I fucking hate this guy. Is there someone who proves him wrong?
>Inb4 Marx
He's almost as bad as Stirner and his argumentations against him are fucking stupid
>>1371635
Stay mad, leftist cuck. Stirner ftw.
Why do you hate him? Why do you want to prove him wrong?
Father Seraphim Rose
No, there is nothing that proves him wrong. He never presents egoism as an ought, and there's nothing to provide actual substance to the various concepts he denies the actual existence of.
>>1371710
Oh, this ought to be fucking rich. How'd he do that?
>>1371654
Stirner was a leftist too you fucking inbred twat
>>1371728
It can be argued that he was neither a leftist nor a rightist due to left and right politics being spooks.
>>1371710
I forgot to mention "Avoid orthocucks memes"
>>1371728
He was against any form of imposed hierarchy, but also flatly rejected egalitarianism.
>>1371739
Language is a spook too but you still use words to describe him instead of a bunch of grunts
>>1371722
>Oh, this ought to be fucking rich. How'd he do that?
By showing that Stirner's idea of owning the world was just like a six-year-old who says he rules the world.
>>1371747
Grunts are a spook too
Also
>"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable."
>>1371758
And....?
>>1371758
Oh dear spooks, another goy that misunderstood Stirner's concept of property.
You can't prove someone wrong when they literally ended philosophy
>>1371758
Oh, so you're a fucking idiot is what you're saying (oh wait, that's long been established; I fucking hate you). Stirner outright acknowledges that everyone is maintained through force and that you own only that which you possess. When he suggests viewing the world as though you own, he means to evaluate the world only as it is of interest to you.
>>1371789
>Stirner is one of the most lucid philosophers, there's nothing to misunderstand.
Yet here you are.
>Force isn't required, he considers a friend to be property.
Once again, you misunderstand property why are you so fucking stupid yet so willing to speak? You're a bloody blight on this board.
He doesn't mean that you own everyone and everything in the universe, that would be absurd as it directly contradicts his believe that you own only that which you maintain possession of.
"Johann Kaspar Schmidt (October 25, 1806 – June 26, 1856), better known as Max Stirner, was a German philosopher. He is often seen as one of the forerunners of nihilism, existentialism, psychoanalytic theory, postmodernism, and anarchism, especially of individualist anarchism.[3][4] Stirner's main work is The Ego and Its Own, also known as The Ego and His Own (Der Einzige und sein Eigentum in German, which translates literally as The Only One and His Property). This work was first published in 1845 in Leipzig, and has since appeared in numerous editions and translations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner
"Stirner proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions – including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general, and the very notion of society – were mere illusions, "spooks" or ghosts in the mind.[12]
He advocated egoism and a form of amoralism, in which individuals would unite in 'unions of egoists' only when it was in their self-interest to do so. For him, property simply comes about through might: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." He says, "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"[13] Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint[14] – that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one's self-interest, which he believes is the only legitimate reason for acting. He denies society as being an actual entity, calling society a "spook" and that "the individuals are its reality" (The Ego and Its Own)."
>>1371805
>>1371805
>"What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." He says, "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"
>>1371797
>I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property; I refer all to myself.
>>1371824
>Did he actually address Stirners thought specifically or was it applying a general criticism of moral nihilism?
He mentions Stirner twice, but the chapter he was going to write specifically addressing him was never completed; he does address the genealogy of Stirner's thought and its implications though.
>>1371789
>Stirner is one of the most lucid philosophers, there's nothing to misunderstand.
He might be lucid compared to the German Idealists that were big in his time but judging by the flawed criticisms of it in his time and the translations troubles of ours he is very easy to misunderstand.
Things like what he means by: Spirit, Einzige and the spook - property relationship for instance not to mention the creative nothing are all easy to misinterpret
>>1371840
So would it be accurate to say that it was a general chapter on moral nihilism or a different thinker with Stirner only being an incidental inclusion?
>>1371835
Are you actually autistic? Let's look at the last part of that statement, past the semicolon: "I refer all to myself." He clearly means that he views the world as his property in exactly the form I described, to view it as it is of interest to you. He's pretty fucking explicit (see >>1371817) that you own only that which you have the might to control.
Hey, why'd you abandon that thread when I proved you wrong about the criteria of how mental disorders are labeled as such? Why do you always abandon threads whenever you're proven wrong?
>>1371635
>Is there someone who proves him wrong?
why don't you try?
Why do you hate him?
>>1371860
>Stirner defines property as "of interest to you"
>>1371860
>Why do you always abandon threads whenever you're proven wrong?
I abandon threads when the person I'm arguing with uses circular logic or keeps repeating the same thing instead of addressing objections to said thing.
>>1371867
Yes, something you want that you can defend you can call your property. What you want is something that you alone can decide.
>>1371862
>No, Stirner actually defines them pretty lucidly.
Have you read any of the German Idealists of his time, because that might be a bias of yours?
>It was a chapter on more than moral nihilism, it was a chapter on modernism's dialectic. It's called "Nihilism" because he sees nihilism as the inexorable conclusion of that dialectic.
So it was a general chapter then. Have you come across any works that set out to refute Stirner or his method explicitly?
>>1371870
that's ironic considering that's the very foundation of your faith
>>1371867
Stirner didn't define that term at all. His translator did.
In that case, he refers to property as evaluating things as they are of interest to you, as one would evaluate property; not that you own fucking everything in the universe.
>>1371870
That's rich coming from you, you still haven't addressed >>1371817 which directly refutes your assertion, as he pretty clearly defines what it means to own something.
I actually hate you. Also you abandoned that thread after I quoted the DSM-IV directly and refuted your inane claim that mental disorders are evaluated on strictly hedonistic criteria.
>>1371892
>>1371894
I think it helps to remember that Constantine only posts here with the intention of leading people to Orthodoxy.
He has said more than a few times that he has always wanted nothing more than to be a christian and that if the truth was outside of that hed still choose Christianity.
If you dont hold East Orthodox Dogmas as axioms you cant really expect to have a good conversation
>>1371892
Constantine can never show her face again on this board without a visible bruise from that dickslapping.
>>1371874
So Stirner can defend the whole world?
>>1371882
I have read the German Idealists. Stirner is actually a pedestrian philosopher here. Schopenhauer is the only one of great note, because he doesn't pirate Christianity and envision a "new age" just over the horizon when his philosophy takes hold of the planet (something the rest of them do, in fact even non-idealists like Stirner and Nietzsche do it).
None of the German idealists are as lucid with their definitions as Stirner is.
