Was he right, /his/?
About what?
Phenomenological non-cognitivism? Objectively, yes. This makes him more logically grounded and sound than almost any other philosopher.
Egoism? Egoism is a spook.
>>826322
A better question is, did Nietzsche read him?
>>826393
duh
>>826393
There's no evidence he did. However Nietzsche was extremely well read so it puzzles historians how he could not have heard of Max Stirner.
>>826393
Probably yes.
>>826382
>Egoism is a spook.
Not this shit again. By definition, it can't be.
>>826393
We'll never know. I'd say the similarities between their philosophies are largely superficial.
>>826542
A spook is an artificial abstract construction designed by humans. Egoism, which is comprised of several of these abstractions as bases, is in all technicality a spook for this reason. That does not mean Stirner's philosophical stances are illogical, his stances on self-determination, free will, phenomenology and moral truth-aptness are all extremely based. He then uses those bases to try and form some sort of way of life, "Egoism", which is, by his own definition, literally a spook.
Not a huge deal or anything, he didn't exactly pretend it wasn't.
>>826589
To be a spook, you have to put it ahead of yourself, become possessed by it as though it were an entity unto itself. Egoism, being the pursuit of your personal cause, cannot be put ahead of yourself, as you cannot put yourself ahead of yourself.
That said, this whole "it's a spook" thing is just shitposting. Abstractions are not invalid in Stirnerian reasoning, you can believe whatever you want, so long as you do it from a position of cognizant egoism.
>>826601
Nice BTFO my property
>>826548
They aren't.
>>826589
No. A spook, by DEFINITION, is any motivation or appeal besides egoism.
>>826322
Engels and Marx got pretty triggered by Saint Max, and so did all the other Young Hegelians, so he surely did something very right
>>826589
>A spook is an artificial abstract construction designed by humans
...an artificial abstract construction which one attempts to serve in place of the self, by definition.
>>826601
>>830197
>It's not a spook because he made an particular exception whilst defining spooks!
You're right to correct the anon, but there's still a point to be made; what's Stirner's reason for which it's better to serve the ego than the non-ego? Would it be possible for any of those reasons to not be spooks?
>>830905
>what's Stirner's reason for which it's better to serve the ego than the non-ego?
What's your reason for not believing in ghosts?
>>830913
Practicality, for egoistic reasons
I'm not saying I don't abide by egoism, but it is still a presumption
>>826382
>Phenomenological non-cognitivism? Objectively, yes.
(gun) - - - - - {your foot}< - - -
(Bullets)/\ /\
>>830929
Well there you go, you admitted egoism is a valid criterion.
>>831263
Right, but what means would I have to convince another that their criterion is less valid than mine?
>>831277
Look at the grammar of your own statement. What would convince "you"? You've already made yourself the arbiter of your own beliefs.
>>830905
>You're right to correct the anon, but there's still a point to be made; what's Stirner's reason for which it's better to serve the ego than the non-ego?
Mostly because you are all you can ever know, and all you can be truly certain the existence of. Your self is a fundamental, inescapable part of your person. You can choose not to focus on your own self-cause, but it would be foolish as everything else is something you can dismiss willy-nilly, and because almost any attempt to pursue a cause separate from yourself, would ultimately be pursuing the cause of self anyway (assuming it was a cause you wished to pursue).
That said, you're arguing from the wrong angle. Stirner never attempts to make an ought of egoism, as he recognizes an attempt to do so would be contradictory. He merely suggests voluntary egoism both as a means of maintaining personal autonomy and self-honesty.
