/lit/ - Literature

>>6750091
Marx' critique is basically an ad hominem based on (deliberate) misunderstanding that is longer than Stirner's entire oeuvre.

This is why Marxists and such like to say "lol Marx blew Stirner the fuck out" because they know it is nearly impossible to read his critique without boring yourself to death. They probably didn't read it themselves either.

There were a few early critics of the work, but then Stirner came back with 'Stirner's Critics' where he kindly told them how they were wrong and he wasn't and there hasn't been fruitful criticism of him since.

Stirner is such a philosophical dead end that it's hard to argue against him. Really, the only thing that can be used against him is himself.

At most, he's an amusing read and a nice little eye opener on how anything--and everything--is subject to criticism.

>>6750104
I would just like to add that Marx's most famous writing is in reaction to Stirner. It's why he turned to dialectical materialism and cut out idealism completely.

>>6750118
That is true. He's actually tremendously indebted to the Maximator. Being a horrible cunt, Marx could never forgive him for it.

I'd like to use this thread to ask where to go after Stirner and his critique. Are there any other egoists worth reading?

>>6750091
>I heard it resorts to name calling so I wasn't sure weather to avoid it.
Only devastated Stirnerians say this.

>>6750376
No. You have reached the end of philosophy. Now go and enjoy your life.

Marx almost always made fun of the person he was criticizing in these one on one works. That doesn't mean that he's not critiquing them on their content, as he did in the german ideology, although he does go wild there. I still haven't seen anyone trying to critique Marx's critique of Stirner. Especially for stuff like 'On Class Interests', 'On Communism and Morality', 'On Desire and the Conditions of Life' at the start of the "New Testament" part, or 'Peculiarity' also in the NT, I'd like to hear why Marx is just going ad hominem or remains without substance.

Marx also made use of 'Stirner's Critics' btw.

>>6750376
Like I said before, he's a philosophical dead end. Go read someone entirely different.

>>6750376
Renzo Novatore for sheer enjoyment.

>>6750376
>I'd like to use this thread to ask where to go after Stirner and his critique
Gestalt therapy - excitement and growth in the human personality.

>>6750401
>Marx also made use of 'Stirner's Critics' btw.
[citation wanted] that would be interesting, because it seemed to me like Stirner already pre-empted many of the points Marx makes in DDI.

What did Stirner think about free will? Did he ever adress the issue directly?

>>6750105
this

>>6753544
>>6750105
>Stirner is too successful. He didn't get the memo that philosophy isn't to be solved, but to be perpetuated forever.

>>6751692
Isn't the voluntary egoist his version of a free will?

>>6750376
Nietzsche.

>>6753584
"rationalist"

>>6750401
This. In fact, the only thing that makes a critique of a nobody philosopher which last for hundreds and hundreds of pages worth reading is Marx's sense of humor. There's a difference between wit and name-calling, and Marx pretty definitively slew Stirner. Unless you're a complete anti-material idealist, because that is the main point he critiques Stirner on.

>>6750091
Stirner is so generalised and unfalsifiable that you can't disprove him

>people do things because they want to do them
>morality isn't actually a tangible, real thing
Amazing

Stirner's philosophy is a spook itself.

In addition, his philosophy does not lead to satisfaction, and thus Kierkegaard has indirectly argued against such beliefs because they lead to stagnant misery.
It even avoids the issue >>6753670 mentioned, it is not a truly material complain.

Philosophy spookers regard Stirner with academic contempt because they're dumb. He was a real treasure.

>>6753702
you sound bootyblasted

>>6753702
>metaphysics

stirner is 100% irrelevant in modern philosophy, but go ahead and wank over him

>>6753709
>Stirner's philosophy is a spook itself.

Worst, most forced and most ignorant argument ever to gain foothold

>>6753813
Modern philosophers are also overwhelmingly feminist.

>>6753811
>>6753799
Nice duplicates, but his work doesn't have any interesting points for discussion.

>>6753819
Quite an assertion coming from someone with even less to say.

>>6753823
Let's have an interesting discussion about Stirner's ideas then, start us off.

