Proves me wrong. Pro tip you cant
>>74444452
you should read Marx's critique of Stirner, it's pretty devastating.
stop forcing memes you spineless swine
>>74444498
>Marx's critique of Stirner
Literally nothing of value. He just missed the point of the ego and its own entirely,and most of his """"arguments"""" are just personal attacks
>>74444452
Obviously that's a spook senpai.
>>74444498
>A
>Fucking
>Leaf
>>74444770
Not at all, you clearly didn't read it or understand what you were reading. Marx makes it pretty clear that Stirner simply considered himself a god, and basically reframed his own ego as a deity.
Devestating. The fact that he uses the St. Stirner adhom just reinforces the truth that Stirner was a crypto catholic.
>>74444452
WHO IS THAT CARTOON CHARACTER headlocking marx?
>>74444498
>the current year
>Marx
kek
>>74445739
reading a book, i guess is something you don't do very often.
>>74444452
It's immoral. Nothing good will come out of it.
>>74445693
Friedrich Wilhelm rosenbaum.
>>74445634
thats just a personal attack you commie shit
>>74444452
I agree.
>>74445893
What, are you going to argue that stirner wasn't a solipsistic crypto catholic?
>>74444452
congrats on being on the same philosophical level as China pal
>>74445777
I just yesteday finished reading one. Marx stopped being relevant after 1900.
>>74445932
he's asking you does that fact, even if it were ture, make his point not valid
if you say yes then it's an ad hom
if you say no then why bringing it up?
do you even logic and debate?
>>74445932
ive never heard of him before this thread
>>74444452
>mfw literally Thrasymachus
>>74446067
everything is a fallacy.
>>74444452
I think winning makes right, it dosnt really matter how. A strong person can lose to a weak person if they are poisoned or asleep.
Winning makes right because its you who write the history books, just look at how things are now
>>74446111
...
just
...
i don't even
...
>>74446087
also this
>>74444452
Thanks Ragnar Redbeard.
>>74446111
>the average Commie
>>74446111
how does that even refute a point?
Might doesn't make right but might is the only thing that matters
>>74446163
what? do you think it somehow reduces the legitimacy of Marx's critique that it contains polemic ad homs?
I see you faggots haven't yet been introduced to the one true philosophy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIQynsWpBpQ
>>74445634
>he didn't personally attack him
>he just called him an egocentric douche
Holy shit you can not be this dumb.
>>74446224
saying that someone is considering himself of higher value than other in order to "refute" him does not make a legitimate argument
it essentially says, "you think you're better than me, therefore you're wrong"
give a valid argument, not a half-arsed insult
>>74446111
Including your statement.
>>74444452
I see that stupid fucking drawing of that guy shitposted all the time. It's always a shitpost.
>>74444770
And it seems like Frederich engles had such a fucking hard on for him that he drew like a dozen drawings of his dumb face.
I have never seen anyone explain who the hell this person is. Just shitposting of that dumb punk-rock looking pencil drawing of him.
>>74446416
Well yes, that's really more of a statement of fact though regarding Stirner's "philosophy" of egocentric doucheism
>>74446421
However, Stirner's entire "philosophy" presupposes that his ego is inherently of higher value than anything else.
surely you're clever enough to see how by pointing that out Marx was in fact providing a refutation of Stirner's argument?
>>74446561
Why am I even surprised a leaf is posting feels before reals?
>>74446607
I'm not sure you're appeal to nationalism has any relevance here at all.
Good bread
>>74446561
End yourself, weakling.
>>74446064
So you're saying you don't read books because they are old? IT's pretty obvious you're totally spooked and incapable of nonideological thinking.
>>74446561
> presupposes that his ego is inherently of higher value than anything else.
but how does that refute the point that might makes right?
if his ego were lesser, would the fact that he has the might change the fact that he makes right?
do you imply that one's might correlates to one's ego?
are egomaniacs the most powerful people on the world?
does humility change the power balance?
can you please form an argument?
>>74446561
Not a refutation of solipsism
>>74446798
>but how does that refute the point that might makes right?
Well, that's a non sequitur. In my opening statement I was addressing Marx's critique of Stirner. Frankly I agree with Max Weber's monopoly on violence thesis.
>>74446421
>>74446490
>>74446607
I'm not going to listen to any of you until you prove you can defeat me in personal combat. The only rational way to determine truth is to carve your claims onto someone else's twitching corpse.
>>74446829
By equating his (Stirner's) ego with god, Marx's points to the contradiction in his philosophy. Not a refutation of solipsism, but then again, you can't refute solipsism.
>>74446925
saying that one is an egomaniac isn't a "critique," it's pure banter with no philosophical value.
as such it was brought up needlessly
>>74446965
>a wild gun appears
>might balance tipped
>>74447015
can you please explain the contradiction?
>>74447079
Not true, as I pointed out here
>>74447015
Stirner failed to recognize- as Marx correctly called him on it- that his philosophy, while built on a supposed refutation of religion, actually was the pronouncing of a new religion, the religion of solipsism.
