/lit/ - Literature

>>16037566
Marx lived for like 40 years after buttblasting Stirner

>>16037577
Stirner caused Marx to literally go insane

Marx's criticism of Stirner is longer than Stirner's complete published works.

>>16037634
makes you think

>>16037625
Define "insane"

>>16037671
See >>16037634

>>16037634
really? damn stirner was a light weight

>>16037634
see
thing

>>16037926
more like an master of intellectual aikido

>>16037634
MARX SEETHING ETERNALLY

Most people haven't and won't, but I highly suggest actually reading Marx's rant on Stirner if you want a good laugh. It reads like one massive seething 4chan rant. There are entire pages that are just one long extended adhom of pure fury. Haven't kek'd as much since the day I started reading it. There is no doubt in my mind that Stirner broke Marx's mind.

ive never read this guy, i know he's an anarchist, but was he a progressive? obviously a progressive was very different back then but you get the idea.

The mods are asleep! Post rare Stirners

>Karl Marx: like Nietzsche's, his reaction to Stirner deserves to be emphasized here, owing to its era-forming impact. Marx believed as late as the summer of 1844 that Feuerbach was "the only one who had achieved a true theoretical revolution." The appearance of »Der Einzige« in October, 1844, shook this outlook to the core, because Marx very clearly experienced the depth and implications of Stirner's criticism. While others, including Engels, initially admired Stirner, Marx saw from the beginning in him an enemy who needed to be annihilated.

>Marx had originally planned to write a review of »Der Einzige.« However, he soon forsook this plan, instead choosing first to wait for the reactions of the others (Feuerbach, Bauer). In his polemic work, »The Holy Family. Against Bruno Bauer and Company« (March, 1845), Stirner was simply left out. In September, 1845, Feuerbach's criticism of »Der Einzige« appeared -- and at the same time, Stirner's brilliant reply to it. Now Marx felt personally provoked to intervene. He interrupted important, previously commissioned works in order to storm upon »Der Einzige.« His criticism of Stirner, »Sankt Max,« which was full of invectives directed at the "flimsiest skull among the philosophers," turned out to be even longer than »Der Einzige« itself. Yet after the completion of the manuscript, Marx must have wavered again in his choice of tactics, as the criticism of Stirner remained in the end unprinted.

>The outcome of his privately led dispute with Stirner manifested itself in the form of Marx at last turning away from Feuerbach and designing a philosophy that, unlike Feuerbach's, should be immune to a Stirnerian criticism: the so-called historical materialism. Yet Marx seemed at that time to have considered his new theory as being only a provisional arrangement, because he left it in the drawer along with »Sankt Max.« Desiring in any case to avoid a public discussion with Stirner, he threw himself instead into political life, into feuds with Proudhon, Lassalle, Bakunin, and others. In the end, he was successful in fully suppressing the "Stirner" problem -- both in the psychological sense as well as in that of the history of theories.

>>16038068
definitely not

>>16038068
“Progress” is one of the most pervasive spooks ever to have established itself in the human psyche

>>16038113
>the "Stirner" problem
Top kek

>>16038157
This. It's insane.

>>16037634
Is the Wikipedia true though?

>>16037566
who is this guy I see him everywhere, I wanna read his book

>>16040103
Max Weber

>>16040103
The ghostbuster

>>16037566
What did Sturmer write that guffed Marx so hard?

>>16038157
fuck off. any abstract idea you dont like is a spook while tacitly using and believing ones you like.

>>16040150
how is progress not a spook in the stirnerian terminology?

>>16037566
Stirner nearly had it, but he doesn't get to a low enough dimension. The human bias is itself a spook, along with the personal bias. You cannot be a spookless anarchist and also have a bias. You're just immature if you do.

If I read Stirner, am I actually going to get anything more in depth than what I can already gleam from the general "meme" of stirner? Seriously how in depth can "lmao fuck everything" be? TL;DR is it worth the time?

>>16040167
progress in terms of causal forward progression of time vs older ideas? i would say if you believe stirner you tacitly agree his veiws are further “progressed” than others.

>>16040247
Yes, you are going to get the actual philosophy instead of the thirty-eight-times-distilled version

>>16040167
What if 'spooks' are a spook?

>>16040258
Next question, is there any reason why """""alt-leftists"""""" seem to like him so much? Because from what I've seen his general philosophy seems like it wouldn't really care much about that sort of thing

>>16040253
Progress as a spook would be the idea that you see with progressives of the "arrow of progress" and the "arc of the moral universe that bends towards justice," so specifically the idea that Progress is something over and above your self-interest, and something you would dedicate yourself to, so a spook.

