>read stirner and accept his individualism
>see spooky arguments constantly
>begin pointing out the spooks in people's arguments
>invariably, people respond to an attack on their spooks by browbeating/suppressing the argument outside of logic
>realize all equality in itself is an incoherent idea, realize leftist politics are selfish egoism at their core
>suddenly realize that rightists, while being retarded themselves, have a few very astute criticisms of the left
>realize that the only appropriate political stance is selfishness
>mfw it all makes sense now
Fuck guys, Stirner has ruined my ability to have any friends who are dogmatists.
Also Stirner/radical individualist thread.
toplel, worst argument ever.
i'm chilling out in miami on google street view down by the florida atlantic university stadium now haven't seen many girls yet about to head down to the beach and get some rays B-)
You need to temper your egoism some.
You should put some happiness in your life.
I don't care if it's a spook. It's one to live with. Don't let your emotions push you around, instead direct your emotional state. Be kind to your friends and future friends
Yeah, I realized fairly quickly during reading that I value friendship far more than material to be a complete asshole
>trips for truth
I stop being happy for being a Ghostbuster when I realized that it's really difficult to make friend if you don't accept their spooks.
And I don't accept any spook.
I will not feed any of these fucking spooks.
Fuck, I hate my own friends.
>moral high ground
Maybe he wants people to be free from, or at least be aware of, their spooks just as he is? It's a pretty good feeling if you ask me. And a union of egoists would be pretty nice, too.
Point out only the really detrimental ones, this shows you care, if they're still going to be obnoxious about, I suppose those aren't good friends. But be forgiving. Like an elder brother who know Santa isn't real. You just have to be patient with them
If you're operating from different frameworks, the best way to destroy another person's argument is to use the logic of their framework.
In other words, simply writing off so much of the arguments as "spooks" will do nothing to persuade (if that is your ultimate goal in these arguments).
Fortunately, I have friends that literally love me ranting about how morality doesn't exist and shit. We're philosopher bros
>you shouldn't be open with your friends
I state what I'm thinking about, and it leads to debates sometimes. I don't think I can be friends with someone who doesn't let me talk honestly about this stuff, it wouldn't really be a friendship
If it's interpreted in a trivial way, no (sure, I'm unique, but so is the rock I just kicked and the tree I walked by). But does egoism (or all this 'spooks' stuff) follow from that? No.
spooks are ideas
ideology makes false ideas believable
I'm an egoist and I hate work. I enjoy receiving welfare. An anarcho-capitalist society wouldn't have welfare. Therefore anarcho-capitalism is at odds with my egoism. Being self-serving is something wholly different from the notion that society should be ordered in such a way that everyone is serving himself as defined by some ideology.
So is being a Sternerite much different from being a Randroid?
Adolescents who want to feel self-important seem to latch onto them for similar reasons. And neither, as far as I can tell, made any philosophically interesting arguments.
My life is great, and I ditched my gf because she was undermining my self-enjoyment.
It's only going to get better as being NEET becomes more mainstream with automatisation increasing and society becoming more and more efficient.
Enjoy your wage slavery while it lasts, friend. In a few decades when employment is the exception you will realise the early adapters did nothing wrong.
>begin pointing out the spooks in people's arguments
Why would you do that, unless they openly advocate the suppression of your personal individuality and freedom by appealing to the spooks?
Seems like you haven't read Stirner as closely as you think.
Completely different. Where Stirner rejects ideology and dogma, Ayn Rand just wishes to establish a society where Don Draper thrives to the fullest.
She's a trifling bitch in general. She says everyone should completely serve his self-interest, but on the other side she says we shouldn't use force to take what we want. She tries to establish rules to egoism. Spooked out of her mind.
Why wouldn't he do that if he feels like doing it?
You don't need to justify your actions as a Stirnerist. Things can be done for one's "self-enjoyment", or "for the lulz" in the parlance of our times.
>You don't need to justify your actions as a Stirnerist. Things can be done for one's "self-enjoyment", or "for the lulz" in the parlance of our times.
Indeed, which is why it shouldn't matter at all what kind of spook other people have in their heads. Nobody is forcing you to openly argue with people.
>Indeed, which is why it shouldn't matter at all what kind of spook other people have in their heads.
One doesn't have an ideological obligation to bother with it, but also not to not bother with it. His actions aren't inconsistent with Stirnerism, so I don't get your criticism. It's not like he said "I am obliged to remove all the spooks!"
>It's not like he said "I am obliged to remove all the spooks!"
He didn't say that, but it is implied when he says:
>See spooky arguments constantly
>begin pointing out spooks in people's arguments
I don't really care either way, but it doesn't seem entirely Stirnerist.
Stirner seems like one of the most blatant examples of a philosophy created seemingly just to sneer at other's beliefs. Why does it seem like so many philosophies presented on /lit/ are used to look down on people?
Stirner is shit.
Reasoning for this is as following; it makes me feel good to know that he is shit. I know it. I do not need to have any justification for my knowledge regarding how shit he is. Thus he is shit. And I feel good about it.
Come at me, you cultists mongs.
Stirner advocated that egoism should destroy your ability to nourish yourself through society. You see the surface of Stirner but not the underling structure. If you cannot make friends or enjoy other's company because of egoism even if you want it to, then egoism has become your spook. Anything you can't dissolve at your own leisure has power over you, including egoism.
Read Stirner first, then you realise the way he uses the term 'einzige' is quite different from the commonsensical word 'ego' in English to the point that saying that it itself a spook is unjustified criticism.
Read Stirner's Critics as well for further clarification, in that work he refutes accusations like this.
No. It is "ridding", as Stirner says. Liberty (or freedom) of something is to rid yourself of it. If I throw all my money into a well with the intention of never earning a penny again, then I have ridded myself of money, and so I have freedom, or Liberty of it.
