So if one wanted to refute Stirners whole philosophy, one would only have to disprove his notion that everything everybody does is in their self interest or whats best for them right?
That would absolutely BTFO the point of a spook( to stay within ones self interest).
Has anybody ever tried to refute this mans philosophy?
realtalk is it just one dude spamming stirner threads every few hours, or is this a real philosophical topic?
Stirner is a philosophical dead end m8 don't bore yourself.
>>790511
The latter, and there's always a couple little faggots like you who get their panties in a bunch because there happens to be 1-2 stirner threads on /his/ out of the 50 some odd threads allowed on /his/. But do a search for Nietzche at anytime on this board and you get 5-8 threads about that brittle superficial cuck. Go back to /mlp/ faggot
>>790550
>But do a search for Nietzche at anytime on this board and you get 5-8 threads about that
But that is also one guy spamming.
So that confirms my suspicion that this is the same thing...
Isn't that guy an obscure footnote in the history of philosophy outside of 4chan?
I doubt most philosophers even care to read him, much less refute him.
No. Because Stirner's not a psychological egoist. He acknowledges that people can act out of pursuit of a higher cause (and even suggests that in the ancient period, this was quite common) and many things people do are simply out of habit, rather than egoistic desire.
People commonly misconceive him as a psychological egoist (I'm guilty of it too), because he points out that very often people pursue a higher cause for the purposes of their own gratification, but this isn't a universal characteristic of the pursuit of a higher cause.
Further, there's not really a lot of point to refuting Stirner's philosophy, because he never presents voluntary egoism as an ought (as in, you ought to be a voluntary egoist), just instead something useful for maintaining intellectual consistency and personal autonomy.
>>790621
Subjective proof is not proof of one guy spamming threads, nice try though. :)
>>790660
>because he points out that very often people pursue a higher cause for the purposes of their own gratification,
I have had this moral quandary with myself, but come to the following conclusion... that self-gratification is merely the result of doing something right.
>>790550
>>790621
A more pertinent point would be the dozen or so Christianity threads that are pretty much constantly up.
Stirner comes up a lot because he's a provocative thinker. I doubt it's just one dude spamming threads.
>>790632
Sort of. His work was pretty important in utterly devastating the idealistic side of left-Hegelianism, and he was very influential in Marx's thinking. Interest in his philosophy has periodically resurged outside out of 4chan, but always fades back into obscurity. I suspect it's mostly because there's just not a lot of it and he doesn't really cover all that much ground.
>>790667
Hitler felt gratified killing jews, he must have been right.
>>790667
There's nothing wrong with that, and Stirner wouldn't reject you pursuing what you view as right for your self-gratification. He just suggests that you should be cognizant of that, and understand that what is "right" is not some universal constant you should debase yourself for.
>>790673
Do you think the average folk will see a person who subscribes to, and preaches stirners philosophy to be crazy?
>>790686
Isn't Stirner's philosophy kind of useless in practice and more of a thing for not very practical intellectual discussions about how there is no right and wrong?
>>790632
He's highly compatable with the current state of philosophy, even in the more academic world he is getting discovered.
Rather than refute each other, philosophers tend to build ontop of his each other
>>790686
Depends how you preach it. Don't go for the elements of everything being a spook, but instead focus on the fact that just about any belief can work within the context of your own self-interest. It basically boils down to "whatever you do, make sure you do it because you want to do it."
>>790698
Not really, it's a valid baseline to work from. You start from thinking of yourself and what you want out of life, and how this includes your desires as a social organisms, and then work out what you value and why you value it. Morality, ethics, meaning, etc. are all completely valid components of his philosophy, the aim is to just ensure that you pursue all of these as directed by your will to your own benefit.
>>790716
That seems to be something that will eventually lead to Epicueranism or Stoicism.
Alot of people tend to not like stirners prose, but, I love his writing style!
>>790506
>one would only have to disprove his notion that everything everybody does is in their self interest or whats best for them right?
That should probably say "chooses" not "does". There are things you technically just "do" like breathing etc which aren't a matter of you thinking in you own best interest (even though breathing is probably worth the effort).
It's not exactly that simple given the direction Stirner's philosophy is designed. He essentially defines the word "best interest" as motive itself. To him, what you want most is determined by what you choose. Ergo, you inevitably choose what you most want assuming you make decisions at all.
