So, how many of you have actually read "the ego and his

>>8157604
I'm a redpilled white supremacist National Socialist who thinks the most important things in life are the traditional family, race-purity, and nationalism.

He didn't spook me one bit.

He has become a meme because it serves the cultural marxist globalist agenda.

>>8157604
I have.

It seems flawless logic to me, but I'm suspicious by the fact that not many people seem to agree with him.

The book forms a nice whole outlined by the first three pages. It's a "must read" of philosophy, even if you disagree.

File: 1451531772305.jpg (116KB, 600x912px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 600x912px

>>8157604
funny pic

It's a flawless philosophy as some other poster said, but I don't think you have to follow it, it's good to think about certain ideals and assumptions you have and their bases, but at the end of the day even if some of them might be irrational you still believe in them because they are ingrained in you, and there's nothing you can do.

Sometimes you still believe in things even if you know they are wrong and that's nothing bad, like there is a special kind of placebo that works even if you know it's placebo.

And besides that some stuff like his idea about social constructs and property etc. apllying it to a single person works, but applying it to everyone makes it obvious that these rules have a reason for their existence since otherwise it wouldn't work.

>>8157611
>but I'm suspicious by the fact that not many people seem to agree with him.
> It's a "must read" of philosophy, even if you disagree.

No, it's really not. He did something that teenagers think is revolutionary but contemporary philosophy sees as being centuries behind. Since Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Derrida, the influence of Zen Buddhism...no one takes the idea of the Ego/the subject/my individuality as a given.

Stirner says this is guaranteed and you can't escape it...well...if you read philosophy you'll know it's not that easy for Stirner to claim this.

So academia doesn't pay attention to him because they see in him basically a shitty Heidegger. Almost a Sartre.

>>8157738
It's not flawless. Good luck proving that you're distinct from other people/objects.

When you point this out to Stirnerites they have no argument except YOU JUST GOTTA BELIEVE IN IT, ITS IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO

>>8157741
>Good luck proving that you're distinct from other people/objects.
The outward world can be my object. Myself, the subject, cannot.

>>8157741
Distinct in what sense? We are obviously two different persons and not one single entity, so that makes a pretty distinct. We both experience our live on our own, so I don't see what your point is unless you mean to talk about some unscientific mumbo-jumbo.

File: 1465348213421.png (136KB, 425x1000px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 425x1000px

I read it and I find it an extremely important read for me.
I don't think his idea is realizable, but the book is an argument for a freeing egoism that doesn't have negative consequences for others, as "egoism" would made you think.
Moreover. The part about spooks is a main one, but, for me, secondary of his notion of Property. I wish people here would discuss this, but sadly the meme is about spooks.

>>8157994
>a freeing egoism that doesn't have negative consequences for others
His egoism allows rape, murder, theft, etc. without any contradiction, though.

>>8157739
The most spooked guy ITT

>>8158004
As does reality.

File: 1463014058002.jpg (22KB, 220x567px)

22KB, 220x567px

>>8157609
>>8158004
The book is not the bible and it never will be. As nobody reads it, it's not effectively strenghenung an individualist agenda.
Meanwhile, you supporting family or national values doesn't prevent you from adopting a Stirnerian point of view. If you make thise causes your own, then you'll get more out of it. If you let them become spooks, they own your actions.

>>8157604
i've read it three times, it's great.

it helped me get over nietzsche. nietzsche can be pretty damaging to a young lad.

>>8158012
>nietzsche can be pretty damaging to a young lad.

Care to explain?

>>8158027
It instilled a sort of 'duty of elitism' in me, trying to be great, looking down on anyone who isn't striving for greatness, despising weakness and that type of stuff. Nietzsche is like steroids for edginess to a smart teenager.

>>8157609
you are spooked as fuck brah

read it just to be able to understand the btfoing in the german ideology

>>8158050
Thats not true

File: No m8.gif (415KB, 307x277px)

415KB, 307x277px

>>8158050

All of those things you listed are good.

You didn't actually let yourself *feel* pity for the weak/etc, did you?

You're only supposed to *show* it, ya dingus.

File: spooked.gif (1013KB, 300x240px)

1013KB, 300x240px

>>8157739
>basically a shitty Heidegger. Almost a Sartre.
This tbqh pham.

Still spooky lit for a camp fire.

>>8157739

>Implying you can get any worse than Heidegger or Sartre

Good joke, my love.

>>8157761
>>8157769
>>8158007
not an argument

>>8157739
This is pretty much true.

>>8159328
As good as your question.

We showed ways in which the ego is different from others, which is precisely what you said was impossible to prove.

>>8157604
Read it. Great book. It is a devastating critique of left hegelianism, while still being trapped within Hegelian thought itself. However it's brilliance is that it transcend its narrow scope and is applicable beyond the Hegelian milieu

>>8157739
>Almost a Sartre

Ouch

How did Stirner even become popular here? He seems like such a bizarre choice for a meme.

>>8161440
>obscure
>individualist
>wrote his most popular work in his 30s
>influenced Nietzsche

I think he might have a lot to do with the people who browse this board

>>8161440
Stirner tickles your balls with a wind of spring freedom while being contrarian and edgy.

>>8158712
greatness is a silly meme and serving it at your own cost is pretty spooked

>>8157604
When I attempted to read it, I found the English translation to be very difficult... Is there more than one now or should I just try harder?

>>8157739
>.no one takes the idea of the Ego/the subject/my individuality as a given.
neither does stirner

read his work lad