On what basis does Stirner proclaim that the only valid motivation

>>7388880
The physical self is not a spook

File: 1447123476290.jpg (9KB, 247x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 247x250px

>>7388880
Liberation from what?

>>7388880
Because your individual motivation is not external to you like spooks are. Compare this concept to things like right/wrong

>>7388988
right and wrong are internal though

>>7388880
read the fucking book.

File: 1447549194900.gif (348KB, 240x155px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 240x155px

>>7388880
>tfw when u discover spooks are a spook and the ego is simply the spookiest spook of them all

>>7391408
is ego external to yourself?

>>7391821
>ego
>yourself
>myself
Just illusion

>>7391836
dude nothing is real lmao

File: mittens54.jpg (15KB, 590x442px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 590x442px

>>7388880
>mfw i realise spooks are themselves a spook

>>7391839
dan dennett proved consciousness is just an illusion which effectively BTFOs descartes cogito ergo sum argument which leaves us with ontological nihilism as the only sensible metaphysical theory

File: 1447109512471.jpg (19KB, 354x156px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 354x156px

>>7391858
>Nihilism
>Theory
Oh boy

>>7391872
>theory
>the
>HE

Fucking patriarchy

question: is the LAW a spook?

>>7392413
Very obviously, Stirner doesn't spare either the state or individual property (contrary to what some /lit/izens would like you to believe)

File: 1447536045312.png (319KB, 534x388px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 534x388px

>>7391858
sure friendo

A spook is anything that prevents you from imposing your absolute will. Egotists have always referred to Greek literature to punctuate this. In Hellenic metaphysics the gods do not necessarily correspond to "wrong" or "right." Their virtue is inherent, and they are Gods because they are all relentless in the means by which they patron their particular forces, and therefore their desires. Aphrodite cares only for her idea of love and beauty, Ares cares only for battle, Zeus is supreme and cares for the maintenance of stability through the fulfillment of fate and honor, so on. They'll do anything in their power for their ideals. Helen is nearly a goddess as she is a symbol of beauty and always bends to temptation. In Euripedes' Medea, it is implied she becomes a goddess due to her denial of human morality for the sake of denying humiliation; it gives new meaning to deus ex machina.

Stirner never proclaimed any of that, OP, and if he did, he perhaps only did to promote his own ego, but he would also admit that it would be more consistent to deny himself, though in his system, not rational, because it's about what he wanted. But then again, he also cared about looking really smart. You dig?

>>7392445
Is Medea worth checking out? I've heard about it from friends that are really into classical shit

>>7392503
Euripides was not appreciated by his contemporaries and Aristotle deemed his work to be unaesthetic, so the fact alone that he persists makes him worth checking out. He was an immense influence on philosophy, though he really only explored points Homer had already touched upon anyways. If you'd say you're a more intellectual reader (for a lack of a better term) as opposed to an aesthetic or artistic reader, I'd RECOMMEND him, but I'd say everyone should read him regardless of tastes.

>>7388880
It's not so much the only valid one as the only possible one. Stirner divides people into voluntary and involuntary egoists.

>Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist ... in short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, and abases himself (combats his egoism), but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of "being exalted", and therefore of gratifying his egoism. Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake... [on] this account I call him the involuntary egoist.

So we're all egoists, some are just indirect and in denial about it.

>>/his/

>>7392563
>discussion of the ego and its own
>not /lit/

>>>/news/fag

I'm glad someone made this thread so I don't have to make one.

My question: What's his magnum opus? What book of his should I read?

>>7391858
Get with the times, son. Dennett's simplistic reductionist arguments got completely BTFO by Nagel & Chalmers, opening up a new world of valid metaphysical theories.

>>7392618
Start with The False Principle of Our Education and then read The Ego and Its Own.

>>7392618
The Ego and His Own is undoubtedly his greatest work and has received a ton of study compared to anything else he's done.

Self awareness evolved because it was a useful tool for hunting, nothing more.

My cat is as self aware as I am.

>>7392745
That has any relevance to anything because....?

>>7392621
>Dennett's simplistic reductionist arguments got completely BTFO by Nagel & Chalmers

lmao no they didn't. Chalmers in particular is a complete clown.

>muh qualia

>>7392625
And then Stirner's Critics. And then his bio by Mackay if you're still interested

>>7391836
Perhaps, but a spook according to Stirner has to be something external to yourself. If self is an illusion, then spooks don't exist. Either way spooks are not a spook.

I wonder what Stirner would think, knowing some what we know now, about things like ego-death and the pursuit therof. I think the obvious answer is that he'd think it stupid, but in ways that I can't articulate I think he'd be more open to it than one might expect.

>>7388880
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs

>>7388880
Name a single flaw in Stirner's philosophy, if we presume the ego is a valid concept, and even then, it's hold is to gripping to really be denied.

