differently. What does Stirner say about tasks which I have figured out are in my favor but are boring or make me put in others shoes?
Once I’ve fixed my goals and my cause, how can I analyze it from a Stirner perspective. Do you actually have suggestion here?
- What is 'courage' for him?
- Will he speak about money?

I find it hard to read, because he switches, without mentioning, from speaking in first person as his opponents (i.e. making claims which he then refutes), to arguing against those, to historic descriptions - and on top of that there are some ironic/sarcastic sentences and jokes.
- Is Geist (spirit/mind?) actually defined, I’m not sure. He uses this quite differently. Same with „holy“: sometimes he uses it in the „spooky“ sense, other times he declares whatever is very relevant to me I can consider „holy“ and it hasn’t to be supernatural.
- he criticizes how people respect (all, in principle) other people for them carrying something human in them. The notion is spooky, he says. So is he against the bill of human rights for everyone?

[Anonymous No.6420141]

>>6412790
>we wish to be human beings, not mere individuals.
Engels didn't read so good.

[Anonymous No.6420394]

>>6420111

He see's God and humanity as absolutely "something that can have a cause of its own". God and Humanity are creative nothings, there's no difference between these ideologies and me or you. Humanity and God have the same relationship to us as our we do with our cells, organs and blood. We act as the "cells, organs and blood" of these ideologies.

There are no distinctions between man and women. Each individual is einzige.

>What does Stirner say about tasks which I have figured out are in my favor but are boring or make me put in others shoes?

Perform them if you want. What do you mean "put me in other's shoes"? Stirner has no problem with empathy.

Courage is stupid if you're holding it as an ideal. If it benefits you to run away, but you don't because you because you hold courage as virtuous, then you are suffering for a spook.

He does speak about money, though it works like all property. Working for the mere sake of it is, again, suffering for a spook.

He later talks about rights. The bill of human rights, as he would see it, is spooky. Reason being that "rights" are given to you, you are "allowed" them, and so they're not so much "rights" as "allowances". You depends on a spook for them. Stirner says that true rights are won from power, not given to you. This doesn't neccessarily mean "might makes right", he advocates stealing, fighting as well as persuasion as methods. Everyone is entitled to whatever they entitle themselves to.

[Anonymous No.6420408]

>>6415857
MC Ride's Syndicalist Milk Shoppe when?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AodBQ2ElXxs

[Anonymous No.6420419]

>>6416885
counter-fedora memes are possibly the most pathetic thing on this website

[Anonymous No.6420428]

>>6420419
more pathetic than piss bottles and the entirety of r9k?

[Anonymous No.6420514]

>>6416906
*tip*

[Anonymous No.6420572]

>>6416906

>"I care only for myself and my individual freedom"

Minorities hold this as a slogan too... In fact all groups that struggle against something hold this dogma as his truth

[Anonymous No.6420697]

>tfw stirner egoism is so encompassing that he actually describes all possible motivation about ideology and non-ideology in all kinds of people

>tfw stirner was right

[Anonymous No.6420774]

I read Stirner a year or so ago and I don't really that much is to be changed. People are already subconscious egoists, and it's practical to make terms for expressions and ideologies for everyone, and your mind subconsciously submits to those spooks because it feels it is for the better.

Everyone is already making unions in Stirner's sense, finding between each other over what they believe to be a good thing for them.


In sense, if you are a NEET, we can call you pathetic, even though it's from a spooky position, because we recognize in what environment and condition you are in and that you, so do we, can't escape them, that you are loser because you recognize those conditions by claiming and acquiring NEET lifestyle.

We know no better, more fulfilling spook to submit to than the ones that are constantly being made and remade.

[Anonymous No.6420779]

>>6420394
Is he saying I have to create and know my own world? I'm not 100% how to find that one.

[Anonymous No.6420823]

>>6420394
>Courage is stupid if you're holding it as an ideal. If it benefits you to run away, but you don't because you because you hold courage as virtuous, then you are suffering for a spook.

Spooky

>courage is stupid
You say this from a spook.

>If it benefits you to run away, but you don't because you because you hold courage as virtuous, then you are suffering for a spook.
Your benefit relies on the spook, you use spook as a set value by which you base what is to your liking and what is not. Courage is in your benefit because you like the idea of it and follow it.

Same to rights and allowances. The person allows himself to be allowed first of all, he already recognized his possible choices and chooses, or submits, to be allowed.

[Anonymous No.6420835]

i see nothing wrong with subjecting myself to the spook of history given our current situation

[Anonymous No.6420847]

>>6420823

Courage is stupid, as I said, if you're doing it from an ideological standpoint. If it benefits you to be cowardwardly, but you resist that, its spooky.

