/lit/ - Literature

People only care about him because he's a cartoon lol

>>12487341
reading max stirner unironically saved my life

Hedonism is truly the redpill. Oh no wait, it's being shoved down our throats all the time and is the cancer turning society to shit

>>12487380
t. hasn't read stirner

>>12487341
>>12487372
I've been thinking of getting into this guy's books for a while. Anyone know where to start?

>>12487380
That's the tradeoff society has to make. The truth is unsustainable. Only people who believe in things work together as a collective.

>>12487380
>he still believes in the “society should be preserved” meme

>>12487341
Welcome to philosophy, don't stop with him.

>>12487341
You're welcome.
You are now aware everyone you know is a collection of bowing to various spooks.

>>12487836
>needs someone to tell you where to start with stirner
with a shotgun to the head you retard

>>12487380
Stirner's not a hedonist retard.

>>12487372
>my english professors never mention him so he's shit >:^(

>>12487380
Only because dipshits keep trying to say that lack of belief leads to despair and hedonism. It just leads to uncertainty.

>>12489205
>>12489257
Why do people always overlook that you dont have to be spooked to notice that some behaviors are more sustainable than others? These lines between hedonism and productivity are arbitrary. You still want to maximize pleasure with varying levels of foresight. Anyone who thinks egoism implies pure decadence is a goddamn retard confessing their repressed desires for said decadence.

>>12489257
You people are actually retards if you believe this shit. Egoists are fags and you're all going to hell with them.

>>12487341
Egoism is the best philosophy for the individual no doubt

>>12489205
He is, although a descriptivist one rather than a normative one

>>12489284
>Why do people always overlook that you dont have to be spooked to notice that some behaviors are more sustainable than others
4chan is full of emotionally weak people who DO need to be spooked to behave sustainably.

>>12489379
no he's not.

>>12487374
Stirner-Chan cured my pessimism!

>>12489394
Yes he is, he says everything we do is for self gratification. Those who embrace this he calls voluntary egoists, those who don't he calls involuntary egoists

>>12489443
pleasing your ego isn't self gratification brainlet.

How come "ich hab mein sach auf nichts gestellt" is translated as "all things are nothing to me"? Neither english nor german is my first language, but those don't seem even close to equivalents.

>>12489462
Ego is synomous with self, Stirner isn't Freud

>>12489532
brainlet detected

>>12489443
Doesn't stirner warn several times of the danger of being a slave to your desires?

>>12487380
Try applying negative-hedonism instead.

>>12489555
"Ego" isn't the best choice of word for the German word "Enige"

>>12489622
In keeping with Epicurus.

>>12489705
>butterfly posting rare flemish stirner translation

Wtf

>>12487372

We're all cartoons though, anon

>>12487341
I remember once reading that Stirner was horribly translated into english, how true is this?

>>12489394
Do you think it would be fair to assume he means something along the lines of an epicurean approach wherein you seek to minimize pain and in doing so you also try approach pleasures cautiously and without being consumed by them

>>12489555
Stirner?

>[T]he spirit [if] not regarded as the property of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a ghost

>>12489622
No lol

>>12489405
>tfw no egoist gf

>>12489990
Ego isn’t what you think it is
>What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable.

>>12490061
Ego is the bodily self in Stirner's book

>stirner
>existing

>morality is a spook
how to society then?

>>12490300
I like this

>>12491029
Behave sustainably and sign social contracts with those who intend to do the same, agree to remove the ones who get in the way. It's a simple game of might is right but the buck gets passed so no no single person has to explain why it is how it is and then we accidentally start telling our kids "this way is right" rather than "this way is how we're doing it for now"

>>12489284
>You still want to maximize pleasure
You cannot actively do this. No person will get pleasure when he actively and consciously knows he is doing it "because it brings pleasure". Read the hedonism paradox

>>12487341
Keep digging skipper.

>>12491062
>Nobody who jerks off cums

>>12489622
Hedonism isn't just taking as many drugs as you can and dying at 20.
Look at the wiki entry or something.

