/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6549423]

Is it true that Stirner never used the word "ego"? that it's just a misinterpretation on behalf of his english translators?

[Anonymous No.6549424]

>>6549423
yes, he meant to say God

[Anonymous No.6549438]

>>6549423
Einzige isn't necessarily ego, but for all intents and purposes it's a functional translation.

[Anonymous No.6550066]

>>6549438
>intents and purposes
intensive purposes

[Anonymous No.6550125]

>>6550066

in tents and porpoises

[Anonymous No.6550137]

this board gets worse the less stirnerposting there is, anyone else notice that

[Anonymous No.6550155]

>>6550125
Intense and poor persons

[Anonymous No.6550173]

>>6550137
Yup

[Anonymous No.6550190]

>>6549438
Freud ruined the phrase forever tbh.

[Anonymous No.6550191]

>>6549423
Where did he even come from? how come stirner is even a meme

[Anonymous No.6550201]

>>6550191

I remember Stan started spamming him non-stop about 2-3 years ago. Stirner was too edgy to not become a meme after that

[Anonymous No.6550208]

>>6550191

Stirner is the undisputed king of /lit/. This is well known

[Anonymous No.6550210]

>>6550191
Because the drawings of him are cool and easily edited and he has a very 4chan friendly philosophy that for all /int/ ants and purpleness comes down to 'you can't tell me what to do, all your rules are nonsense and the only legit reason to do things is for the lulz' but in a very well argued and intelligent manner.

[Anonymous No.6550216]

post rare stirners lads

[Anonymous No.6550217]

>>6550210
Pretty much this. He's like an ED editor who decided to become a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.6550226]

>>6550191
Pretty neat philosophy

He uses the word spook as an actual term in his philosophy

There are no photographs of him, only two doodles. That just make him interesting.

Also he rustled Marx's jimmies.

[Anonymous No.6550227]

>>6550216

[Anonymous No.6550230]

>>6550201

So Stan started all this?

Why am I not surprised.

Nothing good ever came out of that asshole.

[Anonymous No.6550231]

>>6550216

[Anonymous No.6550234]

Does anyone have the edited version of this image with Stirner, Atlas, etc?

[Anonymous No.6550239]

>>6550234
>>6550231
Speak of the fucking devil.

[Anonymous No.6550242]

>tfw i accidentally my folder with over a hundred stirners

[Anonymous No.6550249]

>>6550242
Do you want to trade rare Stirners?

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.6550262]

>>6550239
sup

>>6550230
>nothing good

i made this board you pederast.

ungrateful bunch of smarmy cunts the lot of you

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.6550330]

>>6550191
>>6550190

psychoanalysis is an american syndrome primarily, together with the colon-bound-reductionism that is now the primary epistemic 2n order mode of all western thought. with these in mind, we are lead to a constant regression into the 'self' and after all the horrors therein are gleaned(horrors insofar as one is incapable of processing paradox), the common low born sod is poisoned, stricken with all sorts of "disorders" that leave him in perpetual search of their reification (contemporary bourgeois society is, after all, fundamentally masochistic) which then leads to further explorations of (insert generic continental existentialist here). these being nothing but a supplement to their syndromes and a worsening of their neurosis. such is the effect of nearly all of western philosophical thought.
stirner is the antidote. westernized buddhism, for the western disease
nihilism packaged any other way (such as through my fascist performative ethic of nihilism, or even an undiluted buddhism) would have been too unpalatable for the western ego. thus, give it the illusion of freedom, remove its spooks, by binding it within a super spook. q.e.d.
i think we should be pleased with the results thus far.

[Anonymous No.6550401]

>>6550330
>fascist performative ethic of nihilism
elaborate pls

[Muck J.J. Bulligan !!ryE2gEjGbpu No.6550433]

>>6550242
i dread the day i meet a man with a folder of over a hundred stirners

[Anonymous No.6550445]

>>6550401
No anon don't do it!

[Anonymous No.6550517]

>>6550227
>rare stirner thread

post em boys

[Anonymous No.6550520]

>>6550517

[Anonymous No.6550532]

>>6550249
i'll trade you this

[Anonymous No.6550679]

posting a custom hybrid meme

to be distributed freely

[Anonymous No.6550685]

lol Stan was behind Stirner? That's hilarious.

[Anonymous No.6550706]

[Anonymous No.6550732]

>>6550227
>my oc got reposted

[Anonymous No.6550752]

>>6550685
>>/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=stirner&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=&search_datefrom=1990-01-01&search_dateto=2013-01-01&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=old&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

Oldest mentions of Stirner in the archives are by Anon.

[Anonymous No.6550754]

>>6549423
how is the ego not a spook itself tho

[Anonymous No.6550764]

>>6550754
because it is non-conceptual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Max_Stirner#The_Self

[Anonymous No.6550774]

>>6550764
interesting thanks anon the shitposting has made me reluctant but i might actually check some of his stuff out

[Anonymous No.6550787]

>>6550752
>tfw you stumble upon stirnerposting you like and suddenly realise you wrote it yourself years ago

spooky

[Anonymous No.6550831]

>>6550774
He's very much worth reading even without the memes.

[Anonymous No.6551173]

What is it about Stirner that appealed to you guys?

For me, I had always had this vague feeling of unease when confronted by ideology. I love my mother very much, but when religion came up as a topic, her eyes would glaze over like she was the manchurian candidate, and she would wax poetic about being "raised catholic" and how nice the priests were, or when one of my best friends was riding in the car with me and she called her husband's step-mom a "disgusting racist" despite the woman being really nice to me, or when I told someone I respected a lot that I'd rather kill a million people than let my sister die and he told me that was "scary", or when my brother was arrested because his friend left his backpack in his car that had a single pill of ritalin in it that he took for ADHD, or the time I got a speeding ticket, and all the thousand cuts of our modern bureaucratic society, writing essays in school that force you to subtly denigrate yourself to get a good grade, or the feeling that other people are just always playing dominance games when I would never want to lead or follow anyone, or how we torture our enemies when we should kill them, the many insults from random strangers like the rude woman on the phone at the DMV ignoring me, to simply how hard I have to work to simply get by.

I had a feeling of revolt in the pit of my stomach from around 6 years old, and despite a few brief respites, it just grew and grew. Stirner helped me understand that, that I was simply allergic to all this bullshit ideology.

When I found and read about his biggest fan, Renzo Novatore, and how he fucking LIVED IT, who knew the only reason for grenades was to throw them at cops, that I wasn't alone in the world. That you could live free and happy and that if the world wanted to make you their enemy you were the better for it. Love unreservedly and just to simply be more authentic and true to yourself.

It's not like I didn't "get it" without Stirner, but the man articulates it perfectly. He gives that confused frustrated feeling towards the world a name, and if you know something's name you are free.

I hope I didn't cut you lads on all this edge, and I'm sure I will be accused of peppering my description with spooks, but that really isn't the point.

So why do you like Stirner?