Not him, but how about this: Your self-worth can be measured regarding how much you have accomplished. And by "accomplished" I don't mean how much money you have made, or what you have given to society, but what have you done in this life as a human being, your achievements in this life.
Be it writing a novel, succeeding in your professional career, being a champion of whatever sport/game you play, there is many things that could be considered an achievement.
some good comments already to this post, but yeah. not going to pontificate to someone who rejects everything from everyone, but life is better when you suffer the fools who care about you.
Okay, so is claiming that an individual is unique (in whatever sense you deem appropriate) trivial or not?
If it is trivial, why should we care? If it isn't trivial, what's Stirner's argument that "you are unique" is true?
First off, "the unique and his property" is more literal. In other words the book is about you and your shit. Ego shouldn't really be used because it brings up psychoanalytic bullshit from Freud
That sounds like an assertion, not an argument.
And in any case, surely doing something morally heroic--saving many lives at great risk to your own, say--is an achievement. Would Stirner recommend this course of action?
>Okay, so is claiming that an individual is unique (in whatever sense you deem appropriate) trivial or not?
Not "an individual", you are you and you are the unique. Other people are empty vessels, filling them with things like greater concepts of Man are almost always spooky.
In other words, you only experience you. Any philosophy that causes you to "detach" and attempt to view things objectively is basically stupid.
>If it is trivial, why should we care? If it isn't trivial, what's Stirner's argument that "you are unique" is true?
It should be so obvious it doesn't need proof. Are you in just one body? The nature of "you" is irrelevant, you are one perspective, one pleasure, one pain, you are THE unique because all perspective and experience that is not yours does not exist, it's a contradiction.
At least try to understand that he's coming out of the German idealist tradition. Understanding Kant thoroughly and what the idealists were doing is super important in understanding Stirner, a little understated imo
If that's what you want dude
What Stirner basically says is you're this unknowable vessel of desires and wants and letting that vessel exercise itself is a chill-ass way to live. He also talks about the shit you believe that counteracts this desire in you
This scene sums up the egoists reaction decently: when lebowski finds lebowski and asks for a rug, and then lebowski rants for a long time about lebowski being a bum and lebowski zombies out. Then lebowski lies and takes a rug anyway
>Other people are empty vessels,
>you are THE unique because all perspective and experience that is not yours does not exist, it's a contradiction.
wat. Other people have experiences and desires and so on just as I do. Of course I don't experience their experiences as they do, but so what? There's lots of stuff I don't experience directly that still exists.
Maybe if Stirner had some great argument for this view I'd be interested. But if this is his starting point or is just taken to be so obvious that it needs to proof, that's just dumb. (And obviously nothing in the ballpark of this is close to Kant's views, but it wouldn't matter much even if they were, since Kant was wrong about all sorts of stuff)
>Other people have experiences and desires and so on just as I do
We assume they do. You don't experience their experiences. You only experience your experiences, tautologically.
You never experience another person's pain. You only take your own experience and project it onto them. There's nothing wrong with this inherently, but disabuse yourself of the notion that all people experience things similarly. There is abjectly no proof of that and it's actually a contradiction.
Also read Kant through to the idealists. His arguments rely on those foundations, and there's no way I can explain Kant through transcendental idealism on 4chan
In other words, I can see that I'm a human and you're a human and we have a billion similarities. I'm unique because for whatever reason all phenomenon are tempered by this human, by this uniqueness. I don't experience you, I only experience me, and so pretty much everything that tries to make me deny or forget that is using me.
You're right that our unique is probably similar, but that's a nonissue. It has no pertinence to anything, except maybe you want to justify some shitty categorical imperative
>I don't experience you, I only experience me, and so pretty much everything that tries to make me deny or forget that is using me.
But who is trying to make you forget that? What's bad is (e.g.) undeserved pain, whether it's experienced directly by me or you or whoever. And since it's bad, I want to prevent it from occurring and not cause it to happen. No need to deny that I only directly experience my pain (at least not AS my pain) and you yours.
>But who is trying to make you forget that? What's bad is (e.g.) undeserved pain, whether it's experienced directly by me or you or whoever. And since it's bad, I want to prevent it from occurring and not cause it to happen. No need to deny that I only directly experience my pain (at least not AS my pain) and you yours.
The state, religion, individuals who want to subject you. Pain has nothing to do with it. I don't desire pain to people for no reason, so I have no reason to cause pain. I don't need stupid-ass metaphysics to justify that to myself.
A well known girl's school teacher started off his seminar by holding up a pouch of 20 Thaler.
In the room of 200, he asked, “Who would like this 20 Thaler?”
Hands started going up. He said, “I am going to give this 20 Thaler to one of you - but first, let me do this.”
He proceeded to spit in the pouch. He then asked “who still wants it”?” Still the hands were up in the air.
“Well, “he replied, “what if I do this?” He dropped his cigar on the ground and started to grind it into the floor with his shoe. He picked it up and dropped in the pouch. “Now, who still wants it?”
Still the hands went in the air.
“My dear moderns, you have all learned a very valuable lesson. No matter what I did to the money, you still wanted it because it because this money's value is sacred, a fixed idea. It was still worth 20 Thaler because it made itself corporeal through you.
Many times in our lives, we are dropped, crumpled, and ground into the dirt by the decisions we make and the circumstances that come our way. We feel as though we are worthless; but no matter what happened or what will happen, you are all nothing to me.
Dirty or clean, crumpled or finely creased, you are still my property to enjoy or dissolve at my own leisure. Prey you do the same with me. The worth of your lives come not in what we do or who we know, but by... our *einzige*.
I don't think it argues that. Just identify them and judge them accordingly to your will. Be aware of them.
