Can someone explain this guy's philosophy to me? So he was

I think he's a very minor figure in real field of philosophy, he only get's posted here because of his persona and cartoon.

File: e2bb08f9252a74f39c41ad8637f64e4dfb7a1df8cb6b771cde7687627a887fca.jpg (358KB, 1004x675px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1004x675px

>>3202497
>implying Strinerfags are in some kind of online Fifth Internationale
It is another OP pretends to willfully ignorant to spread misinformation

Plus
>“Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.” – Stirner’s Critics

>>3202497
edgy people finding justification or their sociopath and awful behavior

>>3202873
What is the difference between a Christian or a sacred Christian? Or between a Jew and a sacred Jew?

>>3202899
he was against religion precisely because it preached scared love, thought etc etc

>>3202497
>leftypol
>Judaism
This is pretty good bait

>So why is he so popular with /leftypol/ and such?

Because it means they can never argue again. Just call everything a spook and you're done.

File: 5af736507f6938c40c9116a1932bdf7e1dc28d39733ac7e35fb2ffa07ea9b231.jpg (90KB, 725x960px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 725x960px

>>3202920

File: 8f98d7300163fa1a7538696298644b031fbfb6260e3152c110d7343956bd5386.png (118KB, 622x344px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 622x344px

>>3202920
>being this mad that you got called out for being so spooked

File: db2c2711101a23de9c5128a205f2862f9a8d483167df54623f38ee45dd41f625.png (2MB, 1916x1238px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1916x1238px

>>3202920
This.

Who dis guy?

>>3202497
He is the philosopher for leftist edgy teenagers. Kinda like Nietzsche used to be the philosophy for rightist edgy teenagers.
With the difference that Nietzsche is not shit.

>>3203102
what the fuck

>>3203102
>Stirner
>Anything to do with socialism/communism
>Seizing property\nationalizing
Fucks sake he literally believed that you can own a property if you can defend it.

File: VJeJRo0.jpg (245KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1920x1080px

>>3203359

>>3203359
So that means he's a capitalist?

>>3203346
It's a /pol/ack's bad attempt at a meme.

File: 1498994439607.jpg (83KB, 500x523px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x523px

>>3203423
>this quote means he is a socialist
Now here are some Stirner quotes regards to socalism and communism:
>Even socialism and communism cannot be excepted from this. Every one is to be provided with adequate means, for which it is little to the point whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal property, or communistically draws them from the community of goods. The individual's mind in this remains the same; it remains a mind of dependence.
>In short, the property question cannot be solved so amicably as the socialists, yes, even the communists, dream.
>The egoist is owner, the socialist a ragamuffin. But ragamuffinism or propertylessness is the sense of feudalism, of the feudal system,
Also it's literally in the first page of the book:
>It contains an enduring, and strikingly written, critique of both liberalism and socialism from the perspective of an extreme and eccentric individualism

>>3206063
Book is "The Ego and Its Own", forgot to mention

File: 1498849633607.png (282KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1920x1080px

>>3206063
And 1 more because why not?
>The communists affirm that 'the earth belongs rightfully to him who tills it, and its products to those who bring them out'." I think it belongs to him who knows how to take it, or who does not let it be taken from him, does not let himself be deprived of it.

>>3203563
He opposed capitalism and did not believe in """""property rights"""""

File: 1500721254098.jpg (161KB, 1000x1485px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1000x1485px

>>3202497
>what the fuck im being exploited of MY labour
>do it for God
>no
>do it for the Free Market
>no
>do it for the Historical Inevitability of Communism
>THE INTERNATIONALE-E-E-E SHALL BE THE HUMAN RACE

These people see their own selves as unique individuals but also proletariat so its in their best interest to fuck off capitalism, using Stirner as a ram for their own means. They are interested in themselves but as part of the working class it is then in their interest to push their agenda as it is also theirs.

>>3206098
This.

Stirner allows you to follow any ideology if it serves your purposes. The egoist has no problem marching in file and rank - but he remains a temporary volunteer - always eager to question whether the current path is the proper one.