>>74447093
tldr, from Stirner's position, the ego transcends god, but in fact, as Marx established, Stirner was really bait and switching. Stirner's "ego" is god.
>>74446783
I'm saying i don't read useless books. Marxism is dead. Deal with it.
>>74447286
Once again, you're completely spooked by ideology, it seems to me. familiarizing oneself with classic texts does not inherently equate one with the pronouncing of ideology espoused by those texts. Surely you can appreciate this critical distinction.
>>74447168
Marx was big on shouting "religion" at anything he didn't understand or that contradicted him
What is his argument that it's a religion. He leaves tons of stuff not explained. Obviously he doesn't define "God" as Abrahamic religions do since he's almighty and all-powerful yet I doubt that ego, no matter how big it were can create stuff out of thin air or that it were anyone's argument.
As stated before, that same argument can be made for any of Marx's work, that they are "religion".
>>74447168
Marx didn't publish that critique of Stirner in either his or Stirner's lifetime, which begs the question
of whether or not Marx feared being intellectually thrashed by a Stirner riposte. Engels wrote that
Stirner was the most talented member of Die Freien. Perhaps that is why Marx got hung up on
attacking him - jealousy.
>>74447496
>As stated before, that same argument can be made for any of Marx's work, that they are "religion".
Certainly.
with regard to the question of Marx's argument regarding Stirner, as you know, Marx describes Stirner's ego as "the all highest" which seems to equate Stirner's solipsism with god. Now, was Stirner really a crypto catholic, that is anyone's guess, but I think Marx certainly thought he was.
>>74447286
Marxism isn't dead. Marxist philosophy innervates the policy apparatchiks who flood your shores
with migrant mud people.
>>74444452
You are technically right but having that mindset is counter-productive if your goal is conquest and establishing a government in the eyes of outsiders you'll be seen as nothing more than just another warlord that wants a piece of the pie if you don't have any legimacy backing you up such as the heir of the throne, divinity, or being a representative of a ideal people are supportive of you'll turn away influential people who will become your foundation in taking the realm
>>74447523
This is entirely possible. Marx's use of the St. Stirner ad hom lends support to this argument.
That said, I think Marx's critique does speak for itself with regard to the legitimacy of Stirner's egotism- of which I think anyone would be hard pressed to challenge that total solipsism is not unlike a belief in one's own divinity.
>>74447645
then a question to you
how do you define "devastating" as that was the term you used to describe this "critique"
marx never worked a day in his life and was fed by his rich friend
Marx' criticism was nothing but misinterpretation
It's why he did not publish it, because he woud have been slaughtered.
>>74447079
Oh yeah, check out this rippling intellect! Now agree to form and believe in the independent existence of a state while following a set of rules that have been determined by a committee of ripped experts to maximize utility or I'll rip you nerds in half like a phone book.
>>74447780
Marx's critique of Stirner's solipsism I feel is devastating because it handily shows the contradiction in Stirner's thought; namely, the rejection of all things besides his ego. This is particularly devastating when keeping in mind that Stirner went to lengths in his book to denounce religion, yet, ultimately, he is simply espousing his own religion. By exposing the contradiction in Stirner's system of thought, I feel that Marx succeeded in "devastating" that system of thought.
>>74447909
Luckily we can read both side by side and make up our own minds about the validity of both positions.
>>74447999
but now you argue that he "devastated him" by merely pointing out what he was stating...
and i don't understand how one can claim that radical empiricism can be so easily compared to religion
sure, they are all based off our sensors, but that's as far as it goes. if nothing else, claiming that everything needs to be proven in order to "exist" is the exact opposite of the religious dogma of existing without tangible evidence and repeatable experiment
A negro bursting into your house and stealing your shit would, in your mind, make it ethically sound.
This is how retarded nihilism is in general.
>>74448279
I'm not sure I would describe the essence of Stirner's egoism as radical empiricism. Stirner was not Diderot. I think the term solipsism suffices to describe Stirner's egoism, don't you agree?
>>74448500
claiming that minds outside of your own aren't provable and therefore aren't would be a form of radical empiricism.
non the less, it does not substitute a mind with religion because one could argue that if this is religion, anything could be labeled "religion"
and when everything is religion, then nothing really is and the word and the label lose the meaning
>>74448675
Certainly Stirner was following from the tradition of the materialists and empiricists who predated him and were his contemporaries (Engels we already mentioned).
I'm not sure I follow your second sentence. Marx described Stirner's egoism as the "Ego in agreement with itself" which sounds to me very much like the kind of teleology that underpins religion. The way you've phrased the second sentence it sounds as if you're saying Stirner could not have possibly have made that error because it would not have been possible for him to contradict himself so flagrantly.
