>I'm 15 and found someone edgier than Nietzsche

but anon edges are a spook

>>1830057
you are one spooky dude

>Nietzsche
>edgy

??

File: Spooky-Stirner-Memes-866fc7.png (87KB, 500x676px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x676px

Not an arguement :^)

>>1830057
>I'm 17 and offended

Was choosing the word "spuk" Stirner's worst mistake?

>>1830197
Nah, "spook" is pretty much the only reason anyone even cares about Stirner today

>>1830203
Do you think he would have rather become a meme than be disregarded?

>>1830057
seems like what Ayn Rand fags are into, but if they did a little more research

>>1830221
Is there anything "inherently wrong" about becoming a meme?

>>1830197
>>1830203
You know Stirner didnt choose "spook", it was just a result of the translation

>>1830223
Nobody who appreciates Rand could possibly agree with Stirner. "Objectivism" is completely based upon spooks.

>>1830057
Nietzsche is actually much edgier because he's much more normative and teenage poetry like. Stiner just reminds us of reality.

>>1830255
>spuk is significantly different from spook

>>1830223
The hallmark of a randroid is they do no research and are based on edgy feels.

>>1830260
This.

pretty ironic when people dislike stirner based off of abstract axioms as opposed to reading and judging his work.

>>1830260
My bad, I googled him and saw "anarchism", only to associate it with anarcho- capitalism

"muh spooks"

>>1830309
Stirner is an individualist-anarchist, which is pretty much opposite of any kind of ideological-anarchism that has some normative social value system. That's not to say he doesn't believe people won't work together, just that people should find ways to work together in ways that benefit them as an individual.

>>1830325
I find that interesting, but it sounds ultimately like what someone would shit out during an existential crisis.

Prettyshit/10

Stirner isnt a major thinker in any way and Spook is the Cuck of /his/ and /lit/.

>>1830236
Is there anything "inherently wrong" with being a spook?

>>1830128
"God is dead"
"The last Christian died on the cross"

>>1830373
The only difference between something being a spook and being property is unconcious versus concious egoism, so no.

>>1830390
You didnt get these quotes, did you?

>>1830390
>god is dead

This isn't an anguished cry of pain that someone might yell out when a loved one dies, Nietzsche wasn't emotionally responding to a tragic event in his life. "God is dead" is an observation he brought foward after the scientific revolution, in which he saw that more and more people were turning away from God, chasing other forms of meaning, purpose, and enlightenment.

He's saying that religion is dying down, and that humans are responsible for this revolution which was a result of scientific discoveries that debunked previous beliefs. There's nothing edgy about that, you're either taking the quote out of context, or you just don't know what you're talking about.

File: Stirnerfans.jpg (27KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x427px

>ITT

>>1830373
Yes, by definition it's against your self interest

>>1830492
Is there anything "inherently wrong" with doing something against your self-interest?

>>1830334
It wasn't. He lived in a time when you expected to be a good moral Christian for god, be loyal to the state, etc. He simply reminded us that these things aren't real. You shouldn't do them for the sake of the imaginary thing in of itself. You should do them because it benefits you and the origin of desire to adhere to such abstract ideas should spring from the internal self rather than imposed on you externally.

>>1830492
>Yes, by definition it's against your self interest
No, not necessarily. When serving a a spook you are still ultimately doing so for your own pleasure, you're just blind to it and believe you do so for other reasons. Someone haunted by spooks and someone conciously pursuing their self interest could act in extremely similar ways, the only difference is awareness.

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

59KB, 800x534px

>>1830482
Never knew there were more

>>1830505
Common sense.

>>1830057

Let the weak know, they need to get themselves together, go back into their little apartments, look in the mirror, grip the razor, and CHA CHA CHA CHA MA MA MA MA FOH FOH FOH FOH cut the face off themselves, then go out with their crimson mask and rape.

>>1830765
Not in his time. He also thinks you should be aware of things, since many things that are common sense might actually be spooks.

File: stirner.png (63KB, 898x834px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 898x834px

>>1830335
lol whatever you say

File: 1431830654325.jpg (23KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x550px

Stirner wasn't edgy though. He was a friendly man and believed that people could only love one and other truly through egosism because spooky love is conditional.

>>1830221

His uniqueness live on today, so yes.

>>1830390
>"The last Christian died on the cross"

That's true though.

>>1831619
How?

>>1830334
>>1830505
I guess since individualism is the zeitgeist of western culture, we take that kind of stuff for granted now, and Stirner now seem rather redundant in the large scheme of things.

>>1831624
Because only Christ lived the truly Christian life, duh. Everyone since has been larping, to varying degrees of success.