>you say this from a spook

Yeah, maybe I do. "Spooks" aren't good or bad, Stirner's work is an observational one, not instructional. He states how things are and he utilizes it, and leaves it there. He doesn't then go on and telly uo what you should or should not do.

>
Your benefit relies on the spook, you use spook as a set value by which you base what is to your liking and what is not. Courage is in your benefit because you like the idea of it and follow it.

I agree. Completely agree. In fact, you and me ourselves are spooks. If not for the human body's spooky nature, we wouldn't exist. The difference between the body and us is the body cannot recognize itself of being spooky, you can.

[Anonymous No.6420849]

>>6420835
I don't understand what you say.

[Anonymous No.6421227]

is friendship a spook?

[Anonymous No.6421283]

>>6421227
>Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.

>ideas that are treated as sacred or religious, such as private property, competition, division of labour, and so forth.

>if anything plants itself firmly in me, and becomes indissoluble, I become its prisoner and servant, i. e. a possessed man. An interest, be it for what it may, has kidnapped a slave in me if I cannot get away from it, and is no longer my property, but I I am its. Let us therefore accept criticism's lesson to let no part of our property become stable, and to feel comfortable only in—dissolving it.
i like this bit. friendship is only a spook if you're unable to part with it

[Anonymous No.6421324]

>>6412790
Ok, this meme has been rotting in my library long enough. How much Hegel knowledge do I need before tackling this bad boy?

[Anonymous No.6421739]

>>6417065
>being a filthy collectivist

[twinshia No.6421806]

>>6417065
certain "subsets" of teenagers are nothing but ghosts of the mind

[twinshia No.6421839]

>>6421806
stop impersonating me

[Anonymous No.6421980]

When stirner describes the self/ego as the creative nothing is that based on the idea of that the self is in a constant state of change and hence doesn't really exist?

[Anonymous No.6422586]

>>6421980
The the idea that nothing proceeds it. Therefore it had to be completely created from nothing. Make sense?

[Anonymous No.6422764]

>>6422586
Yes, although it seems rather idealistic of a left Hegelian.

Thank you for clairifying that for me.

[twinshia No.6422771]

>>6421806
>>6421839
Stop impersonating ME

[Anonymous No.6423212]

>184 replies
>38 Unique IPs

You guys

[Anonymous No.6423257]

>>6423212
What are you talking about? It says 51 for me

[Anonymous No.6423330]

>>6421324
Not much

[Anonymous No.6423338]

>>6421227
No, of course not. Unless you mean Friendship, or the "value" friendship, where you assert it is objectively a good thing.

That's the real thing people are too retarded to get on /lit/. It's never "having friends is a spooks", it's "believing that one ought to have friends is a spook".

[Anonymous No.6423348]

>>6420774
You haven't thought that much on it then. Once the nihilism hits you it's over.

[Anonymous No.6423355]

>>6420697
Preach it brother

[Anonymous No.6423577]

>>6420419
xD

[Anonymous No.6423602]

>>6420111
>From the introduction/motivation, to what extent does he see the god/humanity as something whcih can have a cause on it's own?
He sees God and humanity as exerting their purpose through individuals

>How can he claim god/humanity is egoistic (and we should put it before us)?
God's commandment isn't "thou shalt not murder unless you really want to", God allows no room for any ego but his own.

>What about a womans development in this world, are the suggestion the same?
Doesn't matter/irrelevant

>What does Stirner say about tasks which I have figured out are in my favor but are boring or make me put in others shoes?
Keep reading

>Once I’ve fixed my goals and my cause, how can I analyze it from a Stirner perspective. Do you actually have suggestion here?
Keep reading. Stirner's dialectics here are fairly easy to grasp, he's not writing for a sophisticated audience.

>I find it hard to read, because he switches, without mentioning, from speaking in first person as his opponents (i.e. making claims which he then refutes), to arguing against those, to historic descriptions - and on top of that there are some ironic/sarcastic sentences and jokes.
It shouldn't be very hard. He does do a bit of wordplay, but you can usually figure out his intent without straining.

>Is Geist (spirit/mind?) actually defined, I’m not sure. He uses this quite differently. Same with „holy“: sometimes he uses it in the „spooky“ sense, other times he declares whatever is very relevant to me I can consider „holy“ and it hasn’t to be supernatural.
You're viewing it too analytically. He does wordplay, he will use words ironically and seriously back to back.

