[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 200x237, 1617054565744.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19253399 No.19253399 [Reply] [Original]

his whole philosophy boils down to "your rights end where my freedom begins"
i've never read any of his works btw but im still right

>> No.19253412

>>19253399
havent read him neither but i think thats false

but i am german and i can sense how he would feel and that is not how he would have felt

>> No.19253444

>>19253412
wait till someone who has read him shows up and confirms my post was correct

>> No.19253475

>>19253399
>he thinks rights and freedom aren't spooks

>> No.19253493

>>19253399
There are no "rights" you idiot, bad bait

>> No.19253496

>>19253399
He was a nihilist without any coherent positive positions.

>> No.19253503

i have not read stirner but my assumption was his philosophy is actually "most of the shit people believe is a meme and the best way to live is not only to find authority within yourself, but to assume everything else is just a grift or delusion" which seems simplistic until you consider all the metaphysical horseshit people believe about morals and such. any time you subscribe to an ideology, you are actually just simping for some other ape's master morality, which is cringe because humans are fallible retards and it doesn't even matter anyway because if you are wrong nothing will happen.

how close am i

>> No.19253526

>>19253503
Nowhere near.
Why can't you pseuds just fucking read Stirner before starting these threads

>> No.19253568

>>19253503
He just wanted to be left alone, that's the whole point of his philosophy

>> No.19253593

>>19253526
i didn't start this thread

i might read him later today though, getting tired of novels for the last few weeks

>> No.19253612

>>19253399
From the way stirnerposters act, I would assume it's something like:
>everything i don't like is a spook: a petulant child's guide to conviction

>> No.19253641

>>19253399
>>19253412
>>19253503
>>19253612
i have not read Stirner but i once saw him in a dream meaning his philosophy would've vibed with me

>> No.19253650

>>19253503
this is exactly accurate. however the real thrust of the matter, the real 'sting' of it, if you will, is how you interpret such a philosopher's death by bug bite. is it the casual death of an 'insurgent', was was his term, which has no bearing on his life or philosophy -- or, did it symbolize something profoundly ironical about egoism, that such a penetrating mind could have been brought low, not in a tragic battle over freedom, not in a public execution (as was the case with his hero, Christ), not in any kind of dare put forth mightily to the idols of the past, but by a measly insect, perhaps still digesting its last meal, which just happened upon the philosopher in the prime of his life, at the apex of his brilliance, and, only by giving him a good bite, brought the man to his corruption and death? these are the questions for our age.

>> No.19253663

>>19253399
Yes, that's his philosophy, but his freedom begins at the edges of the universe.
I know he would have thought this because I was there. Reincarnation.

>> No.19253666

>>19253399
I love how not a single poster in a Stirner thread has actually read Stirner. Just fucking do it faggots, Marx's response to him was longer than his whole body of work.

>> No.19253667

>>19253399
Yes, that's his philosophy, but his freedom begins at the edges of the universe.
I know he would have thought this because I was there—reincarnation.

>> No.19253687

>>19253650
why would somebody's anti-climatic death matter, i feel that stirner's philosophy can't be this silly and you are just pulling my leg.

>> No.19253691

>>19253666
is it even possible to understand stirner if you don't have a grounding in history or philosophy.

>> No.19253737

>>19253399
He doesn't have a philosophy; he just makes the arguments of the Greek Sophists. Your only goal in life is to ensure the existance of yourself, and the things you love, using your mind and physical strength as a weapon. He's making the same arguments of Callicles, Protagoras and Thrasymachus with little no variation to a t. His arguments are difficult to understand, and the idiots who insist people must read Stirner to understand are people who don't understand Stirner because they lack the ability to summarize his ideas for people to follow.
More so, Marx's arguments against Stirner fall a part quickly when you realize, as he pointed in Stirner's Critics, his critics are only attacking Stirner for their own self serving, egotistic ends - whereas Communists ultimately present their philosophy as one tht serves the interests of the "great majority" - but is not the case because communists only serve the people who conform to their ideas. They, like most people, only really care about how useful you are to them, and only attack you if you are not useful for their own selfish political ends. This explains why socialists constantly spilt into little groups and kill each other - often eating each other as "counter-revolutionaries." Stirner does not advocate what you should do; he gives you suggestions on what you can do. He has no plans for a "better future", or any of that loathy non-sense of idealists who fetishize solutions to human problems. Ecclesiastes is the man who comes the closest to Stirner in his thought; which isn't surprising since "All things are nothing to me" is another way of saying what Ecclesiastes said "Everything is meaningless" - even Goethe's poem, which discusses this, is directly referenced in the book itself (Vanitas! Vanitatum Vanitas!)

