Memes aside, was he a good thinker?

so is a spook just a social construct?

why does /his/ think they are clever when they call everything spooks?

>>1690127
>good
That's just a spook

>>1690130
You have it backward, social constructs are just spooks.

>>1690131
I said memes aside

>>1690130
Your post is a spook.

No he's just some third rate irrelevant Ayn rand tier autismo who pretty much every actual philosopher ignores.

If you told people how relevantly fat lefties treat this faggot on here you'd be laughed out of the building

File: marx_stirner_nietzsche.png (131KB, 488x365px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 488x365px

no

>>1690127
I think he was the world's best thinker for trolling Marx.

And the sad thing is, we will never have the likes of him ever again, he was the best communist agitator the world ever had.

RIP.

File: pink_floyd_the_wall.jpg (205KB, 612x842px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 612x842px

>>1690148
why does Max look like the teacher from The Wall in that comic?

>>1690130
A spook is any idea you put above your self interest. Anything you want can not be a spook, so long as you are using it to further your goals.

File: 1466758155228.gif (401KB, 128x330px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 128x330px

>>1690127
Yes.

Nietzsche and Marx both clearly plagiarised him.

>>1690146
>who pretty much every actual philosopher ignores.

That's because every ''''''''''''''''''''''''actual'''''''''''''''''''' philosopher is in love with their spooks.

>>1690160
>dark sarcasm in the classroom

>>1690162
what's the difference between goals and spooks?

>>1691099
Nothing

>>1690170
The evidence for Nietzsche is circumstantial at best and Marx wrote a shitload more than Stirner ever thought of.

Stirner is still cool but let's not go too far.

>>1691099
if your goal is related to your self-interest then it's not a spook

>>1691124
>quantity and quality are the same thing

>>1691124
James Patterson has written more than Ovid, but you'd be retarded to think that was any commentary on the quality of their writing.

>>1691134
>>1691144
Stirner wrote one decent book, Nietzsche wrote over a dozen and Marx wrote as much as Nietzsche.

>>1691158
>Nietzsche wrote over a dozen and Marx wrote as much as Nietzsche.
And? Judge the author by the content of his writings, not the amount of them

>>1691168
Stirner has less to say than Nietzsche and Marx, and thusly said less of importance. Stirner is not as great as you seem to imply. I like Stirner but seriously, it's not the greatest book ever written.

>>1691175
Stirner is like Koran, and Nietzsche is like the Hadith. The Hadith is bigger, more relevant and applicable, but the Koran is the word of the holy spook.

>>1691175
I didn't say that it was the greatest book ever written. But it's retarded to say others were better simply by sheer volume.

>>1690146
>every actual philosopher ignores
Because they can't deal with him and they realize it.
t. Adorno

>>1691175
How do you get
>less important
from
>less volume

>>1691191
That's maybe true for you, but not for me.

>>1691194
It's good I never said that then.

>>1690127

>DUDE SPOOKS LMAO

no. Hes for edgy teenagers

>>1691203
>covers less topics
>makes quite a few errors
>a good half of the book is crap/nonsense

You may like it because it affirms your fedora world view..

>>1691373
>self-interestedness is for teenagers

self-interestedness has it's place in an adult life.

>the moment you realize that self-interest is a spook

>>1691377
>everythings a spook man XD just like kill everyone its not even worth it XD

doesn't sound very adult to me

>ethnostates with a strong border control is le spook man
>clearly in my self interest to keep the community i live in and as many surrounding communities as possible free of third world savages
Fucking edgy LARPing commushit teenagers don't even know how to interpret the shitty philosophy they're constantly invoking

>>1690127
He was certainly consistent

>>1691427
Stirner isn't leftist, the kids at leftypol just like to suck his dick even though Stirner and Marx are incompatible. (lol)

The left-right spectrum and ideology in general is a spook.

>>1691374
Does this mean that Stirner was more important than all the presocratics and that Rand was more important than Aristotle?

>>1691374
What are the errors made by Stirner?

>>1691437
>incompatible

Marx's critique of capitalist ideology in Capital is 100% applicable to stirner's ideas.

You've gotta remember what Marx was about before the Manifesto. Dude was absolutely a member of the Spookbusters, making western society aware of their own implicit mystification of commodities/capital.

