In Marx's argument against Stirner, he derides the idea of "the creative individual", and says society creates, not individuals, and mentions that for instance Bach did not make anything on his own, he got all his ideas from society around him and needed workers to play the music, and that it is only "bourgeois individualism" which thinks of individuals are creative, nothing Bach created came from a vacuum.
Does /his/ agree with this?
Kinda dumb to assume that humans don't have variation in their thoughts and experiences.
Then again, Marxism is the most autistic philosophy around.
>>1371140
No, he's just saying all those variations are the product of society, not the individual.
>>1371126
it's not a dichotomy m8
like bach didn't create the idiom of baroque art music or like invent instruments (though he did do a lot to legitimize the cello)
but he had real creative talent of his own, society didn't make him talented
Couldn't it also be argued that society as a theoretical organism, could not write a piece of Bach's music minus Bach?
I see what Marx is getting at, but I don't think this is a suitable path to refuting Stirner's idea.
>>1371197
No, but from Marx's perspective, society completely created Bach, and made Bach everything he was and gave Bach every idea. That is why society alone deserves credit for all creativity, and society alone deserves to own property.
>>1371147
works do not have to be extracted from society.
>>1371209
I don't think that addresses the argument.
Without a Bach, there is nothing to experience and intemperate society.
Society is a large jumble of mess and unintelligible mumbojumbo, and nobody owns it. Nobody owns a pieces of it, nobody owns the whole of it; information and owner ship of pieces developed from an interpretation of the mumbojump, in this case Bach, are owned by those who cast and die the interpretation.
>>1371147
I still disagree with that, really. Can hermits not produce anything? If society is responsible for it, why do similar societies not create the same thing?
I do. But then I have Marxist sympathies.
It's an extremely bitter pill for some to swallow, but it's the hard truth.
People that think they are free from the influence and strengths of other people are people that have never tried to truly live alone and have not seriously thought about history. There's a reason you don't find photorealistic painters in stone age civilizations.
>>1371147
So you are saying there is nothing that can be thought that hasn't been thought by the surrounding society?
How does anything new get thought then? There has to be the occasional deviation, the counter-trend, or individual difference that will lead to something new.
Society isn't a single unified mass of organized ideas, it's a collection of variously loosely and closely associated individuals.
>>1371126
Creativity can be found at the individual level and studied there via psychology.
>>1371126
It must really sucks to be in karl marx head
Spending all your life writing garbage about anybody or anything slightly successful
Societal influences are only exterior factors in regards to the creative works of an individual. They do not define the whole of the work.
>>1372317
>Society isn't a single unified mass of organized ideas, it's a collection of variously loosely and closely associated individuals.
If you're speaking a language there is no way you are too loosely associated with society. It takes an incredible amount social investment, enculturalization, and caring to reach that point. If you didn't have that level then you're probably dead.
In other words, humans tend not to survive if they are too separated from the group, like ants. It's just not in the homo sapien biological imperative and strategy to be a lone wolf. High caloric investment in brain development demands long singular gestation periods that can't be carried to full term in the womb due to head size limitations. Humans must be born early (by most animal standards) to allow further development outside of the mother and be extremely cared for for YEARS (longer than the entire lifespan of some other mammals) before they are close to viable for self survival. High investment, high payoff - lots of communal care-taking by those already mature and established to help the process along.
People that think of themselves as independent/loners were at some critical point cared for communally but at some later time when they were stable wandered off from the herd, so to speak.
>>1371126
I do agree.
For instance there were a fuckton of literature produced in Russia at certain time, the society made the environment for such creativity. As Hollywood could only happen in californication.
>>1371168
>he had real creative talent of his own, society didn't make him talented
> He was the eighth and youngest child of Johann Ambrosius,[11] who probably taught him violin and the basics of music theory.[12] His uncles were all professional musicians, whose posts included church organists, court chamber musicians, and composers. One uncle, Johann Christoph Bach (1645–93), introduced him to the organ, and an older second cousin, Johann Ludwig Bach (1677–1731), was a well-known composer and violinist.
Put the kid Bash anywhere else, guess what happens .
>dude workers are entitled to the fruits of their labor
>except for the ones that stand out lmao
