Hey robots. I have to cure for you all.
Read The Ego and Its Own.
All your problems are now solved.
You're welcome.
>>27226165
I read it. It' fun to think about, and you can apply some of what he talks about to your every day life, but on the whole it's impractical and he himself didn't actually live any of the shit he wrote about. So y'know
>>27226165
is this a /lit/ meme?
>>27226165
Stirner was the edgy teenager's philosopher before Rand.
>>27226216
He's obscure as shit and is only remembered at all because Marx and Engels got so absolutely butt-devastated by his philosophy that they wrote an embarrassing hundred page ad hominem "retort" to his theories.
Like Rand, the mind of Max Stirner struck terror into black hearts of commies everywhere.
Could you explain the basic principles of Stirner's philosophy?
From what I gathered it's more or less "do what you want, the individual is the most important thing, the rest is shit". Is that accurate?
>>27226165
There's no one thing that's gonna fix anything about your life. It's the same principle as get rich quick schemes that fail every time because you're looking for quick and easy ways to accomplish something difficult and complex. Lazy philosophy is self-defeating.
>>27226457
What a bunch of spooks.
>>27226472
What are spooks in the stirnerian sense?
I never understood that. Fucking /lit/ calls everything a spook.
>>27226410
"Spook" is just "meme" before "meme" was coined, and Stirner takes the position that everything is a meme except your animal desires and what you consciously and ironically choose, aware of the fact that everything is a meme.
>>27226509
Where do egoism and individualist anarchism fit into all of this?
can you explain? What did he say?
>>27226563
When you cut the bullshit (spooks), what remains is You and your Property (what you can materially and concretely defend and control, in a plain and material sense, including other people). Everything else is bullshit.
If you recognize that fact, the whole "intellectual map and haze" hovering over the world disappears like clouds, and you see the naked facts. Who owns what? What do I want? What do I have (what can I protect/control, if it comes to that)?
>>27226615
I see, so he shits on morality and ethics by claiming that Me (and whatever I have/want, assuming that what I "want" is also removed from spooks) is the only thing worth taking into account?
That's pretty easy to apply to everyday life, I don't see how it would be difficult to live according to such an ideology, other than that people might think you're an asshole (which I suppose is a spook)
Doesn't Stirner's ideology lead to absurdism?
>>27226757
It has a different focus. It's pretty much feral, IMHO. You mark out your territory of what you want to fuck and own and shouldn't feel bad about killing the intruders or competitors if comes to that, because in the end, that's all that's "really going on." It's like a wolf or lion's philosophy.
>>27226859
>feral
So it's an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" thing?
How does he take into account society and human interaction? What about humanism?
Does he openly disregard any kind of values or principles as irrelevant?
>>27226196
idk but this guy sure hates niggers, he keeps calling everything he doesn't like a spook.
>>27226587
Everything is a fucking meme.
>>27226945
He figures that it's often in people's egoistic interests to not always be cocks to each other so people will form amorphous unions of egoists when there is a shared interest around a particular goal.
>>27226945
It's memes all the way down, friend. It's almost completely a negating philosophy. He pretty much offers the tools to dismantle any "spook" that might be guiding your action and then posits that all that remains, tangibly, is You and Your Property--The Ego and Its Own.
When the shit hits the fan and the chips are down, that's all there is.
The value of his book is in the way he describes this way of thinking. It will probably lead you to embrace it more than other "fuck the police man" people do. It really did make me think about things a different way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs
>>27227043
I'll take a look then, thanks for the introduction.
so basically, the only reason for which you should ever do something is because you feel like it, nothing more than that
isn't it pretty much hedonism?
>>27228127
Nah, it's egotism. Hedonism is seeking pleasure while egotism is merely seeing the self as the center of everything.
Egotism is the only proper way for a true atheist to think desu. I know so many ""atheists"" who cling to humanism, socialism, 'revolutionary anarchism' or some other stupid shit just to make them feel bigger as part of something.
In the end you are all that matters to the true egotist, you and the MATERIAL things you care about. It isn't irrational to fight to defend your wife or friends, it's not irrational to fight defending your land or home, it is irrational to fight defending your country, your religion, your ideology, ect.