To say spooks are "bad" in some intrinsic, essential way, is to invoke a spook. Furthermore, Stirner is not critical at all of what only exists in the minds of men, and spook is not a term for that; a "spook" is something that you are beholden to. If Stirner were to suggest that we eradicated everything which was purely mental, we'd throw out imagination with it (and Stirner, whose radical model for an education system for children is one where dissent was cultivated, obviously wouldn't want to do that). The difference here is an idea as one's property, vs. an idea as one's master, the latter is what Stirner refers to as a "spook". Masculinity and femininity, for instance Stirner said are useful as property, but he considered making them one's masters to be full retard..
I realize that, I am native Greek and ego in Greek has the non-bullshit meaning, but I'm not about to start calling it differently because that's how the title is fucking translated EVERYWHERE.
Anyway this is entirely relevant to why I am asking if it would be better in German, any misunderstandings from word translations would be eliminated.
Realising something is a spook is kind of like realising something was just a dream. When you become aware of something being a spook, the thing itself does not necessarily change, but your perspective on it does, giving you more power over it.
>"i'm going to iraq to fight for the rights of the kurdish people to have their freedom as human beings!"
>"freedom, nations and inalienable human rights are just concepts bruv"
>"wow you're right, good thing you told me just in time before in wreck my life in service of literally words. i was literally willing to risk my life for something as ethereal and arbitrary as an idea someone else told me was important."
Because Stirner is easier to access, more disruptive, more speedily disturbing, and more offensive. Can you imagine the mountain of complaints if the Stirn bird of milk and enjoyment was in first year phil? At least 90% would be offended, and the 10 who took him seriously would worry the staff considerably. Nietzsche is also a more complex, less systematic, less logical thinker, whose views can be rendered harmless through reinterpretation. Max isn't complex enough to reinterpret. He makes a series of logical statements in a short text, then provides perfect rebuttals in the Bird's Blastings. That's not enough to swing around into anything.
Basically, because his writing is actually unsettling for most people.
This sums up my exact sentiment regarding Nietzsche and Stirner
Fags, cucks, losers and betas can justify their shitty existence in Nietzsche. Stirner makes you face your existence in a very staggering clarity
>whose views can be rendered harmless through reinterpretation.
>tfw first year philosophy professors trying to portray freddy as a liberal who just liked strong metaphors
I think Stirner might be one day. He was taught in my first year philosophy class (It was a small class specificaly focusing anarchism for what it's worth).
Also he's pretty prevalent on /lit/. I'm not saying that means something huge but something that gets big on 4chan has become mainstream occasionally.
Yeah, about that...
"The German stirnerist Adolf Brand produced the homosexual periodical Der Eigene in 1896. This was the first ongoing homosexual publication in the world,and ran until 1931. The name was taken from the writings of Stirner, who had greatly influenced the young Brand, and refers to Stirner's concept of "self-ownership" of the individual. Another early homosexual activist influenced by Stirner was John Henry Mackay. Feminists influenced by Stirner include Dora Marsden who edited the journals The Freewoman and The New Freewoman and anarcha-feminist Emma Goldman. Stirner also influenced free love and polyamory propagandist Émile Armand in the context of French individualist anarchism of the early 20th century which is known for "The call of nudist naturism, the strong defense of birth control methods, the idea of "unions of egoists" with the sole justification of sexual practices".
One of the main points Stirner made was that no-one has to justify anything. If you want to do it, then that's the only justification needed.
"Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it. If your weal lay at my heart, I should act as the church did in withholding the Bible from the laity, or Christian governments, which make it a sacred duty for themselves to “protect the common people from bad books.”
But not only not for your sake, not even for truth’s sake either do I speak out what I think. No —
I sing as the bird sings
That on the bough alights;
The song that from me springs
Is pay that well requites.
I sing because — I am a singer. But I use[gebrauche] you for it because I — need [brauche] ears."
I don't hate or love her. I simply objectivism and Capitalism are spooks all the same as everything else. I personally detest Ayn Rand because I think she's a stuck up entitled bitch. But that's just my view I enjoy at my own leisure. In reality capitalists are cut from the same cloth as collectivists. The capitalists claim to be "Libertarian" and sometimes even anarchist, but in reality the fact they think their right to own property is sacred is another spook.
A demonologist transcended Mongolian professor and Geist activist was teaching a class on Hegel, known necromancer.
"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship the end of history and accept that Absolute Idealism is the most highly-evolved sophism to make us feel good about ourselves the continent had ever known, even greater than self-serving petit-bourgeois Protestant theology!"
At this moment an uncaring if he was brave because being judged by illusionary social standards was of no importance to him, egoist, unique girls' school teacher who had smoked more than 15,000 cigars in Hippel's wine bar and understood the spookiness of all ideology and fully supported whatever he felt like stood up and held up "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum"(The Ego and its Own).
"I wrote this, innit?"
The arrogant professor smirked quite synthetically and smugly replied "It's not yours at all, fucking egoist, it's the stern, reluctant, working of reason towards the full realization of itself in perfect freedom."
"Wrong. It's been a few years or something (time is nothing to me) since I, the Unique One, created it. If it was not mine, and idealism, as you say, is not a spoook... Then Ghost Busters wouldn't have had a happy ending."
The professor was visibly shake , and dropped his balls and copy of Plato's dialogues. He stormed out of the room crying those ironic thesis and antithesis tears, both coming together on his cheeks into synthesis. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Hegel (who liked to teach about himself), wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a spook ridden sad cunt interested in arbitrary justifications. He wished so much that he had some kind of Own to hold on to, and he had but just didn't realize it because he was an involuntary egoist.