>> No.19253756

What Spinoza adovcates for what people do with their lives is what Stirner argues for - in fact, Stirner was attacked for being a Spinozist by Bruno Bauer. You can read the critique here, its quite interesting.
https://www.pdcnet.org/owl/content/owl_2009_0041_40180_0061_0083

>> No.19253776
File: 20 KB, 660x360, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19253776

>"You long for freedom? You fools! If you took power, then freedom would come of itself. See, one who has power stands above the law. How does this view taste to you, you “law-abiding” people? But you have no taste!"
>"I decide whether it is the right in me; outside me there is no right. If it is right for me, then it is right. Possibly, this won’t make it right for others; that’s their problem, not mine: they may defend themselves."

>> No.19253797

>>19253612
The focus on spooks misses the point of Stirner's arguments completely. Stirner is making nominalist arguments against the existance of Plato's realism. These arguments are not old, but many people aren't famaliar with them. The Stoics, Protestantism has its roots in these arguments. They're essentially some of the strongest arguments against unified religion.

>> No.19253810

>>19253797
More so, Stirner goes further than the Protestants, and uses the nominalist arguments that were used against religion against universalist philosophy.

>> No.19253833

>>19253737
>>19253756
>>19253776
>>19253797
>>19253810
To summarize all my posts; the man who truly gets Stirner is a man not only freed from religious supersitution, but also philosophy - they are no longer a "pious atheist" with grand ideals. They are simply a person with realistic expectations about their life and what they are capability doing with it. The Nietzchean Last man is Stirner. The last man' has man freed from the retardation of religious zealots, and medicore sociologists, and just focuses doing the things he loves - be it his family, his kids, his hobbies or even his work. He's not some stupid revolutionary, or Ubermensch, that wants to go above and beyond; he has little time for social vanities like that.

>> No.19253936

>>19253833
just sounds like hedonism with extra steps. the evils of the world annoy me, therefore my own freedom hinges on a world without them.

>> No.19253953

>>19253936
>"Criticism actually says: You must free your I so completely from all limitations that it becomes a human I. I say: Free yourself as far as you can, and you have done your part; because it is not given to everyone to break through all limits, or, more eloquently: that is not a limit for everyone which is one to the others. Consequently, don’t exhaust yourself on the limits of others; it’s enough if you tear down your own. Who has ever been able to break down even one limit for all people? Aren’t countless people today, as at all times, running around with all the “limitations of humanity”? One who overturns one of his limits may have shown others the way and the means; the overturning of their limits remains their affair."
Whatever you do with your life is not my concern. As long as you don't bother me; I don't care if you deal with "evil" people because chances are you are no better than them. More so, evil in itself is simply a phantasm, a supersitution that is a product of your own thinking. One could not care less about about your melodramatic morals and enjoy their life. Stirner certainly did not give a fuck when those secular republicans fought the "evil monarchists" in the revolutions of 1848. To him, its just noise he can avoid with ear plugs.

>> No.19253982

>>19253953
why write a book about it then. there are plenty of people who don't give a shit about anything but you will never hear from them.

>> No.19253983

>>19253833
>the things he loves
Is this the whim? I have a problem with your explanation because I can be influenced. It's difficult to get a grip on what exactly "me" is. I protect my whim as if it is my property to defend and I judge it as the demeanor of foreign animals are judged. It is as if I am recursive.

>> No.19253986

>>19253982
He's like a bird who must sing.