[Anonymous No.6551268]

>>6551173
lol black person

[Anonymous No.6551335]

muh favorite

[Anonymous No.6551347]

[Anonymous No.6551348]

>>6551173
>What is it about Stirner that appealed to you guys?
I want to get into a mindset where I don't waste my time with things that I neither can affect nor enjoy.
Which is hard to do, issues of others suck you in.

[Anonymous No.6551471]

>>6549438
>Einzige isn't necessarily ego, but for all intents and purposes it's a functional translation.
this isn't true, though.

[Anonymous No.6551473]

>>6550330
>psychoanalysis is an american syndrome primarily
wrrrrrrrrrrongggg-ggngh-nggh, nggg ng.

[Anonymous No.6551477]

>>6550262
>implying this board is good
Remember, we can't talk about how good something is because that goes against the meta.

[Anonymous No.6551488]

>>6550532
>a hook
>not a spook

[Anonymous No.6551516]

>>6551173
What is this? Is this the spook of... empathy?

[Anonymous No.6551571]

>>6550330
>>6550262
loveu stan

[Anonymous No.6551625]

>>6551173
>So why do you like Stirner?
you are cool, would hang out with. Similar reasons for me, really.

[Anonymous No.6551631]

What translations of Stirner should I read?

[Anonymous No.6551642]

>>6551631
the flemish

[Anonymous No.6551644]

>>6551631
They are all slight variations of Byington's. I recommend using this: http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/enee.html

[Anonymous No.6551646]

>>6551642
forgot pic

[Anonymous No.6551719]

>>6551642
>>6551646
Is dit ook leesbaar voor Ne'erlanders?

[Anonymous No.6551741]

>>6551173
I live in sweden, our political situation is mentally retarded. Stirner is just the one person who perfectly cuts through all the bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6551742]

>>6551719
Sure, ik ken een nederbroeder die 'm heeft. Die heeft er geen problemen mee.
De vertaling zou dichter aan leunen bij het Duits en alleen al de introductie is het geld waard.

http://www.max-stirner.be/142679264

[Anonymous No.6551875]

He is not too lengthy on Christianity (not as much as you'd expect for a 200 year old critique), but is his chapter-long rant about the state really necessary for a parallel to today?

And, anyway, why does it seem he spends more time on uprising communism than on capitalism?

[Anonymous No.6551971]

>>6551742
>8 euro
Dat is nog eens een koopje, bedankt broeder.

[Anonymous No.6552117]

>>6551173
>It's not like I didn't "get it" without Stirner, but the man articulates it perfectly.
This is pretty much it for me as well. He gave words to the ideas I already intuitively adhered to in a lot of ways and did it so with more clarity and skill then I ever could, which helped me tremendously in steadfastness in my own perspective without surrendering to the reigning ideologies.

Rereading parts of his work also helps when I feel like I'm starting to compromise too much at my own expense. His work is something that you should keep with you over time rather than read once or twice, I think.

[Anonymous No.6552120]

>>6551875
Because capitalism wasn't a deliberate ideology until the commies made it into one to oppose themselves to.

[Anonymous No.6552139]

>>6552120
Read Weber.

[Anonymous No.6552153]

>>6551719
Jazeker.

[Anonymous No.6552587]

>>6551741
I wonder if Stirner could actually be a really big thing in this country if he got seriously promoted. I think he's saying what a lot of people are thinking.

[Anonymous No.6552600]

>>6552587
I think stirner is too heretical for the normal person to grab on to and too free to be used by people trying to further some agenda, so doubtful. That would be a sight though, wouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.6552607]

>>6552600
Considering how literate people who read regularly on here literally can't understand a word of what stirner says, there's no scenario I can imagine in which a popularization of stirner doesn't result in mass drama at best.

[Anonymous No.6552610]

>>6551875
> He is not too lengthy on Christianity (not as much as you'd expect for a 200 year old critique), but is his chapter-long rant about the state really necessary for a parallel to today?
Nobody gave a fuck about Christianity when Hegel shifted its place with that of State.

[Anonymous No.6552665]

>>6552587
you actually want to popularize stirner? why?

i'd much rather be the only egoist around all the zombies. it's easier to operate.

[Anonymous No.6552707]

>>6552665
it would be dank, like pepes on the news or baneposting being linked to international accidents

[Anonymous No.6552746]

>>6549423
Yes. But except for in the title, "Einzige" is generally translated as "unique one," which is a perfectly serviceable translation (Der Einzige literally translates to "the only one," but Stirner clearly means it in the sense of uniqueness and not in a solipsistic sense).

[Anonymous No.6552764]

>>6552746
>mfw the translation in my language is proper

[Anonymous No.6552778]

>>6552707
>The Museum Of Pepe Art
>filled entirely with rare pepes

[Anonymous No.6552786]

>>6552610
I never read Hegel.
Do you mean he conceptually did this in his writing, or he advanced such a shift?

From which point on, in time, can we say that "state" was as much of a power that it is today?

[Anonymous No.6552798]

>>6551173
I never felt oppressed like you do (or did). You describe it like being held back and I didn't experience that.

I feel like I missed out on that, but then again it doesn't sound like a happy experience.

[Anonymous No.6552807]

>>6552117
How do you know which parts to get back to? Did you take notes or have you written into the book?

[Anonymous No.6552816]

>>6552746
Was "Einzigartige" maybe not catchy enough?

[Anonymous No.6552915]

>>6552807
I just roughly remember generally. I tend to have a pretty good memory for where what is in books I've read. I dislike writing in books and note taking of any kind.

[Anonymous No.6553011]

>>6552915
With Stirners book, I have the feeling that the best part is always the last page of a chapter. It's even like that's done on purpose.
Anyone else feel the same?

[Anonymous No.6553025]

>>6553011
I get the same feeling with Nietzsche, like he's building up momentum starting out with subtle preparation work and then towards the end he goes full force and you start wanting to agree with him excitedly like a black person in church.

[Anonymous No.6553359]

>>6550754

Because its nothing. Its just a creative void.

[Anonymous No.6553562]

Maybe did, is possible? Maybe

[Anonymous No.6554116]

>>6551875
Because capitalism is a many faced term that is used by anyone to say anything.

People often forget that Stirner translated and was an advocate of Say and some others of the Paris school in German. Today we would call it Austrian Economist. His rant against the state comes from anarchism. But it's easier to pretend spooks are a good way of deconstructing late capitalism in a post structuralist manner than recognising that he was simply an hardcore "libertarian".

He is not really light on anything. While he is not the most used meme in academia, there are some people that refer to him without any remorse. For instance, some of the Bavarian socialists in 1919 used him, or even hacks like Camus. By the way, the relevant people that were stirnerites, like Schmitt, Junger or Steiner were Christians. That is, if you don't count "anarchists" like the LGBT crowd as relevant.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554128]

>>6550137
Yes.

[Anonymous No.6554247]

>>6554116
>Because capitalism is a many faced term that is used by anyone to say anything.
You know who you gotta blame for that?
i wish i was joking

[Anonymous No.6554315]

>>6552816
Yea in the translators note he said "the ego and its own" sounded better than "the unique one and its property" which would have been more accurate.

