[ 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: 73 KB, 307x386, 1601510355131.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16507916 No.16507916 [Reply] [Original]

Is reading Ego and Its Own anything more than a meme? I haven't laughed this much from a book in a while.

>> No.16507933

Read it just to understand Marx's complete decimation of St*rner in the German Ideology.

>> No.16507946
File: 629 KB, 1200x1826, 1455483145706.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16507946

It's a foundational text for modern anarchist thought.

>> No.16508133
File: 83 KB, 585x850, E069F67A-308D-405E-8F93-EC17F3C2D531.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16508133

>>16507946
Inferior version. Take this.

>>16507916
I’m told it’s a parody of Hegel. But sly and serious at the same time. A “meme” in the original sense, sure, but not to be ignored for its basic truth.

>> No.16508273

>>16508133
>Inferior version. Take this
>83 KB JPG
uhh

>> No.16509086

>>16508273
she's so fucking retarded it hurts.

>> No.16509091

>>16508273
>png better
I just don’t think the suicide belongs there

>> No.16509217

>>16507916
I'm still digesting this book
I wish it was funny

>> No.16509372

>>16507916
I remember laughing when I read it a fair bit. Eventually I just came to see it as sort of a pathetic joke. Individualism is one of the great barriers of human progress.

>> No.16509388
File: 40 KB, 517x705, 1576231573282.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16509388

>>16507946
>anarchist
>thought

>> No.16509453
File: 89 KB, 664x1000, 1628915E-E926-49EA-8855-3757AAD3EA80.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16509453

>>16509388
Volume one of samples from some of our thoughts.

>> No.16510912

>>16507933
Marx's seething cemented Stirner's legacy in the most ironic way possible or else nobody would be talking about a Stirner to begin with.
>>16508133
>I’m told it’s a parody of Hegel.
The first part where Stirner references history is indeed parody or satire, as he's making fun of racism/racialism.

>> No.16510940

>>16507916
Well it's correct. If there's no god then any abstraction (law, society, morality) is simply a human mental concept. It's not real, and you have no obligation to believe that it's real or to follow its precepts. That's what a spook is.

>> No.16512124

>>16509453
It's pretty wild to me how even Anarchists consider Stirner an extremist.

>> No.16512161

>>16512124
Because at their heart they're just moralfags like everyone else. Anarchy is just a different moralfag veneer.

>> No.16512162
File: 60 KB, 577x600, 577px-Portrait_of_Max_Stirner.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16512162

You're still beholden to spooks.
Let go brother.
Join me as another iconoclastic unique.

>> No.16512182

>>16509086
>her

>> No.16512203

>>16512124
The ideal of egoism points toward the extreme individualist. Though it does admit the the necessity of social bonds with the union of egoists. It’s an excellent base from which to start.

>>16512162
>muh moral nihilism. Muh murderous rampage cuz nothing matters
Stirner himself was a mild well mannered gentleman and not the extremist people make him out to be. He skipped out on debts.

>> No.16512205

>>16512161
Stirner is the ultimate moralfag filter. If Stirner's philosophy is repulsive to you in any way you are a moralfag.

>> No.16512221

>>16512203
Once it is acknowledged that morality is a spook, there is no obligation to behave "morally", but there is also no obligation to behave "immorally". Whether he went on a murder spree is irrelevant. He had no obligation to do so.

>> No.16512227

>>16512221
Your point?

>> No.16512244

>>16512227
Your post gave me the impression that you were trying to mitigate the extremity of Stirner's ideas by appealing to comparatively mild personal conduct.

>> No.16512250

>>16509453
It's pretty wild to me how there are people retarded enough to proudly call themselves anarchists.

>> No.16512256

>>16512250
Government is a spook, anon.

>> No.16512282

>>16512203
Don't you think his questioning of essential identities/abstractions/spooks anticipates current critiques of the relationships between knowledge and power, how the system trains us to think and how that plays into power structures? Maybe a good place to start, but I think he's more than worth circling back to.

>> No.16512360

>>16512256
Well, with that I have to agree. But still, most people, who call themselves anarchists are simply irresponsible, young white liberals who cream themselves at the slightest mention of a dream like revolution.

>> No.16512388

>>16512360
This is true. They believe that governments are real things and they want to abolish them. But spooks are not real.

>> No.16512465

>>16512388
Spooks are egregores
>What is egregores?
I'm glad you asked. An egregore is an occult concept representing a distinct non-physical entity that arises from a collective group of people.

>> No.16512484

>>16512465
I know what an egregore is and they are not real either. Anything that ceases to exist if I deny its existence is not real.

>> No.16512493

>>16512484
It still manages to have real effects on the real. The state doesn't disappear if you stop believing in it, but it can make you disappear if it thinks you might be making other people not believe in it.

>> No.16512541

it is funny

>> No.16512542

>>16512493
>It still manages to have real effects on the real.
Those are simply the actions of various individuals. There's no basis for attributing it to anything beyond that.

>> No.16512550

>>16512542
Let me clarify that. If I decide to take some action due to the state, or on its behalf, there was no state involved in this at any point. It all occurred in my mind. I conceptualized the state and I decided to heed it.

>> No.16512562

>>16510940
>any abstraction (law, society, morality) is simply a human mental concept. It's not real, and you have no obligation to believe that it's real or to follow its precepts. That's what a spook is.
You don't need to presage it with a kow-tow to superstition

>> No.16512576

>>16512562
I think that if a god were real it would be able to reify abstractions or confer a telos upon creatures.