>> No.19253987

>>19253982
>why write a book about it then.
He said he wrote the book for his wife, and because he enjoyed his time with "The Free." He wanted a book to express how he felt about the topics they discussed, but also for the woman he loved. He also needed money since he was debt from his failed business ventures.

>> No.19253998

>>19253983
You have to be a bit of an autodidact here You have to figure out what you wish to do with yourself, or what you are, on your own. Whatever you do is up to you.

>> No.19254006

>>19253998
I've heard this before from the marketers of No Man's Sky.

>> No.19254024

Stirner's intentions are striking clear when you understand his life after the book compared to life of his contemparies. Stirner didn't go out forming secret political societies like Engels, Ruge and Moss - his critics, did. He literally just spent his life translating books for money. MacKay had the same belief as you, MacKay being Stirner's biographer who resurrected his work, that Stirner had some higher goals in mind. However, after examining his life a bit more; the context of Stirner's book made a whole lot of sense.
>>19254006
The funny thing is, Stirner was a bit a sly entrepreneur himself.

>> No.19254049

>>19253998
I'm gonna refine my point.
>You have to figure out what you wish to do with yourself
Yeah, and I have to figure out what I am to wish. I am a self-adjusting circle. If I am not a self-adjusting circle, then I am an animal living completely by my whim.
My question is: If I disregard ghostly influences, how do I differentiate ghostly influences from myself?

>the things he loves
He loves what he is influenced to love. I think at the end, he has to believe in some ghost. (And I think this idea of mine has been said before. Something about man needing to accept at least something as an axiom, and therefore """belief in god""" is a prerequisite for logic.)

>> No.19254052

>>19253982
>don't give a shit about anything but you will never hear from them.
The thing is - was true for Stirner. He was essentially dead until he was resurrected by Mackay and people on the internet. Nobody really gave a shit about him besides a tiny rabble of people. That hasn't changed much, although, some of his arguments are made by people like Nietzche who were certainly more influential due to being more stylish and complex. There are, however, sigificant differences between the two thinkers - they ultimately reach two different conclusions. You can supplement both of them, which I would recommend, for your own needs.

>> No.19254054

>>19253412
based sensation feeler and believer.

>> No.19254056

I love Stirner

>> No.19254080

>>19254049
>He loves what he is influenced to love.
You're missing understand the point. A lot of people don't understand what Stirner means by "ghosts" or "spooks" because they just meme him. If you're famaliar with nominalism - he's saying the exact same thing. Concepts ultimately are empthy until we assign value to them. Protagoras, the sophist, made the same argument - "man is the measure all things." Language, ontology, metaphysics all stem from you. You don't have to make the a priori assumption that concepts have to be conciliatory or even "logical" or "rational." Your natural instincts can be enough.
>"Does “the unique” demolish the thought process here? No! He lets it quietly run its course; but also doesn’t let it demolish his uniqueness, and he laughs at criticism as soon as it tries to force him to help solve a problem that he has not posed, laughing at your “earth-shattering thoughts.”
You're being too philosophical, and that's what making this harder for you than it is. You know you like, you know what you want in life - just figure out how do it. You don't even have to rely on Stirner or care what he say either if he doesn't solve your issue. Again, you have to figure things out on your own.

>> No.19254085

>>19254080
More so, to add to my post, he's not making an "you ought to rid yourself of certain ideas." He's telling you there are certainly ideas you can do with out, and you be skepitical towards normative statements that stem from philosophy and religion.

>> No.19254095 [DELETED] 

>>19254080
>More so, to add to my post, he's not making an "you ought to rid yourself of certain ideas." He's telling you there are certainly ideas you can do with out, and you can be skepitical towards normative statements that stem from philosophy and religion - even himself.

>> No.19254103

>>19253737
>Stirner for their own self serving, egotistic ends - whereas Communists ultimately present their philosophy as one tht serves the interests of the "great majority
I mean, I dont disagree that that is often how marxist portay it, but from my reading of the Marx-Engel reader it seemed more that Marx beleived it was the logical conclusion rather than a moral/want one. Thus historical materialism, that is to say that morals and egoism is by the by, it is simply a function of time and logical processess.

