So is the spookmaster actually taken seriously here or is he just a meme-tier philosopher
>edgy, irrefutable philosophy
>made Marx so butthurt he wrote 500 pages of ad hominem
>all those drawings of him
>the very word 'spook'
Perfect alchemy for a meme.
>>276957
>made Marx so butthurt he wrote 500 pages of ad hominem
Huh-wha?
>>276963
>Later, Marx and Engels wrote a major criticism of Stirner's work. The number of pages Marx and Engels devote to attacking Stirner in (the unexpurgated text of) The German Ideology, in which they derided him as "Sankt Max" (Saint Max), exceeds the total of Stirner's written works.[35] As Isaiah Berlin has described it, Stirner "is pursued through five hundred pages of heavy-handed mockery and insult".[36] The book was written in 1845–1846, but not published until 1932. Marx's lengthy, ferocious polemic against Stirner has since been considered an important turning point in Marx's intellectual development from idealism to materialism.
>The critique is a polemical tirade filled with ad hominem attacks and insults against Stirner (Marx calls him a "petty bourgeois individualist intellectual").[4]
He never published it, probably because he realized he hadn't refuted a single of Stirner's theses
>>276982
God damn.
Can someone quickly summarize Stirner's philosophy? I must know what could have made Marx so incredibly asshurt, as well as why its "irrefutable"
>>277002
>what could have made Marx so incredibly asshurt
Natural egoism and denial of society pretty much.
>>277027
Oh. So, literally autism then?
>>277034
No, it's extremely well reasoned and internally consistent. His egoism is pretty much unfaultable, and although his conclusions on society more or less falls in the same pits as most other anarchists, the reasoning itself is pretty much as faultless too.
>>277002
He was an extreme egotist, anarchist and nihilist and took the philosophies to their conclusions without giving a fuck about how 'horrible' they are (he actually tells the reader this, too).
Basically argued that there is only the self and everything outside is his property. Ever single social norm, construct or moral value he calls a "spook" that is just in peoples head. For example, property rights are just an idea, the only thing that actually matters is if you have enough power to take someone else's shit away or not. If you were Superman you could just declare yourself god emperor and act like a tyrant and rape babies and all those spooks people invented would be rendered completely irrelevant in the face of superior power.
Now, I'd argue most people know this on some level instinctively, it's just that Stirner actually bothers to think about it and take it to its conclusion rather than going 'yeeaah but lets just pretend this isn't the case so we can be happy'.
Which is why there has never once been any actual criticism against his philosophy, instead people just literally ignore his work.
>>277056
>Now, I'd argue most people know this on some level instinctively, it's just that Stirner actually bothers to think about it and take it to its conclusion rather than going 'yeeaah but lets just pretend this isn't the case so we can be happy'.
I think its less that and more everyone going "Yyyeaaah but that would go pretty horribly and we'd all just devolve back into the stone-age so lets just ignore that route"
Complex societies, hell, ANY societies, are basically impossible without some form of morality to restrain everyone from just fucking killing each other.
>>277068
You are wrong tho, if people behaved that way, the answer would be banding up in societies to garner greater power. People don't ignore his ideas to create societies, they create societies because of his ideas are real.
If you look at most moral points, they're just limitations of freedom to individuals to protect the members of society at large, so it's really self interest backed by communal strength.
Spookmaster is right, but I think spooks are necessary tbqh
>>277056
Sounds like Hobbes except he doesn't follow the state of nature to any sort of conclusion.
>>277077
Hobbes pls
>>277077
Except not really. People don't make calculated decisions on which morals they uphold (except for sociopaths I guess), its something intuitive, like a gut-reaction or a reflex. Likewise, societies don't create morality because a bunch of people got together and said "lets not do this", b ut rather because societies that practiced certain moral behaviors survived a lot better than ones that didn't and thus prospered. Morality is, in the shortest sense, an emergent group-survival strategy.
>>277087
Nah, Hobbes was based. The only problem I have with the social contract is that you're basically thrown into the world having signed it at birth.
I think most rational people would sign it regardless but that probably doesn't make it okay to slap it on you since the beginning of existence.
>>277092
>Morality is, in the shortest sense, an emergent group-survival strategy.
I'm not seeing how this goes against what I've said tho? Unless you think that proper human action is only rational if it's treatized.
>>277097
>you're basically thrown into the world having signed it at birth
But that's wrong tho. That's one of Stirner's spooks in fact. You're perfectly free to behave in whatever way you wish, no one can force the contract upon you. Of course society is far stronger than you are, and it will overpower you, but your weakness is no one's fault but your own.
>that probably doesn't make it okay to slap it on you since the beginning of existence
Why? It's in society's best interest to do so and they can overpower you, so they have all the moral authority they need.
>>277123
>I'm not seeing how this goes against what I've said tho? Unless you think that proper human action is only rational if it's treatized.
Emergent group-survival strategy. Meaning if a person actively works to undermine this strategy then all of the other members of the group will view them (instinctively, not even consciously) as a threat and ostracize/exile/execute them.
>>277132
Yeah ok but how is that opposed to what I said? It's not like human rationality needs to be formally deductive to be rational, intuition and instinct is still the work of human brain.