>So it was a general chapter then. Have you come across any works that set out to refute Stirner or his method explicitly?
Except for Marx, no. There are certainly works set out to refute the idea that metaphysicals don't exist, but they don't waste ink mentioning Stirner. ALL relations are metaphysical.
>>1371892
How so?
>>1371894
>Stirner didn't define that term at all
Yes he did. Just very causally and in passing, "my possession, my property, and I choose it for its use"
> and refuted your inane claim that mental disorders are evaluated on strictly hedonistic criteria.
By quoting an undefined buzzword ("abnormal")?
>which directly refutes your assertion
Also disproves that Stirner owns the world, as he claims.
>>1371947
>Also disproves that Stirner owns the world, as he claims.
Holy fuck, you must be autistic. He never claims you own the fucking world. He says you should treat the world as though it were your property, but explicity says that you own only that which you possess.
I'm done here. You're a fucking worthless human being, who is completely incapable of arguing in good faith. You make everything worse wherever you are found, and I honestly, sincerely hate you. You represent something I vehemently hate in human beings: intellectual dishonesty.
>By quoting an undefined buzzword ("abnormal")?
By quoting the fucking DSM-IV. There was an entire paragraph on it.
>Yes he did. Just very causally and in passing, "my possession, my property, and I choose it for its use"
No, I mean you're getting hung up on a translation.
>>1371947
>How so?
you've admitted it yourself before in a thread about Zoroastrianism's supposed influence on Judaism awhile back. you tried to put me and you on equal footing by saying I assume a secular world view and you assume a christian world view
>>1371962
So you're suggesting he's just LARP'ing it's his property?
>By quoting the fucking DSM-IV. There was an entire paragraph on it.
Not that defined it.
>>1371969
Even if you have a secular worldview, my argument still has merit. That had more to do with the validity of prophecies.
>>1371970
>Not that defined it.
God fucking damnit, here I am again, because you managed to say this.
No, they outright state there is no working definition that is applicable to all situations, and that the process of categorizing mental illness includes a whole shitload of factors.
>>1371947
>I have read the German Idealists. Stirner is actually a pedestrian philosopher here.
Well given your background with thinkers like that is probably why he seems so pedestrian to you.
>Except for Marx, no. There are certainly works set out to refute the idea that metaphysicals don't exist, but they don't waste ink mentioning Stirner. ALL relations are metaphysical.
What were Marx's arguments? Did you find them convincing? Have you come across any good arguments against Stirner in your general eadings/postings?
>Also disproves that Stirner owns the world, as he claims.
Not that Im a part of that conversation
but might you be confusing ownership in the sense of seeing it as subordinate and disposable to your interests with the idea of ownership as having power over it?
Kind of like how you can make the concept of the state your property whilst not having power over its agents?
The Buddha.
>>1371981
which is a fundamental basis for christianity. how can you even justify Psalm 22 being prophecy without taking it on faith?
>>1371970
What argument or demonstration would you require for you to accept that anons interpretation of Stirner as opposed to your own?
>>1371997
t. Bernie "cucklord" Russell
>>1371996
>What were Marx's arguments?
Mostly Marx trying to the self is nothing and everyone is only and does only what their environment shapes them to do, plus a lot of Marx's cringey efforts at wit through things like namecalling,
>>1371996
>but might you be confusing ownership in the sense of seeing it as subordinate and disposable to your interests with the idea of ownership as having power over it?
Stirner doesn't really see a distinction here, because he's not working from a liberal framework. To him, a baby who can get her mother to feed her, can be said to have power over her mother; Stirner doesn't care about potentials, he only cares about what is; if you cause someone to do something, that was your power to do.
>Kind of like how you can make the concept of the state your property
For Stirner, no, except as a lie to use on others to further your own interests.
>>1371635
>>1372052
>Stirner is LARP'ing.
In what way?
>>1372052
Christ's body was removed by the jews and the romans because they feared the burial place would become a place of worship.
He woke up from his swoon afterwards.
t. knower
>>1372072
He saying, "Pretend it is your property even though you know it's not."
>>1372074
>Christ's body was removed by the jews and the romans because they feared the burial place would become a place of worship.
Doesn't make any sense. His tomb is a place of worship to this day, why would removing the body change that?
>>1372075
Evaluate it as your property, for if you were to exert the might to control it, it could very well be.
>>1372079
They couldn't have such foresight, they DID know what could happen to martyrs, however
>>1372052
alright, then you still have to take the gospel account on faith first. you have to assume that the apostles were trustworthy sources of information and that the gospels reliably give information directly from the apostles and from eyewitnesses. this is especially suspect when we have apparently have darkness covering Jerusalem or the whole world depending on how you read it following christ's death and we have a contemporary jewish source that does not mention it (Philo of Alexandria). there isn't a reason to think he was skeptical of such miracles since he mentioned the temple being bathed in light during the night to show God's displeasure before the revolt.
>>1372075
Your skills at misinterpreting other peoples arguments that you dont like is amazing
>>1372081
That doesn't make any sense.
"I'll get a ride to the club but I'll tell the guy I won't need a ride back, because all the cars at the club are my property were I to exert control over them even though I can't."
I would say it would make sense to evauluate something as it *could* be your property, but not only does Stirner say that, it would be completely out of line with his philosophy which disregards in total the might have or should be and sees only what is. Power to Stirner is not potential, it only exists if it is being utilized; that is why he sees things like the state as a spook.
>>1372079
no one knows what specific tomb is Jesus's. how is it still a place of worship?
>>1372083
They place guards to make sure no one removes the body to make it look like he's not dead (as happened a lot historically, there was a concern this would happen with Richard II), only to steal it away themselves without publicly saying so and making it look like Christ is immortal?
>>1372087
Philo didn't even live in Jerusalem, he hardly talks about contemporary events there except in the broadest terms, and if he heard such a story, being the intense rationalist that he was, he would have instantly regarded it as a fairy tale.
I made an argument as to why the Apostles were probably trustworthy.
>>1372095
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre
Here is an Orthodox hymn that has pictures of it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc
>>1372103
Do you know why they kept Hitler's teeth and dustributed it between the powers Constantine?
To prove to everyone that he did commit suicide on that day, so neo nazis couldn't claim he actually escaped.
>>1372112
Right, so the idea they would try to hid his teeth and other remains is a bit absurd.
>>1372107
even the wikipedia article says the tradition is from "at least the 4th century". to take this as proof that it is Jesus's tomb, let alone proof that he was resurrected you have to first take christianity on faith
>>1372118
If you say so, but that's just saying you in particular find it hard to believe.