>>1691483
agreeing on stuff =/= compatible

Working for one man (capitalist) or a collective (communist) are spooks unless you're exploiting it somehow for your own gain. Marx's collectivism simply isn't compatible with Stirner's extreme individualism

>>1691506
Marx =/= communism

The majority of his ideas are simply deconstructions of the dominant ideology within capitalism. The communism aspect of his thought is nearly a footnote in his philosophical career. The bulk of Marx's thought is in line with Stirner's egoism (and actually communism itself is too but you just haven't read enough about it)

>>1691506
But that's precisely what Marx changed. He chained it from people should do stuff for the collective good because of utopian spooks, and redefined socialism in terms of exploitation of the individual, and how it is in the prole's self interest to seize the means of production for themselves. This is why he had an increasing focus on economics.

People get confused because Marx could not completely divorce utopian communism. But he made a compromise. You can't jump straight into utopian communism, and you need post scarcity. Once you have post scarcity, you don't have much of a reason to fight over property.

File: 1464481563115-1516760497.jpg (59KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x534px

>>1690127
Waste of paper

>>1691424
Why would i kill anyone if thay would result in me eventually getting killed by others you fucking dumbass

>>1691413
Spook literally means "something you put above your self interest". Stop the meta memes, read the book and make better criticism next time thank you.

File: 14034956_923318447780072_5116675372304029564_n.png.jpg (38KB, 800x530px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 800x530px

>>1691483

>>1691373
>>1691424

>t. anon who never actually read Stirner's work

>>1690130
Those meme posters are the fucking worst man I swear.

The people posting his stuff are the biggest hypocrits too.

what did Stirner actually say? I knew sind edgy kid who was always boasting about him but he couldn't really tell me anything about him or his theories

>>1691446
Stop being such a retard about this. You know what I mean.

>>1691916
Basically alot of things you want are secretly transformed into being something against you, so instead of trusting that what you're doing is good, you should think more self-interestedly so you can tell if it's actually in your benefit.

Absolutely. His work is rock solid.

I don't have much wrong with him but to say something is a spook and leave it at that is not an argument and is a meme. I am sure most know this.

>>1692009
Yeah that volume and variety are only relevant when it is convenient for the point you are trying to push

>>1691452
Bumping for an answer to this

>>1691452
>>1692407
>he hasn't read Marx's response to Saint Max

>>1692419
>Marx being right about anything

>>1692452
*tips*

you asked for stirner's errors, and then refuse to read the text that best speaks about them

>>1692462
I'm not that anon

>>1692419
You didnt answer the question, what were all those errors in Stirner's book?

>>1691424
Why the fuck would I kill everyone?

You know what else is a spook? That I can't drive nails into my dick. That's a spook, if you think you can't do that, you made that up.

I'm still not going to drive nails in my dick.

>>1692479
It looks like neither of you understand what a Spook is

>>1692479
If you mean that it's socially unacceptable to drive a nail into your dick, sure

>>1692470
he creates alot of spooky metaphysical memes about things and doesn't explain or recognize it

cf. the entire section on the development of man from a boy to a man, he just asserts it and makes dozens of dubious claims

to start

>>1692485
Sure I do. A spook is any sort of mental construct you derive out of the external world using your creative nothing, and then ascribe and independent life to. Hence a 'spook' a thing which isn't real, but you act as if it is.

'You can't drive nails into your dick' can be justified any number of ways you like. Naturalism: "Normal humans don't drive nails into their dicks."
Prescriptive Self-Interest: "It's not in your self-interest to harm yourself."
Universal Imperative: "If everyone drove nails into their dicks, we'd go extinct. Therefor you can't drive nails into your dick."

All of these are spooks. Mental constructs that are sometimes useful, but ultimately your own creation.

>>1691424
This guy concludes that because most reasons for not killing people were spooks, you 'should' kill someone. This is doubly spooky, because even when rejected, the idea of 'you shouldn't kill people' he thinks has power over him. "It's not true that you shouldn't kill people, therefor I am obligated to kill people!" He hasn't thought about his genuine self-interest in so long, he jumps to engaging in a behavior simply because he's imagined it's been 'prohibited'.

The 'nails through your dick' example is meant to serve a point. Even if you lifted the restrictions, legal and ethical and driving a nail through your dick, you wouldn't want to do it, so the fact that no one stopping you doesn't matter. Perhaps most people, if they looked at what they REALLY want out of life wouldn't put 'murder' near the top.

>>1692496
Socially or morally was what I had in mind. Pretty sure the bible and catechism, for example, think it's morally unacceptable.