[Anonymous No.6554328]

>>6552807

Read with a pencil and make small notes.

I like to make notes about parts that challenge something i thought or add something new etc then rereading you can see where you were before hand

[Anonymous No.6554335]

>>6549423
The ego requires sustinance like any other psychological repertoire.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554337]

>>6554116
I hate leftist socialists

[Anonymous No.6554339]

>>6550137

At first I thought this was a shitpost but you're actually right.

[Anonymous No.6554355]

>>6550216
take my nadkip stirner

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554358]

>>6554116
Stirner translated the most important edition of the wealth of nations into German

He actually was fairly libertarian in that sense

Also I meant "I hate leftist anarchists" with my other posts. I've seen anarchists arguing that animals have rights.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554376]

>>6554358
Are you a fucking idiot? Wealth of Nations is concerned with how individual nations become wealthier, and it advocates a labor theory of value, there's nothing libertarian about it. Neither can you call Stirner libertarian in a capitalist sense, since he opposed property rights.

[Anonymous No.6554379]

>>6554355
very nice.

can i save it?

[Anonymous No.6554381]

>>6554358
>adam smith
>libertarian

[Anonymous No.6554385]

>>6554337
>>6554358
>>6554376
45% done with you. you're not particularly annoying though, so you're not filtered yet. just a heads up, I know you care.

[Anonymous No.6554386]

>>6554379
its all yours my friend

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554391]

>>6554385
there are several of us

[Anonymous No.6554395]

>>6554391
the more the merrier

[Anonymous No.6554396]

>>6554386
thanks!

[Anonymous No.6554400]

are emotions like fear and love spooks?

[Anonymous No.6554408]

>>6554355
i see your stirner and raise you one i made using my own blood

[Anonymous No.6554424]

>>6554400
No. Love is not a spook, thinking you ought to love is a spook.

[Anonymous No.6554428]

>>6554408
you know this will summon him, right?

better get some beer and cigars.

[Anonymous No.6554480]

for the record I don't browse /lit/ and I don't read or write as often as I probably should. so what i'm about to say comes from a general understanding of him. feel free to disregard anything below

i agree with his idea that acting in anything but self interest is not rational, and also that even those who claim not to be secretly are. Rather I wouldn't call it self interest so much as everyone whether they know it or not acts to further their own survival .even someone jumping off a cliff is practicing a (flawed and rush) method of survival, escaping. i assure you they arent thinking about their own death seriously till they hit the ground.

but this is also why i don't agree with anarchy. because if anarchy were to be the best system that would mean we are all acting in our self interest, this is partly true i feel. but our self interest is only acting in our survival. this is why most rational people will often exchange safety for freedom. however when we are so restricted that a simple slip up could kill us then we start to revolt.

i guess what i'm trying to say is yes it's irrational to not act in ones self interest, its even more irrational to act against ones own survival.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554496]

>>6554480
Stirner is blatantly unconcerned about what's rational though.

[Anonymous No.6554521]

>>6554408
i-is this real?

is stirner going ebola-chan mode?

[Anonymous No.6554527]

>>6554480
>always acting in self interest...
no. maaate, just stop. you're confusing stirner's egoism for psychological or rational egoism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

[Anonymous No.6554538]

>>6554480
Have you read Stirner or just some secondary stuff? You seem to be ascribing things to him he didn't say.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554561]

>>6554527
Stirner's egoism is psychological egoism, that is the idea that everyone is an egoist. Stirner then divides those into voluntary and involuntary egoists.

[Anonymous No.6554608]

>>6551173
I like him because he pretty much said the things I thought but more eloquently.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554717]

>>6554376
The historical context and intent of the work is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6554758]

>>6554561
i don't believe in psychological egoism, in acting only with self-interest, but through acting selfishly, that i believe.

there is never an unwilling psychological egoist, since they are incapable of behaving otherwise to begin with, while the unwilling/involuntary egoist exists through selfishness alone.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554808]

>>6554381
>>6554376
>In the same way too, by determining the relation which a philosophical work professes to have to other treatises on the same subject, an extraneous interest is introduced, and obscurity is thrown over the point at issue in the knowledge of the truth. The more the ordinary mind takes the opposition between true and false to be fixed, the more is it accustomed to expect either agreement or contradiction with a given philosophical system, and only to see reason for the one or the other in any explanatory statement concerning such a system. It does not conceive the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive evolution of truth; rather, it sees only contradiction in that variety. The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another. But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes them at the same time moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole. But contradiction as between philosophical systems is not wont to be conceived in this way; on the other hand, the mind perceiving the contradiction does not commonly know how to relieve it or keep it free from its one-sidedness, and to recognise in what seems conflicting and inherently antagonistic the presence of mutually necessary moments.

Read it and weep. Get over your fucking retarded notions that "whatever stance the author held, is the filter by which we MUST interpret the authors work"

It's not that simple. Adam Smith's work is most relevant for hard right economics, of which there is only libertarians. """Intent""" is irrelevant

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554816]

Daily reminder that Stirner is a Hegelian and understanding Hegel will illuminate his views much more thoroughly

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554825]

>>6554561
Stirner said in another work that people are capable of true selfless love, which contradicts that view.

[Anonymous No.6554833]

>>6554825
citation pls

[Anonymous No.6554854]

>>6554825
>>6554816

"Posts by people other than anonymous are worth less than nothing." -Max Stirner

[Anonymous No.6554856]

>>6554808
60% now

[Anonymous No.6554866]

>>6554854
>worth less than nothing
MARX GO BACK TO YOUR GRAVE.

Stop impersonating the one and true Max.

[Anonymous No.6554880]

>>6554866
>not being Marx Stirner

[Anonymous No.6554881]

>>6554808
>there are parts of the wealth of nations which can be used in favour of a libertarian agenda
>therefore stirner himself was a libertarian for translating the book

muy kek cabron

[Anonymous No.6554884]

>>6549423
Sure.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554912]

>>6554833
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/ section 2.3

>>6554881
>literally argues for competition in the ego
It's not just one sign, and I'm not saying he WAS a libertarian, but he's slanted more toward giving them ground than communists like Marx was.

[Anonymous No.6554915]

what lit have you read that namedropped stirner and the ego and it's own?

pic related is all i've found without cheating.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554937]

>>6554915
http://lankanewsweb.net/beyond-borders/10260-the-limitless-expanse-of-an-enclosed-space-ruminations-on-heidegger-schelling-derrida-ludwig-wittgenstein-and-max-stirner-part-1-slavoj-zizek

Also Zizek's anti-ideology position is not too far from Stirner's spooks

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554944]

>>6554937
Yeah, actually it is. Zizek's definition of ideology is Althusser's. Spooks are conscious idols.