However I will not keep posting because it's three AM and I need to sleep, bye.
>>1372046
>Stirner doesn't really see a distinction here, because he's not working from a liberal framework. To him, a baby who can get her mother to feed her, can be said to have power over her mother; Stirner doesn't care about potentials, he only cares about what is; if you cause someone to do something, that was your power to do.
Are you sure about that?
>For Stirner, no, except as a lie to use on others to further your own interests.
You can though in the sense that you pay taxes and support the laws that agree with your will (for instance reporting a terrorist) whilst not holding the state above you in the sense that you wouldnt jaywalk even if there was no chance of being caught.
>>1372052
>It doesn't really matter which interpretation we go with. If we go with mine, Stirner is wrong. If we go with anon's, Stirner is LARP'ing.
Thats a different question though. I wasnt asking about implications of these interpretations only the evidence you would need to change yours view to allign with his.
>>1372129
I'm not sure where I'm suggesting any of this, my only point was an empty tomb doesn't stop it from being a place of worship, in fact it encourages. No ancient Messianic movement continued after the supposed Messiah died. Christianity would not have been a thing if there were no idea of Christ's Resurrection. The tomb might have been a place to way respects, but not worship.
>>1372140
You'd have to show something by Stirner saying he doesn't really own the world
>>1372145
Why are you so dishonest? >>1371817
>What I have in my power, that is my own.
Ok, now follow along with me.
>What I have in my power
This means he has to be capable of exerting power over it.
>that is my own.
This means he owns it.
Taken together, this means that things which he has in his power, he owns. Was that so fucking hard, you stupid little weasel?
>>1371892
DAAAYUUUM
>>1372145
>I'm going to be deliberately obtuse, otherwise my argument falls apart
>>1372145
>For it is one thing when I give up my previous course because it does not lead to the goal, and therefore turn out of a wrong road; it is another when I yield myself a prisoner. I get around a rock that stands in my way, till I have powder enough to blast it; I get around the laws of a people, till I have gathered strength to overthrow them. Because I cannot grasp the moon, is it therefore to be “sacred” to me, an Astarte? If I only could grasp you, I surely would, and, if I only find a means to get up to you, you shall not frighten me! You inapprehensible one, you shall remain inapprehensible to me only till I have acquired the might for apprehension and call you my own; I do not give myself up before you, but only bide my time. Even if for the present I put up with my inability to touch you, I yet remember it against you.
He kind of does here.
also a really good quote regarding his understanding of property
"“If you consume what is sacred, you have made it property!"
>>1372145
Stop posting any day now you retarded piece of shit. Your opinions and arguments are fucking worthless.
>>1372145
Stirner puts a distinction between property and ownership. This is just his philosophy, and it takes real work not to notice the distinction.
As always, the tranny faggot uses lies and deceit to pretend philosophers are arguing against what he wants to argue against. You've never given one fair argument about Stirner or Nietzsche
>>1372090
Property is psychic. Ownership is material. Stirner's point is you should not look at any material as being "not yours" in some immaterial sense, like another car has an essence of un-you in it. It's just a thing. What actually matters is who actually can exert power over the car.
This is so trivial and obvious I don't know why I bother explaining it. You're literally going on a long, losing tangent about something you don't understand. You just look like an annoying twat asshole, you take yourself way too seriously. You're a joke without an ounce of valuable words to put forth.
>>1372145
You really are a complete fucking moron
>>1372203
>Stirner puts a distinction between property and ownership.
Wrong
>my possession, my property, and I choose it for its use
>>1372230
Thats a bit dishonest as thats not actually Stirner but a quote from the translators preface
>>1372230
One out of context quote. Next time don't just copy paste text from the SEP and actually read the text, okay?
Think of it this way: Stirner says "do whatever you want with this rock". Does that mean I can make it float? No. It will still fall. I'm still limited by the materiality of things. That's all Stirner means, don't be beholden to principles of immateriality (I shouldn't touch the rock because spooky ghosts), be beholden to principles of materiality.
And now that you know, you can admit you're wrong and don't know anything, then proceed to shut the fuck up and let educated people speak.
>>1372250
Sorry not the translator but J.L walker
>>1372230
Why are you such an autistic fuck that you have to come at people with hostilitt? Why can't you say, "I'm not sure that's right, can you explain this quote?" versus coming at people like "YOU'RE WRONG!!! THIS ONE QUOTE PROVES YOU WRONG!!!"
Can't you realize that you come across like a stilted autist? Can't you realize how abrasive, rude and unchristian you are? Can't you realize that unabashed Socratism makes you a despised retard and not an enlightened gent?
>Constantine gets blown the fuck out
Today was a good day.
>>1371635
Okay there are a few ways to respond to Stirner. My favorite is just to read about the Harry Harlow experiments. The moral of that story is that being alone for a long time fucks up primates in the head. The thing Stirner didn't realize is that an individual human is closer to a stitch in a cloth than an individual monster. Nietzsche was more prescient here.
Second, you can go the Marxist route of pointing out that immaterial property is largely an irrelevance in comparison to the material reality of social class. Which is true. Who owns what doesn't matter if one is locked away in a prison.
Lastly, and this is basically a corollary of the first point, you don't actually desire amorality, because solitude is the worst punishment for a person. Actually having friends requires you to relinquish yourself to some degree.
Despite these I think Stirner holds up and it's not hard to hammer his philosophy into something relevant.
>>1372293
>Okay there are a few ways to respond to Stirner. My favorite is just to read about the Harry Harlow experiments. The moral of that story is that being alone for a long time fucks up primates in the head. The thing Stirner didn't realize is that an individual human is closer to a stitch in a cloth than an individual monster. Nietzsche was more prescient here.
>Lastly, and this is basically a corollary of the first point, you don't actually desire amorality, because solitude is the worst punishment for a person. Actually having friends requires you to relinquish yourself to some degree.
Yeah, but Stirner acknowledges the social interaction and cooperation are vital to your own self-interest.
As for the Marx thing, I think it's a wrong-headed way of looking at it. How you view your circumstance (which is what Stirner was getting at) is quite important. The difference between a prisoner who feels they should be a prisoner and a prisoner who feels that they own themselves and will do what it takes to free themselves is vast.
>>1372250
Explain how Stiner's conception of property differs from the Greek concept of idios (source of the word "idiot").
>>1372306
I know he did, my point is more that it's psychologically untenable to do what he suggests. You can't actually go around always thinking "what's in it for me?" We are largely unthinking creatures of habits and routines
>>1372251
I've read Stirner plenty of times, don't try to pretend that only people who agree with him understand him, like Nietzscheboos do. I know very well what Stirner's concept of a spook is, it's an essence. That doesn't mean the world is Stirner's property even in his sense.