>>3202497
I haven't read enough Stirner to convincingly explain his ideas in one paragraph so all I can recommend is reading or listening to "The ego and its own" which should get rid of most of the confusion surrounding his ideas.

But to briefly explain spooks it can be summed up as
>Whatever is not corporeal in relation to man is nonexistent, an apparition and may as well be a spook or ghost
For example moral standards from a god are spooks because in religion morals are what saves a soul but the soul to Stirner is not physical and therefore not real, a spook, releasing man from the shackles of morals allowing him to live by his code.

This may be a shit explanation but i'm tired so fuck you, just read Stirner and all will be clear.

>>3202522
You're terribly wrong.

>it's another /pol/ retards think stirner's ideology is leftist episode
Fucking read the book before making assumptions based on retards who also havent and meme about it

>>3203255
>Nietzsche
>not shit

Pick one

>>3206251
He is leftist though.

Leftism isn't just whiney authoritarian liberals. Nor has right wing ever meant individualism above all else.

>>3206272
Stirner is neither. Stirner dismisses human rights just like he dismisses the NAP and private property.

>>3206272
Elaborate on how he is leftist.

>>3206282
There is no neither. It's an easy binary between support for hierarchy and opposition to it.

Hard right in the french revolution were the monarchists. Moderate right/centralists constitutional monarchists. Leftists various shades of democrats. Far left Robespierre types. Ultra left proto-anarchists and communists like the enrages.

>>3206297
Him and Marx were best buds. Name me one non-leftist friend of Marx.

>>3206303
He never met Marx. He was on good terms with Engels though and hung in leftist circles.

>>3206303
>best buds
Is that why he literally wrote criticisms of him and devoted pages in "The German Ideology" to bash him?
>Karl Marx was only one of many contemporaries provoked into a lengthy rebuttal of Stirner's argument.
Also he literally fucking shits on Communism, see >>3206077 and >>3206063

>>3206303
>best buds
>When you made your only literary work to shit on and BTFO your 'best bud'
Striner is no leftist but an anti-right winger

>>3206297
>>3206302

>>3206302
That is a historical definition that holds no value in contemporary discourses. Being politically left-aligned does not mean being opposed to hierarchy. Most Social Democratic parties of Europe are hierarchically organised and so were and still are the various Socialist dictatorships.

>>3202497
post modernists suck retard dick all day long because it allows them to hand wave away things that are unambiguously good, like personal property, nation states, and freedom

>>3206374
Away with every concern that is not altogether my concern, my dear property.

>>3202497
things other than i dont matter
*sucks self off in self intrest*

>>3202497
....Who is this nigga ?

>>3206374
>unambiguously good
There in lies the biggest obvious point about spooks, that people treats immaterial concepts as unquestionable and immutable

>>3206365
Yes but they try and reduce any kind of rigid hierarchy be it through birth-right or social privileges.

Remembering it's a scale. total opposition to hierarchy is the extreme end.

>>3202497
I think 90% of his popularity comes from edginess and the fact that Engels made a funny sketch of him. I've literally never seen him referred to outside of 4chan.

>>3202497
>he was against all forms of ideology, religion, superstitions, and traditions and labeled them as "spooks," right? So why is he so popular with /leftypol/ and such?
lefty pol are a bunch of idiots who don't understand basic psychology
almost all of them dont like egoism or individualism and havnt read the ego and its own and use "spooks" as a cop out for any actual arguments against tradition, pride, belief, religion, nationalism and to push hedonism, subjectivism and "individualism" which is actually ultra collectivism in interest of the collective
muh revolutionary catalonia

>>3206461
Socialists have never been opposed to hierarchy in-itself though, and the bureaucratic nightmares that most socialist states became speak for themselves. They reject the idea of natural hierarchies, but to some extent that is also true for classical liberal/bourgeois ideologies - which rejected the medieval estates and the rights of the aristocracy as well.