[Anonymous No.6554945]

>>6554915
>it's
>it's
>it's
>it's
>it's
>it's

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6554985]

>>6554944
Interesting, since I've been involved in young Hegelian philosophy and Hegel generally, Zizek has become much more interesting and meaningful

[Anonymous No.6555010]

>>6554915
Most people who steal from Max refuse to namedrop him, like Nietzsche.

Max wouldn't mind though since he rejected property rights.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6555076]

>>6555010
That's politics for you. If people were forced to speak their worst thoughts, and our imaginations are true, we would hate each other.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6555113]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOekX_Z9Qug

Let us bring back crazy, speculative idealism, /lit/

[Anonymous No.6555121]

Any egoists here? How is it?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6555131]

>>6555121
It's.. fine? What do you expect me to say?

[Anonymous No.6555189]

>>6555131
Something more confident

[Anonymous No.6555251]

>>6551173
>who knew the only reason for grenades was to throw them at cops
you don't understand Stirner at all

[Anonymous No.6555269]

>>6555251
He's referring to a meme you dip

[Anonymous No.6555311]

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6555340]

>>6555311
xd

[Anonymous No.6555384]

>>6555113
>AGAIN
>*sniff*

[Anonymous No.6555395]

>>6555251
You don't understand Stirner. Do you even read brah?

[Anonymous No.6555421]

>>6550210
>all your rules are nonsense and the only legit reason to do things is for the lulz
that's now my favourite quote

[Anonymous No.6555470]

>>6551173
I've read some Nietzsche works way before reading Stirner, although there's much there that I see some sense, Nietzsches' always seemed like a huge moron to me.

Stirner was like this guy that takes only the good parts of that though and it's a really nice guy.

Like, he says all he says and at the same time he sounds like this super nice person that loves everyone for the right reasons (for me) and at the same time is not that judgmental of those who don't or of almost anything else really and that's kinda how I have always felt.

At the same politics are important to me and I pretty much agree with his views. Is like he clarified for me a huge part of what's wrong with the left.
And I think reading Stirner (not only him, but...) changed a lot of how I live my life in a sense that I try to question what is "imposed" to me by society and try to do stuff ignoring some barriers that aren't really there or trying to live more in a way that I enjoy than in a way that I'm "supposed to live".
And by this I don't mean some ultra cool revolutiary stuff, I just mean doing that with simple mundane stuff, it kinda leads to a better life imo (although sometimes getting rid of spooks is painful :).

[Anonymous No.6555473]

>>6550066
eggcorn pls

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6555876]

>>6555395
Xd

[Anonymous No.6556028]

>>6554376
>>6554381

>focusing on Smith forgetting he was into Say
Say is libertarian general.

Stirner in the 20th century would have been the slightly depraved link between Murray Rothbard and Mencken.

[Anonymous No.6556206]

>>6555470
>getting rid of spooks
he advocates ownness more than freedom from ideals

make them serve you

why doesn't anyone understand this

>is _______ a spook?

[Anonymous No.6556494]

>>6554912
He would mock libertarians just as he would mock liberals because they still believe in all kind of spooky things like property rights.

[Anonymous No.6556505]

>>6556206
This. You can't be 'rid of spooks' without getting rid of thought. Which is an impossibility without getting rid of your life. It's about using conceptual thought to your heart's delight without being used by it.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558220]

>>6556494
This isn't even a point to me. Stirner still responds to communism with libertarian arguments and his thought structure mirrors theirs in ways. You're retarded as fuck to be so intensely centered on one conception and focusing on truth and falsity rather than the dialectical progression of thought

>>6556505
Stirner says explicitly "you" are a spirit. Read Hegel to make sense of this

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558243]

>>6558220
I.E. the creative nothing is a spirit

[Anonymous No.6558272]

>>6558243

>I.E. the creative nothing is a spirit

I'd disagree with that. I think the creative nothing is not spirit, by virtue of the fact it is nothing.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558454]

>>6558272
I'll explain it in a little bit but it's not as simple

[Anonymous No.6558529]

>>6558220
Just because his arguments seem similar to some of your libertarian stuff doesn't mean they are libertarian arguments and it doesn't mean you can claim the Maximator for your muh rights and muh freedom club of Rand worshippers.

Libertarians truly are the worst with their notion that rules they like are freedom and rules they dislike are oppression.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558544]

>>6558272
To both Hegel and Feuerbach, the "you" that's capable of reading, writing, talking and communicating is the reason. The reason is ONLY capable of accepting reason. Feuerbach understands that Christianity began with the belief that the reason is higher than all things, e.g., the side that can only accept reason is the absolute facet, and above all.

Stirner wants to say that, basically, both the reason and the unreasonable are neither superior. What is the unreasonable? It would be the hedonist, the uncontemplative life.

But the reasonable is the life of the purely spiritual. Thus all discussion, all reason is reason of spirits. So Stirner is saying, more or less, stop applying any absolute values to your faculties.

It's basically all about the Apollonian/Dionysian divide that Nietzsche spoke of.

Of course, you can't actually "speak" of the unreasonable, because the reason cannot accept the unreasonable. So all attempts to speak of these human things is necessarily a failure.

As for the "creative nothing" being a spirit, that's Hegel. Hegel knows that your phenomena are unreasonable, but in the process of self development, you must turn yourself into an object, contemplate that object and negate it. So negation of the creative nothing fulfills its idea as such. The ultimate goal is refutation of itself.

Hegel also believed that all things should be spiritual, "of the mind", and that "substantial life", the unreasonable, should be placed entirely in reason. Stirner is against only this value in Hegelianism, but is Hegelian in nearly all tools of analysis.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558550]

>>6558529
Stop focusing on truth and falsity, you doltish bum. Stirner and libertarianism aren't negative truth and falsity states. They birth into each other their own truths. Stirner happens to verge closer to the entropy of libertarians than the Absolute of Hegelian derivatives.

This doesn't mean he defends property rights or Ayn Randianism. Read Hegel.

[Anonymous No.6558554]

>>6558550
>muh hegel muh dialectic

[Anonymous No.6558568]

>>6558550

IIRC Stirner doesn't support property rights at all and merely defines property by what you can take and defend. He advocates "theft" as defined by law The Ego, saying that if you can't steal something, its not real competition.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558588]

>>6558554
If it's not obvious through intuition that it's too simple to say "Stirnerism is the opposite of libertarianism", then you're too retarded to reason with

>>6558568
Of course he doesn't, why does that matter to my point?

[Anonymous No.6558615]

>>6558550
Stirner doesn't verge closer to any of those assorted fixed idea worshipping ideologies.

[Anonymous No.6558685]

>>6558615
just because his maxim doesnt directly support an ideology doesnt mean he didnt influence them.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558720]

>>6558615
It's, again not about negatives and truth/falsity, don't reify libertarianism. You must break the ideas down and compare them. Stirner clearly shows he was influenced by and influenced libertarian thought. Responding with "Stirner isn't a libertarian" just straight misses the point.