>>1372312
*tips fedora*
>>1372319
Stirner's conception of property only applies at an individual level. And don't pretend like you actually understand a fucking thing you talk about.
>>1372203
>Stirner puts a distinction between property and ownership
Looking at the German, I'm going to revisit this as clearly wrong. The word translated as "property" is Eigentum (literally "owndom").
>>1372312
So are you not admitting that you have been dishonest or mistaken in attributing a quote to Stirner which was not actually his?
Dont you kind see the significance of this given how much weight you attach to this quote - to the point it overrides actual quotes by Stirner.
>Explain how Stiner's conception of property differs from the Greek concept of idios (source of the word "idiot").
You'll have to expand here I'm not familiar with the word or greek.
How is this connected to my point about your attribution of words?
>>1372319
You're reading way too much into the "my" part of "my property". "Everything is my property" means something closer to "abolish all property" than it does to "I literally own the deeds to every property ever". Stop being such a fedora.
>>1372319
Just because you read something doesn't mean you understood it. You're a grand example of a how a person can be well read yet totally clueless at the same time.
>>1372319
>I've read Stirner plenty of times
Evangelicals and JWs read the bible more than apostolic Christians do does that mean they understand it better?
>>1372318
That's true as well, and I think he acknowledges it backhandedly by pointing out that he has spooks of his own. If you try to make an absolute creed out of Stirner's work (which would be hilariously contradictory) you're gonna wind up disappointed, but I think as a general guideline it works well. The basic message of "don't hold anything sacred" is pretty workable.
>>1372328
>mistaken in attributing a quote to Stirner which was not actually his?
Yes.
>>1372326
Engaging in misguided Socratism again I see. Stop quipping at people with one line "refutations" and don't reply unless you're going to put in effort and substance.
Talking about the translation from German is irrelevant when you don't understand cultural intonation, and it doesn't allow you to slip in an interpretation under the guise of "correct interpretation". Tell a bigger story in regards to the German or stop. fucking. posting.
>>1372337
They probably would if they uses a mostly consistent translation (King James version counts, which many of them do use) and didn't read it through a particular lens instilled prior (which most of them don't).
>>1372340
???
>>1372345
There's nothing misguided here: it's clear that the idea the Stirner defines property and ownership differently is based purely in English translation, since in German they're just two different grammatical cases of the same word.
>>1372347
>didn't read it through a particular lens instilled prior (which most of them don't).
Now can you see why you might have some trouble with Stirner?
>>1372349
Yes, misattributed a quote to Stirner, by accident.
>>1372352
No, because I'm not reading Stirner through any lens telling me what Stirner means before I read him.
>>1372353
What about all those questions about Greek you asked me?
Has this quote not being Stirners had any influence on how you view the other quotes and arguments?
>>1372338
Yeah I definitely agree there
>>1372355
>I'm the only person immune to bias.
Incredible.
Constantine, do you see here, again, what I was talking about? How you're both the most prolific poster on /his/ and it's most reviled.
>>1372351
That doesn't at all adress the material/immaterial distinction which stirner talks about.
>>1372361
You can find the definition of the concept here: http://biblehub.com/greek/2398.htm
>Has this quote not being Stirners had any influence on how you view the other quotes and arguments?
Not really, since this revolves around Stirner saying the world is his property; it was argued that to own something and to have it as property are different concepts for Stirner, so I introduced that (incorrectly attributed) quote to correct that; but though the quote is faulty, I've already made a far better case here
>>1372326
>>1372355
>No, because I'm not reading Stirner through any lens telling me what Stirner means before I read him.
Well we have already seen you read it through the lens of the person who wrote an introduction and likewise you like the JW who see apocalypse and Satan in everything you as well bring a heavy religious outlook and set of terms to it.
For instance I recall you posting how the creative nothing must be based on the Greek God of Chaos
>>1372355
>I refuse to learn a language before reading a text written in it
>>1372365
Constantine is a narcissistic manchild who's clearly too autistic to do something productive, so 4chan is his job.
>>1372370
Them using the same word doesn't make your case. I know you're smart enough to know that. There are lots of words in any language that take on different connotations depending on context and use. This is of course barring the possibility of Stirner engaging in a Stirner-specific idiom with the word, which considering his writing was considered highly distinctive to him, is entirely plausible.
>>1372377
>I'm saying I read Stirner without a lens telling me how to interpret Stirner's meaning.
Which is tantamount to saying you're immune to bias. Everyone interprets everything through a lens. This is a fundamental component of human perception.
>It does show the idea that the world is his property is ridiculous.
Well you beat that fucking strawman. Good job Constantine. Your mommy must be very proud.
>>1372370
>a translation of one word in a language you aren't fluent in
>evidence that your entire judgment of a philosopher is accurate
Fuck off
>>1372384
>There are lots of words in any language that take on different connotations depending on context and use.
Not so much within a work where they are terminology. The whole point of terminology within a work (philosophical, scientific, etc.) is that the definition is fixed so things are clear.
>>1372370
Thanks and what is the connection to my question and this concept?
>Not really, since this revolves around Stirner saying the world is his property; it was argued that to own something and to have it as property are different concepts for Stirner, so I introduced that (incorrectly attributed) quote to correct that;
So accordingly it met your standard you stated in >>1372145 ?
>>1372377
No it doesnt, all this demonstration has shown is that you can't have any IRL friends because you're so insufferable.
Stop defending yourself and defend the fucking argument. Tell me, what does eigentum imply in German? In what contexts is it used? These aren't trivialities
>>1372329
It's actually a pretty perfect example of the cognitive dissonance which blind faith reveals. He is well read, and probably does understand some of it, but his dogma causes him to view any point that doesn't exactly line up with his view of Christianity as not valid
>>1372387
I'm unsure where you're going with this. If you think everyone has a lens the same way Protestants did with the Bible, then why did you even bring that up as a way to suggest I misunderstand Stirner? My understanding would still be equal with yours, since you would also have a lens.
>>1372388
It's not evidence, but proof that these are not distinct terms.
>>1372385
No it's not, autism is on your side.
>>1372395
>every philosopher engages in philosophy the exact same way
Oh right. I completely forgot how the Tao Te Ching followed the same rules as English analytic philosophy.
>>1372403
Thats a different anon
>>1372403
>I'm unsure where you're going with this.
That you're willfully misinterpreting it because it disagrees with your own ideology, you fucking thick cunt.