>>74449173
my point is that the term "religion" is being tossed around ad nauseam.
in order to brand something religion, one needs to define religion. and i believe that Marx failed to do that because it can brand everything a religion.
at that point the term religion loses any meaning and is no longer a valid critique, argument, and/or rebuttal
>>74446111
not an argument
>>74449428
I think Marx was correct is pointing to the religious basis of Stirner's egoism- in the sense that Stirner's solipsistic ego does make a claim to eschatological truth.
I do appreciate your objection that the we don't want to bandy about the term "religion" in an unspecific fashion.
That said, there are other aspects of Marx's critique of Stirner- besides this significant point about the metaphysics of Stirner's egoism - that I think are just as "devastating". For example, the critique that Stirner's solipsism was unrealistic in that it denied the social interactions that materially make up the ego- such that the unique ego that Stirner described is seems to in fact be a the product of an oversimplification of the individual's material life.
"Hence it certainly follows that the development of an individual is determined by the development of all the others with whom he is directly or indirectly associated, and that the different generations of individuals entering into relation with one another are connected with one another, that the physical existence of the later generations is determined by that of their predecessors, and that these later generations inherit the productive forces and forms of intercourse accumulated by their predecessors, their own mutual relations being determined thereby. In short, it is clear that development takes place and that the history of a single individual cannot possibly be separated from the history of preceding or contemporary individuals, but is determined by this history."
>>74449807
I'm not sure what you think an "argument" is, nor I am clear on what value you place on the term in the context of this thread.
>>74450115
That would be a valid critique
Anyway, need to get back to work. Was a pleasure discussing this with you. I tip my hat to you, good sir.
P.S. Your PM is a moron and a populist, but he did not elbow that cunt
>>74447659
Immigration is a human instict. People moved for better life conditions since the birth of man. Blaming Marx is autistic.
>>74447384
Again the particular texts of Marx lost their value as capitalism evolved to something he couldn't predict. Not even mention how shit the Bolshevik Revolution turned into. Marxism is irrevalant in today's society.
>>74444498
>Marx
Into the trash.
It's literally written by the might. The intellectual might.
They want you to submit intellectually, not physically.
The strong makes right.
It's just a matter of whether he pleases the masses. Some prefer to enlighten the masses so they might have a chance, especially the rags to riches kings.
>>74445634
>Marx makes it pretty clear that Stirner simply considered himself a god, and basically reframed his own ego as a deity.
The guy was trying to show you people something.
If everyone thought ourselves as righteous gods, we'd be a stronger world.
Remember - the strongest kings are those that appease the nation and make more people climb the ladder.
The weakest are those that establish heirarchal systems that aren't flexible - like Marxism (Ironically)
Marx is a doctrine of cuckdom if applied in his way.
He has some good points, but not all of it is good.
We need neo-marxists that delve in capitalism and engineering to critically think his points now, before old marxists rule the world.
We need technocracy, as scary as that sounds.
>>74446111
everything isn't a fallacy.
>>74446706
Very good thread.
It's like I'm seeing the new dawn in philosophy.
Gen Z mate, you guys are on the ball. t. Millennial.
>>74447496
>Marx was big on shouting "religion" at anything he didn't understand or that contradicted him
He simply didn't know what a meme was.
That word has changed everything overnight.
Oh and just because they are a meme, doesn't mean they are not important.
>>74450608
>Immigration is a human instict. People moved for better life conditions since the birth of man. Blaming Marx is autistic.
No it isn't because the immigration today is forced.
It's subversively forced for marxism.
Those battles in the middle east that moved people did so because some fucktard wanted them to move.
This whole thing is co-ordinated revolution.
/pol/ might be a counter revolution, or simply a reaction. But we definitely know the immigration is a marxist revolution. Just like they did to Germany in the 20's.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328#efmADMAFf
>Clinton email: "Destroy Syria for Israel"
>In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government.
Clinton was a hippy. Go figure.
>>74447384
>Once again, you're completely spooked by ideology, it seems to me. familiarizing oneself with classic texts does not inherently equate one with the pronouncing of ideology espoused by those texts. Surely you can appreciate this critical distinction.
No you're spooked by ideology.
You hold onto marx and push away the light.
You're ignoring the truth by believing something that doesn't work.
Marx had some good points, but the whole thing did not work as a pragmatic system.
>>74448353
If you don't own a gun and can't defend yourself and your property then you shouldn't complain
>>74448353
Saying something is "ethical" is the most meaningless statement possible.
Actually "might makes right" isn't correct either, it's more like there's only might and nothing is "right".
What does it matter if the negro is right or not? The only damn thing that matters is whether you have the physical abilities to defend yourself/your property or not.
But you can assert laws without the need for ethical spooks.
That's why HOBBES IS TRUTH and the second step after Stirner
>>74444452
Well clearly not if that was the case why is the U.S.A so fucking cucked today?
>>74444452
But what if the mightiest dude says might makes right is wrong
History has proven that marxism was a world-saving-end-time religion and a cult, it is pretty obvious nowadays. This is not Marx's fault, of course, but he is responsible for involuntarily deceiveing the working class into thinking that his economic ideas are better and safer than free trade.