Here's an example of a typical Stirnerian problem: Stirner does not believe "you", "the unique", can be described by words. He calls you "the unique", but also says that this description is just a nominal word, and bears no meaning other than the necessity of writing it in text. That's why it's the "unique", e.g. your unique experience is entirely incomparable and no words can truly describe it.

Another problem is his use of "unman", he uses it both seriously an ironically. He will sometimes say men and mean "individuals", but sometimes he means the spooky, greater "Man". He advocates you be an "unman", or you be an inhuman, heretical monster, but he doesn't mean to actually be one, he means that your rejection of the spooks will make you in the view of christians one.

I dunno, I've never had a hard time grasping Stirner, but then again, before I read him I was already formulating some ideas in my head very similar to his.

>he criticizes how people respect (all, in principle) other people for them carrying something human in them. The notion is spooky, he says. So is he against the bill of human rights for everyone?
Don't view him as a philosopher that's "for" or "against" anything. He's not trying to do what other philosophers do. He's for or against as he sees fit.

[twinshia No.6423609]

>>6421806
>>6421839
>>6422771
lol.

[twinshia No.6424276]

>>6423609
xD

[twinshia No.6424470]

"thinking consciousness as determined in the form of abstract freedom is [...] the incomplete negation of otherness. Withdrawn from existence only into itself, it has not [...] achieved its consummation as absolute negation of that existence."

Reading Hegel is making me think Stirner's more profound ideas are not as profound as they may at first seem.

[Anonymous No.6424616]

>>6424470
Stirner was inspired by, for sure. But that Hegel quote hardly means anything for Stirner

[twinshia No.6424643]

>>6424616
Really?

Consider the following:
Why should philosophy stop at just disproving supposed misinformation?
Isn't finding or entering certain positive states of mind paramount as opposed to ridding yourself of any thing to grasp on to?

[Anonymous No.6424713]

>>6424643
it "shouldn't". i don't understand where you're getting all of this out of stirner

[twinshia No.6425067]

>>6424713
I am trying to get past Stirner.
I can not accept that his is all there is.
I need to find Ethics some where.

[Anonymous No.6425085]

He is no better than everyone he denounces before him, considering that his intellectual endeavour amounts to nothing more than a seduction. In its own little way it is a sort of immature, petulant and infantile seduction as well, one that does not have the sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but on the other hand it has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric (and I mean rhetoric in the general, system-level sense that I think De Man uses) that ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a child who disregards the rules of a game because he is tired of losing at it or some such poor behaviour.

Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history. Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.

Assuming that he has ghostbusted the spooks is to assume a very ideologically-charged perspective about the progress of conceptual thought in the west. And it's not only that, we must also consider that language is dialogic, which means that the language, the concepts Stirner uses to poke around with in first place are all shaped and ideologically charged before he even gets to employ them, he inherits his words and thereby whatever ideology is embedded in them, so it is not even clear whether there is really a distinct Stirner-type ideology critique and not just some permutation of a prevailing ideology. His whole endeavour is shot to shit and full of presuppositions, which is why people are debating over ideology, why Stirner did not solve the problem of ideology, and why its usefulness even as a concept today is in question.

[twinshia No.6425113]

>>6425085
He essentially summed up what Hegel already sums up but also improves upon in his writing.

Stirnerian Egoism is not an unneccessary stage in the acquisition of an absolute Science.
Having gone through it,
one becomes aware of its own inadequacy in providing oneself with a substantial Science and hopefully one eventually realises just why Stirnerian Egoism is limited.

[Anonymous No.6425217]

>>6425067

If there is some form of Ethics you can't put it in words

[Anonymous No.6425250]

>>6423602
Thanks for the response, I'll continue reading it (today, maybe).
I'm not a fan of vague writing.
I read the original btw.

[Anonymous No.6425277]

>>6416906
Any love you may have for mankind comes only out of yourself, and that's fine, we all have our own spooks, but don't be so balls deep in them that you aren't even aware of them.

[Anonymous No.6425280]

>>6425067
>>6425217
>what is the ubermensch

[twinshia No.6425322]

>>6425217
And yet haven't you expressed it in words just like that?
If you can express it through negation of its content,
then surely through elaborate negation you could describe its whole system.
Isn't that what knowledge is? Negation.

As an aside,
I know this is a Stirner thread,
but I just read an interesting line by Hegel about the penis:

"The depth which Spirit brings forth from within- but only as far as its picture-thinking consciousness where it lets it remain- and the ignorance of this consciousness about what it really is saying, are the same conjunction of the high and low which, in the living being, Nature naively expresses when it comnines the organ of its highest fulfilment, the organ of generation, with the organ of urination."