You could maybe try and say "well what if I choose to abstain from decision" but you'd get shot back at with "but that's something you're continuously choosing to do" unless you had some complicated eastern workaround.
Ultimately what you'd probably want to do to pick that fight is attack the mechanics of language themselves and work up from there. Or you could just downplay it for the background-philosophy it is, since all you really need to do to be honest with yourself according to Stirner is admit "my decisions are for me" and move on with your day.
>That would absolutely BTFO the point of a spook( to stay within ones self interest).
I'm not sure what you mean. Spooks don't keep you within your own self interest, but instead trick you into thinking you're choosing to work in their best interest.
>image
>God
I honestly don't recall, does Stirner ever explicitly state he doesn't believe in god? He says something along the lines of "all higher power shall be my enemy" but I don't think I remember him ever staking a claim one way or the other on colloquial god.
>>790734
Well, I took a lot of lessons from Stoicism myself, so there may be some merit to that. But I don't think those are the only directions it could go.
>>790734
"In their last and extremest struggles the ancients threw all contents out of the heart and let it no longer beat for anything" Stirner talking about Stoicism and Epicurianism
>>790737
The idea of a creator of a universe does not conflict with stirner the idea that it is 'god' who's higher interests you must serve is dismissed though.
>>790737
>I honestly don't recall, does Stirner ever explicitly state he doesn't believe in god?
I don't believe so. The existence of God is actually a null-issue within the context of his philosophy except as yet another "higher cause."
>>790745
I think that when you go from the point of studying deeply about what you value and why you value it (I'm supposing that he believed that if you have values that are harmful to you, you should throw them away, correct?), it is hard to go to a different way (supposing of course, eventually, your ending goal is happiness or being better) than the ancients did.
>>790747
What is the context of this? Stoics and Epicureans didn't kill their heart.
>>790780
>Stoics and Epicureans didn't kill their heart.
I believe in saying that they "threw all contents out of [their] heart[s]" he's calling them apathetic.
>>790799
They basically changed what they value. They were apathetic to things they didn't value, but they were very passionate for things they valued.
>>790780
Stirner was saying they lost all passion by subscribing to stoicism and epicurianism because those philosophies act as a structured set of rules that have to be "followed". Thus concluding you wouldnt be acting out of your best interest, but you would be filtering your ideas through stoic/epicurian "rules" before deciding what to do, not just doing what you want to do.
>>790673
Actually its more pertinant to come threads about people, than threads about an ideology.
>>790864
Compare*
>>790864
While on the subject of people*
>>790506
>So if one wanted to refute Stirners whole philosophy
He would say he was a cuckold and therefore should kill himself because he's pathetic.
>>790849
Here's what I don't understand.
Let's say you subscribe to Stoicism out of purely selfish reasons. Then how would it qualify as a spook? Even if you limit yourself to stoic ideas, you see self benefit from them. So why would it matter if you limit yourself, as long as it's been done out of your own interests?
>>790849
I can't say a lot about Epicureanism, but in the case of Stoicism, there are not many hard rules and the ideas were all studied pretty hard and they are on your interest.
A large part of Stoicism is made of things that don't relate to others, but only to yourself. That's the whole point of the virtue of temperance.
>not just doing what you want to do
I think this is a pretty strong advantage of Stoicism. Sometimes, doing what you want to do, without examining if it is to your advantage is pretty damn bad for you.
>>790875
As long as it is truely your self interest its ok, but the second you go out of your own interest to perform a stoic act, which isnt within your self interest, you are then in turn, lying to yourself. Lying to yourself by choosing stoic action over whatever else you are truely interested in. Stoicism is objectively a spook, Stirner never said spooks are a bad thing, but he points out that letting them influence you, means you are lying to yourself, which is neither good nor bad.
>>790755
>A more pertinent point would be the dozen or so Christianity threads that are pretty much constantly up.
>Stirner comes up a lot because he's a provocative thinker. I doubt it's just one dude spamming threads.
Any empirical difference between a high cause and a low cause?
>>790921
>but the second you go out of your own interest to perform a stoic act
If you prescribe to stoic ideas out of self interest, then wouldn't it not matter if you perform a stoic act? Since all of it out of your own pursuits?
