If morality is just a spook does that mean slavery is ok?
>>891453
Yes, but so is genocide.
>>891453
Slavery is a spook.
>>891453
>he doesn't realize that the concept of spooks is a spook
Take the transparentpill, anon.
>>891453
Slavery is a spook because money is just a spook because value is a spook.
t. Ubermam
>>891453
if your creative nothing think slavery is ok then it is okay
>>891453
It's only okay if you're not the slave
It means it is neither inherently justified nor inherently unjustified, and people are free to evaluate it based on their own interests and values.
>He is no better than everyone he denounces before him considering that his intellectual endeavour amounts to nothing more than a seduction. In its own little way it is a sort of immature petulant and infantile seduction as well, one that does not have the sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but on the other hand it has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric that ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a child who disregards the rules of a game because he is tired of losing at it or some such poor behaviour.
>Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history. Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.
>>891504
Nietzsche truly wrecked all the other Hegelians. Epistemological idealism is the only realist idealism.
>>891504
>this unsubstantiated horse shit again
In what way is his logic contradictory? Why should he have to offer a new system in place the old? In what is conscious, voluntary egoism not a new system? What makes the rhetoric of the ideologues sacred?
Whoever wrote this shit was profoundly butthurt.
>>891453
Slavery is not ok.
Yes, maybe that some people are naturally born and bred to act like slaves (*M'lady*), but no one will ever be born with the ability of being a slaver.
It's the exact reason why we have democracy. We don't have a democracy because everyone is good and fair and intelligent, we have a democracy because we must never elect those who threaten the people.
>>891504
>You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass.
For a second I thought this was a quote from Nietzsche.
>>891530
Nietzsche never wrote about Stirner, which is part of why it's so hard to figure out if Stirner was an influence on him. This is just some butthurt from a Nietzschean, probably that same idiot that never stops pushing Heidegger along with with him.
>>891517
In Stirner paradoxical self-negation, egoism itself as a spook, is a glowing, brazen aporia in the text that Stirner makes no attempt to address.
>>891557
Ok, two points. First egoism can't be a spook, you can't place yourself ahead of yourself (for something to be a spook, you have to try and place it ahead of yourself as though it were an entity to serve). Second, he never makes egoism out to be a moral ought, he doesn't say you should be an egoist, only that pursuing egoism is a route to intellectual consistency and personal autonomy; if you don't particularly value those, or see other ways to pursue those as better means, you don't have to be an egoist.
>>891579
>you don't have to be an egoist.
From what I gathered, you'd have to - but you could be voluntary or involuntary.
>>891453
Why would slavery not be ok to begin with?
>>891594
Not exactly. He does acknowledge that there can be non-egoistic actions. He brings up an example of a woman giving up a lover to fulfil the will of her family, and says that she was ultimately acting upon the will of another in a pious fashion. As far as I can tell, the distinction is in whether you'd rather be doing something else or not. So a Christian (for example) could be either a non-egoist (if they'd rather be believing something else or feel that Christianity isn't in their interests yet none-the-less pursue it out of a sense of duty) or an involuntary egoist (if they're pursuing Christianity out of a genuine love of Christian ideal, yet still convincing themselves that they're pursuing a higher cause).
That said, I could have stated that initial point better. You don't have to be a voluntary egoist in Stirner's view, as there are no moral truths external to human perception, rejecting his egoism is as valid as accepting it.
>>891579
>egoism can't be a spook, you can't place yourself ahead of yourself (for something to be a spook, you have to try and place it ahead of yourself as though it were an entity to serve)
But even within Stirner the notion of "yourself" is negated as a spook, similar to the "I is a fiction" in pop buddhism, literally a "nothing", a nonsense; the self is easily negated, even by a minor thinker like Stirner:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Max_Stirner#The_Self
>he never makes egoism out to be a moral ought, he doesn't say you should be an egoist, only that pursuing egoism is a route to intellectual consistency and personal autonomy; if you don't particularly value those, or see other ways to pursue those as better means, you don't have to be an egoist.