The students applauded and all started milk shops that day and accepted their Self-Enjoyment as the end of philosophy. An eagle named 'Union of Egoists' flew into the room and perched atop the copy of "Stirner's Critics" and she's a beer on the hardcover. "Inch hav Mein Sach' auf Nichtd Gestell" was said several times, and Renzo Novatore himself showed up and demonstrated how hand grenades are nothing more than a means of killing police officers.
The professor had his tenure revoked and was fired the next day. He died of superstition and his "books" were disregarded for all eternity.
The name of the student? Max Stirner.
Well if I think the right to own property is a good idea which along with other things creates a society with relatively few anxieties than it's not a spook if I'm willing to part with the idea later?
No. Its a spook if you work for its needs rather than you use it for yours. For example, living a public, altuistic life is not a spook. Stirner spoke many times of social nourishment. But its when that public life or altruism becomes something more, a sacred idea you can't destroy at your own discretion and when it uses you for its needs rather than you using it for your needs.
If you're a very empathetic person then you may want to help people because their suffering causes you pain. Its that pain you want to destroy, so may help people. But you also may be a more callous person and not care about anyone else. In that case, being empathetic simply because society wants you to is spooky, you're conforming to an alien will and betraying your own, merely because you feel like that laughing its face is "wrong".
Depends on the reason.
For example, if I'm hunting pussy because I desire to fuck some then that is not spooky. But if I hunt pussy because I feel like I need to in order to be a real man while I'd rather be at home frogposting, it is very spooky.
The same goes for your professional goals. If you want to become a CEO because you think being a CEO is awesome it's cool. But if you want to become succesful because of some shitty ideological notion that one ought to strive for success or "realising one's potential" or something, you are in Spooktown, population 7 billion.
What if I say, try to be more social because while I hate being social, I simultaneously do not want to be alone? How the fuck do you know what's a spook and what's just something you like? How do you tell genuinely liking democracy(for example...) from liking democracy because you were indoctrinated into it and thus any un-democratic thoughts sends jolts of discomfort through your spine? Not "I'm being a bad person" discomfort, just plain unthinking discomfort.
but doesn't that cause a whole lot of problems w/r/t how do you tell what your genuine, inherent desires are and which are only there do indirectly serve other desires
and how is it more legit to do something b/c you wanna fuk rather than b/c you wanna feel strong / manly
i feel like stirner's philosophy only works under the assumption that man is 100% aware of his will and complete psychological makeup at all times, which seems to me a flawed assumption, to say the least
I seek to do it because it is what I desire. To Strive for the best i what I need in order to feel good with myself, I have a need of greatness in myself, perhaps it could be a "spook", but I just want to achieve what I long for.
but even if you disregard psychoanalysis etc it seems fair to assume that remorse, guilt, etc are things that we're conditioned to feel from an early age, in very complex situations and without a clear answer as to how to avoid it
i mean "don't have guilt" fair enough, but it seems a very impractical piece of advice
was stirner a happy man?
Stirner is life affirmative as fuck, you read it and you will leave decided and strong as shit. It's impressive how this leaves you feeling so capable of having choices by just negating a lot of ideology
I think Stirner is very useful, his thoughts are pure and they echo with something that every reader has, his unique. I can't explain to you why it's, you just have to experience it for yourself
I was a depressed Kantian/Platonic idealistic faggot, always struggling with morality and justice, until i readed this and Genealogy of the Morals, and my life improved tenfold
>In short, when I talk of a thing as my own good all that I can mean is that something which will be exclusively mine, as my own pleasure is mine (whatever be the various senses of this relation denoted by possession), is also good absolutely; or rather that my possession of it is good absolutely. The good of it can in no possible sense be private or belong to me; any more than a thing can exist privately or for one person only.
Reminder that this garbage dealer got published in 1903 but none of you ever will be
I am not sure about the whole "social conditioning" thing. I was raised in a catholic family, I was always told what was wrong and what was right. I always did things that were considered "wrong" and yet I never felt guilty, in fact, I enjoyed doing them.
My point is, even when my whole social environment told me that what I was doing is considered wrong and that I should have felt guilty for doing it, I never felt like that.
Striner was supposedly happy.
Although might not have had the most easy of a life.
What that other anon said is kinda false, he thinks you will have "guilt" but its about 'not being a slave to your guilt'. the fact that you have it means nothing. your guilt is for you, and it should be about only things unrelated to spooks.
staying with someone you don't love out of guilt would be retarded. but feeling guilty for hurting someone you love might not be.
He would say yea the reason you don't punch babies is because you would feel bad and it does nothing for you. And he would also say that someone punching babies is probably a slave to their desires because it does nothing for you.
He did not glorify being a psychopath.
the point is always not being ruled over by something besides 'you' the unique one, the creative nothingness.
Guilt is something that comes form the body, so it can never 'rule' you.
you still feel it, phenomenologically.
this quote in the graphic touches on that >>6293531
"Spirits exist!" Look about in the world, and say for yourself whether a spirit does not gaze upon you out of everything. Out of the lovely little flower there speaks to you the spirit of the Creator, who has shaped it so wonderfully; the stars proclaim the spirit that established their order; from the mountain-tops a spirit of sublimity breathes down; out of the waters a spirit of yearning murmurs up; and—out of men millions of spirits speak. The mountains may sink, the flowers fade, the world of stars fall in ruins, the men die—what matters the wreck of these visible bodies? The spirit, the "invisible spirit," abides eternally!
Yes, the whole world is haunted! Only is haunted? Nay, it itself "walks," it is uncanny through and through, it is the wandering seeming-body of a spirit, it is a spook. What else should a ghost be, then, than an apparent body, but real spirit? Well, the world is "empty," is "naught," is only glamorous "semblance"; its truth is the spirit alone; it is the seeming-body of a spirit.
