Explain this meme to a stem guy? Or tell me what I need to read to have the basis to understand the meme.
>>741536
Basically
>anything I don't like is a spook
>any argument you use against my position is a spook
>>741536
>stem
just leave
you're hopelessly lost
>>741547
Can you not?
Read The Ego and Its Own. His philosophy is vastly more in depth than the meme would have you believe. He just had the unfortunately position of creating a philosophy almost tailor made to be meme'd.
>>741558
Everyone seems to forget that Stirner is a legit philosopher, although he's a loon. I blame Marxists who pushed him aside, and only see them as Marx's punching bag.
>>741536
>stem
>>741536
Just read his shit
>>741536
A VERY simplified version:
>Morality, ethics, nationalism, religion, society and equality don't exist
>They're mental ghosts that haunt our thoughts, hence the term "spooks"
>The only thing tangible to the individual is the Ego, and that we only do things that are within our own benefit even when we convince ourselves otherwise.
>Proponent of individualist anarchism and the idea of a "Union of egoists", which is basically a tribe where the individual participates in everything voluntarily and only when it is within their self interest
>Gained meme status based on his works causing Marx to be buttmad and write a critique that was longer than his book that didn't actually refute anything Stirner claimed, just reasserted his own viewpoint.
>>741591
Thanks
>no known photos him only line art, perfect for photoshopping into images
>funny sounding words
>the ability to shut down certain arguements with one word
The perfect storm for memery
I'm going to spoonfeed you a general overview that's easy to understand because most people who stirner meme don't actually understand his philosophical stances and I think that it's unfortunate.
I want to be referred to as a superhero by at least one person though, pls. In exchange.
Stirner asserted that moral statements cannot be truth-apt(non-cognitivism), and that your phenomenological perspective is the only thing that is logical to prioritize. Basically what that means is that morality is most likely an abstraction(as there is no evidence behind moral statements) and that you don't have any reason to give a fuck about anything other than yourself. These are some extremely avant garde philosophical stances for the time period he was in.
A "spook" refers to either a moral or social abstraction. Something that exists only in human society, derived from no evidential or observable basis but through abstract human conception. Usually a "spook" provides a function in the social machine, i.e., the concept of hell to frighten people into avoiding doing things that upset other people, the concept that a human is wasting their life if they are not being productive for the state, or the concept that wealth disparity is unjust and should be fixed. Basically anything that is grounded in a subjective moral stance or abstract social mechanism is a "spook", and cannot be used to soundly support an argument, as there is no observable basis to an artificial abstraction.
tl;dr something that isn't real that people say is real.
>>741613
>le spoonfeed
But you still did it you cuck. I'm not OP, I just lurk. But why act as if you don't enjoy educating somebody, even in laymans terms?
>>741630
read the first four words of my post again, more carefully this time.
>>741574
>although he's a loon
The best kind in my opinion, one that's completely correct.
>>741607
The only images of him available to us are a couple of sketches by Engels, if I'm not mistaken.
Appreciate all the responses.
>>741613
You're a superhero anon.
>>741545
Did someone rustle your spooks recently or something?
>>741613
You're a superhero, anon.
>>741536
His philosophy is basically centered around cutting down people who believe they're doing things for a higher cause, when in reality it's entirely within their own self interest to do such things.
Stirner considered it irrational not to do things within the preview of the self. He considered it impossible for one to perform an action completely outside of their own self interest, no matter how small it may be. He ditches the idea that you can only be a "righteous" or "evil" person, and rather takes the stance that you're ego is the only thing that's of value, that the others are just concepts that posses us to act in ways that are irrational.
>>741574
>he's a loon
in what way was he a loon?
>>741760
Those ideas don't seem to trascendental. What is the difference between some 12 year old saying this to a philosopher saying it.
>>741536
Basically: There are no higher causes. There's no reason to subject yourself to a higher principle. Thus it's up to you to decide how to live in every regard, and if you so choose to live by a moral system so be it, but it's only because you like it and want to, not because you feel impelled because the moral system is "greater" than you.
>>741760
so basically babby philosophys ayn rand
>>741547
>making money is hopelessly lost
Enjoy getting cucked in your teaching job by stat chasing and other forced conformance while I make millions and change the world.
>>741674
Case in point.
>>741831
Marx didn't write a butthurt 500 page essay attacking some 12 year old for it
>>741843
Not even close to Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand tries to make selfishness a virtue. Stirner would say, if you think selfishness is better than selflessness in her sense, then you're spooked
>>741545
Not even close, baby. I like that people like you are always around to shitpost at the first mention of Stirner
>>741848
that's actually something i wonder about stirner
stirner translated some book for $$$ from english into german but it didn't really give him much cash
his milk shop failed (and it was basically what he squandered his wifes $$$ with)
he quit his job as teacher
his book was banned in prussia and it didn't even sell much anyway
if he was so smart, why wasn't he rich?
>>741957
smart is a made-up american spook (literally, smartness is a complete fabrication) and richness doesn't correlate to how talented you are at figuring out problems
>>741957
>write a book about the illegitimacy of all social institutions
>write in your book : "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property... 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."
>???
>get dosh from other people
>>742032
Stirner doesn't defend the classical notion of private property. That's just shit translation. "Property" is an equivocation he plays around with on purpose. It means both private property, AND one's "qualities".
What he means by "all things are you property" isn't, "take the classical notion of property and replace all owners with you", that would be literally retarded. What he means is, "forget the old notion of property, and instead consider all objects only with what purpose they serve to you".