Let's even take your lying example. If you lie to yourself to feel better, is that not okay since you're lying out of self interests, even if you didn't believe in the act you were willing to commit? Wouldn't that make the truth in that moment in time in a spook because it's limiting your own personal beliefs over what you'd rather do? Another example: you have a test tomorrow and you need to study but you lie to yourself that you know your material. Wouldn't studying be the spook because it's something you don't want to do and feel like it won't benefit you at that moment in time? That would make not studying your actual interest and therefore something you should follow.
To me it seems like Stirner thinks a spook is something that influences you against your will. But how can you measure that if you truly believe in something to begin with, thus making those set of beliefs not a spook?
>>790506
>Has anybody ever tried to refute this mans philosophy?
Max wrote a book longer than ego and its own to refute it
>>790945
If stoicism is what interests you good! Just dont believe it is more than you. You control stoicism, dont let it control you.
>>790506
Stirner is right, all you have is yourself
Spookposters thinking that gives them a free pass to be degenerate fuck ups completely miss the point.
>>790921
>but the second you go out of your own interest to perform a stoic act
Performing a stoic act is always to your own interest, if you understand what you are doing.
>>791067
>Performing a stoic act is always to your own interest, if you understand what you are doing.
>Performing a virtuous act is always to your own interest, if you understand what you are doing
>Performing a pious act is always to your own interest, if you understand what you are doing
>Performing a just act is always to your own interest, if you understand what you are doing
ect.
>"Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head! You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you. You have a fixed idea! Do not think that I am jesting or speaking figuratively when I regard those persons who cling to the Higher, and (because the vast majority belongs under this head) almost the whole world of men, as veritable fools, fools in a madhouse. What is it, then, that is called a "fixed idea"? An idea that has subjected the man to itself. When you recognize, with regard to such a fixed idea, that it is a folly, you shut its slave up in an asylum. And is the truth of the faith, say, which we are not to doubt; the majesty of (e. g.) the people, which we are not to strike at (he who does is guilty of — lese-majesty); virtue, against which the censor is not to let a word pass, that morality may be kept pure; — are these not "fixed ideas"? Is not all the stupid chatter of (e. g.) most of our newspapers the babble of fools who suffer from the fixed idea of morality, legality, Christianity, etc., and only seem to go about free because the madhouse in which they walk takes in so broad a space?"
Best stirner quote, this sentence is the epitome of BTFO'ing a group of people.
>refute
Stay spooked pleb
To the thread in general as well
>>790506
>No. Because Stirner's not a psychological egoist.
What would Striners response be to psychological egoism? If we are unable to not be egoists does that not defeat Stirners cliams?
No one on 4chan actually knows the substance of his philosophy so refuting it would be giving a response that hasn't been demanded.
>>790924
>Any empirical difference between a high cause and a low cause?
There's nothing which is objectively high or low, just things which are objectively higher or lower than other things. To Stirner god is/would be a higher power because he can do more shit. He calls the state a "higher power"; its not a really supernatural term.
>>790945
>To me it seems like Stirner thinks a spook is something that influences you against your will.
It's not "against your will"; of your own volition you can try pour your will into the spook rather than your self. Stirner calls this dishonest, as the "of your own volition" part means you are infact doing it for your self.
>>791211
Well, is dying necessarily not in your best interest? Interest has to do with want, not health. You are only prescribing bad qualities to death, not describing death itself.
>>791297
I don't really know. I always thought the difference between him and psychological egoism was just how the word "do" is used. The psyc egoist could say "everything you do is for yourself," which could be countered with "but what about things done unconsciously, without motive?" to which the PE would say "things which happen unconsciously merely happen and as are not selected by the agent" etc. It sounds like a semantic split and nothing more. I guess what Stirner is saying is that "if you have motive, your motive boils down to acting for yourself" rather than just "everything from breathing to sneezing to pooping is for yourself".
![Novatore[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LPEZB8c.jpg "Novatore[1].jpg")
>>790632
Stirner is extremely important in the history of individualist anarchism.
>>790511
stirner was a /lit/ meme for most of the existence of that board. certainly many years before this board was created.
>>790660
Stirner IS a psychological egoist you retard.
What he is NOT is a ethical egoist.
