Is there a philosopher who puts great emphasis on collective spirit and loyalty to one's society? I'm currently reading Mr. Spookbuster and would like to see the opposite side of the coin.
hobbes
>>337797
I read Leviathan. However, it doesn't really have much to do with ethics. He does a nice job of proving why society is necessary, though. I also read Locke (Two Treatises of Government).
>>337797
Hobbes is more about loyalty to a sovereign than society itself.
What OP is asking for is really the orthodox position when it comes to political philosophy (ie we are better together than apart), so there is an element of it in almost all political philosophies.
The furthest you can get away from Stirner's egotist shit would probably communism I guess, so you could say Marx is the opposite end of the spectrum.
>>337813
not society, the state is necessary
but honestly, go read some nationalist drivvel, hitler is right up that streak.
I'm being somewhat facetious, but fascists are the ones who pro-pone those ideals.
>>337813
I was going to say Locke's Two Treatises (well, the second one specifically). I mean you can't go wrong with Aristotle, or the Utilitarians Bentham and Mill.
>>337824
But Das Kapital is mostly sociology and economy, not philosophy.
>everything is a spook
>anarchist
Anarchy is a spook, stupid stirner
>>337830
Not really. Fascism is about ethnicity and cultural unity, loyalty goes primarily to one's "peoples", rather then one's society.
>>337785
If you like ancient philosophy I'd try the Stoics, Epictetus, Aurelius, Seneca. Their sense of duty towards one's community in particular I find amiable.
>>337841
Marx wrote more than one book, you know.
>>337851
Stirner isn't an anarchist, retard.
>>337835
I might try Bentham and Mill then. Do they try to prove why utilitarianism is necessary or do they just put it as the best kind of morality? Which works would you recommend? And what of Aristotle?
>>337785
>keke my name is literally "huge forehead"
>>337853
Portuguese fascism transcended ethnicity. It was pretty heavy on imposing Catholicism and making money.
>>337851
Spooks aren't bad m7. Adhering to spooks that make you unhappy is what is bad. Adhering to spooks that make you happy is good.
>>337859
Fair point. Where do I start, then?
>>337857
That's a good suggestion, I planned to read Epictetus' Discourses and Marcus Aurelius' Meditations in the near future anyway.
>>337867
Aristotle is a tough read but in his Nicomachean Ethics and in the Politics he basically paints politics itself as the highest art and the most noble thing due to it having the best subject.
I feel like in common with the utilitarians and plenty of others, there is that implicit assumption that you'd need to be a manbaby like Stirner not to get, that things that affect multiple people are naturally more important: two lives matter more than one, etc.
>>337878
In The German Ideology he LITERALLY argues against Stirner. It'd be a good idea to do some background reading though, maybe try and find some lectures that are online or something.
The early Marx was a straight up philosopher, its only as he got older that he got more autistically into economics and nothing but economics.
>>337884
How's Mill's Utilitarianism? Is it enough? I'll try Nicomachean Ethics, too.
>>337785
Joseph de Maistre
Confucius
>>337900
Aye, thank you.
>>337900
>its only as he got older that he got more autistically into economics and nothing but economics.
because he along with all the other young Hegellians got BTFO by Stirner's one crummy little book and had to reevaluate their whole lives
>>337904
I tried reading the Analects, but I didn't like them. He really doesn't argue his points and you're just supposed to take them at face value.
>>337903
You might want to skip Nicomachean Ethics, or at least don't worry if you find it difficult.
You've read Plato's Republic, right? I was just assuming that as obvious, but really that's where you need to start.
>>337914
Later Confucians got into arguing a whole lot more, so you could kind of skip Confucius and move ahead to his disciples.
>>337785
Rousseau's Social Contract
Most Enlightenment Philosiphies are generally of the bent you describe, IMO
>>337923
I actually skipped it in favour of Hobbes and Locke. Is it really that good/important?
>>337928
Can you suggest some works?
>>337914
You should read also a little bit of the Tao Te Jing and the Mozi to get an idea of the competing philosophical schools at the time. It makes more sense in the context of competing schools rather than a more 'Western' approach of creating a philosophical system ex nihilo
>>337936
Very important, but more crucially readable as fuck due to Plato being a based writer/the Dialectic Method. The reason why you have to "start with the greeks" is because every other writer you'll read did, it's the common currency all of them use.
>>337934
Is also very good as a suggestion, though really it's just Locke's Second Treatise with bells and whistles on (and very well written again).
>>337912
>implying any part of Stirner survives Marx's German Ideology.
The funny part is he didn't even read Stirner well and still blew him the fuck out.