>> No.16512584

>>16512542
>>16512550
Isn't what Mr.Schmidt is talking about? How society crafts our desires and thus our behavior through usage of these spooks? Though I suppose you don't think how you're raised has any bearing on an individual's behavior.

>> No.16512594

>>16512584
I don't see any reason to deny nurture. I just think that all of this is reducible to individual brains. There's no reason to posit a separate entity when the brain alone explains it.

>> No.16512653

>>16512594
If you aren't denying nurture it shouldn't be a stretch for you to grasp a functional entity. Software running on decentralized hardware. Our disagreement is based on this
>If I decide to take some action due to the state, or on its behalf, there was no state involved in this at any point. It all occurred in my mind. I conceptualized the state and I decided to heed it.
without the conception of state you cannot heed it; how and why does state (or any spook) reproduce itself?

>> No.16512700

>>16512653
Humans teach it to each other.

>> No.16512837

>>16512700
and so there is more to your conception than your self.

>> No.16512844

>>16512837
Other humans exist. I don't see how this creates an abstract entity called society.

>> No.16512918
File: 236 KB, 540x405, 2663ba11-decd-4c32-be1b-6d4dd8c7ab9d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16512918

>>16512844
when will I be smart enough to know not to try?

>> No.16512920

>>16512244
same. You cant just say that an author doesn't say something because he writed a contrary idea. At the time you make an argument, the entire opossite emerges too.

>> No.16512944

>>16512918
Let's put it another way. Whether the thing called "society" exists only matters if it confers some sort of obligation upon my person. If I have no obligation from this entity, then it doesn't matter does it? So how does any of what you're saying create an obligation for me?

>> No.16512968

>>16507916
I have never read his book, but I believe fully in his message.

>> No.16513121

>>16512944
you are purposefully ignoring the other people to reach that conclusion.

>> No.16513127

>>16513121
You need to tell me how the existence of something creates a duty upon my person. Tell me how the is/ought gap is bridged. That's what this is all about. That is abstract concept requires me to do certain things. So I want to know how it is that this requirement is created.

>> No.16513133

>>16513127
I already explained it to you.

>> No.16513146

>>16510912
If thats the only reason why people talk about him thats still very mediocre anon.

>> No.16513149

>>16513133
Where did you do that?

>> No.16513185

>>16513127
Not the anon you was talking to, but I'll explain.
Yeah, it's all just actions of various individuals and so on, but you have to live around spooked people. They may harm or imprison you if you dare to offend their spooks. So you might want to understand how their thinking works, understand their power relations. Like, you definitely wouldn't catch Pokémon in a mosque, right?

>> No.16513203

>>16513185
That does not create an obligation to do anything. I can make practical decisions based upon my own interests, but I have no duty to do or not do any particular thing in relation to those people.

>> No.16513214

>>16510940
>radical skepticism is so novel
Kek

>> No.16513229

>>16512542
Seems like a retarded semantic arguement. The individual is just as much of an abstraction as the state is.

>> No.16513245

>>16513229
"Individuality" is a spook and one's conception of oneself can be a spook, but one's own non-abstracted will is not.

>> No.16513252

>>16513203
Yes, you are not obliged to catering to normies. But it's in your very best interest to know their societal "limits" and whether it's actually benefitial to trespass them and earn new enemies of various power.

>> No.16513266

>>16513252
Sure, it's in my "best interests." This isn't an obligation. I have no obligation to act in my best interests.

>> No.16513268

>>16513245
So it comes down to an axiom you have to accept on intuition just like everything else.

>> No.16513325

>>16513268
How is willing something a spook?

>> No.16513332
File: 44 KB, 512x340, 1600805451250.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16513332

>>16509372
>Individualism is one of the great barriers of human progress.

>> No.16513379

>>16513325
Because the will is just an abstraction. All Stiner is is one of several reactions to radical skepticism. They all rely on an epistemological argument at the intuitied level.

>> No.16513388

>>16513266
It wasn't about obligations in the first place. You stated:
>Anything that ceases to exist if I deny its existence is not real.
Well, the state still exists in the mind of almost every person surrounding you. As a cognitive process, it's still real and powerful enough to be mindful of.

>> No.16513462

>>16513379
Willing something is an action, not an abstraction. You can speak of "the will" as an abstraction but to will something is not an abstraction, though it can be beholden to abstractions.
>>16513388
If I have no obligation to it and it exists only in the mind then it is functionally unreal, even if you want to pretend it's some kind of occult creature.

>> No.16513498

>>16513462
What "willing" even is, is an abstraction. You can't prove will even exists without making a value judgement at the axiomatic level. All of these faggy post-reformation philosophies all try to denounce objective truth while making intuited claims of their own.

>> No.16513508

>>16513498
To attempt to prove the will exists is to will to prove it.

>> No.16513556

>>16513508
That's Descartes argument (kind of) it isn't Stirner's

>> No.16513566

>>16513556
And? I'm not Stirner's philosophical slave.

>> No.16513595

>>16513566
Well the thread is about Sterner and I though you were defending him. Descartes argument is just a tautology. It doesn't leave any room for further extrapolation. Stirner's philosophy is full of value judgement that don't follow from cogito ergo sum.