So I was watching this dank maymay Youtube video that one of you made and I was wondering, do you think Stirner's spook is related to Marx's spectre? That is to say, did Stirner or Marx come up with the term after reading the other one?
This was the video btw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6QMmrM4BmI
>>8167731
/lit/ - literature
>>8167733
> Marx
> Stirner
>>8167731
>that pic
Plagiarize DFW much?
>>8167735
Did he say something similar? The quote was probably from Bruce Lee, not D&G since that's the joke.
Can't give you an answer to that, all I know is that Marx and Engels didn't like the dude. In their letters to each other they made some jokes about him and Engels eventually wrote an article against Stirner.
>>8167734
404 literature not found
>>8167738
I thought Marx wrote a response to Stirner as well or something? (pic related)
>>8167741
Philosophical literature. We're done here.
>>8167750
Marx wrote a criticism of The Ego and Its Own that is a great deal longer than the Ego and Its Own, as part of the German Ideology, but he took it out right before publishing it. You can still find the critique in many editions these days though.
>>8167895
> You can't argue with Stirner, because he is ontologically right. The only thing that exists is the flesh.
I don't know, it feels to me that power relations and discourses are just as real in the sense that they affect individuals in ways that are not reducible to biological makeup or unconscious makeup (thus including other environmental factors). Also, as Hume puts it, egotism is sympathism in the sense that people value those around them (loved ones) within their own egotism and not as a societal value "Family"™. Not saying there's necessity in all of this, so Stirner is right in a sense, but what is built upon all of this is not as arbitrary as it seems. What does one put in place, after eliminating all spooks, whether we accept the is-ought dichotomy or not? Union of egotists isn't a simple answer, that's all I'm saying.
>>8168708
*egoists, not egotists