>My understanding would still be equal with yours, since you would also have a lens.
I would agree, save that my understanding doesn't seem to be unique to me.
>>1372403
Liscence and liscentious have the same root and are entirely different words. You don't understand how language works. It's not proof and you've given no convincing argument.
Stay on track, don't distract from your idiotic statements.
>>1372403
Natural languages don't obey the rules of autism.
>>1372397
>Thanks and what is the connection to my question and this concept?
It shows that the supposedly distinct definitions are really interchangeable.
>So accordingly it met your standard you stated in
It actually supports my argument which was that Stirner doesn't own the world. To believe he understand his concept precludes that and he's just LARP'ing, I would have to see him say so
>>1372400
Eigentum means that which is owned. "Own" in German is synonymous with the Greek word "idios", which can connote peculiarity or uniqueness to the individual beyond physical things and including qualities.
>>1372403
>It's not evidence, but proof that these are not distinct terms.
It's literally not at all. You're just making stuff up now. First you tried being deliberately clueless, but now that that's failed you've moved on to just plain making shit up. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a part of a certain chosen tribe.
>>1372403
He's saying that you have an obvious bias because of your accepted views of christianity, morality, purpose and will. You can't fully understand the text in the same way as someone who doesn't accept any such dogma.
>>1372428
>he's just LARP'ing
Meme spouting will get you nowhere. Stirner explicitly states he doesn't own the world. It's been pointed out to you several times.
>>1372437
>No, what's your point? Stirner writes in the German school of philosophy, not the Chinese.
That just because you assert philosophy is done one way, doesn't mean all philosophers do things that way.
HOW ARE YOU SO STUPID?
>Argumentum ad populum?
Fallacy fallacy.
>>1372433
>Ben Garrison
Maximum overkek.
>>1372428
It means none of those things, it means what Germans used it to mean in Stirner's day. Again refer to the liscence/liscentious example. Autistic etymological wordplay will not explain the meaning of the words, only cultural understanding does.
Do you have that cultural understanding, Constantine? Are you fluent enough in German to do that? Or do you simply have 8 tabs of wiktionary open and are popping NSAIDs to calm the headache from being this blown the fuck out?
>>1372441
I know I'm not you, I'm Constantine the (((Orthodox Christian))).
>>1372446
>It means none of those things, it means what Germans used it to mean in Stirner's day.
Which are those things
> Again refer to the liscence/liscentious example
These have the same root but that are still DIFFERENT words in English. Not different cases of the same word like fooling/foolery/foolish and so on. Awesome and awful are also both from the same word, but they are not simply two cases of the same word in English today, they are separate words with different definitions. The words we're talking about are two cases of the same German word.
>>1372447
>Quote?
The one where he states what it means to own something. Already been pointed out to you.
>Memes and invoking total relativism aren't arguments, sorry
The fallacy fallacy isn't a meme. Just because something used a fallacy in it doesn't mean it's necesssarily wrong, and it would be fallacious to assume otherwise.
Pointing out that your presumption that Stirner was engaging in philosophy the way you assume, or that all German philosophers do so is not necessarily correct is not invoking relativism.
You haven't a leg to stand on. So why don't you just admit you've lost and leave?
>>1372441
Liscence and liscentious literally are the same word and literally had the same implications. That changed over history.
No amount of autism will make you right here, you're simply wrong to think the words have the same meaning on a priori grounds.
Also you're still failing to answer the material/immaterial distinction that Stirner makes very clear. Why do you ignore inconvenient arguments? It wouldn't be because you can answer them could it?
>>1372454
Man, that is one fat crane. I might need a crane to lift that crane, and I'll need to crane my neck to see why I do so.
>>1372447
Dude. How can you not understand something when everyone is telling you that you are taking single words and quotes out of context and misinterpreting the argument and yet you still think you're the only one who really understands the true meaning of the work? How can you be so unreasonable? Everyone knows you're wrong. Everyone is going out of their way to provide context and give you clear definitions as to how you're wrong. And you still refuse to admit it and move on to some other inane semantic point and force your way into another empty corner. You're a fucking fool man, seriously. You should kill yourself.
>>1372454
Not 600 years ago. 600 years ago being liscentious was caused by granting liscence. They had an intrinsic causal meaning that no longer exists.
I know it's hard for you to grasp, that you're wrong, but please lay down the sword.
>>1372460
>Why do you ignore inconvenient arguments? It wouldn't be because you can answer them could it?
>>1372465
>How can you not understand something when everyone is telling you that you are taking single words and quotes out of context and misinterpreting the argument and yet you still think you're the only one who really understands the true meaning of the work? How can you be so unreasonable?
The answer is clear, isn't it?
>>1372455
>The one where he states what it means to own something. Already been pointed out to you.
Which means he's wrong when he says he owns the world.
>Just because something used a fallacy in it doesn't mean it's necesssarily wrong,
Right, like my argument contains "asshole" in it, that doesn't invalidate the whole argument. But the problem is, your entire argument is built on it, it's not just incidental, you're saying "my lens is better than yours because more people agree with it" and didn't offer any reasoning beyond that.
>Pointing out that your presumption that Stirner was engaging in philosophy the way you assume, or that all German philosophers do so is not necessarily correct is not invoking relativism.
It is perfectly reasonable to assume Stirner's terminology is something consistent as opposed to fluctuating, based solely on him coming from that philosophical school. If you want to suggest his terms fluctuate in meaning, you're the one who has to provide evidence, and no, saying, "Well he'd be wrong here if his terms didn't fluctuate," is not very strong evidence.
>>1372454
This is fucking stupid. You don't know German and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Stirner means different things.
>>1372428
>It actually supports my argument which was that Stirner doesn't own the world.
but your entire objection was that he claimed that he did own the world based on that quote that wasnt his. How does you being wrong prove that you are right?
>>1372460
>That changed over history.
Right. But we're not talking about such a case here. In the German, both were, and still are, two cases of the same word, that hasn't changed.
>>1372476
>Which means he's wrong when he says he owns the world.
Or, the more reasonable assumption, that he means something different, as people have been pointing out to you this entire thread.
>Right, like my argument contains "asshole" in it, that doesn't invalidate the whole argument. But the problem is, your entire argument is built on it, it's not just incidental, you're saying "my lens is better than yours because more people agree with it" and didn't offer any reasoning beyond that.
I don't really see a reason to offer more beyond that. You've already had every argument you've made torn to shreds, you've been backed into nitpicking semantics.