>> No.19254135

he was the 'punk' to hegel as marx is the snakeoil pastor.

>> No.19254158

>>19254080
>A lot of people don't understand what Stirner means by "ghosts" or "spooks" because they just meme him.
Yeah I don't like those people.
>Your natural instincts can be enough.
Yeah, and those extend beyond the whim. I suppose if you "purify" yourself from influences, deeper instinctual thought can come through.
>You know you like, you know what you want in life
It seems to me that this almost becomes spiritual.

>> No.19254558

>>19254158
>It seems to me that this almost becomes spiritual.
Its heavily implied, speculated that Taoism had an influence on his works. That might be what you're getting at. Yang Zhu's, Zhuzangzi ideas were compared to Stirners - especially Zhu who's considered the Chinese Stirner.

>> No.19254617

>>19254558
Someone who lives only for their true desires would be a dynamo with a direct connection from their deep essence to their action. A perpetual ultra instinct.

>> No.19254625

>>19254103
>Marx beleived it was the logical conclusion rather than a moral/want one.
The problem is that contradicts Marx's own actions. If Marx's theories were logical, scientific, they would be testable - Marx's theories are not testable though. They're just ontological assumptions - labor theory of value, historical materialism, class struggle, the immersation thesis - none of these are testible theories. There is also the falling rate of profit, but can't even be tested beacuse Marx's always change the methodology to suit their political goals. If Marx was being logical - there would be no need for him to even make a political organization because capitalism's own contradictions would cause it to collapse. That hasn't been the case. More so, I'd wager the Paris Manuscripts, Marx's humanist side, was simply sublimated into his economicism to make it seem as if he wasn't being moral. This becomes clear when you realize Marx had a tendency of accusing his opponents, like Stirner, of being bourgeoisie agents or idiots without elobrating his point further with sarcastic arguments. We see this with his opposition to Stirner in the German Idealogy and also his attacks on Henry George, Proudhon, Bakunin etc

>> No.19254635

>>19253737
>Your only goal in life is to ensure the existance of yourself
Isn't this already a spook? I thought his whole schtick was that there is no human essence, and that only the Singular counts. If I say that the Singular has the goal of ensuring his own existence, then I have already attributed an essence to the Singular.

>> No.19254663

>>19253641
Holy based

>> No.19254679

>>19254635
It is a a spook if you treat the statement as an "ought." The claims being made are not prescriptive. He's not adovcating for a rational egoism, but a nominal one. Stirner can say what you must do; he has suggestions on what what you can do and he's saying he will do.

>> No.19254703

>>19254679
>Stirner can say what you must do
Is this a mistake, buddy?

>> No.19254714

>>19254703
Yes I keep making typos
Stirner doesn't say what you must do
>>19254103
If you are famaliar with Marx's views on prositution and hatred of the lumpenproliterians & gays - you see his moral side completely. He hides it, but its there.

>> No.19254738

Max is also constantly making references to things to explain his point to make it easier to understand. For example, he calls Diogenes an egoist.
>Nothing at all, because the egoist himself is the guardian of humanity for himself, and says only these words to the state: “Get out of my sun.”
>The Greek poet Simonides sings: “Health is the noblest good for mortal man, the next after this is beauty, the third is wealth acquired honestly, the fourth the enjoyment of social pleasures in the company of young friends.” These are all the good things of life, the joys of life. What else was Diogenes of Sinope looking for if not the true enjoyment of life, which he found in having the least possible wants? What else Aristippus, who found it in good spirits under every circumstance? They are seeking for cheerful, unclouded courage to face life, for cheerfulness; they are seeking to “be of good cheer.”

>> No.19254741

>>19254714
As an anti-Marxist and devout American, I do my part.

>> No.19254750

>>19254738
>guardian of humanity for himself
My new title.
Your second quote is from Stirner though not Marx. I read the book! Give me headpats uwu. Do you think Stirner would have been a furry?