>>337903
Nichomachean ethics can be dumbed down to the middle path should always be chosen over extremes in virtue, one lives virtuously by doing his occupation well and following the stability in between vices, the best of friends are those who helps us learn truth, the whole is important but one must focus on its parts.
>>337940
I read the whole Tao Te Ching. Hated it with a passion for the same reasons I didn't like the Analects but cranked up to 11 with mysticism and self-contradicting phrases
>>337946
Then I'll also read the Republic. Thanks. Is there anything else by Plato that deals with ethics and you would recommend?
>>337967
>mysticism and self-contradicting phrases
I don't mean to be rude but I think you might have missed the point a little bit
>>337962
>one lives virtuously by doing his occupation well
BUT WHAT IS THE OCCUPATION OF A MAN HURR DURR
Other than that bit you are kind of right. It's more like man lives virtuously by reaching his own potential, ie flourishing, in accordance with the virtues and finding a golden mean like you said.
Aristotle's ethical system is dull as fuck until you've studied a lot of OTHER ones, and you see how closer to the mark his thinking is than almost anyone's.
>>337987
Perhaps. But I am far more accustomed to western philosophy. The fact that he refused to define, explain or argue the Tao infuriated me. He also takes for granted that human beings are inherently perfectly ethical, even not knowing what ethics are.
>>337983
A very large selection of Plato's dialogues deal with ethics, it's kind of where he starts off. The Republic is the most commonly suggested because it has a wide selection of themes in there, from metaphysics to ethics and political philosophy too, it's often called the first work in western political philosophy (rightly or wrongly).
>>338013
I know that most of his works were dialogues, and assumed that at least some of them featured ethics. But I asked if you could recommend some of them to me.
>>337940
What should I read from Mozi?
>>338025
All of Plato's extant works are dialogues. Anyway, the point is there are so many ethical ones, it's better if you ask something more specific, a topic or a question you are interested in.
>>338102
Fair point. Do you have favourites among them? (not counting the Republic, of course)
>>338112
I'm not actually that big a fan of The Republic, lel, it's just the easiest one to recommend because there is so much in it. The downside is its much longer than the others.
The Symposium is probably the best read. Off the top of my head the Crito might be more relevant to you (assuming you are OP), it's often packaged with the other "Last Days of Socrates" dialogues, which together make a great read.
Really you can get bogged down reading Plato forever, there are so many dialogues and they are so rich.
>>338112
I am. Thanks, man.
>>338012
Those two things are related, and are also in turn related to the fact that he doesn't argue 'western-style.' The Dao is the way, the current, the "path of least resistance" so to speak. Human beings *generally* have a basic ethical sense of what constitutes right and wrong in most cases. This is the 'inherent' ethics of the human being. Even children have this, without sitting down and studying ethics. Heck, even most adults don't consciously contrive an ethical system. They just 'feel' it. This is the Dao. It's not perfect in every case, that's why Laotzu says we have to cultivate the Dao within us.
This is also why Laotzu writes in contradictions. Often, we feel contradictory things. We may 'know,' intellectually, that x is right or wrong, but we may 'feel' or act differently. To acquiesce to 'the way,' to cultivate the Dao, is to accept contradictions. There is no step beyond this; it's not "accept contradictions in order to ____." You really just have to take it. Like Kierkegaard's leap of faith. It reflects the contradictory nature of reality.
>>337785
Karl Marx.
I'm serious, he is the exact opposite of Stirner. Marx says egoism should be destroyed and the indivual is a lie, there is only the group. His entire theory is based on loyalty to the group.
>>338065
You can get "The Mozi" translated by Ian Johnston. I would also recommend 'Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy' (ed. B.W. van Norden) and 'Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy' (ed. van Norden & P.J. Ivanhoe).
>>338193
I wonder if that method (writing in contradictions) really was something the west acquired in the 19th century. It's central in Kierkegaard, and then the continentals, even the late Wittgenstein uses that method. There are definitely some "sayings" of the Pre-Socratics and other Greeks that have that vibe, but I guess with Christianity things took a different direction. Maybe the gnostics, or the neo-platonists?
It's a method that fascinates me anyway, I wish I knew more about it.
>>337853
>Fascism is about ethnicity and cultural unity
Italian fascism wasn't. They allowed Jews and Muslims in the party, and promoted it bigtime in Ethiopia.
>>337785
Charles Maurras
Good luck finding a translation though.
>>337956
>this guy
kekked hard
>>338225
>tfw everything i have experienced in life contradicts marx
he's beyond haunted with spooks.
>>338682
Sounds like you are not very good at reading Marx, or life. Probably both.
>>338720
ayyyyyy
evola
>>339260
Evola isn't really a collectivist
>>339260
I don't agree, but understand your point. Also, Evola actually had read Stirner and references him sometimes.