Aside from the pragmatics of a whole society following this book (and even then, mutual self-interest might facilitate a working one) - I can think of none. Which worries me (spookily).

>>7390710
>right and wrong are internal though

The feeling is internal but the concept let alone the idea that one should live according to the accepted concepts of them is certainly external

>>7388880
i spook easy

>>7394612
What about false principles of our education and those works by Sextus Empiricus?

>>7397628
>What about false principles of our education
my post was an addition to a lad who already recommended that.

sextus is good stuff too.

>>7397648
Any other particulary good writers to look into after+before reading Stirner? How much hegel is helpful

The only thing I don't understand about Stirner is why its so important to point out how everyone egoist because first of all that's kind of a "well no shit" propoaoton and secondly because who does this liberate? It may liberate the individual from spooks which I am completely behind but ultimately it doesn't really help society. I'm not trying to make a neocon "necessary illusions" statement here but I'm just saying that people enjoy their spooks and want to be led. Stirner helps those who are already interested in being their own masters get there but ultimately he's just preaching to the choir in my opinion. All of this wouldn't be so bad if he didn't criticize Communism or Socialism as being just as faulty as Capitalism or the Church and so on. I'm a bit bias cause I lean Left but its pretty much a fact at this point that huge swaths of people are going to be put out of a job by automation soon enough and also that Capitalism in its current stage is quite literally raping the planet.

I understand that Stirner himself couldn't have anticipated this so what i don't understand is those who laud him so much now. Do you really think Egoism will help you in a society where you starve cause a bots doing your job and you are either unemployed or being paid below minimum wage to maintain it?

>>7397679
>society
A spook.

>>7397679
> I'm just saying that people enjoy their spooks and want to be led

In the same way with Stockholm syndrome enjoys their captors. Combine this with the emotional and time investment people place in spooks means that thier attachment is often a harmful one.

>Do you really think Egoism will help you in a society where you starve cause a bots doing your job and you are either unemployed or being paid below minimum wage to maintain it?

You can fight for a communistic society whilst still be an egoist though. Stirner plays the role of removing your spooky chains so that you are actually free and motivated to pursue such ends imo.

>>7397679
"Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought -- I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it. If your weal lay at my heart, I should act as the church did in withholding the Bible from the laity, or Christian governments, which make it a sacred duty for themselves to 'protect the common people from bad books.'

But not only not for your sake, not even for truth's sake either do I speak out what I think. No:
I sing as the bird sings
That on the bough alights;
The song that from me springs
Is pay that well requites.

I sing because -- I am a singer. But I use you for it because I -- need ears."

>>7397669
Just a little secondary source on Hegel is enough.

>>7397679
>first of all that's kind of a "well no shit"
It is for you, a century and a half after Stirner. It wasn't back then.

>Do you really think Egoism will help you in a society where you starve cause a bots doing your job and you are either unemployed or being paid below minimum wage to maintain it?
Do you really think any ideology that isn't about looking out for yourself will help you more than honest to self Stirnerism?

The notion that automatised society will starve the masses is silly, by the way. Companies need consumers, even if they don't need employees.

File: facepalm.gif (2MB, 440x330px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 440x330px

>>7397679
>but ultimately it doesn't really help society
Jesus Christ, every single time Stirner is discussed here I and more and more convinced he was overestimating the mental capacity of humanity.

>>7397431
It's unfalsifiable

>>7388880

I'm guessing you haven't read him

>>7388880
Not a single person in this thread has refuted OP.

>>7388891
>>7388893
>>7391396
>>7388988
>>7392558
>>7397431

HOLY SHIT Stirnerites are terrible at reading and doing philosophy.

File: 276796D000000578-3032338-Slimline_The_60_year_old_entertainer_and_Wizard_Wars_judge_dropp-m-32_1428600891481.jpg (33KB, 306x479px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 306x479px

> But isn't [all of Stirner's philosophy] just a spook
> Y-You haven't read him!

>>7399312
They have. It's the idea of individuality being the only known reality to you - you understand the external through yourself, it's your "corporeal" form, your one truth. Look at solipsism, we can deny everything, debate away every truth save for one: I, the unique, the unfalsifiable, undefinable essence that will never recede form any argument and should not.

The only absolutely valid phenomenon to man is the I, and that is why it is the only valid reason to behave. As we all do anyway, consciously or unconsciously - sacrificing ourselves to the sacred because " I "value it, or debasing it because " I " decide the alien principles of another "I" will not gel with my own, sole, reality.

>>7399312
>reading
>philosophy
spooks

>>7388880

Basic sollipsism really.

>>7391858

>effectively BTFOs descartes cogito ergo sum argument
>consciousness is an illusion therefore I do not exist in any form