Look out near or far, a ghostly world surrounds you everywhere; you are always having "apparitions" or visions. Everything that appears to you is only the phantasm of an indwelling spirit, is a ghostly "apparition"; the world is to you only a "world of appearances," behind which the spirit walks. You "see spirits."
Are you perchance thinking of comparing yourself with the ancients, who saw gods everywhere? Gods, my dear modern, are not spirits; gods do not degrade the world to a semblance, and do not spiritualize it.
But to you the whole world is spiritualized, and has become an enigmatical ghost; therefore do not wonder if you likewise find in yourself nothing but a spook. Is not your body haunted by your spirit, and is not the latter alone the true and real, the former only the "transitory, naught" or a "semblance"? Are we not all ghosts, uncanny beings that wait for "deliverance,"—to wit, "spirits"?
Since the spirit appeared in the world, since "the Word became flesh," since then the world has been spiritualized, enchanted, a spook.
If you are doing your will, you shouldn't have guilt.
>And he would also say that someone punching babies is probably a slave to their desires because it does nothing for you.
Just going to point out, that if it is your desire, you should satiate it. You do not necessarily need to 'gain' anything from it. The value of that is subjective anyway.
You might imagine this would lead to backstabbing anarchy. Possibly. The thing is an egoist civilization is incredibly autonomic - as long as the majority of the population is normal and empathetic, the stragglers are weeded out. Some psycho punches a baby, he gets lynched.
Would Stirner be mentioned even once a week on /lit/ if it weren't for the Engels cartoons?
but anon, mental guilt can come from social structures. There is this type of christian guilt when doing sins, and this type of guilt by eating meat from veganism.
This guilt is closely related to morality, and morality can stop you of doing things you like. A veganist that doesn't eat meat and feels fine without it is Stirnerist, but a veganist that doesn't eat meat even if he likes it because of social conditions shouldn't be Stirnerist. The problem is making the distinction of both, for example, i may find disgusting having homo sex, but it may be very pleasurable for me to do so, but my morality restricts me from doing it and my will says it doesn't want it. How do i know if this is because of society and a spook or because i really, really don't want to have homo sex? Stirner falls for society conditioning in this case. But you may be happy if you accept your social conditioning (which is the case of many Stirnerists)
I saw Max Stirner at a milk store in Leipzig yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn't want to be an involuntary egoist and bother him and ask him for precepts or anything.
He said, “Oh, like you’re being now?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “spooks! spooks! spooks!” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw Sancho trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen milk bottles in his hands without paying.
There is no argument you utter retard. He is referring to 'Egoism' as a straw-man, not Stirnerism. The leaps in logic are also astounding. Just read the passage I quoted, and try to apply it to Stirnerism. Oh wait, you haven't read the book, this is just your kneejerk reaction to the word 'egoism'.
reposting a Nietzsche aphorism where it shows the stirner influence on him:
To the Teachers of Unselfishness. — The virtues of a man are called good, not in respect to the results they have for himself, but in respect to the results which we expect therefrom for ourselves and for society: — we have all along had very little unselfish- ness, very little " non-egoism " in our praise of the virtues ! For otherwise it could not but have been seen that the virtues (such as diligence, obedience, chastity, piety, justice) are mostly injurious to their possessors, as impulses which rule in them too vehemently and ardently, and do not want to be kept in co-ordination with the other im- pulses by the reason. If you have a virtue, an actual, perfect virtue (and not merely a kind of impulse towards virtue !)-you are its victim / But your neighbour praises your virtue precisely on that account ! One praises the diligent man though he injures his sight, or the originality and freshness of his spirit, by his diligence; the youth is honoured and regretted who has "worn himself out by work," because one passes the judgnient that "for society as a whole the loss of the best individual is only a small sacrifice! A pity that this sacrifice should be necessary ! A much greater pity it is true, if the individual should thmk differ- ently, and regard his preservation and development as more important than his work in the service of society'" And so one regrets this youth, not on his own account, but because a devoted instrument, regardless of self-a so-called "good man, has been lost to society by his death Perhaps one further considers the question, whether it would not have been more advantageous for the interests of society if he had laboured with less disregard of himself, and had preserved himself longer,-mdeed one readily admits an advantage therefrom but one esteems the other advantage, namely, that a sacrifice has been made, and that the disposition of the sacrificial animal has once more been obvtously endorsed-as higher and more enduring. It is accordingly, on the one part the instrumental character in the virtues which is praised when the virtues are praised, and on the other part the blind, ruling impulse in every virtue which refuses to let itself be kept within bounds by the general advantage to the individual; in short, what is praised is the unreason in the virtues, in consequencc of which the individual allows himself to be transformed into a function of the whole. The praise of the virtues is the praise of something which is privately injurious to the individual ; it is praise of impulses which deprive man of his noblest self-love, and the power to take the best care of himself.
Stirner had quite a hard life. His Mother fell gravely ill and he had to look after her from a young age. Then his first wife died in childbirth, and then his second wife divorced him after he spent her inheritance. After the Ego and its Own, he was pretty penniless, and spent the rest of his life moving house to avoid creditors he couldn't pay back. After spending a short spell in prison for his debts, he was stung by an insect and died. Out of all his so called friends, noly Bruno Bauer showed up to his funeral.
But despire all that, its impossible to scry whether or not he was happy, because we're talking about a man who live 175 years ago. He never spoke about the subject. He never inteded to be edgy though, he's more a joker personality. Someone who laughs at the world rather than despise it.