>>6753825
How bout you just stop baiting and let us have a nice time

>>6753832
Oh look there's nothing to talk about, that's what happens with nihilism

>>6753584
Stirner is antiphilosophical

>>6753836
For you

>>6753843
Perfect mascot for /lit/ Literature.

>>6753813
This thread would not exist if Stirner were irrelevant to modern philosophy. A philosopher's relevancy is clearly reflected in the intensity of discussion his ideas spark. Your attitude towards Stirner must be your attitude to philosophy as a whole "It's no fun if I'm not winning", just because you're too vacuous to bother considering what the game's about.
>>6753836
Stirner has nothing to do with nihilism. He's a God. Do Gods lend themselves to nihilistic thinking?

Tend to your sore annilingus before attempting to give a valid response.

>>6753890
Moral nihilism

>>6753892
Stirner's "moral nihilism" is a firm philosophical foundation. It's modern philosophy that's a dead end.

>>6753906
Yeah but it's not very interesting to talk about

>>6753910
and to think you're looking up, hoping to achieve the level of intellectual prominence he did

look at you, maggot, look at you.

>>6750091
>Have there been any decent arguments against Stirner?
did he give any arguments?

>>6750401
What were Marx' main points? I'm honestly interested. Was it just detail-wankery, or did he really adress one of Stirner's primairy theses?

>>6753702
That's the basis, not where he ends up.

>>6753925
Oh right, I should add that where he ends up is
>just do what you want
>but you're doing it anyway whether it be conscious or not so, like, whatever

>>6753929
Stirner rarely uses an imperative though, that's kinda the point.

>but you're doing it anyway whether it be conscious or not so, like, whatever
But the point is that you are probably not doing it, but that you are influenced by the things you deem (or were deemed for you) sacred, to the point where it is not even clear what your own desire even is.

Seems as though emancipation from the ego was and has been a main driving force of philosophy in the first place, since one must acknowledge their own fallibility.

>>6753938
A philosophy that lacks an imperative and can't be falsified is a little dull. What it describes isn't exactly rich for discussion.

>But the point is that you are probably not doing it
WooOOOoo, but it's spooOOOooky to change that for the imperative of 'your desire'. Becoming a voluntary egoist won't necessarily make you any happier, so why bother? It's just introspection into why you're doing something, it's only useful when you're trying to convince someone else to follow what you want.

>>6753953
Fuck you I'm perfekt

>>6753910
Philosophical ideas that remain interesting to talk about are generally obscurantist sophisms.

>>6753955
You are right, he does not state much that is new. The interesting thing about Stirner however is, again, his lack of imperative. Much rather he states his theses, and says what he himself does based on that. He then basically leaves you the choice wether you deem it the "correct" thing to do as he does, or if you are appaled by the way he takes a simple and (today) generally accepted viewpoint, like "there are no fixed morals" and plays it through consistently all the way to the end.

>>6753955
What would a philosophy that can be falsified look like?

>>6753996
A science.

>>6754003
But science is generally rooted in empiricism which is a set of unfalsifiable philosophical principles that are assumed on faith before you can get the thing to work.

>>6754015
Yeah, and that is where Popper and Lakatos come into play.

>>6754015
Empiricism is no more taken on faith than a single form of mathematics. A part to a whole.

>>6754020
So accepting unfalsifiable things is alright after all?

>>6754039
No. Please read Kuhn, then Popper and then Lakatos. They are talking about this very topic.

>>6754047
>please read these three lads and come back

No fun at all, can't you at least paraphrase for a bit rather than merely namedropping?

>>6754047
But Hristos Verikukis's paper undermines Popper's criterion of falsifiable for by exposing it as logically contradicting Popper's own work on the social sciences.

>>6750482
Mah nigga

>>6754058
The gist of it is that you make a theory that describes your observations. This theory needs to be falsifiable, otherwise you disregard it.
If you make observations that falsifies your theory (as in, contradicts it), or, to phrase it differently, your theory fails to predict your observations, you
a) Popper answer: disregard the theory and come up with a new one, or atleast adjust the theory to fit the new observations.
b) Lakatos answer: you keep the theory until you made a new one that fulfills its job better (he calls this "intelligent falsification" or something, I think)
The success of a theory increases not by being proven right, but not being proven wrong when confronted with a growing account of observations - despite potentially being able to be proven wrong. Thus, the probability of a theory being right increases, but not the "rightness" of the theory itself.