>> No.19254763

>>19254679
Ok, but according to his own philosophy I really dont have to care about what he, or anyone else, has to say. Only the Self counts.
Also, and I know this is kinda beyond the point, I would have absolutely no reason to believe what Stirner has to say about anything. His philosophy can justify literally every possible lie. Sure, he can tell us (as he did) that he is in fact good-natured and that he loves his fellow being, but what value is to be assigned to this declaration, when one accounts that this man supports a philosophy that places no inherent value in honesty and truth? I might as well be cynical, and say that what Stirner says is exactly what a man who doesnt love his fellow man (and who is fine with lying) would say.

>> No.19254779

>>19254103
What a lot of people miss with Marx, Engels is that they were always attempting to "purify" the communist movement from petite, lumpen deviations. Its why Marx constantly got into fights with Anarchists, Social Democrats because he feared they would degenerate the movement. He fits the bill of being a "pious atheist" who morally saw any deviation from his beliefs has been some kind of sin. Communists are like this today when they attack Social Democrats, liberals, or pretty much anyone who doesn't accept their line or their beliefs to T. They just must be evil counter-revolutionaries, or idiots - you can not question or be skeptical of their beliefs. Historically, we've seen this with the communist movement. Look at all the groups that exist today there were either spilts between Trots, MLS, Left Communists, Maoists et cetera and see them constantly fighting and denouncing either other as enemies. Its so obvious.

>> No.19254780

>>19254763
>Stirner is a carefully planted trap, seeded by the jew into potential right wing breeding chambers

>> No.19254798

I read him as a kind of Buddhist detached from the Buddha and religious life (i.e., not a Buddhist at all). Like another anon stated in the thread, his writings are almost spiritual. His critique of universals reminded me of Nagarjuna’s critique of independent entities. Also, I thought the Unique was analogous to Buddha-nature; that was the only way I could make sense of a nihilist positing a kind of “self.”

>> No.19254828

>>19254750
>Do you think Stirner would have been a furry?
No because he would never have the money to save up for a fursuit.
>>19254763
>His philosophy can justify literally every possible lie
>Cynical
He is making the same arguments the Greek sophists made so this isn't really surprising. Again, he isn't even opposed to people lying (he uses the example of lying to a sheriff his book for example as a good way of getting your way) or even committing murder if they have to get their way. He's as cynical as they come, and shows his critics are just as self serving as him. In fact, he has a passage in the Unique and Its Property on his approach to politics which amounts to serving whatever side is benefitial to him, and not being loyal to any party. Truth, honesty are just means to an end, a tool that can be used if works. It doesn't work - try something else.

>> No.19254834

>>19254798
Keiji Nishitani made this connection with Stirner if you want to read it - its called "Nihilism as Egoism"

>> No.19254855

>>19254828
>No because he would never have the money to save up for a fursuit.
I think the correct answer would be no, because egoism doesn't result in lolrandom degenerate masturbation.

>> No.19254891

>>19254834
Thanks, I’ll look into it.

>> No.19254893

>>19254855
If you think Stirner, the man who defends infanticide, incest, and murder is against "degeneracy" you might be missing the point here. Degeneracy is a moral supersitution. You fear degeneracy - do something about it instead of just complaining.
>Seize and take what you need! Thus, the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have.
If some loser wants to be a furry, and degenerate, they only need the courage to do so. They just don't to fear your acceptance of them, or your threat of violence.

>> No.19254945

>>19254893
>Degeneracy is a moral supersitution
It's an actual result. If I were to shit up the board with garbage, the moderation tools allotted to you, the average user, wouldn't be enough to get rid of me. Without mods keeping me in line, I'd be unstoppable!
I don't quite have a point, except that egoism seems unsustainable for mass adherence.

>> No.19254991

>>19254945
>I don't quite have a point, except that egoism seems unsustainable for mass adherence.
Stirner is with Nietzsche here. Zarathustra says to "avoid the marketplace." after he is laughed out of it by the masses. He doesn't expect people to care what he says to say. More so, its not even necessary for a last man like him - we already live in a world that placates it.

>> No.19255000

>>19253399
Actually both of those are spooks. You have no "rights" and I'm "free" to do whatever I want.