To be sure, for the teaching and embody- ing of virtuous habits a series of effects of virtue are displayed, which make it appear that virtue and private advantage are closely related, — andthere is in fact such a relationship ! Blindly furious diligence, for example, the typical virtue of an instrument, is represented as the way to riches and honour, and as the most beneficial antidote to tedium and passion : but people are silent concern- ing its danger, its greatest dangerousness. Educa- tion proceeds in this manner throughout : it endeavours, by a series of enticements and advan- tages, to determine the individual to a certain mode of thinking and acting, which, when it has become habit, impulse and passion, rules in him and over him, in opposition to his ultimate advantage^ but " for the general good." How often do I see that blindly furious diligence does indeed create riches and honours, but at the same time deprives the organs of the refinement by virtue of which alone an enjoyment of riches and honours is possible ; so that really the main expedient for combating tedium and passion, simultaneously blunts the senses and makes the spirit refractory towards new stimuli ! (The busiest of all ages — our age — does not know how to make anything out of its great diligence and wealth, except always more and more wealth, and more and more diligence; there is even more genius needed for laying out wealth than for acquiring it!— Well, we shall have our "grandchildren"!) If the educa- tion succeeds, every virtue of the individual is a . public utility, and a private disadvantage in respect to the highest private end,— probably some psycho- aesthetic stunting, or even premature dissolution. One should consider successively from the same standpoint the virtues of obedience, chastity, piety, and justice. The praise of the unselfish, self- sacrificing, virtuous person— he, consequently, who does not expend his whole energy and reason for his own conservation, development, elevation, furtherance and augmentation of power, but lives as regards himself unassumingly and thoughtlessly, perhaps even indifferently or ironically,— this praise has in any case not originated out of the spirit of unselfishness ! The " neighbour " praises unselfish- ness because he profits by it! If the neighbour were "unselfishly" disposed himself, he would reject that destruction of power, that injury for his advantage, he would thwart such inclinations in their origin, and above all he would manifest his unselfishness just by not giving it a good name!
The fundamental contradiction in that morality which at present stands in high honour is here indicated : the motives to such a morality are in antithesis to its principle! That with which this morality wishes to prove itself, refutes it out of. its criterion of what is moral ! The maxim, " Thou Shalt renounce thyself and offer . thyself as a sacrifice," in order not to be inconsistent with its own morality, could only be decreed by a being who himself renounced his own advantage thereby, and who perhaps in the required self-sacrifice of individuals brought about his own dissolution. As soon, however, as the neighbour (or society) recommended altruism on account of its utility, the precisely antithetical proposition, " Thou shalt seek thy advantage even at the expense of everybody else," was brought into use: accordingly, "thou shalt," and " thou shalt not," are preached in one breath !
he specifically says just satiating desire is being controlled in ego and its own so no.
you 'can' satiate desire, but thats not the total goal because desire is transitory and impulsive.
same way he say someone who commits their whole life to one thing is being controlled by 'passion'
if you are an egoist you are supposedly already able to see where your shit is coming from.
he never claims that everyone will be able to sort their social conditioning, quite the opposite.
so if you don't know/can't tell he would say you are not a true egoist.
It's not a philosophy for the people.
And i don't think you can say stirner falls for 'social conditioning' unless you understand you are judging him by a metric he does not care about at all.
He would argue one you are beyond the spirit/idea phase of development you could not even make the argument you are currently making anymore.
One hot August afternoon in the year 1896 at Bayreuth, I was standing in the Marktplatz when a member of the Wagner Theatre pointed out to me a house opposite, at the corner of the Maximilianstrasse, and said: “Do you see that house with the double gables? A man was born there whose name will be green when Jean Paul and Richard Wagner are forgotten.” It was too large a draft upon my credulity, so I asked the name.
“Max Stirner,” he replied.
be entirely honest, have you actually read the ego and its own?
your understanding it literally stuck in the hedonist/epicurean ancients era.
You don't allow room for the creative nothing in your statement.
you are missing the entire point.
You are literally stuck at the beginning of development like some jew.
Ancaps think the state sets their morals, but the people actually set the morals
If you get rid of the state people still aren't going to buy babies
Stirner would be more akin to old libertarianism where there is a skeleton government, but most is just people living their life in unions of egoists.
Acknowledging the creative nothingness.
A being that is unattributable cannot be attributed pleasure to.
Your axiom is literally the road to spook city, because your reasoning seems to dead end and the question becomes what is behind these impulses. Which will be spirit/homunculus/psychology/biology/science
i will take it you didn't read the book.
>Stirner's main strategy for economic survival in this period seems to have involved changing addresses in order to evade his creditors, although he does not appear to have moved quickly enough to avoid two brief periods in a debtors' prison in 1853 and 1854.
what an ubermensch
Where did I assert that desires are always pleasurable? And how the fuck can you, even based off that faulty logic, think that your semantics in regards to pleasure 'not equaling joy' somehow removes satiation from the action of child-rearing?
>because your reasoning seems to dead end
Explain further. Throw me a bone.
No. Stirner doesn't instruct that you should do anything. He merely speaks his thoughts and suggests you use them as you see fit, but even this isn't his goal. He wrote the book because "I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world", and to do that he needs ears, namely, your ears. There's no such thing as "Stirnerism".
No, "human" is a ghost. There are no two humans alike, because everyone is unique. To call yourself a "human" is to subject yourself to whatever spooky metaphysics are human.
You already know a bit about "you", the unique.
Yes. Religions are spooks because of their insistence on "morality," among other things. Religions are spooks because morality is a spook. A "moral code" that keeps you from doing things that you want to do (e.g. play card games if you're a puritan) has no basis. You have absolutely no reason to adhere to a rule, unless you yourself WANT to adhere to the rule. A religious "moral code" is just an arbitrary system of rules someone else made and is using to direct your behavior.
Understanding the spookiness of religion is easier if you're already nonreligious. If you are religious, you have to first rid yourself of the thought that arbitrary concepts are divine and unassailable, or otherwise have some reason you should obey them.
I think for common purposes it's really common in the modern world to see that worldview.
