who is/was the female version of Stirner

I guess Rand is the closest, regardless of how fucking dumb she was.

>>1725208
Rand was everything Stirner hated
>Morals don't real do what you want
vs
>I exploit people but it's moral allow me to justify this with circular reasoning

she was so spooked up they're going to make a shitty "based on true events" horror movie out of it

File: 1466199575074.png (221KB, 638x856px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 638x856px

>>1725222
>she was so spooked up they're going to make a shitty "based on true events" horror movie out of it

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

"I" from the novel "We". A fictional character, sure, but thoroughly Stirernist

>>1725222
unfortunately it probably is rand because she's the closest a woman has ever gotten to being truly phenomenologically intelligent.

>>1724486
>tfw no Stirner gf

File: 1465683668640.gif (822KB, 600x366px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 600x366px

Are women the least spooked individuals out there?

I mean, they manipulate and act on their base instincts. They don't believe in concepts such as duty, honor, love, etc.

If yes, should men be more like women to rid themselves of spooks?

>>1725313
Do you have a single female friend?
If female yourself, then
>tip*

>>1725287
>she's the closest a woman has ever gotten to being truly phenomenologically intelligent.

by the hoi fucking polloi that can't be true.

>>1725335
Why not? there aren't any great female philosophers

>>1725287
What about Hannah Arendt, Simone Weil or Lise Meitner? There should be hundreds of female people more based than fucking Ayn Rand.

>>1725387
There are female philosophers?

When are we going to get Stirner porn?

>>1725392
>Arendt
just as spooked as Rand in a different area
>Weil
"Taking a path that was unusual among twentieth-century left-leaning intellectuals, she became more religious and inclined towards mysticism as her life progressed."
>Meitner
Quote her saying something intelligent.

>>1725457
Why do you assume a metaphysical dimension doesn't exist to reality?

>>1725486
why do you assume it does?

>>1724486
Ingeborg Bachmann?

File: patriciachurchland.jpg (86KB, 378x567px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 378x567px

Patricia Churchland. No doubt. All your experiences are spooks. Or so says eliminative materialism.

>>1725486
give me evidence.

Being someone who read Stirner and wrote multiple essays in University on him, I seriously consider leaving 4chan when all these retards start spouting le spook meme.

Absolutely cringey.

>>1725512
I never read Stirner, what so cringey about him?

>>1725512
Spooky

>>1725512
To be fair, almost nobody reads Stirner. He's not a major philosopher, but definitely a meme on 4chan, carried over from /lit/. I personally agree with him on a number of things he considers spooks, but can't agree w/ ethical egoism. If he actually supported it.

>>1725529
His egoism isn't ethical egoism. He doesn't consider it to be a moralistic cause. It could be called rational egoism, as he considers not behaving egoistically to be irrational, but he doesn't consider rationality to be a good either.

>>1725512
Am I supposed to stop meming because of some sort of spook like decency?

>>1725529
Fair enough. I'm probably going to have to read him someday, to find the man behind the meme. Plus, because I'm obsessed w/ philosophy.

File: 1463270968193.png (17KB, 462x414px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 462x414px

So Stirner was a racist huh?
>So I've been reading sections of The Ego and His Own. I was really enjoying his egoist critiques of liberalism, but all of the sudden, what the fuck?! Negroid and Mongoloid stages of history?! The Caucasian man is the true shaper of history?! The fuck is this spooky bullshit?! And why haven't I heard anybody talking about it before?! Ugh. I need to go wash my hands after reading some of that crap. Shit sounds straight out of a national anarchist wet dream.

>>1725534
You can still be 'decent' if it is in 'your self interest'

You fucking retard, go read a book.

>>1725548
lol. So that's why Stirner isn't read. He's like Weininger (Hitler's only "decent Jew"), but maybe less extreme? I suppose, at least, Stirner was cool w/ women and Jews? That's something. I guess.

>>1725567
To be sure, though, Hume and Schopenhauer were racist and sexist, respectively, but had qualities to make up for it. Not to mention the ancients. Or Heidegger. So philosophers could rise above their bigotry and be accepted in academia. But they have to have said something especially important, to do so.

File: 1467714746963.jpg (161KB, 866x838px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 866x838px

>>1725567
>Stirner was cool w/ women and Jews?
No idea about women but found this,

>philosophical antisemitism, continuing in the Hegelian tradition, was promonently represented by Max Stirner who held that Jews never surpassed the "Negro stage" of human evolution (by which hea ment the most primitive)
Which I found in "the anguish of the Jews"

>>1725589
welp

>>1725589
He says what sounds like some nasty things about Jews and basically says they have no soul like Christians. At the same times, he's basically saying they're less spooked than Christians, but still spooked.