>>1692508
I see, the only reason I said you did not understand was because of your term " I cant" rather than " I shouldnt"

>>1692504
>cf. the entire section on the development of man from a boy to a man, he just asserts it and makes dozens of dubious claims


Wasnt that just him mocking Hegel's genealogical theory of the development of ideas and taking a shot at the German Government without getting his book banned?

What are those other metaphysical spooky memes?

>>1692566
"I can't" is, I'd say, the more frequent formulation of spook, and it usually takes a load of demanded self-examination to get them back down to "I shouldn't."

>>1692573
I get where you are coming from now. I retract that sentiment for what it is worth

>>1692197
>not an argument
The problem with the 'not an argument' meme is that it assumes we're having Serious Discussions.

>>1692579
Thank you, my property ;)

>>1692582
I currently derive great satisfaction from reconciling misunderstandings regarding Stirner. Thanks for the temporary union

>>1692572
>Wasnt that just him mocking Hegel's genealogical theory of the development of ideas and taking a shot at the German Government without getting his book banned?
Nope.

>>1692620
It's amazing how often the 'this part of the book is so bad the audience thought he was joking' comes up in philosophy.

>looking to buy a copy to put on my shelf
>see this
>Credited with influencing the philosophies of Nietzsche and Ayn Rand and the development of libertarianism and existentialism
>Ayn Rand
>the most spooked person to have ever lived
Jesus fucking Christ, creating spooks to advocate for individualism is not the same as arriving at individualism by busting spooks.

>>1691424
>>everythings a spook man XD just like kill everyone its not even worth it XD
kek

>>1692643
>libertarians
>based entirely on the property spook
>the property spook stirner completely destroys

>>1692654
Not to mention Ayn Rands the fucking definition of turning 'self-interest' into a spook.

Something people who claim to have read Stirner don't seem to grasp. Just because someone only does things for self-interest doesn't mean someone else can't make you do what they want, as long as they make it in your self interest.

If someone puts a knife to your throat, it's suddenly in your best interest to do what they tell you to, even if it means buying them a a gun to put to your head.

Stirner and Marx are intimately intertwined

Spooks = commodity fetishism

>>1692637
It really was a Hegel mocking though

>>1692784
Not taking a side in this argument, I am just saying I have seen this argument with other philosophers and it's weird.

>>1692620

What makes you say no? It's a point that has no real bearing on his argument, doesn't appear in his other works/ get targeted by his critics and combined with the fact he has a tounge in cheek theme in the rest of the book.
Do you have any examples of stirner being in error / creating spooks outside of this contested point?

>>1692787
>Not taking a side in this argument, I am just saying I have seen this argument with other philosophers and it's weird.

Dont look at is as weird and an attempt to hide shitty passages look at it as people trying to assess context.

For instance the Prince which is what most famously gets accused of this is based not on machiboos trying to protect their idol but people comparing the prince with his own political life and other writings.

With Stirner at his time Hegel was a philosophical rockstar whose philosophy formed the foundation of the group that Stirner associated with and whom he set out to directly mock and dismantle in his work, particularly Feuerbach.

File: 1473817221278.jpg (37KB, 450x455px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 450x455px

>>1691245
>lit
>wanting to actually read

>>1693263
>Dont look at is as weird and an attempt to hide shitty passages look at it as people trying to assess context.
Oh yeah, it's just weird how much this specific theory comes up. The Prince is another great example, but I was thinking of Descartes's "god must be neccesarily good" argument.

>>1693276
>Oh yeah, it's just weird how much this specific theory comes up.

Whenever you are dealing with old works its always a possibility, with better known figures (as in their lives, other works and the time they lived in ) it becomes easier to figure it out.

Some of these questions become apparent when we have a more in depth look at their work ie Macci and Shakespeare

For others- and much to the chargrin of the people studied in them- its when one has less knowledge of the work, which tends to happen a lot when people read ancient writers without even looking at the footnotes or introductions

File: A Rollin rock, Dialectic shock, She gives an absolute that doesn't stop.jpg (142KB, 838x767px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 838x767px

>>1693263

>>1691909
hypocrisy is a spook

>>1692419
>>1692462
I've read Saint Max. It wasn't that good and completely missed Max's point. It mostly made Marx look like an egotistic sperg who didn't know what he was talking about.

>>1695087
And to be clear, I mean egotistic in the sense of narcissism, not in the sense of being concerned with his own interests.