But for more abstract unquestionable ideals like equality, the Man, the State, the Society, the Humanity, etc etc it's more complex, that's why the book deals with a lot of politic ideology and such
For opposing views: basically any philosopher who has thought seriously about ethics.
Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, and [Bentham, Sidgwick, Mill] are some of the philosophers to look at.
I don't know if any major philosophers besides Marx and Engels have critiqued Stirner (they do in The German Ideology). Mostly he's just ignored, probably because he doesn't offer argument so much as polemic, and it's not very fruitful, philosophically, to engage with that.
le plato morality based on the existance of a soul
le nietzsche rape to all idealism morality
>you are in Spooktown, population 7 billion.
Yeah but what if you were to say "I will say nothing" and the murderer slew you and then slew your friend? Strirner advises that you should lie to protect people you feel it is worth the risk for.
"If the pursuer of my friend asks me where he has fled to, I shall surely put him on a false trail. Why does he ask precisely me, the pursued man’s friend? In order not to be a false, traitorous friend, I prefer to be false to the enemy. I might certainly in courageous conscientiousness, answer, “I will not tell” (so Fichte decides the case); by that I should salve my love of truth and do for my friend as much as — nothing, for, if I do not mislead the enemy, he may accidentally take the right street, and my love of truth would have given up my friend as a prey, because it hindered me from the —courage for a lie. He who has in the truth an idol, a sacred thing, must humble himself before it, must not defy its demands, not resist courageously; in short, he must renounce the heroism of the lie. For to the lie belongs not less courage than to the truth: a courage that young men are most apt to be defective in, who would rather confess the truth and mount the scaffold for it than confound the enemy’s power by the impudence of a lie. To them the truth is “sacred,” and the sacred at all times demands blind reverence, submission, and self-sacrifice. If you are not impudent, not mockers of the sacred, you are tame and its servants. Let one but lay a grain of truth in the trap for you, you peck at it to a certainty, and the fool is caught. You will not lie? Well, then, fall as sacrifices to the truth and become — martyrs! Martyrs! — for what? For yourselves, for self-ownership? No, for your goddess — the truth. You know only two services, only two kinds of servants: servants of the truth and servants of the lie. Then in God’s name serve the truth!"
I don't think so. When I see Stirner's forehead and glasses, a sense of kinship, recognition and understanding washes over me.
oh no he says i want cock, that means i'm not a True Man™!
Ima blog for a second because I was just spooked.
Got turned out of a folk punk concert cause under 21, the band sings about being homeless, traveling, and fighting the man type stuff. Tours the nation singing about it in college towns and they eat it up.
But basically i got turned out so i sat outside next to a homeless kid playing his guitar. He sung about his life with a slight punk undertone, my favorite was him singing about being happy even though he was down on his luck, traveling, without a home, he bummed a smoke off me and we talked for abit, nice kid, wish I'd remembered his name, but im shit with names. He made me feel real and it was a good conversation so i gave him a 20.
But i was spooked on the drive home when i realized that while the kids in the bar where listening to a band of people who where famous for being unfamous anti gov bums, i was talking to an unfamous bum.
Makes more sense in my head, ill refine the story as i reremember it.
Nah totally makes sense how you said it. A microcosm similar to the matrix happened: you were listening to a band that is a part of "the system", while being hypocritically against it, when you were able to find someone who was actually outside of the system, and you had a moment of clarity about life. I think that's pretty cool.
I made this and it's ugly.
the cryptically cropped reclam edition of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, a book on design thinking which really shouldn't be on there (and also didn't quite meet my expectations since I was looking for the still somewhat trendy method for interdisciplinary innovation, what I really got was a book on how designers actually think), a German book on poststructuralism for Leftists (anarchists really), Wolfgang Essbach's amazing professoral dissertation (I don't think this exists in the anglosphere, it's sort of like a PhD on steroids) on the Young Hegelians, Bernd Laskas study of the reception of Stirner's thought (probably the single most comprehensive piece of secondary literature on Stirner) and one issue of the yearbook of the now defunct Stirner Society (maybe even the one in which I got published).
phil 101 fail. the lesson of the is-ought gap (which, by the way, comes from Hume and is something Stirner wishes he was smart enough to come up with) is not that there are no normative facts (think there are no norms of belief, that logic isn't normative? ought you believe conclusions of sound arguments?), but rather that some normative facts must be used as premises in arguments for normative conclusions.
If we couldn't deduce an 'is' from an 'ought', we wouldn't conclude that no 'is' statements are true.
He isn't taken seriously because his claims are offensive to common norms, but this doesn't make him wrong. I'm not a Sternerite, but this isn't science, you nigger. Peer approval isn't nearly as important in ethical philosophy.
I like how you didn't state what mistake I made. I like how I didn't make a mistake. I like how 'some normative facts must be used as premises in arguments for normative conclusions' is bullshit because normative statements aren't facts. You precisely have to award them the status of a premise because they are outside the realm of factuality (they aren't even factually wrong).
The whole idea of something like 'normative facts' is an ideological as fuck way of trying to trick some poor fucks into doing what you want because of 'factuality'. Normativity is orthogonal to factuality. Only descriptions can be correct or incorrect, and even those not in themselves but only in relation to their descriptors.
There is no reason, you can actually do whatever you like, everything is permitted.
Just don't shove your laws over me because I will not listen to your *sounds* arguments about *truth*
You should believe the conclusions of sound arguments. You should try to believe what's true.
You also shouldn't torture children for fun. Not everything is permitted.
(Are you saying I shouldn't shove my laws over you (whatever that means)? I hope not.)
>So on your (and Stirner's) view, there's no reason for me or anyone else to accept your and Stirner's view? That it's not true that anyone should accept Stirner's conclusions?
