Why was he so wrong about everything?
>>1341296
First for le spook
Because he wasn't
This is pretty inexplicable meme, no one else on the internet except for /his/ seems to give a shit at all about this guy but you all can't stop talking about him every few hours.
>>1341296
He wasn't. The reason memesters love him so much is that you can't disagree with him while also falling within his criteria for argumentmentation. He's utterly opposed to any and all political religion.
EY JUS A SPOOK MAN JUS A SPOOK MAN I DUN CARE JUS SPOOK MKAY JUS SPOOK KAY MKAY KAY KAY MKAY ???MHMHMHMH FUGGING SPOOKS MAN.
>>1341304
He kinda hits on all of 4chan's buttons. The only know depiction of him is readily editable into various images; his philosophy uses several very catchy phrases; his ideals play to the general sense of anomie that is so common among 4channers; he's obscure enough to make knowing about him (even if you don't actually know his philosophy, as many spook posters do not) somewhat "special." He's basically a perfect recipe for a 4chan meme.
Personally, I think he's an absolutely fantastic philosopher.
>>1341355
I'm pretty sure there are photographs of him
>>1341296
because he uses the context of existence to imply that existence isn't real. he was a very stupid person. nihilism is bullshit hubris
>>1341363
As far as we know, not a one. The one people keep bringing up is a photograph of Rudolph Steiner who comes up because of his similar last name and the fact he did some interesting commentary on the potential relationship between Nietzsche's work and Stirner's.
>>1341388
>to imply that existence isn't real
Where the fuck does he do that?
>>1341350
spoken like true property
>>1341296
Reason is just a spook
>>1341398
People seem to be mistaking him for Hume a lot lately so im assuming hes just doing that.
>>1341590
He doesn't do that
>>1341590
When did Hume do that?
>>1341590
I don't think hume does that either. But people seem to think that his rejection of concepts as "real" means he rejects the reality of all things. As though rejecting the "reality" of a concept such as nation is equivalent to rejecting the earth itself.
>>1341304
It's a /lit/ meme you newie
>>1341296
He isnt wrong on everything
I find him to be a great counter-argument to anarcho-capitalists spouting bullshit about muh NAP
>>1342015
>great counter-argument t
such as
>>1341296
He was right until he died.
>>1342087
The fact the NAP has no more a basis than any other more legitimation of a political system, including those used to legitimize more authoritarian systems. They all twist aimlessly and try to root themselves in nothing, and anarcho-capitalism (as well as every other ism) has all the substance of the thought it's made of.
What if I make my spooks my property? You know, like commodity them or something. If I can turn my spooks into my property, can I spookify my property?
>>1342205
It wouldnt be a spook if it was your property
>>1342205
You don't know what either of those mean
i want to like this guy but i worry he's too philosophically close to ayn rand for my taste
please make me like him by explaining how he's a real philosopher badass while rand is just a woman who let her mouth run about how selfish women are.
>>1342972
Im not really sure how they are similar to each other beyond they are both egoists. Stirner barely tells you to do anything where as Rand keeps sperging out about how greed is a moral imperative.
Stirner was the true ubermensch
>>1341355
The bare minimum I know about him and egoism is appealing but you're largely right. I just find the meme funny.
>>1342972
Stirner doesn't substantiate his arguments with rape-fantasies and 40 page monologues, for one.
How would a society only composed of Stirners work?
>>1343192
Milk bars on every corner
>>1343192
Well, pirates are the closest to unions of egotists you can get in our current world. So probably something like that.
>>1343192
They call him Mad Max, so probably Mad Max.
>>1341304
It's a /lit/ meme that migrated to /his/, both boards are kind of similar though.
>>1342972
There's only a very superficial similarity. Stirner never makes egoism a moral ought, and he doesn't conflate egoism with stepping on people's backs or accumulating wealth. He says outright that social behaviours such as cooperation an altruism are necessary to the pursuit of your self interest. What is termed egoism in his philosophy can be better described as "do only things you genuinely want to do" and bears more in common with Sartre's idea of living in good faith. You can hold any ideal as dear to you, provided the ideal is there to serve you in some capacity, rather than you there to serve the ideal.
>>1343192
Probably pretty normal, as conducting a stable society is still to everyone's interest. Most of what we engage in is justifiable egoistically. The main difference would be that you wouldn't have people blindly supporting the actions of churches or governments.
>>1343968
/his/ is just /lit/ but with Asperger's instead of autism
>>1343192
Well, most Stirnerites I've met outside of /lit/ or /leftypol/ are bronies or queer anarchists who use the philosophy to justify their autism. I imagine a society with real "union of egoists" would look like a society so obsessed with individuality and acquiescing to every inclination and vice that they'd ironically homogenize into tropes and stereotypes.
>>1343972
>provided the ideal is there to serve you in some capacity, rather than you there to serve the ideal.
So what, if volunteering to feed starving kids is something I enjoy, it's something I should do, while if it's something I do because I feel I ought to and I don't really enjoy it, I shouldn't? That's the gist of it, right?
>>1344552
More or less. Though you may also be doing it for various social or material benefits that would be in line with his reasoning. Whether you "want" to do something can wind up a very complicated question.
>>1344138
[autism]Aspergers is no longer in the DSM, it's now Autism Spectrum Disorder/ASD.[/autism]
>Whether nature gives me a right, or whether God, the people's choice, etc., does so, all of that is the same foreign right, a right that I do not give or take to myself. Thus the Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. [...] No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right; if, on the contrary, you only pine for it without laying hands on it, it remains as before, a, ‘well-earned right’ of those who are privileged for enjoyment. It is their right, as by laying hands on it would become your right.
What if I'm communist to get enjoyment, instead of because I genuinely think I'm entitled to it?
i.e. my conditions are such that the easiest path to enjoyment is to take up a rifle and shoot the exploitative class along with other people, but to convince those on the fence to our cause we talk about being entitled to fairness when in reality we're acting in self-interest?
>>1344626
>What if I'm communist to get enjoyment, instead of because I genuinely think I'm entitled to it?
Then go for it. This is something he explains more clearly in Stirner's Critics. He's not opposed to any idea, just any idea held as sacred and untouchable.
>>1344243
> I imagine a society with real "union of egoists" would look like a society so obsessed with individuality and acquiescing to every inclination and vice that they'd ironically homogenize into tropes and stereotypes.
It depends more on the views and values of the people involved. In your case its either people making a spook out of individuality or simply acting as if that small group would be representative of humanity.
You could just as easily have the situation you described as you could a pirate republic or a community that stones gays and adulterers
