Is Max Stirner merely a /lit/ meme or do you guys actually subscribe to his philosophy?
being a meme doesn't preclude sincerity
>>7426426
is your pic related Max Stirner in the flesh?
>>7426426
I used to subscribe to Stirner, but I swapped over to MAD instead
>>7426426
no, its all memes we're all ancaps here thank u very much
>>7426426
some kids on /lit/ are definitely stupid and poorly read enough to think stirner is absolutely unrefutable
anyone who has engaged with aristotle or heidegger knows stirner is junk
>>7426838
>mfw some kid on /lit/ is schizotypal enough to think aristotle and heidegger's spooky reification refuted anything at all
bunch of obfuscated nonsense, to be quite honest
>>7426878
Same argument is all they have.
> LOL YOU THINK STIRNER IS WRONG XDD
> GUESS YOU HAVENT STIRNER
Stirner is meme'd because he's easy and superficial to people who think they're incredibly deep.
It's not worth it to debate Stirnerites about how a spook is at the center of his philosophy or that the practical implementation of Stirnerite "ghost busting" in daily life adds up to an affirmation of teleology.
They're basically like DFW fan boys who dipped their toes in "Dense Philosophical Texts."
Or maybe it's just one dude who keeps shilling it for political reasons (ie be a dumb fuck and get distracted by non-problems with Stirner!)
>>7427040
Nice spooks, my property.
>>7427040
>teleology
Why is your mind so corrupted by spooks?
Literally nobody
>>7426426
In a time when the best up and coming philosophers labeled themselves as "young Hegelians" he explored the antithesis to Hegels doctrine thus reveling flaws in Hegels system - but in doing so he went to an extreme, hes a troll philosopher.
>>7427040
Nigga, if you think that Stirner has no value for philosophy you are clearly wrong.
He is not perfect, and there are muddy parts on what he wrote, just as any other philosopher. He's important because he goes against Enlightment, even before Nietzche critique of it. He could see the problems on Hegel's dialectic, how we will create 'spooks' out of ideas that are extremely alien to us, how this ideas will dominate us and ultimately be replaced by another.
He is extreme on what he says, but this helps us a lot more to understand how he was right in a sense. Sure you can also try to discredit him considering that Nietzche did something similar, but in a more complete and broad way, so he's not as useful or unique. However, he set/sat (I'm not English native and I'm confused about which word I should use) an important prescedent and thought: To be critical of what we think at all times, and do not let other's ideas be what determines your will.
>>7427388
stirner didn't go against enlightenment values, if anything he is the ultimate utilitarian and materialist i.e. don't let values or beliefs get in the way of maximizing your pleasure...which is why he sucks and is shit compared to a thinker like nietzsche
>>7427388
>He's important because
nope
>>7427388
Stirner and Nietzsche both just ripped off (or "drew inspiration from" if you prefer) Vico and Machiavelli...sick of Germanics ripping off Italian thinkers and giving no credit...
>>7427426
What he is trying to say in between lines is the fact that if all of us follow the principles of going full anti-spook and own ourselves, we should live in a society where we live freely and get the ammount of respect we deserve.
He didn't belive in the sort of human nature that Hobbes argued for. He's more on the collaborative side of things, yet this doesn't mean that the Group should own or force you in orded to collaborate. Let's also remember that he wasn't against spooks per se, he never wrote ethically about them, he only wanted us to be concious of them existing.
So, as far as my understanding goes, he thought that maybe, if we lived in a society where we owned ourselves, we would respect eachother power and belive (conciously and willingly) on this group-collaboration 'spook' because it's the best way we can live. Tthere might also be people that don't want to be part of this because of reasons, so they should try to rebel against the group (for the better or worse). But generally speaking, the group power should be stronger.
It's my understanding however, you shouldn't try to take what he wrote so superficially.
>>7427490
but shared values aka "spooks" are what make civilization work, it's like how anthropologist professors always make edgy statements about "conformity" but then they ask you to shut your phone off during the lecture, oh so sorry mr. professor i'm just doing my little bit to prevent the next genocide by getting obnoxious text noises all through your class
>>7427426
Pleasure is a spook
>>7427282
Too bad he's still a dialectian
>>7427518
>what make civilization work
ideology in action
>All this spooky property in my thread
>>7427282
no he didnt you shitlord, he was a fucking hegelian, his whole life was wrapped up in hegelfagging, he's no better than marx,...nietzsche on the other hand built from schopenhaur, a guy who tried to hold his lectures at the same time as hegel so his students would have to pick one or other, a true non-hegelian tradition, stirner is just lil hegel bitch
>>7427722
I am the creative no
>>7427715
the thing is if you finally showed some stirner loser how fucking stupid he really is then he'd just say "lol i was only pretending to be a stupid stirner teen" so what's the point...moreover, if stirner "changed your life" then god damn you must have been the most uncritical dumbfuck on the planet
>first day on /lit/
>>7427731
Nice refutation of Stirner devoid of ad hominem. It's almost like you're actually butthurt Karl Marx or something.