>It is perfectly reasonable to assume Stirner's terminology is something consistent as opposed to fluctuating, based solely on him coming from that philosophical school. If you want to suggest his terms fluctuate in meaning, you're the one who has to provide evidence, and no, saying, "Well he'd be wrong here if his terms didn't fluctuate," is not very strong evidence.
No, actually, it's not a reasonable assumption. Read Saint Max. Marx spends a good chunk of it tearing into the fact Stirner really needed a better editor.
>>1372476
MEANING IS DETERMINED BY USE NOT BY AUTISM
Holy shit why does anyone ever even engage this fucking retard? This is the single greatest display of constant mental backflipping I've ever seen.
>>1372477
It's the same exact word, one is just verb form verses noun form, to own something, verses the thing that is owned.
>>1372480
No they're not. They are not the same word, they're not translated as the same word, what Stirner means is clear in the text and you're just wrong.
>>1372478
But THIS quote is his
"I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property"
>>1372447
>Quote?
Here you go
>My intercourse with the world, what does it aim at? I want to have the enjoyment of it, therefore it must be my property, and therefore I want to win it. I do not want the liberty of men, nor their equality; I want only my power over them, I want to make them my property, i.e. material for enjoyment.
>>1372490
Because the more he gets utterly destroyed around here, the less chance there is that anyone will ever take him seriously. Constantine is worrying in that he's just well read enough to be persuasive if you don't know what he's talking about.
>>1372490
Idk but this fag doesn't deserve the attention he gets. Trips are for people who deserve them and Constantine has time after time shown that he doesn't deserve one.
>>1372491
Is that how the Germans actually used it? Is that how Stirner actually used it? Does your interpretation make sense in regards to the rest of the text?
The answer to all of these questions is no , so stop posting any day now.
>>1372497
Right, he places no immaterial emphasis on who owns what, which means if you drop a five dollar bill he keeps it because there is no intrinsic ownership to that dollar.
However he can't steal five dollars from a strong person because they'll kick his ass.
He owns whatever he has power over. Problem solved. Now you can stop posting ignorant bullshit.
>>1372506
Do you think he's a Jewish government shill sent to keep people believing what they want?
>>1372509
>If so, what does he mean, and on what basis are you suggesting it?
That you're not supposed to regard the world as "not someone else's" in some sort of immaterial sense that makes it sacred. I suggest it on the basis that he expressly outlines what it means to own something, and because he spends the entirety of his book tearing down the notion of holding things as sacred. Considering there to be some sort of sacred, untouchable "ownership" even if it is your own, would be fundamentally contradictory.
>>1372496
They ARE the same word, just different forms. Do you understand what a grammatical cases is? For instance, you do understand that he and him and the same word, just spelled differently because of their grammatical case?
In languages like Latin and Greek, grammar is completely form without any syntax, there about a hundred forms of most word (for instance, the verb "run" changes form based on second, first, third and plural persons, along with the tense and all that). If you pick up a Greek dictionary, they won't list each form as a separate entry, they'll just list one
>>1372509
Do you take Stirner literally when he talks about China or do you do the right thing and substitute Prussia? Do you read Stirner as laying out an autistic logical treatise or can you do the right thing and read his sarcasm?
You are not the arbiter of what's correct.
>>1372510
Yes, yes, and yes, and it is still used that way to this say.
>>1372524
It's not really a matter of literally.
Obviously I was wrong on this, and he meant it figuratively, but I meant whether or not he uses the term as he normally does (which is not the standard usage at all, neither way I suggesting it is: the standard usage defines ownership by right)
>>1372497
Alright lets take a look at this then. Firstly the context
>As I find myself back of things, and that as mind, so I must later find myself also back of thoughts — to wit, as their creator and owner. In the time of spirits thoughts grew till they overtopped my head, whose offspring they yet were; they hovered about me and convulsed me like fever-phantasies — an awful power. The thoughts had become corporeal on their own account, were ghosts, e.g. God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then I take them back into mine, and say: “I alone am corporeal.” And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property; I refer all to myself.
If as spirit I had thrust away the world in the deepest contempt, so as owner I thrust spirits or ideas away into their “vanity.” They have no longer any power over me, as no “earthly might” has power over the spirit.
What we see here is him talking about is the destruction of spooks. Here he talks of how in basing he value based on himself (ie not a spook) he is then able to value the world for what it is in relation to himself instead of spooks.
Were we to use your understanding of him, this section wouldn't make any sense and would make all those other quotes ive posted.
>>1372527
But you're wrong. It doesn't make send in the text. He clearly makes a distinction between those two forms of the word property, and the concept of ownership.
>>1372518
No, I think he's an autistic basement dweller who's well-read but not the brightest. I think he's zealously taken up Orthodox Christianity because it's theology fits with his autism. And I'm almost certain he has Jewish blood in his veins. His style of argument is very typical of merchants.
>>1372525
>I concede the argument.
Is this sincere or you are being sarcastic? Did you misinterpret Stirner despite your multiple readings and philosophical background?
If so are there any implications on how you value or see him as a thinker?
Did the book you suggested to the OP make a similar mistake?
>>1372534
He doesn't. He uses the term figuratively here, but what is translated as "property" literally means something owned. The terms are only distinct that one is referring to that which is owned, whereas the other is referring to the action or state of owning.
>>1372522
I've read you post the same thing fifty fucking times. I know exactly what you're saying you dumb fucking tranny. Claiming that Stirner believes he has infinite power over material objects because he willed it is an obvious misreading and anyone who proposes that reading is objectively fucking wrong
It doesn't matter what the German you don't understand says, it doesn't matter what misquoted tidbits say, it's just a bad fucking reading
It's like saying "turn the other cheek" means literally "Jesus is advocating you get into BDSM and allow someone to whip you and you turn the other cheek to let them whip that so Jesus is an amoral pervert and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong because "cheek" in Greek translates from a word which sounds like homosexual!!!"
This is the quality of your argumentation. It's nonsense, goes against the mainstream, ignores sensible evidence and props up dubious evidence all because you personally hate the philosopher
>>1372532
Jesus maybe if you had fucking participated like a friendly, normal person we could have avoided the outrage and had a nice discussion.
You have serious interpersonal problems.
>>1372541
No, it's sincere. My mistake is assuming he used the term uniformly, which is because outside of that context he mostly does.
I already value him as a thinker, that doesn't mean I think he's correct. His definition of "spook" is based purely on a priori values, not on some sort of reality, he defines as essence put above the self, but though he speaks of the "bodily ego", his idea of a unified self is surely as much essentialism as everything he attacks, he just shelters it from assault my sanctifying it as property (but whose property? its own? how is that any different from saying the state is not a spook because it is the state's property?)..
