>dude spooks lmao
How did this meme-tier philospher become so popular on the internet?
>dude spooks lmao
How did it take so long for this meme-tier philosopher to become so popular on the internet?
>>884136
Dude has a pretty straightforward, well-reasoned message that manages to trigger all autistic marks in range.
>>884136
The only image of him is of a smug looking cartoon.
Literally made for memeing.
>he hasn't read Stirner
It's like you don't even realize it's in your rational self interest to do so.
[spoiler]Stirner probably would have been forgotten had Marx not spent a massive portion of the German Ideology essentially shitposting about Max.[/spoiler]
>>884147
Don't forget >illustrated by the co-founder of Marxism
>spooks
>>884136
>How did this meme-tier philospher become so popular on the internet?
>meme-tier philospher
>internet
>meme-tier
You just answered your own question
>>884136
I'm confused
I haven't read him but it sounds like he's literally endorsing Hobbes' state of nature
Which sounds like bullshit
>>884505
How do you figure?
>>884505
Well, in his work he describes both 'modern' man, and 'ancient' man.
He desires to provide a third option, that being the Egoist.
>>884514
I'm just like, skimming the wikipedia, so ignore me, but based on these couple quotes:
>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."
>"I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property"
Sounds a lot like he's encouraging a war of all against all. Realizes that any particular political or social system is socially constructed and therefore 'non-existent' .
Hobbes says basically the same thing in his discussion of state of nature, in which the capable man owns dominion over anything he can possibly possess, but that option is pretty, well y'know the quote.
>>884528
Yeah, I guess I'll have to read him. Though I don't think I'll really agree with it.
>>884533
In context, it was more a critique on the concept of property to dispel the notion that property exists as an objective reality. Your assertion about his notion of political and social systems being constructed is fairly accurate though.
I think I heard a description of Stirner a while back that I thought held some weight in terms of comparison, and that's that he's kinda like Ayn Rand without the moralistic platitudes surrounding the notions of individualism. That and, from a political sense, Rand shilled super hard for capitalism as essentially the only option for self-liberation, while Stirner took more of the approach of supporting whatever furthers your own self-interest, whatever "self-interest" means to the individual.
>>884533
Well, the thing about Stirner that most memers gloss over is that Stirner never says Spooks (fixed ideas) are a bad thing by themselves.
He only takes issue when a person puts an idea before themselves, if only it is both delusion and dishonesty.
His argument is more along the lines in accepting that all motivation is essentially an act of self-gratification in one way or another (like feeling good about doing 'the right thing').
Also, while many take him to be Anarchist, that is also a misunderstanding, as he feels we have no duty to 'destroy' society.
The idea is more excepting your 'owness' and recognizing the creative nothings (as in we are all voids from which creation springs) we truly are and not living in denial.
>>884533
>I'm just like, skimming the wikipedia
If you want to discuss philosophy even BADLY you need more than that. If you actually equate him with Hobbes it really shows that you are incapable of judging him at all the summary.
easy to comprehend, easy to personalize.
ask yourself, why do people like nietzsche or other existentalists?
they are written literally in an elementary grade writing. i am not saying that they have elementary level philosophy but the "writing" is so easy to understand that people choose to be identified with them because its only thing they can read two sentences without needing a dictionary.
>>884576
>His argument is more along the lines in accepting that all motivation is essentially an act of self-gratification in one way or another (like feeling good about doing 'the right thing').
I'm wondering what he thought of the Calvanists.
>>884136
he was a cuck and most internet users are cucks too
>>885090
>he was a cuck
Y-you take that back