[Anonymous No.6558737]

>>6558720
I musn't do shit. Libertarianism didn't even exist in Stirner's time. He may have influenced some libertarian thought by virtue of them misunderstanding him, but that's about as far as it goes.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558777]

>>6558737
We only have our perspective on history. It doesnt matter what Stirner or Adam Smith called themselves, because neither Stirner nor Adam Smith were able to tell from their perspective what their ideas would mean to us.

As far as you pointing out that Stirner isn't a "libertarian", you're right, but you're right insofar that no particular EVER in ANY circumstance fits any particular ever. John Locke didn't actually believe all things came from sense, David Hume didn't believe all knowledge was impossible, no individual's view on anything is equal to the universal descriptions we give, that's why no empiricists actually believe the core ideas of empiricism as truth verbatim and Absolutely. You're stuck in very basic and childlike notions of the development of thought.

And you're right, you can be unreasonable, but you can't be unreasonable in the context of reason, which we are doing now. If you get unreasonable with me, the conversation ends and you stay ignorant.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558780]

>>6558777
>As far as you pointing out that Stirner isn't a "libertarian", you're right, but you're right insofar that no particular EVER in ANY circumstance fits any particular ever.
Change to "fits any universal ever." at the end

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558789]

>>6558737
I.E. I don't have to accept a philosophy wholly or reject him wholly. This is literally like section 2 of the preface of the phenomenology

Stirner was a student of Hegel, by the way, so you're wrong if you believe Hegel had no influence.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558834]

>Custom having once given the name of “the ancients” to our pre-Christian ancestors, we will not throw it up against them that, in comparison with us experienced people, they ought properly to be called children, but will rather continue to honor them as our good old fathers.
I.E., our thought has dialectically progressed and sublated the past, <insert Hegelian history here>

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6558939]

>>6558685
Stirner is basically an opposing value judgment to Hegel, basically all of the work against ideology is present within Hegel. I really want to speak with Zizek about this. Does anyone know his email?

[Anonymous No.6559004]

>>6558939
>Stirner is basically an opposing value judgment to Hegel
sorta knew that already

>emailing zizek
don't forget to attach some kleenex

> <hegel> alone is a philosopher who sees and demonstrates or proves the presence of heaven in the world, the supernal in the earthly, the divine in the mundane

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6559018]

>>6559004
Stirner isn't against the spiritual, he's merely against elevating it above the substantial. Reread the section in Stirner about the sophists, he commends them for using reason as an egoist would, selfishly.

[Anonymous No.6559067]

>>6558777
>but you're right insofar that no particular EVER in ANY circumstance fits any particular ever.
I think you're downplaying their incompatibility. Stirner's philosophy and any ideology involving rights are diametrically opposed.

>>6558789
I never said Stirner wasn't influenced by Hegel.

[Anonymous No.6559114]

>>6559018
>Here Paterson’s sentimental argument gives us a truism -- that Stirner is attacking the sacred. Stirner’s point, however, was that this sort of sacredness or holiness is -- imaginary.
right, he never really attacks it

>For Stirner, the issue is not how I got my beliefs, but what I do with them once I begin to think for myself.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6559122]

>>6559067
>I think you're downplaying their incompatibility. Stirner's philosophy and any ideology involving rights are diametrically opposed.
No, because the anti-ideology ideology is just as much of an Absolute spirit as any other. You've turned Stirner into an ideology.

Reread the first sections of Stirner. It's absolute spirit, not spirit, he argues against. Absolute spirits are spooks, but the negation of all spooks as a value is a spook. You can't reason through it, that's why he advocates unreason

[Anonymous No.6559136]

>>6559004
looks like pepe eyes

[Anonymous No.6559219]

>>6559136
custom made rare 4 u

[Anonymous No.6559223]

>>6559122
I'm not turning anything into anything, I'm just noting that opposite positions are not similar positions.

You sound like you just read Hegel for the first time and are very excited about applying it to absolutely everything as if it were gospel.

[Anonymous No.6559231]

>>6559219
thanks m8

rare af

[Anonymous No.6559233]

>>6559219
rare rare rare

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6559448]

>>6559114
Right, the "sacred" spirit is nothing but a spirit itself, that's a perfect understanding.

[Anonymous No.6559587]

>>6559223
>You sound like you just read Hegel for the first time and are very excited about applying it to absolutely everything as if it were gospel.

You sound like you just read Stirner for the first time and glossed over half the paragraphs that were "weird" as though they had no meaning, "and are very excited about applying it to absolutely everything as if it were gospel."

Alright, you're starting to be a waste of my time, so this will be my last response to your repeated parroting of something you clearly don't get.

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/vanitas-vanitatum-vanitas/

Read that. It's where Stirner got his line.

Communism in Stirner's day (and through Marx) are obviously based in Hegelianism. Hegelianism involves the optimistic pursuit of absolute truth, or spirit. As such, all ideologies that "find" this absolute truth, are all-encompassing absolutes. Literally all facets of everything are contained in the absolute spirit.

Libertarians never claim their views on property rights to be an ALL-ENCOMPASSING spirit. They say "do literally anything you like, except my property". If we're to view Stirner solely in your view, then I'm right, because libertarians are closer to saying "I don't know the truth for you, you can pick that, but just respect this one spook" versus "literally all things must be in my spook". That's why Stirner is CLOSER to libertarians than the leftists of his day. The libertarian spook is not as all-encompassing as the communist spook. Got it?

But, Stirner isn't even against spooks at all. Stirner is fine with libertarians, and literally VERBATIM uses their arguments in the ego. Remember the Goethe poem? What is it saying? The Goethe poem is saying that ALL "absolute" spirits failed him, so he stopped caring and instead drinks with his friends.

THAT is what Stirner is saying, except slightly more reserved. Stirner wants you not to waste your life in Hegel's pursuit of the absolute, you can do that if you so choose, but there's nothing wrong either with just having a beer, you don't need spirits with your spirits.

By the way, it would help if you knew that "to negate" wasn't simply to disagree; Stirner absolutely would disagree with libertarians, but he wouldn't negate them, negative thinking is the absolute polar opposite thinking, and Stirner's thought isn't polarized to libertarians because not all facets of libertarian thought are Absolute.

But go ahead, demonstrate again that you are simply an angry child who just hates libertarians, and wants to abuse an thinker he doesn't get to justify his own beliefs. You don't have to develop your thoughts, but you should know that you're simply basic and not really worth talking to. Adios.

[Anonymous No.6559860]

>>6556206
>>6556505
Not actually, if you own it it's not a spook. The ideals you have based on your own thought because they appeal to you are not spooks. Therefore by getting rid of spooks I don't mean them.

Please stop being edgy and thinking you are the cool guy that get stuff other people don't. :)

[Anonymous No.6559915]

>>6559860
you can't really own spirits

[Anonymous No.6560616]

>>6559915
as an alcoholic i disagree

[Anonymous No.6560619]

>>6560616
But those are mine

[Anonymous No.6560642]

>>6560619
but some of them want to use you
some of them want to get used by you
some of them want to abuse you
some of them want to be abused

[Anonymous No.6560679]

>>6558737
>Libertarianism didn't even exist in Stirner's time.
What would you call Turgot, Bastiat, Constant, Jackson, van Buren?
Does their thinking mysteriously start being libertarian around 1950?