>>7427879
why is stirner telling people what they "ought" to do? nietzsche never wastes his time with this kind of shitlordery, he just points out masters have one set of values and slaves have another, he simply observes the world as it is, not like silly hegelian metaphysicians like stirner and marx telling people what they ought to do, stirner will always be pleb shit for teens
>>7427890
>Fuck you I won't do what you tell me: the post
Yeah you're so much more mature than Stirnerbabbies
>>7426426
drop trip
>>7427895
the point is oughts are spooks, so his whole shtick is a fucking spook, stirner is dumb and so are you
>>7427890
Except Stirner isn't telling you what you 'ought' to do, retard.
>>7427282
No he is really Hegelian, its just that his project of history is directed towards the realization of the creative nothing.
>>7427920
The creative nothing is a spook.
>>7426612
lol
>>7427320
Everything is a meme friend, even you.
>>7427282
It is very deeps, basically to sum up:
1. The spook of spooks spooking the spooked spook spook.
2. If you don't understand or disagree it is because spook. See 1.
>>7426426
Even though I disagree with it, his Spook theory pretty much lets me win any argument.
>>7427926
Its not a spook, its literally not even spook-able.
>>7426426
His proposals for how to live and make decisions are perfectly workable unless you're the kind of self-important tard who gets paralyzed if he doesn't know the secret to life the universe and everything.
>>7428042
>literally
Why are you privileging the determination of literal meaning, i.e. presence over metaophical and non-literal meaning?
A spectre is haunting /lit/, the spectre of Stirnerism, which falsely assumes that we can ever extricate ourselves from the spookocentric discourses within which we are all bricoleurs. The closure of metaphysics does not mean the ghost-busting of metaphysics.
>>7428080
Stirner doesn't imply you can extricate yourself, just that you can be made aware and gain a certain autonomy through that
>>7428090
>autonomy
Wooooooooo
All drawings of him are bad ass, therefore he is a spook as I am putting drawings of him above drawings of myself.
His writing is entertaining in a therapeutic way. His theories express and detail a thought process not normally seen by plebs and can be a real eye opener. Two pages of yelling about spooks are not going to make me give up on my family or stop being so rampant about my pride from being from Texas, but it will help me grow as a person and be able to understand those view points and change my ever growing ability to interact with the world around me.
Fuck yeah Stirner, you were a good read.
>>7428098
>word
WoooOooOoooO
>>7428111
>grow as a person
WOOOOOOoooOOOOoOOOOooo
What have you done to my thread.
>>7427150
Fuck you, I do.
NO ONE IN THIS THREAD CAN EXPLAIN CLEARLY WHY STIRNER IS SHIT, THUS MAX WINS.
>>7427388
Idiot.
STIRNERS PHILOSOPHY IS ITSELF SPOOKED.
HOW MANY TIMES UNTIL YOU ACCEPT IT
STIRNER IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH PHILOSOPHER TO DO WHAT HE DOES WITHOUT GETTING SPOOKED
>>7428080
>The closure of metaphysics does not mean the ghost-busting of metaphysics.
Stirnerfags BTFO.
>>7428111
should have read Heidegger and Aristotle instead
Stirnerfags have 10 seconds to prove they're not trying to achieve Eudaimonia.
>>7428885
The well-being of the individual is not some highest-virtue
Stirner still accounts for martyrdom
>>7428885
>having a goal
nice spook
>>7428889
Martyrdom contradicts Eudaimonia how?
Also, Eudaimonia isn't "well-being," you retarded enlightenment moralist.
Everyone is trying to achieve Eudaimonia. Your ghostbusting is just an attempt at Eudaimonia.
>>7428893
a-at least I'm not spooked!
>>7427388
Buddha beat him to it though
>>7428899
imagine me however you wish mr. spooky :)
>>7428896
>In moral philosophy, eudaimonia is used to refer to the right actions as those that result in the well-being of an individual
????
>>7428893
A goal isn't a spook. A goal you have to do for reasons of sacredness is a spook.
>>7428969
What if sacredness is my goal?
>>7429279
If you're not following it for your own benefit, if it's a sacredness over you, it's a spook.
>>7428969
yes.
why do people dont understand even the basics. i mean first 30 pages are enough for this kind of an "enlightenment". goddamn lit.
I wish someone would lay out the argument against Stirner for someone who hasn't read much philosophy like myself. I did read Stirner's works and it seems like a good way to live your life.
I don't know how it conflicts with other philosophers but not subordinating yourself to anything else, not even to your own vices, seems like a decent way to live. It's hard as hell to actually implement, I'm a very anxious person, but sometimes I think about what Stirner said and it helps.
Maybe I'm just naive.
is every philosopher throughout history a meme?
People who subscribe to any philosophy but their own are complete jokes who fail to understand the man's thoughts. Shame on all of you who would try to follow his path.
>>7426838
Marx pls go and write again a 500 pages of butthurt
i subscribed for 6 months and got an in-game mount
>>7430051
He agrees.