And yes, >>6754072, this clashes later on with Popper's social theories where he assumes a more rigid concept of truth, even if by his own theory of falsification he only approaches truth, but never reaches absolute truth due to a "potentially infinite amount of observations".

>>6750091
Wather or not you should avoid it is largely depentent on weather you like to make up your own mind of if you mostly like swallow others opinions like a sneke sawolling an egg.

>>6754238
>good
>tripfag
pick one

>>6754015
I've always wondered how the problem of induction is completely valid but science seems to succeed despite it anyway.

>>6754270
Falsificationism!

>>6754093
I think humans need more theory psychologically than the falsifiable can account for though. Take something like ethics for example, completely unfalsifiable yet pretty essential to 'the human condition' for lack of a less cunty word. Philosophy isn't merely observational, it's also partly prescriptive and that side of things can't be replaced by a scientific approach. You can't run tests to find out what one ought to do.

If you want to limit philosophy to the falsifiable you're left with observations of the physical world and not much else.

>muh falsifiability
fucking autistic stemfags

>>6754290
I never said that I want to limit philosophy to the falsifiable, I said that falsifiable philosophy is science. Which is why science does not talk about ethics etc.

>>6754306
I am the guy who brought up Popper and the likes. I am studying literature and philosophy. Hardcore STEMfags are not retarded for being wrong, they are retarded because they are right and don't get why that is a bad thing.

>>6754314
>they are retarded because they are right and don't get why that is a bad thing.
how is it a bad thing?

>>6754319
Because sheer materialism does not really leave room for humanity.

>>6754328
why wouldn't it?

>>6754332
Because humans are also just material.

>>6754335
how is that problematic?

not trying to be a cunt, i just genuinely don't feel it. what's wrong with people being stuff? being stuff doesn't make them any less human.

>>6754339
>being stuff doesn't make them any less human.
Yes, it does. They have no value in themselves, they are at the merci of people creating the value these people see in them. Did you never get why God being dead was such a big deal when Nietzsche exclaimed it? Do you not get why Stirner "being right", as in, the stuff he says working out, is such an utterly terrible thing for humanity and why people tried to kinda sweep him under the rug? (To stay on topic.)

>>6754314
>Popper
Doesn't pure skepticism shrek popper anyway? And if we are talking about abstract forms like whether or not science is "x" in a philosophical sense, shouldn't that argument be enough?

>>6754493
Yeah, but pure skepticism shreks everyone. Pure skepticism is a tool, not a standpoint.

I don't get the other part of your post.

>>6754517
I think if we are talking about Popper we are talking about falsifiability and how it does or not save scientific theory. But of we are already speaking theoretically we might as well take it as theoretically as to bring up general skepticism.

>>6750091
>Have there been any decent arguments against Stirner? I can't think of many flaws in his works.
To the individual there are none. Stirner is 100% pro-you. He's your personal cheerleader.

>>6754369
>yes it does
I disagree
>they have no value in themselves
again, disagree. People are valuable in a number of ways. They can do work, for one. Or their organs can be harvested. There are loads of ways people are valuable. What are you talking about.
>do you not understand
I don't. Please explain.

How do people who agree with Stirner's philosophy live? Are they cold to everyone, and use them to their advantage? Are they able to be in a relationship with a girl? Do they appear arrogant and confident?

>>6754563
He is like the dream gf

>I love men too – not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no "commandment of love." I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them.
tldr; Stirner is edgy Jesus and you should consider actually reading the fucking book.

>>6754587
You can embrace the spooks you enjoy, like your friends or family.

>>6754587
>How do people who agree with Stirner's philosophy live?

They spend most of their time shitposting /lit/, apparently, cause no one anywhere else gives a flying fuck about him.

>>6754306
>trying to prove ideas wrong is mean :,(
>I'll associate fields of human inquiry I dislike with a commonly mocked mental illness in order to discredit it

>>6754587
Pic related, Stirner is love, Stirner is life.

>>6754605
Friends and family aren't spooks unless you're black. The concept of friendship and family are, but the people you refer to are not.