>> No.19255004

>>19253475
>>19253493
>>19253496
>>19253612
>>19253666
>>19253737
>>19255000
idiot pseuds filtered yet again

>>19253663
only person that understand my stupid ass op

>> No.19255018

>>19253612
Ad hominems are not arguments, retard. Proof your moral system has any objective truth, protip: you can't.

>> No.19255222

>>19255018
Arguments are useful only in the bounded context of harnessing power by intellectual coercion.

>> No.19255333

>>19253399
Stirner is literally just saying "might is right" with more words

>> No.19255913

>>19253399
Rights, just like morality, god, etc., are spooks. People do what they are powerful enough to do. Simple as. The powerful don't give a shit about rights and the weak try to invoke them and other abstract bullshit to try to prevent the powerful from fucking them over.

t. read Stirner

>> No.19255934

>>19255913
kinda falls apart when the vast majority of people are moralfags anyway. sure powerful might be full of psychopaths but even most of those guys believe a million spooks regardless.

>> No.19255972

>>19255333
And what's your argument against that?

>> No.19255982

>>19255934
Exactly, some billionaires are gullible enough to fall for spooks, the masses put forward spooks as a survival strategy. They're best understood as Dawkins' memes.

>> No.19255988

>>19255934
I don't know why you say it falls apart since Stirner is definitely right, but I can elaborate on my point a bit. Morality, rights and other things like that come from one of two sources: The self-preservation instinct of the weak or from opportunistic leaders weaponizing the weak for their own gain (priests with christianity, labor leaders with lumpenproles, etc.). I don't think Stirner actually makes this point in the Ego, but Nietzsche definitely does and the two overlap quite a bit.

>> No.19256708

Stirner is the equivalent of the "Yes" Chad meme made into a real boy.

>> No.19257709

>>19253953
Ah, so this the the hero of the centrist, people who neither care for the MAGA way of life, nor find fault with the Leftists,

One side slowly erodes the freedoms of everyone, while the centrist cried out to be left alone as the ground starts to crumble beneath him, completely retarded and oblivious of what is going on because he stands in the “center” away from the perceived conflict

>> No.19258015

>>19257709
Completely wrong interpretation.

>> No.19258070

>>19257709
Stirner mocks people like you. He points out political pundits, like yourself, are obessed with the non-sense you read in the papers that trigger your sensibilities. You're just too emotional to accept the fact, regardless, you have to die.
More so, no, Stirner's politics are quite machiavellian.
>". But today I still share the party’s tendency, and by tomorrow I can no longer do
so and I become “unfaithful” to it. The party has nothing binding (obligatory) for me, and I don’t
respect it; if I no longer like it, I become its enemy."

>> No.19258168

>>19257709
>"Under religion and politics, the human being is situated at the standpoint of should: he should
become this or that, he should be so and so. Everyone brings this postulate, this commandment, not only up before others, but also before himself. Those critics say: You should be a whole, a free human being. So they are also tempted to proclaim a new religion, to set up a new absolute, an ideal, namely, freedom. Human beings should be free. Then, missionaries of freedom might even arise, as Christianity sent missionaries of the faith in the conviction that everyone was actually meant to become Christians. Freedom would then establish itself as a new community— as up to now faith has a church, morality has a state—and carry on a similar “propaganda” from
that. Indeed, there can be no objection raised against assembling together; but so much the more must one oppose any renewal of the old care for our welfare,98 education toward an end, in short, the principle of making something out of us, no matter whether it’s Christians, subjects, or free
people and human beings."

>> No.19258182

>>19258168
I find it really difficult to read these sentences.

>> No.19258193

>>19253503
>>19253399
this is what happens when you learn something from lowest common denominator memes made by people who haven't read him

>> No.19258759

i fucking hate this board

>> No.19258858

I think it's fair to say that Wittgenstein and Max Stirner are the only two philosophers in the west that are essential since what they state are fundemental facts or "common sense" as they say hence after reading and understanding them the rest of philosophy is up to your personal preferences and interpretation in viewing the world.

>> No.19259079

>>19255972
I agree with him