Explain "The ego and his own" to me in 2000 characters

DUDE
SPOOKS
LMAO

>>2444403
its a spook

why do people keep saying spook

>>2444418

>falling for the "spook" spook

get a load of this spooked redditor

>>2444403

Users who start threads like these should be permab& desu~

>>2444418
see
>>2444444

>>2444410
What's a "spook?"

>>2444418
Apparently Stirner struggled with explaining a phenomenon where people restrict themselves for reasons found in their upbringing. Freud later just called the same thing super-ego.

>>2444437

A meme of no great merit or quality.

>>2444437

this

>>2444444

C H E C K E D

Think carefully about what you think and what you do, and be sure you do them because you think you're better off for thinking or doing them.

>>2444403
Property, nationalism, class, laws, ethics and so on are ideas.
The book suggests that those ideas can be ignored, and if one is pursuing his own well being (security, sex, pleasure, fulfillment), using other people's reliance on these ideas, while ignoring them yourself, is a good way to achieve goals.

Since the spirit appeared in the world, since “the Word became flesh,” since then the world has been spiritualized, enchanted, a spook.

>>2444444
Well Done

>>2444444
TRUTH
R
U
T
H

>>2444428
>>2444444
Nice script faggot, also checked

>>2444437
Something people consider to be inherently true, while it isn't inherently true.

>We should treat dogs humanely.
Why?
>You should have children.
Why?
>You shouldn't steal, even if you could get away with it.
Why?

File: nick.jpg (25KB, 200x225px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 200x225px

>>2444444
at last I truly see

>>2444437
>>2444447
Ideas you attempt to place ahead of your own self-interest and give a sense of false life to as though they were entities to be served.

File: C.S. Lewis.jpg (33KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 650x488px

>Stirner

Hahahahahah.
AHAHAHAHAHAH!

>>2444466
>arguing the anarchist C.S.Lewis by posting the christian Max Stirner

Biggest pseuds until Molyneux started hosting his show.

>>2444462
Über-Ich

File: smuganimeface.jpg (8KB, 235x214px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 235x214px

>>2444466
>Lewis

What, too much of a brainlet to read an actual philosopher of natural law?

>>2444466

is this the guy who refuted neechee?

>>2444466
Was this the guy who refuted Tolkien?

>>2444470
>anarchist

Looks like you're a clueless idiot, because Lewis was not an anarchist. He was a Christian who believed in OBJECTIVE morality and he proved it by good practical philosophy.

>>2444483
Looks like you have no reading comprehension and lack self awareness.

>>2444479
>>2444481
So is Lewis the new Molyneux of /his/?

File: CS Lewis.jpg (65KB, 368x473px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 368x473px

Stirner and Nietzsche have already been debunked by this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/user/CSLewisDoodle/videos

File: Lewis.jpg (593KB, 1920x1354px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 1920x1354px

>stirner
Who?

Nobody on 4chan will tell you this because none of them have actually read Stirner, but his book is a refutation of Feuerbach's "Essence of Christianity," in which Feuerbach argues that our idea of God is just all of the good qualities of humanity (knowledge, kindness, ability, etc.) taken to their logical extreme (omniscience, omnipotence, infinite mercy, etc.). Therefore, instead of worshipping God, people should just exalt these highest qualities of man, and strive towards that.

Stirner's book is about how that idea is totally retarded, and, in his own words, "replaces God with Man with-a-capital-M." We enshrine these particular human quality, and exalt 'human-ness,' but willfully ignore the real motivator of human action, selfishness, and also ignore all of the unpleasant, yet equally-human qualities of real people that God doesn't possess.

When Stirner says "all things are nothing to me," he's not just saying "do whatever you want." Even the concept of 'humanity,' of 'being human,' or of living up to some kind of in-borne potential, all these things need to be gotten rid of. If you really want "true freedom" or whatever, it's not found in exalting human qualities, it's found in getting rid of all fixed ideas. Which may or may not actually be possible. That's why Marx, after reading Stirner, gave up Hegel and made up historical materialism, which isn't dependent on abstract qualities but rather concrete circumstances (at least in theory).

So when all these autists and memesters post about 'spooks' and how to live like an egoist, they're totally off the mark. Stirner's argument isn't about ethics, it's about epistemology.

>>2444494
Spooks are quite literally ideas that humanity agrees are true, while the individual doesn't (and sometimes can't) know them to be true.
He dismisses a lot, like virtue theory, or ethics, just a lot of useful stuff.
And yeah, beauty isn't real, courage isn't real, ownership isn't real, but they are useful. They don't need to exist to be useful, the way gods didn't need to exist to be useful.

Stirner should've considered this aspect, what is useful to us, not what is real.

>>2444494
>Stirner's argument isn't about ethics, it's about epistemology.

Annnnd you blew it. Because ethics is definitely a fucking part of it. He suggests being an ethically and morally amorphous individual as a means to maintain self ownership and thus personal autonomy (he outright repudiates the idea of freedom).