>>6754571
>again, disagree. People are valuable in a number of ways. They can do work, for one. Or their organs can be harvested. There are loads of ways people are valuable. What are you talking about.
But this, again, is a material value. Not value-in-itself.

>I don't. Please explain.
Because without value-in-itself, without a metaphysical fundament like God, every value is reduced to that of its material, its usefulness to whomever thinks up the value. Which means that a person like Stirner could go wild without repercussions.
Basically, it enables people to be huge dicks.

>>6754369
Being a substance materialist does not necessitate that one be an egoist in the vein of Nietzsche or Stirner. Humans are biologically hardwired to find joy in companionship and belonging, so they do have value in themselves, in so far as they value other humans and see themselves as a human. That's the fundamental idea of humanism, anyway, and it works well enough for people with empathy.

>>6754626
>cause no one anywhere else gives a flying fuck about him.
Germany certainly does/did for the last 150 years. I don't know about international affairs, there's that Italian writer who robbed a bank recently, he's a fan too.

>>6754635
>I can't benefit from an argumentative text without "hard proof" that it is 100% correct

>>6754636
stirner was really ahead of his time with the smug scare quotes.

>>6754664
>benefit is possible

>>6754640
>But this, again, is a material value. Not value-in-itself.

Value-in-itself is a contradiction, as value is created by the judgement of the observer. The material is raw existence and can be layered with as much value as you like.

>Because without value-in-itself, without a metaphysical fundament like God, every value is reduced to that of its material

Uh huh, and why should I accept your unfounded assertion that a material value is less meaningful than a metaphysical one?

>its usefulness to whomever thinks up the value

So? Large groups of people agree on the value of many things; this is how money and criminal justice came to exist.

>Which means that a person like Stirner could go wild without repercussions.

No, because the masses and most governments see negative value in things like rape and murder, and have the ability to enforce punishment and isolation for people who commit such crimes.

>Basically, it enables people to be huge dicks.

The idea of god has enabled people to be massive dicks for thousands of years. The kind of behavior you're describing is more likely to come from religious ideologues like ISIS or secular ideologues like Stalin than plebs who value simple material pleasures - in our modern, organized societies, crimes or material gain like bank robberies are generally too risky to be worth the potential reward, so most of us put our effort into honest work instead. For the record, Stirner wasn't violent and had a love for humanity.

>>6754664
>I can't benefit from an argumentative text without "hard proof" that it is 100% correct

Nobody in STEM says this, ever. You're wrong on every level to the point where it's clear you don't understand the scientific method or analytic philosophy.
Science does not ascribes 100% certainty to its observations or theories, it's constantly self correcting. And falsifiability isn't even applied by STEMfags to shit like mathematics and philosophy, they're not inductive fields, it's used in empiricism like the scientific method because people can conjure up crazy bullshit about the natural world if they go by the principle of not being able to prove a negative. Maths isn't falsifiable but I've never seen a scientist disregard it, because it's valid due to being consistent, and useful. For a conspiracy theory that posits the POTUS is controlled by an invisible gremlin, however, the lack of falsifiability is a red flag, because it's making a claim about a physical person that should have ramifications we are able to observe to confirm whether it's sound.

>>6754290
which says much about how seriously we should take ethical theories.

>>6754656
My docent actually namedropped him a few weeks ago, during a short segment about solipsism.

"He was in the hospital from the middle of Lent till after Easter. When he was better, he remembered the dreams he had had while he was feverish and delirious. He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia. All were to be destroyed except a very few chosen. Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection. All were excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify. Men killed each other in a sort of senseless spite. They gathered together in armies against one another, but even on the march the armies would begin attacking each other, the ranks would be broken and the soldiers would fall on each other, stabbing and cutting, biting and devouring each other. The alarm bell was ringing all day long in the towns; men rushed together, but why they were summoned and who was summoning them no one knew. The most ordinary trades were abandoned, because everyone proposed his own ideas, his own improvements, and they could not agree. The land too was abandoned. Men met in groups, agreed on something, swore to keep together, but at once began on something quite different from what they had proposed. They accused one another, fought and killed each other. There were conflagrations and famine. All men and all things were involved in destruction. The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices." - F. Dostoyevsky, "Crime and Punishment."