Are you retarded? I said that normative statements do not have factuality. This itself is a descriptive statement. There's as much 'reason' for you or anyone to accept it as there is for any other descriptive statement. There's no moral obligation for you to accept it because it's not a moral statement you dunce.
>Yes, but do you think I should accept descriptive statements that are the ones best supported by evidence and argument?
I don't give a fuck. I can point out the door, whether you walk through it is your business.
Is there any reason to go through the door you're pointing to? And are you pointing where you're pointing for any reason?
If not, why should I care about your pointing?
If so, isn't it a fact that there's reason to go through the door you're pointing to?
>You do realize Stirner is a nobody
Wait this you take seriously?
Why does every hack, when cornered, begin rambling about what other philosophers meant and posture really hard with an authorative voice, instead of thinking analytically like an honest person?
Of course, once someone proposes logic as authority opens themselves to skepticism towards the metaphysic of logic.
The moralists always appeal to authority, it's all they know how to do, it's why they are not egoists
You've been at it for days, dude. Find something better to do that swing into the darkness
You cannot argue with skeptics like us, and your posturing isn't impressing anyone except your delusional self
You're the one asserting something exists. You should at least be able to explain why.
Why are you posting? Seriously, why? You've been acting like a tard for days, don't you have anything better to do?
No it is not. Since you're the one with a positive view, you're the one who will justify that claim.
I claim that I can torture children for fun all I want, and there's nothing wrong with it. Since people do this, apparently it's totally fine with the laws of physics and reality to do. So where does the moral fact come from? Justify moral realism.
That's because 8 and 3 are defined that way. It's a circular argument.
Saying "I exist by definition, therefore I exist" does not prove the truth of the statement "I exist" outside of the circle
Why do you respond when I put so little effort into my posts?
Also I started posting in this thread about 15 minutes ago. Really Stirner seems like any other philosopher just bullshitting and hoping that it appeals to people. The fact is I just figured everyone in this thread was either trolling and/or doing an impression of a fedora tipping autist. Yeah this has just been a ruse/I was pretending to be retarded/ITROLLEDYOU!
Really what do you expect from these threads?
Your position commits you to denying an obvious truth that no sane person doubts. I don't need any more justification to reject your position.
There's no uncontroversial theory of 'where the moral fact come[s] from', but that doesn't mean we should doubt that it exists, unless there's some evidence that it doesn't. Before people knew where the moon came from, should they have doubted its existence?
And of course torturing children for fun is physically possible (no one would accept the M axiom for deontic logic), it's just that the people who do it are doing something wrong.
You asked for something true (that could be used as a premise), not an argument or proof.
>Really Stirner seems like any other philosopher just bullshitting and hoping that it appeals to people. The fact is I just figured everyone in this thread was either trolling and/or doing an impression of a fedora tipping autist. Yeah this has just been a ruse/I was pretending to be retarded/ITROLLEDYOU!
>Really what do you expect from these threads?
oh right on bro you got me good
You should be able to explain ontologically where morals come from. The problem with moral "facts" is there seems to be no consequence or importance to them, without material consequences. No physics produce anti-rape morals, only people do.
It's just the is-ought problem, all over again. You can only be morally reasonable with people who are morally reasonable. You can't say "raping kids is wrong" as a fact and influence child rapists. So what is it you are actually saying, if not just blindly announcing what you think people should do with no force behind your words?
>Your position commits you to denying an obvious truth that no sane person doubts. I don't need any more justification to reject your position.
tally-ho there mate easy up on that snark
>There's no uncontroversial theory of 'where the moral fact come[s] from', but that doesn't mean we should doubt that it exists, unless there's some evidence that it doesn't.
the evidence that no moral facts exist is shown by the fact that immorality exists everywhere and outside of force and power, there are zero repercussions.
gravity is a fact because it means something, murder being wrong is not a fact unless murder is wrong is interpreted solely as a command from a strong person: "don't murder, or i'll fuck you up"
>You asked for something true (that could be used as a premise), not an argument or proof.
I'm not them, but circular reasoning does not count, and the math you're citing is circular
>Your position commits you to denying an obvious truth that no sane person doubts. I don't need any more justification to reject your position.
"lol ur crazy" isn't sufficient ground for dismissal, silly.
>i-i was only pretending to be retarded
When did I do that? Seriously I started into a random chain of replies I have no idea what you think I posted.
Anyway why do you think that asserting that something exists requires some kind of justification?
Are you people really so unbelievably stupid that a second rate, obscure philosopher- on par with Rand- is enough to undermine all your views and turn you into a limited idealogue; one who merely espouses the hack ideas of a primitive mind?
>Yeah, it's as if no one on /lit/ has ever read past the wikipedia page on kant
>still taking seriously that old man that is scared of lying
here we go, it seems that you know about kant and nothing else
>recurring to civilized/primitive/limited/stupid
>tfw stirnerthreads are the only ones that reach bump limit on /lit/
The irony of course being, your overall inability to realize the spooks you yourselves espouse.
You think you've escaped ideology by invoking selfishness, but too narrow-minded to elucidate a more complex system of understanding.
A literal retreat into infantilism.
>A literal retreat into infantilism.
i am literally become babby
it's really funny watching you try to pull of these nietzsche-esque polemics
jesus christ I haven't even read the ego and it's own and I have a better grasp of stirners philosophy than you do
Is it true that there is no way to establish a true premise?
I don't need my "system" to have premises that can't be doubted by even the most radical skeptic. I don't think there's any such system that gets us beyond extremely basic facts. Truth != provable without any premises.
Just because something ought to be the case doesn't mean it is the case, or is likely to be the case. M is not an axiom of any reasonable deontic logic. So these 'but bad things happen all the time' arguments aren't effective at all.