>>1694166
Damn...

>>1690127
He disregards too many factors, for example the power of collective spooks and their power to hold together a working society

>>1692197
Expecting respectful, thoughtful, insightful and intellectual discourse is a spook.

>>1690160
you need glasses

>>1694166
>that file name.

my sides

>>1695174
He doesnt he identifies what spooks are but doesn't really go on to ignore that they influence peoples actions.

Indeed he even goes on to talk about how even if he thought his ideas would wreck society he would still release them

>>1695087
What was the main argument(s) he put forward?

>>1694166
KEK

>>1694616
No it isn't. Stop provinghis point.

Daily reminder that Marx BTFO'ed Saint Max in the Critique of Modern German Philosophy.

Saint Max is irrelevant. Fucking pretentious twat, thinking he can upstage a great thinker such as Marx. Saint Max is shit and the world knows it. Marx's critique of him is bullet proof.

>>1696396

See>>1696142

Is it accurate to say that stirner was a nominalist?

>>1690170
How is it possible to have a cigarette under your arm...

>>1691099
You don't necessarily place goals above yourself.

For example: "I will finish this burger although I am not hungry, because if I do not I will harm my body, and I want to have a healthy body for the obvious egoistic reasons", vs. "I will finish this burger because I must prove to myself that I have the strength of will to do so, and because I cannot allow myself to fail at anything".

>>1691134
>>1691144
That's not what he said at all. He said "than Stirner *ever thought of*", the point being he had other ideas than those Stirner came up with.
>>1691158
You're really bad at this.

File: 1473900861193.png (211KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 500x375px

>ITT

>>1693273
>lit
--I had to check.

>>1697702
Actually that notion of spook has been refuted several times here

>>1696142
Mainly that Stirner ignores the material conditions present in a person's oppression and that treating the world as your property wont make it so, nor will considering you to own yourself make you free. Which fundamentally misses the point of Stirner's work.

>>1691134
Quantity is a quality of its own

>>1690130
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs

>>1697702
*tips*

>>1699332
>Which fundamentally misses the point of Stirner's work

Do you think thats why he was so hostile to him?

>>1699885
Stalin plz go

>>1700799
I think he was so hostile to him because he forced him to change his thinking. Stirner's work was responsible for the shift from young Marx (idealistic) to old Marx (materialistic) combined with a feeling that Stirner's work would undermine the ideological components of Marx's work. Frankly I think his critique was unnecessary, as Stirner's work isn't incompatible with Marx's.

>>1703700
The German Ideology (1846) was written a year or two after Marx read The Ego and His Own (1844). You can tell Stirner had a huge impact on Marx if he had to devote that much to a book he just read. Marx was also only 28 when he wrote it. Kapital was published nearly 2 decades later in 1867.

You can tell people who claim Stirner disproved Marx haven't actually read Kapital or Stirner. They don't see eye to eye on everything, obviously, but Kapital was deeply influenced by Stirner.

>>1703728
>>1703700

What works or ideas represent early Marx? The communist manifesto seems to be late marx by that measure

>>1690127
that's not a thinker, that's a drawing. 1/10 for making me reply

Does Stirner actually make any arguments in his book?

>>1704621
Maybe you should read it and find out

>>1704629
ive skimmed parts of it and it just all seems to be assertion.

>>1704621
Yes.

>>1704635
It's not really a book you can effectively skim. The text is very dense and quite winding in how he gets his points across. It's also not something easy to sum up in 4chan posts (see the earlier post with the text explaining spooks versus how they're summarized here).

>>1704621
>Does Stirner actually make any arguments in his book?

>>1691245

>>1704751
Again that seems more descriptive than anything.

>>1704757
Well of course it's descriptive. He isn't talking about ethics.

>>1691245
Kek. It's just a bunch of posturing with no actual logic, it's like one really long reddit post on r/atheism

>>1704783
>It's just a bunch of posturing with no actual logic, it's like one really long reddit post on r/atheism

You shut your whore mouth.

>>1704766
Where are his are arguments in his book?

>>1690127
Stirner is to imageboards what Ayn Rand is to philosophers. Someone that gets way too much attention from an edgy subgroup, despite being absolutely irrelevant and subsequently ignored by professional philosophers.

You can't request the memes to be put aside here, because the memes are all there is to him.

File: 1473441928205.jpg (14KB, 288x288px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 288x288px

>>1704917
>professional philosophers

>>1704924
>milk man