>>6754783
I think non-cognitivism is the most sensible approach tbh.

>>6750104
>ad hominem
jesus you'd have trouble reading Nietzsche if you identify every form of polemics as ad hominem

>>6750401
>mfw Marx made fun of Bakunin because he said one day we could use flying vehicles

>>6754847
No, Nietzsche is actually brilliant at polemics. Marx is like a boring humourless little kid in comparison.

Stirner was admired by many, but he had no intimate relationships to speak of. Bauer and co half-assedly held a fund raiser for his tombstone, no one even bothered maintaining it (Mackays bio, take it or leave it). Apart from the fact that they were all still butthurt about being maxshrekt , I have to say this is highly indicative of a shitty lover and friend. The love a Stirnerian gives may be better for the receiving individual than a diehard humanist one, but it still lacks the element of sacrifice. You win people over by sacrificing time, resources, affection when it's not in your own best interest but in the interest of your lover, friend etc. Sociopaths understand this concept and put it to practice _willingly_ with success. Stirner was not a sociopath therefore his willing love was weak and that's sadly all he had to give as did his philosophy, genuine love but only to a degree.

Where do you draw the line when trying to make sacrifice work for you instead of the other way around? Sacrifice is something you can't control, much like the general love for individual people that "just feels good" which is why you accept it and why Stirner "just" accepted it. So let's say I made sacrifice mine as in I accepted the spook and entitled myself to rule over it bla bla. Who deserves it if I am to act out of personal interest? Genuine sacrifice means letting go of the ego and deep intimate love necessitates sacrifice. I am at a crossroads here, big Stirner fan but the ego is not enough. You're always second guessing the amount of love you can give as soon as things get touchy feely and you have to confess to friends childhood trauma and throw up over each other and all of this fun stuff that makes people actually love you. Then there's the common goals and hardships etc. etc. How do you achieve this when you put the ego first. I don't think you can. You have to be strong enough to let go of your ego for a while because you're confident in your ability to not let this lack of control corrupt you in the long run. Or something.

Hope this post didn't turn out too cliche

>>6754865
doesn't matter whether he was good at banter or not. Dismissing Marx because he was mean to Stirner is bullshit. That's not what ad hominem means.

>>6754870
I'm not dismissing him for being a meanie. You missed the "based on (deliberate) misunderstanding" part of my post.

>>6754687
>Value-in-itself is a contradiction, as value is created by the judgement of the observer.
Not if you have the copout of metaphysics.

Yes, our modern system has criminality in check, but not out of a feeling of necessity or loyalty, but out of profitability. That doesn't stop potential opportunists from dismissing the rules of the system for a personal gain.

Yeah, religions caused people to be dicks aswell, but this is not about religion, this is about God, and metaphysics in general.

Honestly, that compasion argument was much better than what your post is doing.

>>6754869
Why do you think whether people take care of your gravestone after you die matters? Does it matter to you now? Do you spend even %0.01 of your time agonising over it?

>>6754912
money works better than religion buddy, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

>religions caused people to be dicks
nope, people are dicks because there is incentive to be a dick (climbing social ladder, sex). Religion doesn't cause dickishness, it just can't prevent it.

>>6754912
>Not if you have the copout of metaphysics.

If you recognize it's a cop-out, you're just play acting. The idea of lying to yourself in order to justify "meaning" is also a contradiction; you cannot claim to honestly follow God and then disregard a value like truth for what you see as cold pragmatism. Why not strive for values you actually believe in, desires that are inherently pleasurable to you? For example: I find the biodiversity of life forms on Earth to be very interesting and essential to the productivity of the biosphere as a whole, recognizing humans as an dependent component in it. I find the diversity of different human cultures across history to be beautiful and sometimes scary, so I care for human society and those who engender creativity. I don't need some metaphysical frosting to justify this care for the wider picture. In fact, to say these things require some kind of God to give them value is much further removed from the concept of value-in-itself than the idea of simply loving the material world for what it is.