>>16040286
Woah

>>16040294
Uh, idk... I remember he really blew up on facebook meme pages last election. Whatever your ideology is he's not going to have any respect for it

>>16040136
The story basically goes like this
>Feuerbach criticizes religion by saying it's a human construct that controls humanity, and by simply realizing this fact it would end
>Stirner takes this approach and runs with it, saying literally all ideas are constructs that control you if you forget they are just that, completely shits on the humanism of the Young Hegelians and basically exposes them as no better than the christfags they attacked
>for some reason Marx has a complete fucking autistic meltdown and writes a 500 page book filled with ad hominem seething, all while attacking a strawman

But in the end noone really knows why he mindbroke Marx THAT hard. Some argue Stirner inspired his historical materialism because it made him realize idealism was a dead end.

>>16040346
In many ways Stirner is Kantian

>>16040329
>arrow of progress" and the "arc of the moral universe that bends towards justice,
that is your own abstracted idea of progress probably based on modern prograssivism, not the classical progress or progress in its strictest definition of sequential inevitability.

>> What if 'spooks' are a spook?
>woah
yah a Stirnerposter would be impressed by that. the whole concept presuposes the possibility to not be “””””spoooked””””. at least marcism or Hegalianim actually delve into the idea instead of just going

>spook
>spooked
>spooky
at everything without the smallest bit of any tangable conceptual development.

>>16040379
Sarcasm, anon.

>Yes I am seething

>>16040346
That's a beautiful tale and it's nice to know that communism was btfo and exposed as a spook from so long ago. I'm gonna learn more about Stirner.

>>16037566
Reminder that we have no photographs of Stirner because he didn't exist. He was made up by the Young Hegelians. They invented a philosophy of spooks spoken through the mouth of a spook himself. When he 'died' no one came to his funeral but Bruno Bauer. He 'died' of a bug bite. It was all one big joke and you all fell for it.

>>16040624
Or... you know the more likely hypothesis could be he was just a loser who died in a pathetic manner like he lived his life

>>16040646
'Max Stirner' isn't even his real name but when he was 'buried' (Bruno Bauer, the only person at the funeral, was also the one who arranged the funeral) he was buried under the name Max Stirner and not his real name. Max Stirner didn't exist.

>>16037634

>>16040624

>>16040713
Those are all photos of other people, this is known already.

>>16038113
>>The outcome of his privately led dispute with Stirner manifested itself in the form of Marx at last turning away from Feuerbach and designing a philosophy that, unlike Feuerbach's, should be immune to a Stirnerian criticism: the so-called historical materialism
I would like to know more about this. I read something like this before about Marx having to rewrite the foundations of his communist thought because Stirner had made them untenable, could you expand on it a bit?

>>16038068
not progressive in the sense it is used in our current political lexicon, but
>...the non-possessor would view the state as the protector of the possessor, that privileges the latter but only sucks the non-possessor dry. The state is a--bourgeois state, it is the status of the bourgeoisie. It protects the human being not according to his work, but according to his obedience ("loyalty"), namely, according to whether he enjoys and administers the rights that the state entrusts to him in accordance with the will, i.e., the laws, of the state.
>...
>The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they becane truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them; they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of work as their own and enjoy them. This is the meaning of the labor unrest that is looming here and there.
>The state is founded on the--slavery of labor. If labor becomes free, the state is lost.

>>16040294
Stirner is totally divorced from any politics apart from a vague barely articulated Union of Egoists.
A 'supporter' of any ideology can be a voluntary Egoist

>>16040392
im sorry i got made. ive just never had an intellegent discussion with a stirnerposter. i have had them with marxists, fascists, hegelians and whatever. but not fucking braindead one trick pony stirnerposters.

>>16040346
then Stirner is just a skeptic? just history reapeating itself, skeptics made epicureans, platonists and stoics seethe in the past, but its a dead end

>>16038068
He isn't an anarchist, or a progressive.

>>16040804
It was more a question about said leftists, not Stirner himself.

>>16040804
I am skeptical of the idea that someone with an ideology that places an ideal above themselves is compatible with 'voluntary egoism'

>>16042155
the difference is in taking on a cause as *yours*, and taking it on because of something extraneous to that fact, like because it is 'right'.

>>16042170
Sure, but Christianity can't be yours because to be a Christian you must be God's?

>>16042185
god is my property, and i am god's.

>>16042206
How is god your property? maybe his rules, by he himself? what power do you have to make him (not the lifestyle prescribed) yours?