[Anonymous No.6560767]

>>6560679
Liberals.

[Anonymous No.6560779]

/r/ing the well spooked my property stirner

[Anonymous No.6560796]

>>6560779
in this moment I am euphoric, not because of some phony ideologys blessing, but because I am enlightened by my egoism

[Anonymous No.6560880]

>>6560796
i made this rare stirner and i claim it as my property (along with all you virgins)

[Anonymous No.6560899]

>>6560880
>(along with all you virgins)
please be gentle

[Anonymous No.6561905]

>>6560796
>>6560880
bless you, my properties

[Anonymous No.6561914]

>>6554408
i see your stirner and raise you one with this comfy stirner

[Anonymous No.6562075]

>>6561905
nice try, object

[Anonymous No.6562087]

>>6554116
Junger's Christianity is overstated by his Fash/rad-trad defenders. By the end of his life, he was almost certainly agnostic. To the extent that he believed in an afterlife, as revealed in works like The Adventurous Heart, he didn't believe in the Christian one.

Junger is a very complicated figure, and so is his use of Max Stirner.

[Anonymous No.6562100]

>>6559587
>Stirner wants you not to waste your life in Hegel's pursuit of the absolute, you can do that if you so choose, but there's nothing wrong either with just having a beer, you don't need spirits with your spirits.

This is the best explanation of Stirner in this thread so far. Relevant Stirner quote:
>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.6562113]

>>6554116
Why the fuck people feel like Stirner has to be recuperated into any sort of non-anarchist thought?

Why the fuck people feel like there is any kind of non-left anarchism?

Americans disgust me.

[Anonymous No.6562367]

>>6555340
Outis, I love you to death, but you should limit your posting quantity if you're going to keep the name up at all times.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6562400]

>>6562367
it's a public name, see?

there are dozens of users.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6562407]

>>6562400
Oh. When did it become so?

[Anonymous No.6562423]

>>6550216

[Anonymous No.6562442]

>>6550754
Because a spook is something that is not you that you put above yourself.

[Anonymous No.6562443]

Is it true that Stirner once killed 16 men and drank their blood like it was water?

[Anonymous No.6562523]

>>6562443
>their blood
It was his blood.

[Anonymous No.6562532]

>>6549424
Fuck off, Marx.

[Anonymous No.6562541]

>>6562100
stirner is basically jack kerouac then (you find god, but not in the pursuit of god)

[Anonymous No.6562545]

>>6562523
It was actually my blood.

[Anonymous No.6562547]

>>6550226
>as an actual term
He uses it brielfy on the first part of his book as a metaphor (mocking the hegelian geist). Taking it as his key concept is all /lit/'s stupid doing.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6562580]

>>6562407
i'm unsure, but from the beginning many impersonated him without objection.

here's an unrelated platitude:

>I have no objection to freedom, but I wish you more than freedom; You ought to not merely be rid of what you do not want, you ought to also have what you want, you would have to be not only "free", you would have to be an "owner".
from this, i see egoism as not merely busting spooks, freeing yourself from ideology, foreign causes, beliefs, and convictions. freedom is the ultimate negation, but not the end for egoism, only solipsism. egoism is more of a selective negation that only bothers for the useful or the interesting.

[Anonymous No.6562595]

>>6562580
>platitude
nvm that, i changed it for something longer

>mfw i'm ruining the name of ΟΥΤΙΣ

[Anonymous No.6562831]

>>6555121

Not much different than before.

It's more like I go out and do my public functions, go to my job, but I am now actively aware of the ridiculousness of it all, which, unintuitively, makes things a lot more fun. I give people more knowing winks and creepy nods so that they know that I know.

[Anonymous No.6562933]

i see a connection here. how many young ladies do you reckon noble stirner gave the ole unique one to?

[Anonymous No.6562960]

>>6549423

yes. it is the same with freud.

[Anonymous No.6562966]

>>6550330

>psychoanalysis is an american syndrome primarily

so. wrong.

[Anonymous No.6563060]

>>6562933
He was married twice, right? Because I think his other wife said something like "It never felt like living with him, rather it felt like living next to him."

[Anonymous No.6563067]

>>6562933
he left the school before publishing so. . .

might be

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6563228]

>>6560642
The old skool hardcore remix of that is the tits

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6563239]

>>6560642
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pegKuWUR84Y

The tits m8

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6563253]

>>6562113
There is post left anarchism

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6563259]

>>6562547
He uses spook to refer to Absolute spirits

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6563558]

>>6563060
Yes this is true. I personally suspect Stirner was banging young ladies at the school

[Anonymous No.6563656]

can you guys guess who this philosopher was? just discovered him. he was like stirner's little brother.

>hint
it wasn't stirner, though he had the same last name, was a young hegelian, and published a work paralleling the ego and its own a year afterward.

[Anonymous No.6563714]

>>6563060
2einzig4her

[Anonymous No.6563721]

>>6563239
Pretty good. I like the original more though. Manson version is also alright.

[Anonymous No.6563732]

>>6563714
I still feel bad about his kid.

I really wonder how Johann reacted to that. Apparently he was a very nice albeit quiet and introverted person when he wasn't Max Stirner.

[Anonymous No.6563751]

>>6563656
my google-fu says karl schmidt but I can't find so much as a wiki about him.

[Anonymous No.6563754]

>>6563732
reading his biography is a pretty sad endeavour tbh

[Anonymous No.6563755]

>>6563751
fucking suspicious, right?

[Anonymous No.6563769]

>>6563755
Yes. Same thing they tried with Max.

[Anonymous No.6563800]

>>6563754
I plan to do so eventually.

Did he have other family?

>>6563769
No one tried to make Stirner obscure, it just happened to him.

[Anonymous No.6563835]

>>6563800
>No one tried to make Stirner obscure, it just happened to him.
>nietzsche deliberately silent about stirner's influence on him
>when he lets it slip once among friends he asks them not to tell anyone because people would speak of plagiarism
>marxs gets hella mad but ultimately doesn't publish his shitty criticism on stirner
>Husserl deliberately never mentions him to 'protect his students'
>Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had "let the cat out of the bag". However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner's name.
>the section on Stirner in Camus' The Rebel is ommited in most English editions

People didn't happen to forget. They wanted to.

Based Mackay resurrected the Maximator and set him loose upon the world again though.

[Anonymous No.6563862]

>>6563835
>>6563800
what do you guys think of this karl schmidt?

i found he was mentioned briefly in Welsh's relatively recent Max Stirner's 'Dialectical Egoism - A New Interpretation' (a pdf is up if you google it), but not enough to satisfy my curiosity.

i found a preview of the english translation of das individuum:

https://books.google.com/books?id=2Baq5TIo_pcC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=das+verstandestum+und+das+individuum&source=bl&ots=N0Ha8q_4Er&sig=IFvOd1t146JLAFzY67cUN_4zisg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KM5bVb6eCoaZsAX40YD4BQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

if that link doesn't work, i think searching for 'das verstandestum und das individuum' on google books will bring it up.

i'm reading it atm, not sure what to expect.