>Yes, our modern system has criminality in check, but not out of a feeling of necessity or loyalty, but out of profitability

Profitability is inseparable from necessity. A farmer who does not make a net profit of grains planted to grains harvested will starve. Even when the rich have much greater profits than the rest of us, they don't sit on piles of gold like Smaug, they put it into investments that create employment for workers and products/services for consumers through business. Does the concept of the invisible hand of the market elude you? Humans have more to gain through co-operation than violent competition, and we've been realizing this as the globe becomes more interconnected.

>That doesn't stop potential opportunists from dismissing the rules of the system for a personal gain.

This happens in every kind of political, religious or economic system ever. We primarily discourage it through real, physical action; not lofty ideals.

>Yeah, religions caused people to be dicks aswell, but this is not about religion, this is about God, and metaphysics in general.

Stop pretending God and religion aren't connected 99% of the time. This is really just a thinly veiled No True Scotsman argument. Deism and non-religious theism has always been relatively unpopular and gives no binding social glue for adherents to co-operate on any sort of unified goal. You treat metaphysics as a synonym for ethics; it is not.

>Honestly, that compasion argument was much better than what your post is doing.

Compassion and material self-interest are not mutually exclusive as you imply. What we would call criminal selfishness is really just short sighted. Compassion leads to co-operation, which allows for a scale of social organization where we can all materially benefit from not being dicks to each other.

>>6754983
I could have phrased that better. Yes, I agree that religion isn't any sort of root cause for people being dicks, but people have used religion to convince otherwise non-dickish people to do dickish things due to their religious allegiance. Of course, this applies to any sort of in-group loyalty and is a general human trait; religion is just one neutral manifestation that can manifest to spur people to both charity and violence/oppression.

>>6754960
It matters because it's one indicator out of many that you may have had friends but not any brothers. Apply same principle to romantic relationships. If Stirner's love for individual humans is as pure as he says, he has to realize that sacrifice plays a role. Leave out the part about the gravestone if you don't like it, I don't care much for post mortem. Like I said, indicators.

>>6755044
maybe stirner just happened to be a cold recluse and that doesn't mean that you turn into a cold recluse as soon as you start listening to what he says

>>6755044
It sounds like you're just trying to reach a pre-determined conclusion. Enmeshment = good.

>>6750376
Neitzche helps to define Stirner's ideas better, as well as building on them some. Evola shows how spooks can be used to bring happiness to the individual. Camus justifies a lot of conventions from a non-conventional standpoint and is generally the next step from Stirner.

>>6755075
Maybe I should have just skipped his bio. Guess I learned something about people as well today.

>>6755084
I'm trying to augment/criticize Stirner's opinion on love posted itt. I don't understand your last equation.

>>6755135
Well, you have a particular view of what love is, and anything that doesn't match up must be lacking something.

> You win people over by sacrificing time, resources, affection when it's not in your own best interest but in the interest of your lover, friend etc. Sociopaths understand this concept and put it to practice _willingly_ with success. Stirner was not a sociopath therefore his willing love was weak and that's sadly all he had to give as did his philosophy, genuine love but only to a degree.

Literally everyone "loves to a degree". We put all kinds of limits on our time, resources and affection. Stirner just shows us how to be smarter about it.

Isn't "Okay, Stirner, and what now?" an argument?

Good for you if Stirner cleared up some psychological inhibitions you might otherwise have. I guess you can focus on what's important to you now and adopt the mindset you find suitable, but I hope for you that your goal is very much removed from philosophy, then.

If you don't let any ideology or general concept whatsoever sit on your shoulder for some time at least...then you have "solved" or rather disregarded any other philosophy - but that's entirely pointless. And it will not chance the fact that most other people you have to live next to are concerned with those spooks. I want to enjoy things and do things, not declare most lines of thoughts spooks and proceed to use that as argument with anyone I met.

>>6755325
i don't get what you're asking
if you want to enjoy things and do things you just have to do and enjoy them

>>6755325
>Isn't "Okay, Stirner, and what now?" an argument?
Only if you're the type of person that literally needs to be told what to do.

>>6754640
Go away Immanuel, there is no noumenon and morality does not proceed God.

>>6753814
But it is, all philosophies and ideologies are spooks.

>>6750091
By "morality", he meant basically deontology (and utilitarianism, I guess).
Virtue ethics blows him out of the water, easily.

>>6755935
Not really, why would it?