>>12491073
>jerking off is MAXIMIZING pleasure.
The moment you really know something is for the sake of bringing pleasure then you recieve less pleasure from it. People like to think they are doing it for other reasons and pleasure is just a secondary thing that you are awarded

>>12491087
>No person will get pleasure
>Cannot maximize pleasure
You would avoid a lot of frustration if you said what you meant the first time.
And the argument is still out of place in response to the post about Hedonism and productivity being both about pleasurability with varying levels of foresight. Both of those people are looking to maximize pleasure. Neither are going to live perfect, 100 percent pleasurable lives, and they're both going to behave as sustainably as they see fit to do. So the "ism" is arbitrarily placed. Saying that lack of spooks leads directly to decay and decadence only confesses one's inability to behave sustainably in the absence of divine punishment or purpose.

>>12491084
>Hedonism isn't just taking as many drugs as you can and dying at 20
This. People that think hedonism is all about doing as many drugs as you can and partaking in giant orgies are delusional and believing of spooks.
What you recieve pleasure from and makes you happy changes from person to person. There are people who would be getting more pleasure for staying in a monogamous relationship than partaking in orgies, for example.

>>12491094
>You would avoid a lot of frustration if you said what you meant the first time.
Eh shit, my bad for not writting it well.
>And the argument is still out of place in response to the post about Hedonism and productivity being both about pleasurability with varying levels of foresight
Wasnt really talking about that, just the impossibility to maximize pleasure if you are actively trying with no other objective in mind.

>>12487341
>still believing, in the year of our lord 2019, that will is the ultimate reality, despite more than a hundred years of psychological research that shows how the self-conscious ego is but a fraction of a largely unconscious psyche
Shiggy diggy doo, lads.

Do I need to read Kant or these other dismal german autists to understand Stirner?

>>12491185
Not at all.
He was a student of Hegel, but this "Young Hegelian" broke with that spirit jazz

>>12490003
Yes he does. Stirner criticises an ethics of Hedonism in part two of the text. Alienating your Ego to fixed internal ideas of desire is just as bad as alienating your ego to fixed external ideas like God, State and Race. He explicitly states it turns one into a different kind of prisoner.

>muh will

>>12491243
He sucked at dialectics quite badly tbf

>>12491243
Schopenhauer's methodology is contradicted by Stirner's postulation of the Self as the Creative Nothing. Schopenhauer cannot deduce the thing-in-itself as Will because he cannot deduce the essence of the Self as Will. The Self is perpetually creatively reproducing itself.

>>12491285
Stirner was yea-saying to Schopenhauer iirc

>>12491274
Fuck dialectics

>>12491323
He's not, he's explicitly opposed to Schopenhauer. Creative Nothing is not reducible to the Will.

>>12487372
>he cares about 3dpd philosophers

>>12491185
An understanding of Hegel and his dialect makes it more enjoyable but isn't necessary. Also like half of The Unique and it's Property is just poking fun of philosophers of the time so I'd recommend at least familiarizing yourself with the basics

>The time [in which Jesus lived] was politically so agitated that, as is said in the gospels, people thought they could not accuse the founder of Christianity more successfully than if they arraigned him for 'political intrigue', and yet the same gospels report that he was precisely the one who took the least part in these political doings. But why was he not a revolutionary, not a demagogue, as the Jews would gladly have seen him? [...] Because he expected no salvation from a change of conditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a revolutionary, like Caesar, but an insurgent: not a state-overturner, but one who straightened himself up. [...] [Jesus] was not carrying on any liberal or political fight against the established authorities, but wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about, and undisturbed by, these authorities. [...] But, even though not a ringleader of popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revolutionary, he (and every one of the ancient Christians) was so much the more an insurgent who lifted himself above everything that seemed so sublime to the government and its opponents, and absolved himself from everything that they remained bound to [...]; precisely because he put from him the upsetting of the established, he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator[.]

Chaste and breadpilled.

>The history of the world, whose shaping properly belongs altogether to the Caucasian race, seems until now to have run through two Caucasian ages, in the first of which we had to work out and work off our innate Negroidity; this was followed in the second by Mongoloidity, which must likewise be terribly made an end of.

what did he mean by this?

>>12491104
an ascetic man would be an hedonist if he feels good being an ascetic?

>>12492310
Im not the best to reply to this, but i would say probably yeah. If his ego and personality dont match with the contrary then he can be considered by some way a hedonist.