>>790996
What's wrong with believing that it is? What if it believing in something greater than yourself boosts your ego? I don't understand.
>>791321
Can't I pour my will into anything and negate it as a spook? All I have to do is perceive it in my self interest. Now let's assume I'm being dishonest. How could that ever be measured by anyone but myself? Hence, how could anything I believe in be a spook if I say I believe in it? What if you enjoy dishonesty, then is that not of your own will and therefore not a spook?
This is how I perceive it: something that influences you is a spook, only if you believe it is greater than your perceived judgement. However, if you believe in something out of self interest than it is not a spook. Hence, how can anything be attributed a spook if I choose to adhere to it purely out of self interest?
>>790660
>>791388
Is there anything which definitively says one way or the other? I'm >>791321. To quote myself:
>I don't really know. I always thought the difference between him and psychological egoism was just how the word "do" is used. The psyc egoist could say "everything you do is for yourself," which could be countered with "but what about things done unconsciously, without motive?" to which the PE would say "things which happen unconsciously merely happen and as are not selected by the agent" etc. It sounds like a semantic split and nothing more. I guess what Stirner is saying is that "if you have motive, your motive boils down to acting for yourself" rather than just "everything from breathing to sneezing to pooping is for yourself".
Does Stirner make that subtle deviation or is he actually just a plain and simple psyc egoist? Is that distinction significant enough to keep him from being a psyc egoist in the end anyway? Obviously he's not an ethical egoist.
>>791408
>Can't I pour my will into anything and negate it as a spook? All I have to do is perceive it in my self interest.
then it's openly for yourself rather than the spook
>if you believe in something out of self interest than it is not a spook. Hence, how can anything be attributed a spook if I choose to adhere to it purely out of self interest?
no, it's still a spook, its just that you understand it's a spook so at least you aren't dishonest about what you're doing
>>791409
He's a psychological egoist, because he thinks that whatever people do, they ultimately do it for their own gratification, even if they don't believe it themselves(hence his distinction between voluntary and involuntary egoist).
But there isn't a single place in Stirner's writings where he says "You ought to behave egoistically because of X reasons", because that would in some sense violate the entire premise of his ideas, namely that it is the spooks in the mind that causes people to not see that they are really behaving ultimately for themselves and the Unique within them.
>>791425
>no, it's still a spook, its just that you understand it's a spook so at least you aren't dishonest about what you're doing
Makes sense. In that case, is everything then a spook? And if so, then what purpose would there be of recognizing one if you will always adhere to it - irrespective of doing so out of self interest or not?
>>791432
>But there isn't a single place in Stirner's writings where he says "You ought to behave egoistically because of X reasons"
Right, that I understand he's not an ethical egoist
>He's a psychological egoist, because he thinks that whatever people do, they ultimately do it for their own gratification, even if they don't believe it themselves
Right, but what about unconscious action? For example, my heart beats while I'm sleeping, but there's no motive behind it at all, ergo it's cant be egoistic. Is that considered "something I'm doing" (which means I'm doing something not for my ego since it's not for any motive at all) or just "something that's happening" (which keeps psychological egoism safe since it's not what I'm doing myself)?
To put it more shortly, is it the case that my involuntary actions simply are not "my" actions?
>>791437
> In that case, is everything then a spook?
The self is not a spook (he goes over this, but I don't remember the reasoning)
Things which aren't ideas obviously aren't spooks (though the idea of serving a material thing obviously is)
There're probably other things I could point out
>>791462
memes are not spooks
>>791462
So the self isn't a spook. Ideas are spooks if they serve material things. What was the point of his philosophy? It seems like he's just putting it very bluntly that no one believes in anything they don't think will help them in some way, shape or form. And that can be attributed to furthering the self. I'm assuming by self he means ego. But all he's really saying is pretty standard in terms of how people view or value things. So what was he really trying to get at?
>>791476
I guess an empty meme wouldn't be, but any ideology associated with a meme still is
>>791477
>What was the point of his philosophy? It seems like he's just putting it very bluntly that no one believes in anything they don't think will help them in some way, shape or form.
