His argument for the Ego not being a spook is literally Descartes rehashed. How is /lit/ so stupid?
Descartes is correct.
Even if he's wrong about that, he does have a lot of insightful things to say. And he doesn't advocate for living totally without spooks, he just wanted people to be aware of their existence.
Doesn't Zizek basically say the same thing in a different way?
To be hokest I don't get the issue to begin with.
IF spooks are about ideas that you put above yourself, then the self as such can't be a spook by definition. The definition involves a strict ordering with the self being a reference point.
>>8027770
Eith Zizek there are a milliom ways to perceive the world, shaped by ideology, and you come to frmulate your self and goal w.r.t. it.
I don't think stirner considers such fundamentally different views of the world, his disussions go straight to the notivations.
The lack of psychoanalitic consideration sure make stirner also simpler to understand - are there even two people who read something like Lacan in the same way?
>>8026287
Yeah but Descartes doesn't have the same memetastic potential
>>8027913
>IF spooks are about ideas that you put above yourself, then the self as such can't be a spook by definition.
Correct, Stirner does not say that spooks are non-existant, but that the individual should be in a cognizant position of it's egoistic interest in the spook. I.e. God and religion may or may not exist (Although Stirner speaks of the individual as the "highest being"), the egoist has to be aware of its own interest to pursuit them.
Spooks exist, but the ideas are only spooky as long as you are not aware of your own, selfish desire to agree with its thoughts.
>>8027770
That Stirner is Cartesian?
triggered stirnerites slidding this thread
Der Einzige is not the same thing as the Ego. It's a bad translation. It refers to the fact that you, where you exist, are unique both in context and in material. No one exactly like you ever has existed or ever will again. You are inclined to do what you want to anyway, so you might as well just do that.
>>8026287
not even a little bit.
>>8026287
nononononononononononononono no its not. go away
>>8029282
"I think, I am" - Max Stirner
>>8029282
>you, where you exist, are unique both in context and in material. No one exactly like you ever has existed or ever will again.
The distinction between Einzige and Non-Einzige is a Spook.
>>8028966
it's not my fault he was so damn handsome
>>8029282
It's really a damn shame that people read this guy in translation because Der Einzige is just as much satire as it is philosophy, and I wager that most of this goes over people's heads because they don't read it in German and because they haven't read Lessing and the likes, or maybe they have in translation, but I'm sure this would also make it harder to pick up on Stirner's jabs.
>>8030649
Is it me or does he look like a young Jeremy Irons?
>>8032318
Nice to know someone else here reads Steiner
bigt>>8032318
thats not stirner
>>8029282
In French, the title is "L'Unique et sa Propriété" which means the unique and its property
Seems to make more sense
>>8032540
To be fair, Stirner didn't really help the translators by making his work one massive pun.
>>8029282
> Hey let's just presume there's a Platonic relation between the word Einzige and the thing Einzige
> language isn't always already deconstructed!
stirnerites are borderline retards
>>8032485
Other than that, in the German edition, when he talks about 'die Alten' v 'die Neuen', it's a stab at the rhetoric you find i something like Lessing's Laokoon study, I haven't seen it pointed out by anyone and it might be paranoia but I just noticed similarities when I read Laokoon a couple of weeks ago.
>>8026287
because lit