>>1725548
Which butthurt fool wrote that?

Considering the whole "stages of society" thing was a jab at Hegel (who considered there to be not only a clear progression of history, but that Prussia was the fucking apex of it), I can't understand how anyone can take it too seriously.

>>1725490
>>1725501


Perception. I mean, if we're going to say the material exists because we perceive it, then we must say the same for the metaphysical. And without the metaphysical, all demarcations of the material would be purely fancy. We see these demarcations, yet we must profess that materially, they are just arbitrary--there is no material order to the material, the material without a metaphysical order is just a chaotic soup, and by that I don't mean Joker chaotic, I mean in the Greek sense of "abyss," indistinguishable from nothing.

>>1725714
That's like saying things only exist because we know stuff. Stop falling for spooks. There is nothing of relevance to you beyond your physical existence, unless you make-believe it's there.

>>1725736
There is no proof that there is a "my existence" distinct from existence itself.

File: Nice spooks nerd.jpg (38KB, 533x533px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 533x533px

>>1725208
>

>>1725298
>implying all girls aren't already your property

>>1725714
So what happens if we do acknowledge that these distinctions are arbitrary but continue to utilize them anyway? There's no reason not to, unless you can't handle ambiguity. But acknowledge these as arbitrary wouldn't abruptly make real a metaphysical dimension, it would just make these distinctions arbitrary.

>>1725743
Why does it need to be distinct from existence itself?

>>1725773
Without them, then nothing exists.

>>1725775
For everything but my physical existence to be irrelevant, my physical existence must be distinct from everything else.

>>1725791
>Without them, then nothing exists.

Nah, without them, nothing has a concrete, non-subjective existence. Which is true.

>For everything but my physical existence to be irrelevant, my physical existence must be distinct from everything else.

Actually, your physical existence kind of is everything, because it's the only standpoint from which you can engage with anything and all you'll ever experience.

>>1725652
Someone from Reddit Anarchy.

>>1725799
>Nah, without them, nothing has a concrete, non-subjective existence. Which is true.
So spooks wouldn't be less extant than everything else.

>Actually, your physical existence kind of is everything, because it's the only standpoint from which you can engage with anything and all you'll ever experience.
Since the existence of everything is not defined physically, but, as you say, purely ideally, I would say my idealist existence is closer to everything.

>>1725837
>So spooks wouldn't be less extant than everything else.

Ah, but here's the sticking point: have you ever touched a spook? Have you ever seen a spook? You can say of other things these two matters, though it can never be universally said to be one thing or another (a stone axe head may be to one a vital tool, to another just a rock, and neither has authoritative say, and the distinction between that axe head and the surrounding atoms is one we make by judgement of its physical properties, not one etched in the cosmic ledger of reality), you can't say that of your spooks, as you'll never touch the good, nor see God.

>Since the existence of everything is not defined physically, but, as you say, purely ideally, I would say my idealist existence is closer to everything.

No, I never said anything about it being defined ideally, just that you're trapped in the box of your own perceptions. Reality can still very much be considered to be physical in nature, as there has never been observed to be anything else.

It's like you people are just itching for an opportunity to bring in all the woowoo you want. But if you're going to assert metaphysical realities as equally valid to the one you see before you, why aren't you out giving away all your money to a crystal healer, who has equal claim to the ground you've given?

>>1725870
I haven't seen or touched gravity, is gravity a spook?

Hesychasm is about literally seeing God

>Reality can still very much be considered to be physical in nature as there has never been observed to be anything else.
The distinction between physical and metaphysical, is itself, metaphysical. To say, "this is physical" as distinction from not, is making a physical judgement. To even say, "This is," is a metaphysical judgement, since you yourself said the distinction between existence and non-existence is metaphysical.

File: Justsomestirns.jpg (78KB, 653x394px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 653x394px

>>1725512
Hey Im about to delve into the secondary literature on Stirner is there any place In pic related you would suggest I start at?

Any other secondary sources you would recommend?

>>1725298
She will leave you as soon as it is in her self-interest to do so

>>1724486
Ayn Rand

>>1725222
She's the closest female to stirner, though.

>>1725589
>/leftypol/ sucks this guy's cock and meme him everytime they get within 2 miles of /pol/
lmao

>>1725567
>>1725548
Has this idiot ever read Das Kapital?