Yeah, that's why I kinda call it "background philosophy"
>>791452
>Right, but what about unconscious action? For example, my heart beats while I'm sleeping, but there's no motive behind it at all, ergo it's cant be egoistic. Is that considered "something I'm doing" (which means I'm doing something not for my ego since it's not for any motive at all) or just "something that's happening"
He didn't write about it as far as I know when I read it. As he was surrounded by Young Hegelians at the time, Idealism was rampant, and explaining phenomena by appealing naturalism was something that was reserved for those "horrible" British philosophers.
The only thing I know is that he admonishes "Nature" as just another spook that people appeal to in their dealings with other humans.
>>791492
Thanks, my nigga. Shit makes sense now. Real talk. *smacks lips*
>>791503
That's how anything nihilistic kinda goes. There's obviously not a point to it, but you can use it as a tool to say "hey, that other thing doesn't make sense," hence why nihilistic writers are typically the sort of people to use exclamation marks in spite of being grown men. For it to really do anything it has to be attacking something.
>>791499
Are YOU making the heart pump blood? Its a biological process that happens on its own. Stirners philosophy resides in the realm of metaphysics, your heartbeat senario is nonsensical.
>>791769
Just checking to make sure that "you" was defined as "the sum of your decisions" as opposed to "body" etc.
>>791321
>I don't really know. I always thought the difference between him and psychological egoism was just how the word "do" is used. The psyc egoist could say "everything you do is for yourself," which could be countered with "but what about things done unconsciously, without motive?" to which the PE would say "things which happen unconsciously merely happen and as are not selected by the agent" etc. It sounds like a semantic split and nothing more. I guess what Stirner is saying is that "if you have motive, your motive boils down to acting for yourself" rather than just "everything from breathing to sneezing to pooping is for yourself".
Not entirely. He brings up an example of a young woman forgoing a lover due to the wishes of her family as someone acting out of a higher cause. The idea here being that she isn't examining her motive, but instead just submitting to the command of another.
>>791388
>>791432
>What is meant by ‘egoism’, however, is not always clear. Stirner is occasionally portrayed as a psychological egoist, that is, as a proponent of the descriptive claim that all (intentional) actions are motivated by a concern for the self-interest of the agent. However, this characterisation of Stirner's position can be questioned. Not least, The Ego and Its Own is structured around the opposition between egoistic and non-egoistic forms of experience. Indeed, he appears to hold that non-egoistic action has predominated historically (in the epochs of realism and idealism). Moreover, at one point, Stirner explicitly considers adopting the explanatory stance of psychological egoism only to reject it. In a discussion of a young woman who sacrifices her love for another in order to respect the wishes of her family, Stirner remarks that an observer might be tempted to maintain that selfishness has still prevailed in this case since the woman clearly preferred the wishes of her family to the attractions of her suitor. However, Stirner rejects this hypothetical explanation, insisting that, provided “the pliable girl were conscious of having left her self-will unsatisfied and humbly subjected herself to a higher power” (197), we should see her actions as governed by piety rather than egoism.
Here don't call me a retard next time.
>>791477
What he's getting at is intellectual honesty. When you aren't serving things for the sake of serving something higher, you become capable of more effectively deciding what you should do with yourself, and concerns such as guilt for failing to live up to this higher ideal fade away. Additionally, it changes how one views social order pretty dramatically, as you don't take part in society for the sake of society, but instead for your own benefit; there's no expectation to go the way of Socrates.
>>790506
What would the Enlightenment Response be to Stirner, who could Rousseau handle the points he raises?
>>793009
>The idea here being that she isn't examining her motive, but instead just submitting to the command of another.
Well yes, but by submitting to the command of another blindly, she is ignorant to her motive, for she believes she acts for a higher cause when in reality she is choosing for her own ego, right?
>[excerpt below]
Oh, so she IS examining her motive, but it's directly stated she manages to choose against the ego in doing so. In particular:
>conscious of having left her self-will unsatisfied
How so? I thought what you will was defined by what you choose. Is he just watering things down to fit into colloquial speaking or is there some rigid reasoning behind this? Is there any other way to objectively describe the willed objective without just taking someone's word for it when they choose something they claim they did not wish for the most?
Great discussion my fellow stirnerites, best stirner thread in a long time
>>794113
I don't think there's a way to describe anything objectively in this case. Regardless, the point is that people can submit themselves to a higher power in denial of their will. His point about people submitting to higher causes as a means of gratification isn't universal, just very common.