>>16037566
>filtered by hegel master/slave dialectic

>>16037634
SEETHING Marx

>>16040379
It's literally the Enlightenment concept of progress. It's the spookiest spook ever spooked.

>>16040346
Idealism is not a dead end. There's no reason for human control apparatuses to be static. In fact, we are a layer of interactive existence that lives with them.

>>16042155
You can spook yourself about it. But I know myself. There are better things than what I spend my time with.

>>16042764
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>16040760
More or less all "materialist" thinkers just stop developing this branch of thought when they get enough ideas to furnish their ideological creeds, Feuerbach for example just said that God was a human construct made of the different materialistic derived characteristics of humanity and then swapped God for an abstract concept of "Humanity" that acted as the basic rule for morality, Marx at first adopted this view.

The thing is that Stirner just went all the way down and reminded everyone of the is/ought distinction, materialistic thought cannot furnish any kind of moralistic or universal values so all the people that defended them were spooked and thought that their rational constructs based on material had some kind of universal importance when they just were abstractions of matter of the individual or categories that made easier for him to understand the world by stripping the individual/unique of his characteristics. This means that morality, property an all that just has no importance in the "real" materialistic world. And well, as you can see, usually, marxists are very emotional people and Marx was also, that's why he was so triggered by Stirner because of his denial of any kind of materialistic-developed morality which made concepts/phrases like "you cannot make the workers starve" relatively non-important, that's why Marx developed historical materialism, an economics hard-deterministic theory that made all concepts of good and bad, state, laws, etc all dependent on the material conditions of the moment and thus relative and non-universal, the thing is that this is generally just used as cope as marxists will still tell you that something is "good" or "bad", "just" or "unjust" even when morals being a "spook" is part of the kernel of marxism criticism

>>16040993
No, he's an egotist.

>>16043261
Based poster. I'd read a book written by you

>>16040543
You do know that private property and the invisible hand are the height of spookery, right? The only ideology that even approaches being non-spooked is perhaps primitivism, and even then there's a distasteful moral dimension.

This actually raises a good question: what's the least spooky ideology aside from Stirner's anarcho-egoism? Setting aside the fact ideology is dangerously spooky itself.

>>16043952
Capitalism is based and is the natural order of things. Any problem capitalism has can be fixed with more capitalism.

Friendly reminder that Stirner was just the alter ego of Friedrich Engels

>>16043981
>ignores my points
Capitalism requires private property, something that is explicitly called out as a spook in Der Einzige and lampooned throughout. Your 'private property' is my property, as you yourself are my property. Tell me how you can have capitalism if nobody acknowledges that factory you bought with your bootstrap shekels as belonging to you and 'entitling' you to a share of the profits made with it.

>>16043981
>natural order of things
That's pretty spooky anon.

>>16044015
The worker signs a contract with the employer and it's done.

Also it's easier to look after things if they are one person's responsibility and it's on them if it collapses. It's like private ownership is simply more efficient than communal ownership. The latter increases the likelihood of neglect; since people are sharing something, everyone is more likely to assume that someone else is taking care of the situation, instead of taking responsibility themselves.

>>16044034
Why don't you go read the author whose thread you are in before trying to debate anyone?

Capitalists win again

>>16044034
>contract
>responsibility
>efficiency
>neglect
is it halloween already?

>>16044071
What is and isn't a spook teach me your ways?

>>16044034
>The worker signs a contract with the employer and it's done.
>well you might not believe in the inalienability of private property, but you're certainly going to believe in THIS PIECE OF PAPER WITH YOUR NAME ON IT

>>16042155
Ideology was probably the wrong word to use. I meant politically as in you could support fascism or communism and be a voluntary egoist, it just depends on how you think about yourself in relation to the state or whatever.

>>16043261
Thanks a lot for reply, very interesting.

>>16044086
kek, based

>>16043952
no real ideology, you could support certain policies because you agreed with them for whatever reason but pretty much any ideology/political party has stuff people don't like but put up with for the stuff they do like.

>>16044086
I respect your opinion but you're wrong. A law abiding agreement crosses all barriers and if you mess it up then you can get punished for it.

>>16044034
Spooked beyond belief

>>16044169
>law
are you even trying, my property?

>>16037566
Ok where does this pic come from? I keep seeing it all the time recently. Where does it come from?

Life itself is what filtered Marx

There are things that exist (natural law) and there are things which don't exist (spooks that humans invented). If it doesn't exist in nature, it's not real. God or the universe layed out all the rules plain as day. Might makes right? Real, cause it's self evident. Honor? not real, animals have no sense of honor.