Also his philosophy stands fine on its own, without understanding Feuerbach.

Also you're fucking full of yourself, get over yourself.

>>2444437

A spook is something that makes you behave in a certain way despite having no substance. So called because only people who believe in ghosts ever see them or are effected by them.

>>2444502
>what is useful to us, not what is real.
No dude, you are persisting in a misreading of Stirner. It's specifically *not* about how to live, ethics, it's about the relationship between our knowledge and 'reality.' So it's precisely concerned with what's "real." The point isn't to come up with the correct way to live, it's a thought experiment that demonstrates all fixed ideas, whether they're political ideologies or social conventions or philosophical systems, are empty of "real" content and are constituted not by reference to external reality but by some collection of individuals' own conception.
>>2444517
Literally every time I say this there's someone who says "it stands fine on its own," literally in those exact words. Just because you have the ability to read the book without context doesn't mean you're getting the full understanding. Philosophy is all contextual and every work works off a previous one. Stirner's book is SPECIFICALLY targeted at Feuerbach's book. It says so at the very beginning. You can ignore that if you want, and not read Feuerbach, but you're not getting the whole context of the work. It's like looking at that Delacroix painting without knowing what the French Revolution is. You might be able to tell it's a beautiful painting, but you don't know what it's about.
>get over yourself
Sorry I took the time to actually study and that threatens your perceived "knowledge." Just read Feuerbach dude, it's not hard.

>>2444535
>Literally every time I say this there's someone who says "it stands fine on its own," literally in those exact words.

Because you've been saying it for years now, and you're still an idiot for it. Stirner's work is easily understood.

>Sorry I took the time to actually study and that threatens your perceived "knowledge." Just read Feuerbach dude, it's not hard.

Some day, I dream of being so flexible that I could suck my own dick as you do. I'm not reading an irrelevant left-Hegelian to understand an easily understood work. I was also actually referring to the whole "nobody here has read Stirner" thing, which I have.

>>2444535
>No dude, you are persisting in a misreading of Stirner. It's specifically *not* about how to live, ethics, it's about the relationship between our knowledge and 'reality.' So it's precisely concerned with what's "real." The point isn't to come up with the correct way to live, it's a thought experiment that demonstrates all fixed ideas, whether they're political ideologies or social conventions or philosophical systems, are empty of "real" content and are constituted not by reference to external reality but by some collection of individuals' own conception.

Oh, so all that shit where he's saying that you should consider adopting a stance of self-ownership and regarding ideas as your property to better yourself was just a "thought experiment." What a funny interpretation that literally no one else (not even in academia) has adopted.

Does it hurt being this autistic?

>>2444535
>all fixed ideas, whether they're political ideologies or social conventions or philosophical systems, are empty of "real" content

Their real content is how useful they are. Look it it from a Darwinian stance, we make good ideas "real", as in we treat them as if they were objective truth, because of how useful they are to us.
And people who disagree, we imprison or kill. Many spooks are defended to the death by the spooked, because they are made holy, objective truth, since they are so useful.

>>2444555
None of that is a refutation of the fact that your understanding of Stirner's book would be greatly increased if you read Feuerbach's. I don't know why you're arguing with me, because there's no reason to NOT read Feuerbach, it just sounds like you're too lazy to read another small book.

>>2444403
edginess

>>2444562
Why do you weirdo's get so mad when people question your misreading of Stirner? Yeah it's obviously a thought experiment because 1) he didn't advocate that his readers throw away all their possessions and become self-serving psychopaths, 2) he didn't live that way himself and 3) he says over and over again that he doesn't care what his reader's reaction to his thoughts are. His "system" allows murder, robbery, rape and infanticide; he owns up to this. It's not a book telling people how to live, it's to demonstrate the nullity of concepts.

>>2444570
There's not much to understand of Stirner's work is my point. You could have no understanding of philosophy and get it in its entirety if you're not a brainlet.

>too lazy to read another small book

Bitch, I have a reading list longer than my fucking arm and spend ~20 hours a week reading, I'll get to Feuerbach when I have the fucking time and I don't have more important thinkers to read. I'm just sick to death of you shilling him. I don't see you shilling Bauer or Hegel either, even though one of those is specifically mentioned by Stirner and the other is foundational to his fucking thinking.

>>2444594
What is wrong with you? You're posts are full of swears and anger for no reason. I've made probably five posts in total EVER about Feuerbach and Stirner spread out over like 3 years. Oh 20 hours a week reading? Gee undergrad is so hard! I'm not impressed. Also it sounds like you're mad about something else that doesn't have anything to do with me or Feuerbach. Get your shit straightened out. I hope you don't talk to people like this in real life.

Also why the fuck would I "shill" for Hegel, one of the most important and widely read philosophers of all time?? Come on dude, you're ridiculous. Go get mad on /pol/ if you want to impotently rage at nothing

>>2444580
>Yeah it's obviously a thought experiment because 1) he didn't advocate that his readers throw away all their possessions and become self-serving psychopaths

Holy fucking crap, you want to bitch about misreadings of Stirner? Let's fucking talk about this right here. He never suggests being a self-serving psychopath in the slightest, and frequently makes note that social interaction and altruism are absolutely necessary to the pursuit of self interest. Oh my fucking god, I wish you'd choke on something.