No, the book really didn't, because it didn't elaborate as much as I did on Stirner specifically.
>>1372551
Hebraic tradition of terms is not the same as German. Hebrew prose (unlike Hebrew verse),for instances, uses and intentionally impoverished vocabulary, in order to connect concepts and themes by echoing phrases and words in as many different ways as possible. If Stirner were an ancient Hebrew philosopher, you'd have a point, though.
>>1372558
As far as I can tell, I was courteous.
>>1372563
Oh wow ok, he finally admitted he was wrong about one thing
>>1372563
I wouldn't be so hasty to claim Stirner bundles "you" into a single object, Stirner was a huge fan and avid reader of Adam Smith, who was a moral sentimentalist and friend of David Hume. Stirner's views on the "you" is highly similar to Adam Smith's and thus influenced by David Hume.
>>1372586
I'd say he does, considering the term translated as "Ego" is actually German for the noun (as opposed to adjective) form of "one, sole, unique".
>>1372580
It's not about whether you insult, it's about how you approach the argument. You,can mockingly insult people and still,be an insufferable ass.
I mentioned one case to you in this thread, where you quoted me and just said "WRONG". I would encourage you, instead of being so hardball about presenting hardball facts to engage these more open mindedly and allow people more space to talk. I don't know if you get how aggravating it is when you present a view and you just come back with a brick wall "No", instead of asking questions about that view and asking how certain quotes fit in with the view, and then politely disagreeing after you've had a conversation.
Do you see what I mean? I really do think you're capable of some nice insights but it's really hard to talk with you when you just go around claiming everyone else is wrong
>>1372577
Well he actually was fluent enough to read and write in Hebrew, as well as Greek and Latin.
>>1372599
Not that guy, but I think we've already established Stirner does odd shit with language.
>>1372599
Remember it's the creative nothing, which is to say we shouldn't take it so seriously as an object because it's not.
>>1372602
>where you quoted me and just said "WRONG"
Well it is wrong, but I'm sorry for being so brusque, that was wrong and arrogant.
>>1371745
A union of egoists is pretty damn egalitarian, lad.
Arguing with Constantine is extremely frustrating, because he basically refuses to talk like a normal human being. You basically have to have an encyclopedia knowledge of everything and be able to pin him down with absolutely certain quotes about something before he'll back off, and even then he only steps maybe a half-inch off his point.
>>1372613
That's the first part of that statement, being against imposed hierarchy. He outright rejects the notion that everyone is equal to everyone else; in his view each is unique and not even slightly equal.
>>1372616
>But since he uses the self as the linchpin of his philosophy, if the concept is just as empty as the concepts he attacks, his philosophy wouldn't really stand
It's not that concept is empty, it's just that it's not the cohesive whole you're making it out to be. The self is a nebulous, undefinable thing in his view. It's there, in the sense that say the universe is there, but much like the universe there's no way for a person to be aware of or understand it in its totality.
>>1372615
why doesn't everyone just filter him?
>>1372611
>Well it is wrong
You really need to get off your high horse. You don't know everything and sometimes you can learn by listening to other people.
Facts matter less than discussion. Hopefully discussion leads to better understanding.
Think of it this way. You wouldn't want to be taught be a person who merely said what was right and told the students they were wrong with minimal evidence. The teacher has to be longsuffering and patient.
>>1372623
So it's no more cohesive than the nation or the family?
>>1372625
You're right, people matter more than points.
>>1372616
Right, I was just stating facts.
As for your other comment, how do you understand the creative nothing? Stirner as far as I'm aware doesn't view us as have a "self", the self is the creative nothing.
>>1372624
Because then you're just stuck looking at the various derailments and shitstorms he started without his part in it. The net effect is the same in the end.
>>1372632
I would say the creative nothing is the nihilistic version of Hegel's Geist, but Stirner doesn't elaborate enough on the concept, and considering his philosophy stresses individualism as paramount, I'm inclined to believe he sees the creative nothing unto himself as opposed to one creative nothing that all partake of.
>>1372619
But that's not at all like the right-wing historical rejection of egalitarianism that goes hand in hand with imposed authority.
Stirner's proposed union of egoists doesn't just act in distinction to imposed authority, it is fundamentally egalitarian. And if everyone were to accept Stirner's idea society would only become even more egalitarian than it is now.
>>1372644
>if everyone were to accept Stirner's idea
We mostly do, we're more and more tending to just see ourselves as purely materialist beings who do things purely for self-gratification, and that the family and the nation and everything else but the self is not to be regarded or considered except as quaint or aesthetic.
>>1372626
Ah, this one again. He never attacks those on the fact they lack cohesion, he attacks them on the fact that if people ignore them they effectively stop existing. It's not as though there's a cosmic ledger in which families or nations are etched into (at least, there's no reason to assume there is such a thing). The self, the ego, and all of its components do not. So long as you're doing anything conscious, you're aware of its existence, which while not unified or knowable, is still definitely a thing.
I'm not sure why you get so bloody hung up on this. Value family and nation if you want; just don't expect everyone to treat them with the same reverence you do. Stirner likely wouldn't disapprove of you valuing family (he'd probably disapprove of you valuing our current nation states, but he certainly wouldn't disagree with you valuing social organization).
>>1372646
But we don't, if we did then capitalism, all governments and such would be in the trash where they belong.
>>1372647
How would the self exist if we ignored it?
>>1372646
Not really. We have all sorts of spooks all over the place. Morals, family, nation, etc. are all still considered important. The idea of the businessman who forsakes all of these is still considered fundamentally abhorrent (an example in popular media actually would be Mr. Burns, who describes religion, family, and friendship as three demons to be slain in pursuit of business). Yes, we're more materialistic than we were before, but we're certainly not Stirnerian.
>>1372653
Nope. Because people still recognize property due to fear of the law. If someone could have a million dollars stolen and given to them, with no chance of being caught or suffering consequences, many otherwise law-abiding citizens would not hesitate. They just don't have the courage to accept the risk that would go with personally stealing it; it's not about spooks, it's about punishment.
>>1372659
No, these are only important concepts for lip service...a shibboleth. Trump committed much adultery and abandoned his wives, and is clearly not very religious, but he gives lip service to these concepts and that's all that actually matters.
>>1372662
Punishment imposed by the state which is a spook in itself.
>>1372654
It would still be the means with which you interface with reality.