[Anonymous No.6563890]

>>>6555555

[Anonymous No.6563901]

>>6563862
I just learned about him from you, but I'm too tired to get into it now tbh. Sounds interesting though.

How do you like Welsh's book? Worth reading?

I haven't read any secondary lit on Stirner apart from that Camus part in The Rebel (which is pretty fun, pic related, you can see that typical stirnerfear shining through) and Mackay.

[Anonymous No.6563913]

>>6563901
Seems like my forgetfulness illustrates my tiredness.

[Anonymous No.6564020]

>>6563913
Where are the quotes of that last paragraph from?
When reading EE Stirner never seemed that violent to me.

[Anonymous No.6564050]

>>6564020
The translation on Gutenberg goes like this:

>To-morrow they carry thee to the grave; soon thy sisters, the peoples, will follow thee. But, when they have all followed, then——mankind is buried, and I am my own, I am the laughing heir!

Sounds a lot less edgy. The others are malformed and taken out of context even more:

To find those parts, ctrl+f:
>or you are not so great as a criminal, you—commit no crime!
>I can kill them, not torture them

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34580/34580-h/34580-h.htm

[Anonymous No.6565167]

>>6563835
>>nietzsche deliberately silent about stirner's influence on him
>>when he lets it slip once among friends he asks them not to tell anyone because people would speak of plagiarism


Did this happen?

[Anonymous No.6565717]

>>6565167
Yes, though the only source I know is the wikipedia article about the relationship between Stirner and Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.6565740]

GUYS WHAT IF

WHAT IF

WHAT IF I'm retarded

[Anonymous No.6565754]

Einzige is not ego. A better translation would be The only one or The single one and his property.

[Anonymous No.6565759]

>>6565740
yeah I kek congraztz

[Anonymous No.6565836]

>>6565167
>Nietzsche's closest friends and other people near to him were perplexed. No one could remember ever having heard the name of Stirner from Nietzsche's mouth. There are dozens of letters in the archives that bear witness to the confusion of his friends. They understood well enough why Nietzsche had been publicly silent about Stirner, but why did he, given his "habitual communicativeness" (Overbeck), never mention him even in the most familiar circles? Only Overbeck's wife Ida remembered in 1899 a discussion she had with Nietzsche about twenty years earlier, during which he unintentionally let escape the remark that he felt a mental kinship to Stirner. "This was accompanied by a solemn facial expression. While I attentively observed his features, these changed again, and he made something like a dispelling, dismissive movement with his hand, and spoke under breath: 'Well, now I have told you, even though I did not want to speak of it. Forget about it. They would talk about a plagiarism, but you will not do that, I'm sure.'" (33)
http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html

[Anonymous No.6565884]

>>6565836
She literally had one job.

[Anonymous No.6565946]

Reminder that Stirner was to atheist moralists what satan was to Christians.

>In his opus magnum 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."

>The "destruction of alienation", that Stirner aims for, he says, amounts to "the return to authenticity", and this would be "nothing else than the destruction of culture, the return to animality [...] the return to the pre-human status."

>Even Nietzsche appears, according to Kolakowski, "weak and inconsistent compared to him [Stirner]."

>Calasso too regards Stirner's "Egoist" or rather "Owner" as an "artificial barbarian", an "anthropological monster" etc.. 'The Egoist' is the "writing on the wall", signalling the doom of occidental culture.

>No, the intrinsic reason, which was passed down probably by accident, was that [Husserl] wanted to protect his students (and perhaps himself?) against their "temptational power".

>Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had "let the cat out of the bag". However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner's name.

>Nevertheless in his study of Nietzsche, [Klages] was prompted to commemorate the author Stirner as a "sheer demoniacal dialectician." He concedes to him that his thinking, in comparison to Nietzsche's, is "often more radical, less circumlocutory, analytically more exact", and that he "gives ultimate conclusions, for the most part, with more conciseness." Klages regards Stirner as that "antipode of Nietzsche, who in any case should be taken seriously." Stirner, he says, is the reason why Nietzsche is of paramount importance, because "the day on which Stirner's program becomes the will-guiding conviction of all, this alone would suffice for it to be the 'doomsday' of mankind."

[Anonymous No.6566157]

What are some good secondary sources on Stirner?

I'm about half-way through TEaHO, and I really like it.

[Anonymous No.6566508]

>>6562443
it was a joke, something along this line
"Hey, that is Max Stirner, he wont drink beer, i bet he'll drink a glass of blood"

[Anonymous No.6566533]

>>6565946
Tham, according to al these fags he was way more based than I've always believed.

[Anonymous No.6566541]

>>6566157
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-false-principle-of-our-education
Read this.

[Anonymous No.6566552]

>>6563259
And specifically to Hegel's. Most of the shit he writes is satirizing Hegel.

[Anonymous No.6566568]

>>6554116
>Schmitt
How can a hardocre statist be considered a stirnerite? I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.6566651]

Oh god stirner makes me wet as fuck

[Anonymous No.6566657]

>>6566651
>RARE STIRNAH

[Anonymous No.6566995]

>>6565946
>the doom of occidental culture.
I love this meme.

[Anonymous No.6567164]

>>6566995
Ladies and gentlemen,they call him the doom of occidental culture, the demoniacal dialectition, the unique one, the artificial barbarian, the anthropological monster and the antipode of Nietzsche! I present to you, the one and only!
MAX STIRNEEEEEEEEER!!!
*rap music plays*

[Anonymous No.6567265]

>>6560899
>please be gentle
I hope you're not trying to make me feel i OUGHT to be gentle...

[Anonymous No.6567278]

>>6567265
I hope YOU'RE not trying to make me feel I ought to not make you feel that you ought to be gentle
fucking property

[Anonymous No.6567286]

rare stirner thread

[Anonymous No.6567289]

>>6550433
Is that a post-apocalyptic bunker with no food but lots of brill cream?

[Anonymous No.6567316]

>>6567286
a little political compass i made

[Anonymous No.6567325]

>>6567286
Stirner is on the south-east corner.

[Anonymous No.6567344]

>>6567325
you're wrong. I was going to call you an idiot but you've just made a mistake. You can't put Stirner on the scale. this quiz has a bunch of spooky propositions on it.

I see why you would say something like that. He's anti-government, but too the right is fiscal conservatism, but I don't think Stirner would be into markets.

[Anonymous No.6567413]

>>6567344

Stirner was into markets, he tried to start his own milk business and translated The Wealth of Nations. However, he knows about the inherant spookiness of a market and says he has no problem with theft.

[Anonymous No.6567450]

I still find it funny that his actual name was as bland as John Smith.

[Anonymous No.6567652]

Wasn't Johann the name of the bad guy in Monster?

