[ 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: 319 KB, 1430x798, a very spooky fellow.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14092328 No.14092328 [Reply] [Original]

Spooky Scary Stirnerites are coming round the bend!
To pit their false philosophy 'gainst Left Hegelians!
Spooky Scary Stirnerites declare you property!
They don't attempt to test this thought, by laying a hand on me!

We're so sorry Stirnerites, that you're misunderstood!
A tripfag here could set us right-but I don't think she should!

'cause Spooky Scary Stinerites' fedoras surely tip
against the notion of a state, which is likened to a ship!
Spooky Scary Stirnerites reject a deity!
They'll change their minds five minutes after they have ceased to be!

Please don't bother clarifying, why human nature's bad
when your whole central rhetoric's development of man!

Spooky Scary Stinerites are silly all the same!
They'll never grasp why living for oneself is such a shame!
All adults here understand-there's more to life than you!
Spooky Scary Stirnerites, will post-here-with-a-BOO!

*xylophone*

>> No.14092336
File: 26 KB, 331x334, 1564093197016.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14092336

>>14092328
Based.

>> No.14092347
File: 96 KB, 1200x800, Union of Socialist Egoists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14092347

>>14092328
Dumb
Have you never read it or are you purposely misrepresenting?

>> No.14092353

>>14092328
Stirner was a fag and his ideology is antinature and thus impossible.

>> No.14092372

>>14092353
>The nature of things
>Anti-establishment and conceits
You need to read it

>> No.14092593
File: 26 KB, 720x710, 1567376721270.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14092593

>>14092328
Stirners rejection of "spooks" as it were are the largest failing of his philosophy. His egoist ideas can only exist in ignorance of the proposal, where it's possible to be wholly naive of why norms and social controls are indispensable to cooperative effort. Upon coming to realize that two egoists need a form of standards in order to do anything cooperatively with each other, you can begin to see why "spooks" are a necessity for any degree of cooperation, let alone a superorganism.

With an inability to even divorce himself properly from his biases and projections, Stirner short-circuits himself into a void-like fallacy. Coming to realize Stirner's own ignorance of social cooperation and the mechanics at play flattens his house of cards.

Simply put: Stirner had no idea what the fuck he was even talking about, but he was just right enough to close a highly reinforced logical loop.

>> No.14093159
File: 1.32 MB, 1836x1440, sketch-1572018194394.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14093159

>>14092347
>Social egoists
Hella spooked

>> No.14093413
File: 49 KB, 613x771, 1494164355952.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14093413

good thread which is now my property

>> No.14093432

>>14092372
surely you dont think that what stirner is advocating is possible?

>> No.14093479

>Stirnerites
Good post though. A proper egoist can take a good joke.
And by the amount of filtered posts I see, butter-shit has probably already entered here and started sperging.

>> No.14094028

>>14093159
Said the advert for Pepsi

>>14093432
Again >>14092347

>>14092593
>muh church is indispensable
>muh state is indispensable
Your indispensables are laughable

>> No.14094711

>>14094028
Pepsi is a refreshing beverage

>> No.14095868

>>14094028
The state is quite indispensible, or rather the role that it plays.

More to the point, norms and social controls are indispensible, and they are the highest forms of spooks.

In the time since writing that post, I actually went back through some literature and came to the conclusion that my interpretation of Stirner was wrong. He is simply advocating for nominalism using the socratic method. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with.

However here, where most people's interpretation is the extreme rejection of abstracts entirely, I will continue to disagree. Abstracts "exist" in a different sense of the word, within the minds of those who hold them. To say that they exist as a material object exists is false, but to say they exist insofar as they describe a set of actions (what they influence) is ontologically correct.

The law is very much real in the sense that being observed breaking it results in coercive efforts of others being directed at you, serving in the opposite of your best interest.

However the law is not a physical thing, it is a conventionalist abstract thing. You may "break the law" as you see fit, but because observations of you doing so bring hostility, it's generally not in one's best interest to break the law. I say generally, because naturally the real world is more complex and contextual than can be prescriptively described.

>> No.14096041
File: 425 KB, 480x640, FC1DB25F-D53B-4397-84E8-2574F8D300A2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14096041

>>14095868
>[the law] is a conventionalist abstract thing
And I envision a world that use it in just this way. Written laws only seem solid fact. Left unwritten they can be applied on a case by case basis.

>> No.14096581

>>14092593
read stirners critics

>> No.14096931

>>14096041
Although laws may be written in a positive way, and there is a lot of hoohah to assure you that they are implemented in a positive way, the stark reality is that laws are enforced in a normative way.

Indeed even when you look at drafts of judicial power, judges are granted formal powers to enforce collectivist values, regardless of the law. Many rulings are based upon the "spirit" of the law as it were. If judges were not capable of throwing out ridiculous interpretations, philosophers would run circles around lawyers in courtrooms.

>> No.14097778

>>14096931
Normative?
>judges are granted formal powers to enforce collectivist values
Not really, no. A collective of well paid lawyer’s values. And I wouldn’t trust a judge who didn’t use such discretions to interpret unwritten law

>> No.14098084

Who here actually read Der Einzige und sein Eigentum and who is basing their arguments on summaries they read somewhere?

>> No.14098093

>>14092328
OP is a god.

>> No.14098165

>>14097778
>Judges enforce a collective of well paid lawyers' values
>Common law is wut
>Lawyers allowed to impose their values on the justice system

Sorry to break it to you, but the law is an amalgam of statutes (made and constantly remade by politicians) and the common law, which is made up of arcane concepts that (often) nobody knows the origin of, but are useful for resolving problems. At least in the US, judges cannot make laws. They can only look at laws already written and attempt to apply them to situations where someone has filed a complaint, interpreting any ambiguities in the process, in order to justify the law's application. It's that justification where the real justice happens. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. It ruins the lives of countless people every day. But it's infinitely more nuanced than anything I've ever seen a solipsist cook up.

>> No.14098180

please dont

>> No.14098204

>>14098093
OP is a spook? Nah.

>>14098165
>made and constantly remade by politicians
Lawmakers are just lawyers of a different class
>judges cannot make laws.
Yea, the previous anon was making the case that they interpret them however they see fit. Giving themselves a little wiggle room
>It's that justification where the real justice happens.
Hahaha. Oh man. Rarely.

>>14098084
Well, I’ve read it