So generally I don't like pissing other people off, so I don't go around fucking with objects that they like. But my friend's car isn't "their car" in some metaphysical sense, it's just a fucking object. JUST AN OBJECT. What I do with the object is I consider, WHAT DO I WANT WITH THIS OBJECT?
It's quite literally nothing other than a replacement of metaphysical nonsense with simple subjective teleological concern.
>>742027
being poor is a problem. boom.
stirner obviously tried to become wealthy enough to sustain a NEET lifestyle without having to slave away, or else he wouldn't have participated in such endeavours or married his disgusting slut of a wife.
>>742107
There you go. Now you understand 100% entirely why Marx makes the shift he does into dialectical materialism.
Yes, once you accept and fully understand Stirner, the entire problem becomes the material forces at work. That isn't even a refutation of Stirner, that's just pointing out that Stirner's system doesn't solve material poverty, which it never intended to do.
Marx was sort of an idiot about it, but whatever.
Also IDK why you're ranting about Stirner's life, I know his life thoroughly and your argument is pretty facile from a psychological standpoint.
>>742155
It is you, and not I, who is a spooked cuck, for i never even ranted at stirner's life to begin with. i only wrote facts, and you obviously took offense to these facts, for you decided they were something to be offended about (by assuming i wrote them for that purpose)
I was just asking why, if Stirner was smart, and wanted to live comfortably, did he not succeed in his endeavour?
>>742277
>i only wrote facts, and you obviously took offense to these facts, for you decided they were something to be offended about (by assuming i wrote them for that purpose)
Read yourself:
>if he was so smart, why wasn't he rich?
You're the one with the bone to pick with Stirner.
>I was just asking why, if Stirner was smart, and wanted to live comfortably, did he not succeed in his endeavour?
Smartness is quite literally made-up bullshit by American retards. Only Americans use "smartness" in that way, not even the English do. No other language has a word like smart. Nobody can even give a coherent definition of smartness.
So tell me, how can I answer your question when it's malformed and literally based on American pseudo-science? When you can get back to me on that, then we can have a discussion.
>>742334
Are you fuck? Smartness means intelligence. Intelligence is pattern-recognition and formation. Google "g", general intelligence.
>>742347
fucking high*
>>742334
well, be born in the land of the free you stupid european jack-ass, you are still behaving like a spooked cuck because again, my question is literally one of inquisitiveness
>the dumb eurofaggot still can't understand this after i literally pointed it out
>>742347
>Intelligence is pattern-recognition and formation. Google "g", general intelligence.
Those two definitions contradict each other. Pattern recognition is not general intelligence. Read the studies against general intelligence, of which there are many. The g-factor is pseudo-science for racists and morons.
>>742353
Being capable does not lead to success. The myth of failure is another incredibly stupid American invention. A great deal of all literature through history, in fact, the entire genre of tragedy explicitly investigates what happens when capable people fail. Literally only Americans believe smartness (the stupid white person equivalent to "having swag") means success, success itself being evidence of the smartness, neither of which have any meaningful scientific correlation.
Also, I'm American. I'm just educated enough to realize our culture has many really, really bad idiosyncrasies.
>>742369
not only you're a fat ameriburger, but you're an autistic one to top it off
>>742369
Another burger who think the entire world revolves around burgerstan. What a juicy bit of irony.
SJWs basically proved Stirner right. They aren't in for justice, they're in for likes, upvotes, and social progressive points. They're in to serve their self-righteous ego.
>>741536
The meme is pretty contextual. Like any philosopher you won't get him right unless you read other philosophers.
>>741591
jesus, you haven't actually read the German Ideology have you? Marx destroys Stirner, it's personal and long winded but there's nothing left once he's finished.
>>742404
this is why Stirner was wrong though its nothing but selfishness
>>741613
Holy shit this guy speaks my language. Why haven't i heard of this fuck before?
>>741547
Other STEM guy here
>I want mine without tomatoes please
>>741613
Thanks senpai
>>743231
Not him, but I have read it, and he doesn't refute shit, he just repeats Feuerbachian humanism, and provides ample ad hominems.
>>743257
Falsification can't be falsified
>>743231
Marx's arguments aren't THAT good
>>741957
His ideas were radical and unpopular. Doesn't mean he wasn't smart.
>>742277
>I was just asking why, if Stirner was smart, and wanted to live comfortably, did he not succeed in his endeavour?
Luck is an important component of success.
>>743231
>Marx destroys Stirner
This is what retards actually believe.
>>743260
>its nothing but selfishness
No. You are nothing but selfishness.
You don't give bums money because of altruism, you give them money so you can feel good about yourself and blog about it.
Selflessness is a myth, and faggots like Marx have obviously done much more harm than good trying to feed their self-righteous egos.
>>743260
>moral judgment on stirner
you sure got him champ
>>744581
Read Nietzsche. Selflessness is just as much of a myth as selfishness. It's a stupid dichotomy altogether.
>>742369
Thanks you, Anon.
>>745089
But nietzche argued the same thing with the will to power.
>>745089
>Read Nietzsche. Selflessness is just as much of a myth as selfishness.
Oh he proves that?
>>745771
I don't know if he does, but our brains are very much a carrot/stick arrangement. You're pursuing either a neurological carrot, or avoiding a similarly neurological stick. This in mind, true selflessness isn't really an option, since there's either a reward or an avoidance of displeasure at play.