Humans are adept at making systems to suit their own needs but when you look closely they are just phantoms propped up by nothing but belief

>>16044742
What are the natural laws?

>>16044194
Kek

>>16044742
Although I'll add that many people are using "might makes right" to force spooks to be "real". As in, if you don't play along you will be punished by something more powerful than you. Laws aren't real, but cops are for example

>>16043261
thank you for the actual good stirner reply i almost never see a good one thats not just brain dead memeing.

>>16044748
Not him but it isn't particularly required that humans have the capacity to comprehend the natural laws. Humans are mostly concerned with human ideals which are only tangentially related in ways we can only pontificate on.

>>16044748
Anything that's actually real, anything you see in nature. Gravity, evolution, survival of the fittest, space-time, the yin yang duality etc

>>16044742
Honor and other things similar can potentially be quantified with a higher understanding of the relation because "the small and the big". It's just abstract, but it is a consequence of our reality and therefore we can eventually derive the basics.

>>16044015
>Capitalism requires private property,
it doesnt require it as an abstract ideas, it just requires people to defend the land that they are using. its no longer a spook if one person, then everyone else does the same purely for self gain. the only problem is that thinking rhat that private property is in any way a real transcendental right or thing outside of a contract of conveinience.

>>16044783
Of the relation between*

fuk

>>16044071
>contract
not a spook at all. you can break the contract, but the consequences the provider gave are likely to happen.

>>16040713
That's Samuel Beckett

>>16044757
Yeh, the 'right' part of 'might makes right' doesn't exist. I've only read translation but it seems like language really struggles to properly articulate Stirner's ideas.
>rights dont exist
>the only rights you have are those you take
>wait what
I'm not a fan of those that redefine all the words in their argument but he probably should have coined some extra words.

>>16044034
Incredibly unintelligent reply

>>16044169
bait

>>16044853
I’m not that guy and just want to add to your comment.
Instead of saying “rights don’t exist”, say “‘rights’ don’t have any objectivity”. After this, instead of saying
>the only rights you have are those you take
Say
>the only “rights” you have are those opinions of yours which you manage to convince (one way or another) other agents to adopt as values worth adopting.
No need for new words, I don’t think

I never had an education in philosophy but want to read these works, where do I want to start from to have the most context possible?

>>16045630
I think the answer is the Greeks, but we should wait for the senior squad to weigh in.

>>16045630
Read some Plato, some Aristotle, a little Kant, a little Mill, and you’ll cover most of what an intro to philosophy class

>>16037566:
Avg. convo with a modern "Stirnirite"
>Whoa man, like, everything is a spook!
>Your religion is a spook, the state is a spook, the markets are spooks, familial relations are spooks, wow everything!
"K racial justice is a spook"
>Whoa man timeout there man some things are sacrosanct :(

>>16045759
Your problem might be that you're talking to people who are spooked on Mr. Schmidt

>>16045759
Lmao this is 100% true
All Stirnerites are just LARPers in the end.

I'm just here to steal stirner images

>>16037671
>Define "insane"
He invented communism. :=()

>>16045980
No he didn't. Retard.

>>16045759
This lol I saw a Stirner meme subreddit that had shit against slurs and for pronouns like you're just a liberal who says "spooks" at that point.

>>16046242
>reddit
I can't believe I have to share a board with dweebs like you

>>16046250
Cry more

>>16046305
I'll weep for you and the man you'll never be.

>>16037634
eternally assblasted

If everything is a spook then nothing is a spook. Discuss.

>>16046616
self interest is not a spook

>>16046628
Is pooing in the toilet a spook?

>>16037566
>five hundred pages of heavy-handed mockery and insult
Post quotes.

>>16046648
why would your posts be a spook

>>16046684

>The apposition is Saint Sancho’s ass, his logical and historical locomotive, the driving force of “the book”, reduced to its briefest and simplest expression. In order to transform one idea into another, or to prove the identity of two quite different things, a few intermediate links are sought which partly by their meaning, partly by their etymology and partly by their mere sound can be used to establish an apparent connection between the two basic ideas.

>These links are then appended to the first idea in the form of an apposition, and in such a way that one gets farther and farther away from the starting-point and nearer and nearer to the point one wants to reach. If the chain of oppositions has got so far that one can draw a conclusion without any danger, the final idea is likewise fastened on in the form of an apposition by means of a dash, and the trick is done.