Except there's no consistency or autonomy in following through a negation that should itself be negated in the first place, with no self-awareness of that fact.
Even what you say seems to confirm things like OP's "X is a spook, therefore Y" is childish nonsense.
>>891453
Yes. It is still horribly inefficient and idiotic, though.
>>891453
"is ok" is refering to morality
The universe is amoral, both good and evil are spooks.
>>891626
>the self is easily negated
Not particularly. Even the attempt to negate yourself implies yourself as it would be an act of self-will.
>Except there's no consistency or autonomy in following through a negation that should itself be negated in the first place, with no self-awareness of that fact.
You're not even speaking English at this point. Your entire premise is that the self doesn't exist, but this is patently untrue. You think therefore you are, and any attempt to deny this is just childishly jamming your fingers in your ears and singing. You can pursue egoism to maintain autonomy or not, but egoism isn't a spook because A) you exist as something of substance whether you choose to recognize it or not (unless you're a vegetable, which with your calibre of posting, may be the case) and B) because you cannot place yourself ahead of yourself.
As to OP, he's just engaging in spookposting, which is cancerous and not actually in line with Stirner's thought, as he never says you can't value things. The appropriate response to "is slavery justified is in Stirner's thought is >>891491.
>>891453
>If morality is just a spook does that mean slavery is morallly alright?
??? Am i misunderstanding what OK means in this context or is the OP really this stupid?
>>891670
It is stupid. "OK" refers to the concept of 'morally good' which basically means his question is
"If morality is a spook than is slavery moral"
>>891453
>ok?
somebody get this spook out of here
>>891504
>his valid criticism is invalid because he has no better ideas
>>891640
>unless you're a vegetable, which with your calibre of posting, may be the case
>>891640
>the attempt to negate yourself implies yourself as it would be an act of self-will.
"There can't be a lack of self because there needs to be a self to assert that", do you not see the circularity in that? The idea of self being spook is that any discussion for or against it is merely an illusion. Stirner admits that reference to "self" is abstraction and therefore just as subject to his spook negations as any other abstraction. There are many arguments for why self is an illusion, I was just taking Stirner by his own words:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Max_Stirner#The_Self
>Your entire premise is that the self doesn't exist, but this is patently untrue
Again, Stirner himself calls the self a "creative nothing", and any reference you or I make to self is not the creative nothing, as the creative nothing is "unutterable", effectively nonsensical within language.
>You think therefore you are
"you" "think" "are" are hardly uncontroversial concepts within philosophy. We've gone beyond Descartes, read Nietzsche on that exact quote.
>The appropriate response to "is slavery justified is in Stirner's thought is >>891491.
And what if their own interests or values equate it to being inherent?
>>891711
His criticism isn't valid because it invalidates itself along with its targets.
>>891724
That wasn't even phrased well or unpredictable.
>>891738
>That wasn't even phrased well or unpredictable.
It was funny. Don't be a bitter cunt, bub
>>891453
>if there is no morality, is x a morally justifiable action
kek
fucking read Ego and It's Own kiddo
Is Egoism the end of philosophy? When you break everything down, the only thing left is You as you perceive yourself.
>>892115
Does the world start/end with you?
>>892185
I can't know, but as far as my consciousness is concerned, it does. If my consciousness ceases to exist, then everything else ceases to exist for me.
>>891738
>do you not see the circularity in that?
Do you think I give a shit? It being circular doesn't make it invalid. The self exists and you know this because you're experiencing it right now (unless you're a p-zombie) as I am. Trying to deny this would be intellectual dishonesty at its most pathetic.
>There are many arguments for the self being an illusion.
They're all equally stupid, and equally trying to justify some absurd collectivist idiocy.
>Stirner admits that reference to "self" is abstraction and therefore just as subject to his spook negations as any other abstraction.
Actually, he says it is both an abstraction and something more. The self is all in all. Stop pulling a Constantine; don't misrepresent shit to support your position.
