Is atheism necessary for the unique one?

No. Stirner doesn't attempt to disprove God at all, and doesn't see that as a worthy project. Stirner instead argued that regardless of whether or not God exists (which Stirner doesn't care about), he'd be an egoist himself, and any following of him or lack thereof could only be driven by egoism.

Following religions are not compatible with Stirner's philosophy, but believing in them is totally acceptable. The Devil, for instance, obviously has faith (or belief, same word in the Bible), but he doesn't care to follow the religion.

No, but the idea of a "God" as the source of "good" is not comptable with it.

There are such things as amoral Gods.

depends on how consistent your will is with the moral code of whatever religion, Stirner would probably say make use of the parts you like and discard the rest

File: High Tech Hitler.jpg (40KB, 398x385px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 398x385px

Apatheism more or less?

>>1153386
No, Stirner doesn't say you have to be apathetistic. If God's existence matters to you, then it matters to you. He only says it doesn't have to matter, it doesn't have to not matter either.

>>1153360
>Following religions are not compatible with Stirner's philosophy
Why not? If I believe that Christianity is true, and I'm an egoist, I'm going to do what the Bible tells me so that I can avoid going to hell.

>>1153410
You can't follow it without believe there are definite good and evil.

File: stirner11.jpg (171KB, 610x611px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 610x611px

Why is he so based?

>>1153446
Okay, but can I treat "good" as "what God approves of" and "evil" as "what God disapproves of" as categories that may or may not be arbitrary, but of which I don't care about the meaning?

>>1153474
How's that Egoism than?

File: MAX.jpg (119KB, 868x868px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 868x868px

>>1153354
Yes and no.

Yes in the case of an anthropomorphized god who requires prayer or another form of servitude, as there would no doubt be a clashing of interests between yourself and your deity's wishes.

No in the case of a Deistic, impersonal god that created/sustains the world and requires no allegiance whatsoever, allowing your ego to do as it pleases.

>>1153465
>I was only 9 years old
>I loved Stirner so much, I had all the treatises and recensions
>I pray to Stirner every night before bed, thanking him for the life I've given myself
>"Stirner is love" I say; "Stirner is life"
>My dad hears me and calls me a radical bourgeois
>I know he was just jealous of my devotion for my cause and my property
>I called him an involuntary egoist
>He slaps me and sends me to go to sleep
>I'm crying now, and my face hurts
>I lay in bed and it's really cold
>Suddenly, a warmth is moving towards me
>It's Stirner
>I am so happy
He whispers into my ear "What I have in my power, that is my own."
>He grabs me with his powerful unique hands and puts me down onto my hands and knees
>I'm ready
>I spread my ass-cheeks for Stirner
>He penetrates my butt-hole
>It hurts so much but I do it for myself
>I can feel my butt tearing as my eyes start to water
>I push against his force
>I voluntarily want to please Stirner
>He roars in a mighty roar as he fills my butt with his love
>My dad walks in
>Stirner looks him straight in the eyes and says "I have made Nothing my cause."
>Stirner leaves through my window
>Stirner is love. Stirner is life.

>>1153410
No, no, rephrase it like this.
>I'm going to do stuff that appears to others that is good and in the bible so that if hell does (on the off chance) that it does exist that I won't go there, and I will do it on my own volition.

>>1153354
No, as that would be imposing an artificial constraint on the unique one, trying to force yourself to not believe for the sake of being "genuine" is spooky behavior.

>>1153360
Good to see your reading of him has improved, I recall early on in this boards history you argued that Stirner's creative nothing was God and based on references to Greek Mythology.

>>1153410
To clarify the point that poster was trying to make if you practice the faith and its tenants because it is something that you enjoy/comes naturally to you then yes you are being an egoist, however if you feel yourself committed (or under some moral obligation) to act that way irrespective of your feelings you are spooked.

>I'm going to do what the Bible tells me so that I can avoid going to hell.

When it comes to understanding Stirner and the Tripfags example of the devil here its helpful to use the relationship ones has with the state as an analogy.

We live in a state based society, accordingly the egoist tends to obey the laws of the state because if not they will face punishment. Hence they ascribe no legitimacy to the state or its laws and feel no compulsion to obey them outside of the states ability to compel them to. (for example the egoist would not feel any guilt for driving through a red light on an empty road or say sheltering persecuted people). Accordingly you would be considered a bad citizen.

Now when it comes to the religion example he used you have the same relationship as the devil does with God; you don't acknowledge God as being legitimate you only acknowledge him as being more powerful.

Given that most branches of Christianity require you to see him as legitimate not just powerful you run into trouble.
>>1153465
For the same reason why the relationship advice of "being yourself" is valid. His book is 500 pages of that effectively. The other reason is that like Neitzche, Hume, Aquinas/Aristotle his ideas can be used to smash common conceptions about reality

>>1153979
>I recall early on in this boards history you argued that Stirner's creative nothing was God and based on references to Greek Mythology.
I said its was Chaos (which translates as "void"), which is what the Greeks thought reality came from. That's pretty much the opposite of the Christian concept of God.

>>1154057
Yeah which is why I didn't say something like "Constantine said that Stirner was a crypto Christian"

>>1154078
That said was my expansion of your example accurate to your intentions?

Has anyone read the Cambridge edition of his work? Is it different than the other editions annotation wise?

>>1153360
Exactly, he simply disowns god whether he's real or not and labels him as an egotistic asshole regardless.

>>1154848
egotistic = asshole my spooked friend

>>1153979
> I recall early on in this boards history you argued that Stirner's creative nothing was God and based on references to Greek Mythology.
Early on in this boards history, Constantine was an entirely different person that this guy waifufagged so hard, he scared her off the board, and he decided to take her trip and wear it, like Buffalo Bill.

>>1153354
>the unique one?


what do you mean by that?

Is egoism a spook?

>>1156418
No, it's the farthest you could get from a spook.

Our atheists are pious people

>>1156477
>live your life like this because you read it in a book
>not a spook

>>1156538
>i learned what a spook means from memes and have never read Stirner

>>1156612
read the bible next

>>1156634

Kek

>>1153648
kek'd louder than i should have

>>1153410
Following Christianity is definitely out of the picture, since it's foremost command is "love God ahead of yourself."

Not exactly, and not all religions are out of the picture either. Something along the lines of modern neo-paganism, in which you don't have to place the gods ahead of yourself are entirely within the realm of possibility.

>>1153354
Did Stirner plagiarize Emerson?
His entire philosophy seems like it could have come from Emerson's Essay of Self-Reliance.
> Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.

That being from the essay.

>>1153465
The spooks should fear the egoists

>>1156418
Yes. Stirner tells you to be your own man and not bother with what other people think; if you follow this advice, then you have disobeyed, if you disobeyed it, then you have followed it; it's a contradiction which really makes stirner irrelevant if not the biggest asshole ever (which I guess was his point) as I said here >>1160112 everything stirner said was first said by Emerson.
http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm


It reminds me of a dialogue I once observed between members of my debate team.
>Person A insults person B
>Person C says to person B "are you going to stick up for yourself?"
>Person A says to person B "are you going to let person C tell you what to do?"