>This is a highly recommendable method of insinuating thoughts, which is the more effective the more it is made to serve as the lever for the main arguments. When this trick has been successfully performed several times, one can, following Saint Sancho’s procedure, gradually omit some of the intermediate links and finally reduce the series of oppositions to a few absolutely essential hooks.The apposition, as we have seen above, can also be reversed and thus lead to new, even more complicated tricks and more astounding results. We have seen there, too, that the apposition is the logical form of the infinite series of mathematics.

>>16046703

>Saint Sancho employs the apposition in two ways: on the one hand, purely logically, in the canonisation of the world, where it enables him to transform any earthly thing into “the holy”, and, on the other hand, historically, in disquisitions on the connection of various epochs and in summing them up, each historical stage being reduced to a single word, and the final result is that the last link of the historical series has not got us an inch farther than the first, and in the end all the epochs of the series are combined in a single abstract category like idealism, dependence on thoughts, etc. If the historical series of oppositions is to be given the appearance of progress, this is achieved by regarding the concluding phrase as the completion of the first epoch of the series, and the intermediate links as ascending stages of development leading to the final, culminating phrase.

>>16046711

>Alongside the apposition we have synonymy, which Saint Sancho exploits in every way. If two words are etymologically linked or are merely similar in sound, they are made responsible for each other, or if one word has different meanings, then, according to need, it is used sometimes in one sense and sometimes in the other, while Saint Sancho makes it appear that he is speaking of one and the same thing in different “refractions”.

>Further, a special branch of synonymy consists of translation, where a French or Latin expression is supplemented by a German one which only half-expresses it, and in addition denotes something totally different; as we saw above, for example, when the word “ respektieren” was translated “to experience reverence and fear”, and so on. One recalls the words Staat, Status, Stand, Notstand, etc.

>>16046724

>Synonymy serves our saint, on the one hand, to transform empirical relations into speculative relations, by using in its speculative meaning a word that occurs both in practical life and in philosophical speculation, uttering a few phrases about this speculative meaning and then making out that he has thereby also criticised the actual relations which this word denotes as well. He does this with the word speculation. On page 406, “speculation” “appears” showing two sides as one essence that possesses a “dual manifestation” — O Szeliga! He rages against philosophical speculation and thinks he has thereby also settled accounts with commercial speculation, about [which] he knows nothing.

>On the other hand, this synonymy enables him, a concealed petty bourgeois, to transform bourgeois relations (see what was said above in dealing with “communism about the connection between language and bourgeois relations') into personal, individual relations, which one cannot attack without attacking the individuality, “peculiarity” and “uniqueness” of the individual. Thus, for example, Sancho exploits the etymological connection between Geld [money] and Geltung, [worth, value] Vermögen [wealth, property] vermögen, [to be able, capable] etc.

>Synonymy, combined with the apposition, provides the main lever for his conjuring tricks, which we have already exposed on countless occasions.

Can someone tell me what the point of Stirner's philosophy is? Is it just smug nihilism?

>>16046782
Same point of every piece of philosophy, to btfo of the people before you.

>>16046782
Yes, he can. He can even summarize it in the first two pages for you.

What should I read first?

>>16046985
Greeks

>>16040713
>Samuel Beckett as a student at the end of the 1920's
>Max Stirner
k

>>16046985
You can skip the introduction and stuff and start on The first page

>>16037566
>intellectualy masturbates harder than marx
>"filtered!"
Worthless.

>>16043261
Do you have anymore you can share because this was a good and useful post

>>16038837
"SPOOKS could be here" he thought, "I've never been in this property before. There could be SPOOKS anywhere." The cool wind felt good through his blonde sideburns. "I HATE SPOOKS" he thought. Robert Schumann's Davidsbündlertänze reverberated his entire shack, making it jiggle even as the 0.30 Konventionstaler beer circulated through his powerful thick veins and increased his (merited) will of Property after dark. "With the Unique, you can take anything you want" he said to himself, out loud.

>>16044777
>Gravity, evolution, survival of the fittest, space-time, the yin yang duality etc
all spooks in fact

>>16046338
K but nobody on this board accomplishes real stuff.
>Stirner pic
Ok so is racial justice a spook? Is NOT ganging up into a collective a spook as well?

>>16044777
>the yin yang duality etc
That is one of the biggest spooks there is wtf are you talking about

>>16047089
>can’t defend his precious values and beliefs against Stirner
>”he’s just mentally masturbating!”

>>16037625
Is he the horse of Marx?

>>16037949
And just like real aikido, it's all useless and inapplicable.