Quick, what was Stirner's hair colour?

[Anonymous No.6567841]

>>6567413
>Stirner was into markets,
>he tried to start his own milk business and translated The Wealth of Nations.
Nigga, pls.

[Anonymous No.6567848]

>>6550155
In tension, poop her sons.

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.6567910]

>>6551473
>>6562966

fuckheads. that sentence was a commentary on current trends as modes treating the general public, fitting into a broader comment about the individual self-perception. this wasn't a comment to elicit your half assed understanding of lacan or deleuze or whatever fundamentally dead to the world continental philosopher that you still think is keeping the cokehead's spirit alive. i well the fuck know of its origins, and i'm well aware of contemporary discourse.

BUT, currently, psychoanalytic modes of assessment, whether personal or professional, are primarily confined to America. most, but not all, of europe has lodged their heads out of their asses, and moved away from regressive-reductionist psychological assessment. while this still remains a western syndrome, much of europe has made huge strides. alas, psychoanalysis is now primarily an american syndrome.

[Anonymous No.6568194]

>>6549423

Need more pics like this

[Anonymous No.6568231]

>>6550262
>made this board
you did?

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.6568336]

>>6568231

"made" is pretty loaded word, and i'm not that traitor cuckold if thats what you're asking,

think of it in the same way that megyn kelly "made" me hard enough to keep watching fox news without smashing my head through the television, or seriously contemplating homicide

[Anonymous No.6568503]

Would Christianity be a spook for Western atheists?

[Anonymous No.6568872]

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.6568873]

my max game on point faggot, lets not get ahead of ourselves junior

half those anon are me before the trip, followed by my OW9! trip, followed by my current one

took me two years to indoctrinate these cunts, show some respect fuccboi

[Anonymous No.6568888]

>>6568503
you can be whatever you like, as long as it serves your interests, but you must hypothetically be able to rid yourself of it all, since egoists are indefinite, undefinable, perhaps only defined as egoists.

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.6568894]

>>6568873
meant to tag this poor cunt, permanent fixture and astute archeologist>>6550752

/lti/ sleuth extraordinare...

[Anonymous No.6568923]

>>6568888
>8888

[Anonymous No.6569228]

im out of rare stirners

[Anonymous No.6569675]

tips fedora to y'all

[Anonymous No.6569683]

>>6569228
Make more then.

[Anonymous No.6570231]

>Stirner
>realize everything you do is because you want to do it
>realize that any ideal you follow and consider sacred is fake and you only do it to please yourself.

-I want to promote certain values within society
Stirner: you are only doing this cause you want to please your ego!!!
-eh, yeah thats why I said I "want".
Stirner: but these values were invented by society.
-yeah I still dont see why we are discussing these platitudes.
Striner: they are only platitudes because you live in the 21th century!
Striner: The point I was making is that there is no god or religion or some deterministic spirit of society.
I was essentially saying dont believe stuff we sort of already know are fake.
I was proclaiming these things are fake.
The individual is this amorphous blob that has desires that appear magically.
See, I couldnt know back then the depth and extent to which society culture and language are inseparable from the individual and drive his desires even as he recognizes them.

-So why do so many /lit/ constantly mention something that was only semi controversial in the 19th century?
Stirner: cause baby's first realization that We design the word as we please. Your board is full of teens.
-yeah I guess, I just wish they didnt interpret it to mean they in practice have to be selfish ayn rand zombies and that part of being a person is living within society, inadvertently sharing some of its values and opposing others(while obviously realizing it can be viewed as satisfying one's ego).
they keep confusing your proclamation with "there is no meaning to anything", "nothing is sacred", as if we havent already established that meaning and what is sacred is indeed decided by us.
-Oh striner, they still use terms from the point of view of religious people(thinking intuitively meaning is given by a higher being), probably because their countries are ripe with religious dumb dumbs.
Oh well, they will grow up at some point.

[Anonymous No.6570238]

>>6570231
learn to fucking write before you vomit up this clusterfuck in my thread

[Anonymous No.6570246]

>>6570238
it was a shit thread about some meme guy that no one cares about outside this shitty board anyway.

[Anonymous No.6570249]

>>6570246
>b-b-but it doesn't matter anyway i-i-i was just pretending to be retarded
i can taste your shame through the monitor

[Anonymous No.6570250]

>>6570238
>Writing properly
Lose the spook kid.

[Anonymous No.6570251]

>>6570249
heh, it wasnt me you maymay teen.

[Anonymous No.6570262]

>>6570249
I wasn't even the guy you were talking to earlier. I just noticed that there are a lot of threads about this meme guy, probably started by whoever is publishing him now in the same manner that the kanye meme threads on /mu/ were started by his label for monetary gain. Nobody actually reads this shit XD and if you do, you were tricked by his publisher. All of the real users of this site left years ago and now it's just easily influenced underaged posters and the corporations that influence then recommending shit writers so they gain money.

[Anonymous No.6570272]

>>6570262
>stirnerposting is just the CORPORATIONS trying to shill for a new edition of an obscure 170 year old philosophical text which is freely available online and in libraries
This is the most infantile attempt at seeming "in the know" I've seen this month

[Anonymous No.6570285]

>>6570272
>doesn't realize that 4chan is basically a viral marketing center to influence teens and that over half of the posts on sfw boards are just advertisements written by paid shills to sell products
stay pleb there bud.

[Anonymous No.6570318]

>>6570285
>implying you're not just a shill for the catolic church

[Anonymous No.6570569]

>>6570231
you're doing the equivalent of troubleshooting a military bomber's avionics systems based on watching 45 minutes of top gun

you think how you acquire your beliefs matters, but it doesn't for the egoist. furthermore, belief isn't core to egoism, as dogma fails to elude even the nonbeliever. it's not about knowing or believing anything.

you aren't even trying to persuade me with those lukewarm opinions.

[Anonymous No.6570585]

>mfw Stan-kun is back

[Anonymous No.6570636]

>>6550764
Huh. I always thought Stirner as a (monistic?) materialist.

[Anonymous No.6570777]

>>6570636
Nah, he's a moralistic mineralist.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6570815]

>>6570636
No, he doesn't describe/doesn't have an ontology but his views are basically Hegelian, so he would be an idealist of sorts

[Anonymous No.6570865]

>>6570815
>so he would be an idealist of sorts
Obviously not.

[Anonymous No.6570925]

>>6570231

>realize everything you do is because you want to do it

laughingpsychologists.jpg

[Anonymous No.6570998]

>>6563835
spooky

[Anonymous No.6571093]

>>6570815
According to your retarded logic Marx and Engels should be idealists too. Being a hegelian doesn't mean you agree with him.

[Anonymous No.6572296]

>>6558544
>Of course, you can't actually "speak" of the unreasonable, because the reason cannot accept the unreasonable. So all attempts to speak of these human things is necessarily a failure.

Stirner was the first Lacanian.

[Anonymous No.6572377]

>>6572296
More like Stirner said it first.