>That she did what she wished, and that Stirner let her do what she wished-that of course may have let her appear in the eyes of the marriage-slaves as detestable as it later did to her, but it can only make the two of them more likable to us. Every act of making up the mind for the other, for that matter, would not have fit at all into the nature of those involved, for whom "marriage" meant only a loose band that was thrown around them purely externally. And not on the "unfaithfulness" of the wife-how ridiculous!-did "this marriage perish," but simply and only under the pressure of the circumstances in which he and she unfortunately all too soon found themselves.
From "Max Stirner - His Life and His Works" By Mackay
Are there any other philosophers that were acquiescent keks?
>>329700
Marriage, and therefore kekoldry, are spooks you need to get rid of, my property.
>>329703
Well I'd say it's a spook, but I don't think physically having your property physically and sexually fuck other property is a spook, technically speaking. the minding that goes with it, is, but the fact isn't
the paper in where you're married isn't a spook either.
>>329705
Said facts and papers are only relevant from a spooked point of view though.
>>329709
it's true alright, but by definition, max is a wittol. anyways i don't want to spook you or anything of that sort, i just want to know what other philosopher was a kekold
>>329713
Spooks.
>>329727
i just remembered Bertrand Russel.
Any other?
>>329709
Maybe the papers, but from Stirner's own point of view he was undoubtedly kucked.
He said that the only way to affirm control and property was by use of strength/power and physical means, his wife was literally taken away from him by the very physical means he so glorifies, he was not only kucked but defeated by his own philosophy of life at life.
That's why Stirner is a complete joke, his own concept of property only works in an anarchic environment, and not even a very refined one, he praised the very system that literally fucked him over.
There's not even a spook to speak of besides the marriage papers, which being spooks according to him don't mean that much since he could and should have very well exercised that strength he speaks of in regards to his wife, and yet he didn't. He literally lost his own race at his own rules, and very undecorously at that.
How can a man support a theory that proves to himself to be not feasible is beyond me, unless you want to argue that he didn't care for his wife at all to begin with, but then again why even engage her, let alone consent to marry her and be a slave to the spooks he denied to fervently? Sounds kinda spooky of himself, if I may say so.
He is vastly irrelevant in the philosophical panorama anyway, if not for being one of the fathers of anarchism, don't take him too seriously, Marx and Engels are far better and more worthwhile reads and that should already tell you something.
>>329744
>he doesn't know stirner squandered his wife's money
>>329744
What a terribly poor reading comprehension you have, something doesn't cease to be your property by someone else enjoying it, but by you no longer being able to enjoy it.
>>329751
Oh I know that, but that ain't gonna change a single thing.
He failed to protect his property, period.
Squandering your wife's money only further proves how his own philosophy and view of "society", if we can even say this, is fundamentally a depressing, autodestructive way of thought.
Which doesn't mean you can't adhere to it, if you find it so desirable do so by all means.
>>329756
>something doesn't cease to be your property by someone else enjoying it, but by you no longer being able to enjoy it.
If anyone but you is enjoying what you call your property, especially without your permission, said property ceases to exist.
>>329779
>If anyone but you is enjoying what you call your property, especially without your permission, said property ceases to exist
That is a fundamentally spooked misconception of property, have you even read Stirner?
>>329788
>That is a fundamentally spooked misconception of property, have you even read Stirner?
I'm not arguing about Stirner's conception of property because I fundamentally disagree with it, but yes as long as you have access to it you can say that it's your property according to him, as stupid and contradicting as it sounds, might as well call it shared resource.
>>329744
>He said that the only way to affirm control and property was by use of strength/power and physical means
>by the very physical means he so glorifies,
Find a single quote in the Ego and its own where he states that point even tangentially. Stirner was all about mental liberation. By allowing himself to get wrapped up in the notions you put forward he would become the property of societal ideas
>How can a man support a theory that proves to himself to be not feasible is beyond me
Not that I agree with your point but why does one have to succeed under their theory for it to be correct?
>e, unless you want to argue that he didn't care for his wife at all to begin with, but then again why even engage her, let alone consent to marry her and be a slave to the spooks he denied to fervently? Sounds kinda spooky of himself, if I may say so.
Being liberated by spooks includes those which idolize your past actions and ideas. He enjoyed her company, money and wished to make her happy to the extent it brought him happiness. When that stopped being the case he stopped.
>He is vastly irrelevant in the philosophical panorama anyway, if not for being one of the fathers of anarchism, don't take him too seriously, Marx and Engels are far better and more worthwhile reads and that should already tell you something.
Influenced Nietzsche greatly and flustered Marx so hard he wrote book larger than Stirners insulting him. Far from being irrelevant he has provided the greatest attack on authority in human history.
>>329802
In other words, your accusation that the infidelity of Stirner's wife makes a mockery of his views falls flat on its face.
>>329779
>Oh I know that, but that ain't gonna change a single thing.
It kind of does as it provides a valid and non spooky explanation for your second to last paragraph in >>329744
>He failed to protect his property, period.
You seem to be substituting your own definition of property with Stirners here.
>
Squandering your wife's money only further proves how his own philosophy and view of "society", if we can even say this, is fundamentally a depressing, autodestructive way of thought.
No it merely demonstrates that he either is not bound by the spooks that haunt your mind or that his ego did not find pleasure in the same sources that yours did.
>Which doesn't mean you can't adhere to it, if you find it so desirable do so by all means.
For Stirner adhering was purely in personal enjoyment alone
>If anyone but you is enjoying what you call your property, especially without your permission, said property ceases to exist.
See my second point. Seeking your sense of property for the sake of it alone is counterintuivte to Stirners more personal and pleasure based one.
>>329802
>I'm not arguing about Stirner's conception of property because I fundamentally disagree with it,
Why not elaborate on this point then?
>but yes as long as you have access to it you can say that it's your property according to him, as stupid and contradicting as it sounds, might as well call it shared resource.
Not according to Stirner look at
>When I had exalted myself to be the owner of the world, egoism had won its first complete victory, had vanquished the world, had become worldless, and put the acquisitions of a long age under lock and key.
and in particular
>I do not want to recognize or respect in you any thing, neither the proprietor nor the ragamuffin, nor even the man, but to use you. In salt I find that it makes food palatable to me, therefore I dissolve it; in the fish I recognize an aliment, therefore I eat it; in you I discover the gift of making my life agreeable, therefore I choose you as a companion. Or, in salt I study crystallization, in the fish animality, in you men, etc. But to me you are only what you are for me — to wit, my object; and, because my object, therefore my property.