>... [F]or 'being' is abstraction, as is even 'the I'. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently, even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. ...."
>Again, Stirner himself calls the self a "creative nothing", and any reference you or I make to self is not the creative nothing, as the creative nothing is "unutterable", effectively nonsensical within language.
Then you're an idiot who needs to read and think harder about what you read. He means that self is undefinable, not that it doesn't exist.
>We've gone beyond Descartes, read Nietzsche on that exact quote.
Fuck off, make the argument yourself.
>And what if their own interests or values equate it to being inherent?
Inherently what? If their interests justify it than they feel its justified, and likewise to the contrary if the contrary is felt.
>His criticism isn't valid because it invalidates itself along with its targets.
No, it doesn't. You're just an idiot. The only things his argument invalidates are ideals present as oughts. He never presents his ideal as an ought. Do I need to use smaller words for you?
>>891615
This, we don't know if Nietzsche knew of Stirner.
>>892424
He probably did, though. Nietzsche's ideology starts where Stirner's left off.
>>891453
no
>>892411
>If their interests justify it than they feel its justified
>He never presents his ideal as an ought.
If there are no inherent morals in the universe then any morals you might have are irrational including any morals that say slavery is unjustified.
>>892948
Unrelated question, but in an indifferent universe, aren't all value judgements, not just morals inherently irrational?
>>893001
Maybe.
The point is if you want to be logical and consistent and stand by the claim that we live in a cold soulless universe where no values are inherent, then you must admit that you believe there is nothing unjust about slavery.
Even if you dislike racists and hicks you have to say it.
If you can't do this then anyone who applies the most basic of logic without letting personal feelings interfere would have to conclude that you are no more whacky noo noo than any other religion or crackpot philosophy.
>>893232
I often find that when people go into philosophy emotionally charged appeals to cultural norms prevents them from ever actually exposing themself to it.
There are no sacred calf in philosophy, you aren't going to say a certain thing is good or bad just because it's the politically correct thing to do.
>>892948
Indeed, and any morals where slavery is justified would likewise be irrational. But Stirner does not hold rationalism as an ideal to striven towards as something sacred. His fundamental point is that nothing is truly worth regarding as absolutely sacred.
>>892456
The similarities between their ideologies are largely superficial. Nietzsche didn't particularly care for egoism.
>>893232
This is exactly what Richard Rorty holds to be the case when he discusses the issue in The Consequences of Pragmatism. He basically says that if we cannot justify belief in a Kantian/Platonic eternal moral truth and if we cannot act on the basis that our beliefs are certain, all our knowledge regarding morality is a function of convention and social practice and potentially fallible.
His answer is that, in realizing the fragility of our moral foundations, we will act on the basis of hope for a better future and greater solidarity with other people.
>>891453
You fail to understand Stirner. An ideology and a spook are not the same, the name itself implies a mental ''spectre'' that prohibits you from acting out your true beneficial intentions.
You can deconstruct everything and end up saying: ''the world you see is ideology/es''
ideology itself as a concept is ideology and so on - Its a never ending spiral of deconstruction.
What Striner is saying, is that your own consciousness is the only experience possible.
Thus you get the dichotomy of the unique and the property. Concerning what ''you should do'', would imply an outright ideological dogma or belief; pure ideology. And that's the thing with Stirner, he didn't deconstruct everything, he ended up creating a ''meta-ideology''.
>>894237
>pure ideology
Is Zizek worth looking into or is he a meme?
>>891504
Whoever wrote that is really a retarded nutjob
Stirner's philosophy is only contracitory when you think his concept of egoism is an "ought"
>>894175
>He basically says that if we cannot justify belief in a Kantian/Platonic eternal moral truth and if we cannot act on the basis that our beliefs are certain, all our knowledge regarding morality is a function of convention and social practice and potentially fallible.
nothing wrong with this
>>891453
Ok in what sense?
If there's no reason for morality there's no reason to hold back from slavery on ethical grounds.
>>894493
Why don't you find your own answers?