>>1726535
Leftypol barely even knows who Stirner was, almost everything about leftism is a spook.

t. guy from /lit/ who has to deal with leftypoltards that think stirner is compatible with marx

>>1725512
how do I get into Stirner?
I manage to read about 20 odd pages of his work, but it can be a bit of a headache, his writing style seems to be wild
is that just his style? or is it a bad translation?
anything I would need to read beforehand?

>>1726698
>is that just his style?
>or is it a bad translation?
[sic]

>>1726433
Like all women.

>>1725313
They're "spooked" as fuck just like everyone else. They're just prone to fall for different spooks.

>>1724486
Emma Goldman seems the closest. But she was still committed to feminism etc, so obviously still spooked.

Though, one could argue that the only reason she was a feminist was precisely because what is "hers" e.g that which is immutably "unique" to her, is her womanhood, hence it might be Stirnerite after all.

>>1725548
>>1725589

What the fuck I love Spookman now.

>>1725885
>I haven't seen or touched gravity, is gravity a spook?
You can certainly physically observe it.

File: spooky pepe.jpg (57KB, 615x605px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 615x605px

>>1725298
Women are a spook

File: 1468275202104.jpg (47KB, 288x420px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 288x420px

>>1725298
but anon, all girls are your gf, you just merely need to assert you power over your property

>>1725589
>predicted Lenny Kravitz and Drake 100 years before they existed

How can a man be so based?

>>1725520
this

even reading his wikipedia is confusing, although I'll admit I'm retarded

all I've gathered is that everything is spooky, people act on their best interest, and dude nihilism lmao

I'm sure someone here who actually understands him can share what the fuck his philosophy is, memes aside

File: stirner.jpg (69KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x534px

>>1725443

>>1726993
lmao

>>1726550
>t. guy from /lit/ who has to deal with leftypoltards that think stirner is compatible with marx

I've read Stirner, and I'd say in a very loose sense, he is, provided you're talking about one of the libertarian varieties such as autonomism or council-communism.

>>1726811
>But she was still committed to feminism etc, so obviously still spooked.

As you pointed out later in your post, but I'll state in more clear terms: being a woman, it was in her best interests to support the interests of women as a general idea. It's worth noting that she wasn't exactly a part-line feminist either. For instance she was anti-suffragette, because she thought having women vote wouldn't achieve a meaningful liberation for them.

>>1725512
>cringey
A spook.

>>1726811
I was waiting for someone to mention her. I read Anarchism when I was a bit younger, so later on I wasn't surprised when I heard that she was influenced by him. I remember her going on for a few paragraphs about how society is a meme and talking in a very Stirnerian way about it. It was very confusing for a young spooked mind to read.

I would say that she doesn't seem to share Stirner's distaste for movements. It's been a long time since I've read her, though.

>>1726829
I can only observe its effects physically. But the same could be said of all "spooks".

>>1728033
Nah, the difference is gravity will continue to exist if you stop paying attention to it. The same cannot be said of any spook.

You see the fact you're trapped behind your senses, and largely distinguish between things in an ideological fashion doesn't change the fact that these things will continue to exist in some form or another (even if their distinction as "things" is ideological). But God, nation, morality, etc. will not continue to exist if you don't acknowledge their existence.

But even beyond that, Stirner never says you can't acknowledge the existence of these things or that you can't value them.

>>1725555
It's in my self interest to meme because I like it.

>>1728041
No, families continue to exist regardless of whether or not you pay attention.

>>1728091
The similarities in their genetic code will. But if they stop regarding each other as family, they wont be family in any sense that you would consider satisfying.

Also, hi Constantine. You're still harping on this tired old point? Don't you ever get sick of it?

File: 1452527812654s.jpg (3KB, 104x124px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 104x124px

>>1725313

>I mean, they manipulate and act on their base instincts. They don't believe in concepts such as duty, honor, love, etc.

File: 4252423432432.jpg (116KB, 1023x574px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1023x574px

>>1725743
there's no proof that "my existence" is distinct from a unicorn's dick's third brain.

why should I assume that I share an existence with a unicorn's dick's third brain? the line of reasoning you use to support your argument is the same as this.

File: spooks.png (3MB, 1468x5376px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1468x5376px

>>1728033
maybe we should just fucking sticky this so people stop wasting everyone else's time with their lack of education.

>>1726162
bump for Stirner anon to answer this.

is Stirner's proposition, itself, a spook?

>>1726985
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/
https://youtu.be/HvsoVgc5rGs

These are good introductions

>>1726550
He is as long as it's a individualist or libertarian strain of marxist thought

>>1728891
I used to think the Wes Cecil video was a good instruction before I read Stirner. Upon having read his book I think there's a few discrepancies there.