His egoism is better understood as a precursor to Sartre's existentialism and notion of radical freedom.

>he didn't live that way himself

He lived how he wanted to live, ergo he lived by his philosophy.

>3) he says over and over again that he doesn't care what his reader's reaction to his thoughts are.

So?

>His "system" allows murder, robbery, rape and infanticide; he owns up to this.

Ohnoitsretarded.jpg Of course an amoralist thinker's system allows those things, but allowing is not the same as advocating. Again, he points out that social interaction, of which altruism is a component of, are absolutely vital to self interest. You can't go around murdering, robbing, raping, and infanticiding and be acting in your self interest. Further, he points out that life in a union of egoists would necessarily involve some curtailment of liberties in the pursuit of your own advantage, much as an existence in a more formal society.

I don't think I've ever seen someone fuck up reading something so badly since seeing G.K. Chesterson's thoughts on Nietzsche. You must be either a complete drooling idiot whose mother cries herself to sleep out of the shame of having spawned you, or you were trying to misread him.

>>2444617
>I hope you don't talk to people like this in real life.

I hope you're not suh a thin-skinned little bitch that you can't handle some mean words in real life. What's wrong with me is fucking morons like you continually misrepresenting one of my favourite thinkers and acting as though you're the only one on this board whose fucking figured him out. There's a reason I've repeatedly told you to get over yourself.

>>2444656
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt even though your post is littered with reddit-tier goofy obscenities that are supposed to be funny I guess? but are really just degrading your argument.

>His egoism is better understood as a precursor of Sartre's existentialism
And you're getting mad at MY reading? Come on dude, this is like phil 101 stuff. It's NOT existentialism. Sartre is full of shit, precisely because Sartre is making ETHICAL arguments.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I obviously am not saying that Stirner "advocates" murder and rape. I pretty much said exactly that. Stirner is arguing against both traditional coercive moral systems like Christianity and social hierarchy, AND ALSO arguing against the burgeoning socialist movement, humanism and liberalism. He isn't giving out a programmatic "way to live," aka ETHICS, he's describing how all ethical systems have the same problem; they reflect not reality, but the egoistic desires of their proponents.

>>2444656
>he didn't advocate that his readers become self-serving psycopaths
>HE NEVER SUGGESTS BEING A SELF-SERVING PSYCHOPATH IN THE SLIGHTEST
Did you even read the post??

>>2444686
But they don't.

Was it autism?

>>2444667
Don't you have 20 HOURS OF READING to get done? Better get to it, it's almost friday and i'm sure you'll have to spend all day tomorrow getting an upperclassman to buy beer for you.

>>2444444

witnessed

>>2444686
>that are supposed to be funny I guess?

I'm mostly just rude.

>And you're getting mad at MY reading? Come on dude, this is like phil 101 stuff. It's NOT existentialism. Sartre is full of shit, precisely because Sartre is making ETHICAL arguments.

Except there absolutely is a parallel. His egoism is best understood as "consider what you believe, why you believe it, and ensure that you feel it's worth believing, because even if you think it's something above you you're still ultimately just serving yourself in doing so." Sartre's whole point with the radical freedom was that you should own up to the fact that only you can decide what to do for yourself, and his notion of living in bad faith is quite similar to Stirner's idea of being an involuntary egoist (you're still doing what you want to do, you're just doing it in a self-deceptive manner).

>I think you're misunderstanding my point.

I think so too, actually. I thought you were implying those were the logical outcome of his system, ergo he couldn't be sincerely advocating egoism.

>He isn't giving out a programmatic "way to live," aka ETHICS, he's describing how all ethical systems have the same problem; they reflect not reality, but the egoistic desires of their proponents.

That doesn't sound too off-base. I think I misunderstood what you meant by "ethics doesn't play a part."

>>2444695
I inferred a different implication than was present.

>>2444777
Don't you have to go get your mother to kiss better the spots where your thin skin ripped from rude words? I'm not in any institution of learning, I just read a lot; you don't really have much basis to bitch about how much I read after accusing me of being too lazy to read your pet thinker.

>>2444403
You got wheels in your head lol.

>>2444403
R34 on girl spirner?

Stirner was an autist and a shitty philosopher and is only popular on 4chan because his portait and muh spooks make for easy memes.

>>2445734
You win the reward for most spooked person on /his/.

>>2444444
GLOBAL UNION OF EGOISTS CONFIRMED

>>2444403
nothing exists outside your own mind

except your property

>>2446785
What is property?

>>2444403
Any idea that makes you uncomfortable to think about the consequences of it being true is a "spook" and therefore something you can ignore. Nothing bad is bad unless it happens to you and even then its only bad cause you don't like it and you can't get mad at it.