>>1831649
What is the "truly Christian life"?

>>1830795

Not that guy (and haven't read Stirner) but didn't Hegel say this almost exactly in Philosophy of Right?

>>1831655

Also meant to refer to your previous post specifically >>1830505

>>1831655
Yes. Heck, that's his thesis in Phenomenology of the Spirit.

>>1831663

Gotcha, so I thought. So what does Stirner contribute that people on this board like so much? As someone who only browses here occasionally it's always baffled me

>>1831671
His only surviving depiction is extremely memeable, as is the term "spook". Also his philosophy is very lucid for philosophy newbies, whereas thinkers like Hegel aren't.

>>1831671
>>1831673
Because Stirner was also a critic of a good deal of Hegelian things, since he himself was a Young Hegelian. Hegel has a shitload of baggage, and not as universally applicable as spookism. The beauty of Stirner is how he is unafraid to apply his concept to anything and everything and has few reservations.

>>1831653
Christ's actual life. Everything that he did from when he was born to when he literally died.

Imagine your life, from the moment you are born, to the moment you will die. Say your name is Charles. That is what we would mean if, after your death we were speaking of the Charlesian life.

Others could discuss it, and attempt to live by this example, and have bitter disputes about what aspects of this life were more important, but the only True Charlesian would have been the life that Charles actually lived.

>>1831697
Christianity never meant you life being a carbon copy of Christ's, it was a term coined in Antioch to mean people who subscribe to Christ's teachings.

>>1831704
I'm talking about what Nietzche meant when he said "In truth,there was only one christian and he died on the cross.”

I used the allegory of this other guy, Charles, to explain that.

>>1831719
So Nietzsche uses the term in a way no one ever intended it but him, and says, "in reality," as if to correct the mistake of the past, when in fact it is not a mistake, but just that they were not using the term in Nietzsche's sense that no one would use it in precisely because that would be a useless way to use the term? What other profound things did Nietzsche have to say, there was no Nestorian but Nestorius?

>>1831724
I get what you are saying, but this is a Nietzche thread, and I was offering a clarification of his specific take on it.

He probably would have said that same thing about Buddha or Mohammad, but not Nestorius, because there are not millions of living people spooked by him, as there are with the Big Three.

File: dib.jpg (8KB, 262x192px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 262x192px

>>1830057


>right and wrong are spooks
>it's wrong to be spooked!

atheist philosophies eat themselves.

>>1831799
Being spooked is fine though. Stirner himself admitted he had spooks.

>>1831802
>Being spooked is fine though
>Being a slave to an idea is fine

re-read Stirner.

>>1831805
It's not morally wrong. It's wrong in that it's not in your self interest.

>>1831809
>It's wrong in that it's not in your self interest.

hence its not "fine"

>>1831799

/thread

>>1831799
How will Stirnerfags ever recover

>>1831809
No, doing things in self-interest as opposed to God's interest is what is wrong.

>>1830057
No, Stirner is basically updated Parmenides, down to essentially trying to shut down philosofical discussion.

>>1831836

Is that why 4chan Christfags never help the poor?

>>1831846
Yeah basically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-LJ_3VbUA

File: mlady.webm (2MB, 1280x408px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x408px

What is wrong with being edgy? The problem is specifically leaping to conclusions you think make you seem super smart to give yourself a sense of catharsis, not the edginess.

"Society" doesn't teach you things you need to know out of benevolence. Maybe your parents and some teachers were personally invested in your upbringing, even so they were likely spooked and had a deluded view of what is best for you. Most likely the people responsible for your education were run of the mill self-absorbed normies who only did the bare minimum expected of them, expectations that in turn are a mix of spooks and a practical need to generate law abiding citizens who benefit the group.

It is all very spooky. With this in mind the only way for someone to progress is to question the spooks around them and make their own decisions. They will make stupid mistakes but it is the only way and the earlier someone starts being edgy the better.

>>1831799

wtf I hate stirner now!

>>1830390
>>1830128
I personally think the edgy part is him being in favor of 'struggle' (for a lack of a better word).

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

3MB, 1468x5376px

>>1830057
He's not edgy at all, he's actually amazingly well-written and articulate.

You should read his book with an open mind OP.

>>1831799
>objective morally wrong is the same as detrimental(to you)
word games

>>1830221
He would not have cared about either in the slightest.

>>1830057
>>I'm 15 and found someone edgier than Nietzsche

There is literally nothing negative about being 15, edgy or a being glad to have found someone edgier than Nietzsche.

Fuck, I'd give my left testicle to be 15 again. I'd be the edgiest motherfucking 15 year old there is.