Stepping outside of Stirner's philosophy, I think of our existence much as being trapped in a cage that is our own senses, the self in a metaphysical sense exists at the extension of these senses and serves as a central hub which takes in this information and relays the orders of our will, and beyond that hub internally is Stirner's creative nothing, composed in part of a series of wills that are often conflicting with one another and vying for supremacy, as well as much more nebulous elements such as our personality, memories and instincts.
But the problem with trying to deny the self is that any attempt to do so would require the utilization of this tool; attempting to deny the self would be like trying to disprove the existence of a computer with that very same computer.
The only qualm I have with stirner is that realizing you have chains and calling them a spook doesn't really solve anything.
What you have to do, is grab a shotgun, some volatiles and go out there to kill every jew. Then, and only then, can you be free to become the Unique One.
>>1372667
If our existence were Stirnerian, we would have done away with even that, and we would have shaken the bonds of the state from our back, rejecting it outright.
>>1372677
>Jew
Top spook.
>>1372683
Call them the banksters, the government, the lizardmen, etc. They're the ones who basically make the world nofunallowed.jpg
putting them in gas chambers and exterminating them is really the only solution desu
>>1372684
Yes but the problem is that most of them are not Jewish
well who cares, its still a positive net gain
>>1372690
>By "you", do you mean my self?
Yes. I'm aware of the circularity of it, but something being circular doesn't necessarily render it invalid.
It is, as I said, like trying to disprove the existence of a tool by using that tool to do the job. If you're trusting enough that this tool exists to use it to do the job, you've kind of already lost.
>>1372684
But the only people who make the world nofunallowed are spooked people that are willing to hand all power to their overlords.
If you killed everyone on the entire planet with any power you wouldn't have solved anything, because everyone else is still conditioned to believe that such hierarchies, institutions and so forth are both necessary and legitimate. So as such will get right back to work instituting new ones.
>>1372690
>Why? A lot of people benefit from the state, and unless they see its abolition as offering them something better, they're not going to advocate for it.
Another thing you're missing is that Stirner objected to the idea of submitting to an authority that could wind up holding you even after you had decided you didn't want to be held to it, which a state is very much capable of.
>>1372690
>A lot of people benefit from the state,
Yes, and it would be in a lot more people's interests to be done away with the state. Particularly since the state chiefly preserves private property.
>>1372698
Why are you suggesting you're using the self to do the job? Just because you have thoughts doesn't mean you have to accept this only one self thinking.
>>1372704
Whether there's one self or many is irrelevant to Stirner's thinking.
>>1372701
>Stirner objected to the idea of submitting to an authority that could wind up holding you even after you had decided you didn't want to be held to it,
Some people prefer it to the alternative.
>>1372703
Right, but the state also backs the currency and a ton of economic infrastructure would collapse overnight if the currency became worthless. Food, for instance, would stop being delivered in massive quantities to the supermarkets, because the truckers would be being paid, their cards for gas would not work, the gas stations wouldn't want worthless money, the people who even loaded the freight wouldn't want it, etc.
>>1372715
>Money
Another great spook.
>>1372735
We couldn't function at our current levels with a barter economy.
>>1371805
>Kaspar
Spooks indeed.
>>1372738
I'm not saying money should necessarily be done away with. I'm saying money already is worthless.
>>1372778
Define "worth" as distinct from "valued".
>>1372780
Sufficiently interesting.
>>1372784
Plenty of people find it fascinating.
>>1372798
There's nothing interesting about money (unless you're a coin collector or something). The stuff you can potentially buy with money is plenty interesting, but money itself is a massive spook.
>>1372804
I don't think this line of reasoning is gonna get you very far.
Society as we understand is pretty easy to justify egoistically, but it's not really Stirnerian since we still hold some shit sacred (at least in concept) and social organization is pretty fixed.
>>1372804
Money is a placeholder for influence.
It's a person's ability to change the world around them on command, represented as physical objects or numbers, because our brains and society require some way to keep track of that shit.
>>1372813
That's kind of what I'm trying to articulate. Money itself isn't what's of interest. What it represents and can be exchanged for is of interest.
>>1372804
Plenty of bankers and speculators love their work, and plenty of people love to study the flow of money and economics.
>>1372872
So they do but that's not exactly what I meant by interest.
You have a vested interest in having money, so you can go to the shop and buy food (for example) so that you don't die. The object of interest here isn't the money itself, it's the food.
In a less direct manner money itself can be an object of interest, in much the same way that /tg/ is interested in goblins and shit. But that's not really what I'm trying to get at.
"I don't agree with your leap of faith that morality does not exist and think you're foolish to believe that nihilism makes any kind of sense."
The only repose against this is just "lol spooks XD"
>>1372964
>Morality not existing is a leap of faith.
>>1372899
Money as a social medium is in pretty much everyone's interest.
>money is of no interest except as a medium
Well no kidding, being a medium is pretty much all money aspires to be
>>1372971
>I don't agree with your post here's a meme pic lol
See, that's exactly my point.
All you can say in these discussions about the existence of objective truth and morality is "I disagree".
Neither side can prove shit and both require a leap of faith.
>>1372971
Saying morality doesn't exist is as senseless as saying beauty doesn't exist.
>>1372984
As I say, I'm not saying money should be done away with all together. I'm saying it shouldn't be treated as anything beyond a tool.
>Well no kidding, being a medium is pretty much all money aspires to be
Yes, and if it's a good medium it doesn't need a state to enforce it lest the apocalypse happen.
>>1372999
Beauty doesn't inherently exist either.
>>1372999
it exists as a concept but not as a concrete, material entity. it's a thing that our brains thought up and decided was worth keeping around as a descriptor. really, i think beauty is best understood as a way of signalling what triggers sexual reactions through time. that's the 'concrete' of beauty so to speak.
what's the 'concrete' of morality?
>>1373012
Prove it
>>1373017
Footfags exist.
>>1372991
>>1372999
You're both idiots. Its not that those things do not exist. Spooks are real. Its that they are mental projections thrown unto an existing world of phenomena.
"Morality" is just as much a product of the human intellect as concepts like "property", "law" and "The United Kingdom". It exists, but only so far as it is believed to exist, and maintained through force.
Morality [or more properly, moralities] exist in the same way laws do, they are not some special category. To disprove Stirner requires that you prove that intellectual frameworks exist in absence of human beings, which is retarded, and obviously impossible.
The revelation of Stirner is not that you should abandon all these things to the winds, but to realize that they are what they are. Mental projections that may or may not actually be in your best interest, and perhaps should be ignored or subjected to modification.
>>1373016
Literally all relations are metaphysical.
>>1373025
Literally all metaphysics are relations.