>>27228214
yeah but how is it different? egotists seek pleasure since they put themselves at the center of everything.
also, why would you be an atheist? believing in atheism is as much of an assumption as believing in an afterlife. agnosticism is a meme but the uncertainty and lack of concern it represents make much more sense than either atheism or religion
>>27228214
Is it irrational to defend your freedom?
Your culture or upbringing?
Where do you draw the line between material and immaterial?
If you put the self at the center, is it irrational to defend something the self would derive satisfaction from, even if it's not material?
>>27226300
But a lot of far-leftists like Stirner because he rejected capitalism and private property.
>>27226165
The Ego is a spook, you fucking faggot.
>>27228687
Are you sure you've read Stirner?
>>27228750
He sure as hell regarded private property as a spook, that's for sure.
I prefer Campus for this
Absurdism > Stirner
>>27229120
How so? Egotism logically leads to absurdism
>>27229324
I don't like stopping short, I like to go all the way or nothing and I haven't figured out what can come after Absurdism
>>27229425
Absurdism is a poor man's nihilism.
And I mean true nihilism, not that "nothing matters xD" bullshit.
True nihilism either leads to suicide or to absurdism by delusion. There's no way out.
The most fundamental, purest way of existing as a human is just to do what you feel like doing, period. No moral qualms or ideological dilemmas. I don't know of any actual "philosophy" that defends that idea or expands on it, though - mostly because it's useless to do so
>>27228327
You can be a hedonist without being an egoist, go to a rave for an example of this behavior, people seek sensation as a collective.
>>27228394
A material thing is tangible.
Freedom as a concept is not tangible but your individual freedom is. Stirner denies that anyone actually has liberties beyond what they can protect against with their own exertion of force.
Culture is not tangible.
I'm not necessarily advocating it but it's Stirner's way of viewing things. He was a cuck btw and his wife fucked all of the other young Hegelians.
>>27228788
Institution of private property is a spook, but possession of property was not.
>>27229657
You shit talk nihilism but basically advocate for it. Nihilism is just philosophical atheism. I more or less agree though. The world is what it is and we should be guided through it by our sentiments rather than spending too much time stressing over higher meaning.
>>27230170
>seek sensation as a collective
Which is not mutually exclusive with the concept of egoism, though
Hedonism = seeking pleasure. In its most basic form it's absurdism with pleasure as the central point of existence. Collective sensations are hedonistic since you derive pleasure from the action of bringing someone else pleasure (assuming you possess empathy)
Egoism = the self as the central point, which implies the pursuit of pleasure and satisfaction in general as the most important aspect of existence (the self can only be validated positively if it experiences satisfaction).
So I'd say hedonists and egoists are pretty much the same. One defines the self with pleasure, the other defines pleasure via the self, but it's the same thing
>culture is not tangible
Racial and ethnic heritage is tangible.
>>27230333
>racial/ethnic heritage
Absolutely not, according to Stirner. That's a giant bundle of spooky spooks.
Working and dying for anything other than yourself and your material interests is getting spooked.
>there are people who think they can reconcile Stirner with capitalism
>there are people who think they can reconcile Stirner with private property
>there are people who think they can reconcile his thought with that of Ayn Rand
y'all getting spooked
>>27230401
no shit, people think they can reconcile Nietzsche with Rand too which is even more hilarious if you listen to her thoughts on it, she has an interview where she chimps out and says she's the exact opposite of Nietzsche which is true, she's a manly woman and a shitty thinker while Nietzsche was a womanly man and a great thinker.
>>27230364
>Working and dying for anything other than yourself and your material interests is getting spooked.
But migrants shitting up my gene pool is a material interest
More seriously, I feel like this is somewhat self-contradicting on Stirner's part. He claims the ego is the ultimate sovereign and should aim to discard all spooks that cloud its judgement; I agree with that, but it's impossible to form a truly objective judgement on anything.
The only option in order not to be spooked would be to follow one's whim regardless of how it manifests itself, whether materialistic or not.
>>27230401
Why couldn't you reconcile Stirner with capitalism and private property?
If anything, anarcho-capitalism is pretty close to what you'd call a stirnerian political system.
Egoism is closer to a "right-wing" ideology for example