>>6755921
>implying spooks are a bad thing

confirmed for not reading stirner

>>6755976
I didn't say they were?

>>6755955
Stirner rests on the assumption of no telos.
That is all.

>>6755935
>virtue ethics
>btfoing anyone

>>6755935
>Virtue ethics blows him out of the water, easily.
pls elaborate

>>6756021
Well, there is no telos. Now what?

>>6757156
but there is

>>6757180
What makes you think that?

>>6756021
>>6757156
What is Telos?
(Sorry for my ignorance. )

>>6755935
>I FEEL this is virtuous, therefore it's right and moral and not just my opinion
The Greeks were dumb.

>>6757211
Look up teleology.

>>6757180
sceptical avian.jpeg

>>6750396
>>6750461
But stirner was the first philosophy ive read

should I just keep reading sci fi now?

>>6753813
>to an idiot such as this poster, philosophy means ""what people should think" and can become irrelevant

>>6754238
I was staring outside at the rain when I wrote it.

>>6753923
"You can't ignore le material conditions!"

Basically Marx thinks Stirner is saying you are literally god over all things, so even if you're in prison, you "control" the situation.

It's best to think of Stirner's ownership of all things in comparison to a landowner. If I own fifty acres of farming land, and all God-fearing men of morality agree it's my property: do I have unbridled, infinite control?

No, I still have to exert power over the land. I still need to coax my serfs to pull the weeds. But what I am doing is exerting my power over it, shaping it to my will.

That's what complete ownership is for Stirner. It's the perception of self-interest: you no longer respect arbitrary boundaries and instead respect your desires

AKA Marx doesn't understand Stirner, and the people who think Marx "destroyed" Stirner are just as bad at purposefully misrepresenting him

>>6757743
Also just saying, people who think being self-interested means becoming a literally-Hitler Machiavellian villain are dumb. In virtually every instance in our world, reputation is extremely important and being honest and not-sociopathic are the best ways to achieve that...

>>6750376
>>6750396
>>6750461
>>6750499
>>6750105
>>6753656

Phenomenology of Spirit.

Not an argument against Stirner but Mere Christianity made realize how wrong ego fags are about everything.

>>6758640

So I take it you've given all your belongings to the poor then?

>>6750401
Marx decided not to publish his critique of Stirner. I think it was because he was afraid Stirner's riposte would cast doubt on Marx's broader work in The German Ideology.

>>6758640
Awesome shitpost, I wish I could shitpost this well

>>6758653

>shitpost

But I'm being completely honest

>>6754587
No it made my life better and more stable because it took me out of head and let me focus on what's around me more

>>6758659
Then you're too stupid to talk to, so I have nothing to say

>>6758649
Or because Marx didn't want attention brought onto his intellectual superior

>>6758669

I feel bad for you.

>>6758663

So in other words, you condemn others for not being altruistic, while you're no more altruistic then they are

If you don't like egotism, you show it in action, not words. Go work in a soup kitchen or shut your fucking mouth about egotism

>>6758676
I don't think Stirner was any smarter than Marx was, Marx was a top tier intellect. Stirner just wasn't artistic and his jokes were funnier. When Stirner makes an intellectual reference, it's actually funny. When Marx does, it's funny about half the time, the other half it seems kinda pretentious and unnecessary.

>>6758678
Egoism, not egotism

>>6754587
They live according to their own desires and nothing else.

>>6758678
What? I am an egoist

>>6758698
>I don't think Stirner was any smarter than Marx was, Marx was a top tier intellect.

Sure, but it's obvious he had a visceral, allergic reaction to Stirner.

>>6758846
That's probably because Stirner dissed communism as much as he did capitalism.

>>6758953
Yup

>>6758953
isn't Marxism basically a foundationalist system? Also, what exactly is stopping the egoists from supporting a system like Marxism because it would benefiting them personally?

>>6760562
>Also, what exactly is stopping the egoists from supporting a system like Marxism because it would benefiting them personally?
Nothing. Stirner is pretty much compatible with any form of state, just not with actually subscribing to their ideologies. A Stirnerist could easily be a commie or a fascist or even a monarchist conservative.

>>6760703
Yeah bro don't force antitheses