Stirnerites of /lit/ be honest, is your philosophy supposed to

File: stirnerbird.png (318KB, 1237x867px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1237x867px

Playing by the rules of language and being ideologically subservient to those rules are not the same thing. You can play by the rules to your own benefit while still realising the rules are arbitrary. It's just like the law. You don't steal because it has repercussions under the law, but that doesn't mean you therefore also believe stealing is wrong. You can use ideas and be used by ideas. Language should serve us rather than the other way around.

But you should really read Stirner himself rather than some secondary literature, I haven't found any summaries of him to adequately represent him. Read the Ego and Its Own followed by Stirner's Critics. The first one is his main work and the second one is an explanatory work he wrote in response to some reaction to The Ego that clarifies a lot.

As for the practical value he has for me personally, I find him to be empowering and come back to him every once in a while reminds me to
'b myself' rather than conform to external standards to my own detriment. There's a lot more to him than that philosophically, but that's the most important part about his work to me. He helps me not to be enslaved to other people's shitty memes so to say.

>>8351329
>practical value
spooky

>>8351530
>The Bible is a fairy tale
Blasphemy

>Gender Pay Gap
Misogyny

>>8351329
>is your philosophy supposed to net you any advantages in the real world?
That's the entire point of Stirner. He's destroying limitations we impose on ourselves constantly by reminding us that they're manmade and "spooky". Obeying those limitations and restrictions for any other reason than an egoist one is simply retarded.

Baka

>>8351570
>>8351452
Can't tell if these replies are Stirnerist or just run off the mill egoistic utilitarian. Doesn't Stirner go deeper than scenarios where it's you vs. ideology/state/law which you are free to judge by utility rather than higher ideals which do not benefit you?

(The creative nothing which cannot be named which is the unique one, acquiring property and so on..)

>>8351329
If you can identify spooks, when you make your way back to society and accept certain, carefully vetted fixed ideas, you have a highly developed bullshit censor for other people's assumptions.

>>8351329
Stirner's philosophy does not pretend to be an all-explaining metaphysical system, like of his famous contemporaries, but is just a critique of Kantian ethics and everything that was built on it by Hegel and Hegelians (mainly their political theories). As such, it is very correct and useful, and still very useful for understanding what's going on in society. Stirner does not even object to having ideological beliefs, he just argues that they should always be open for analysis and critique. He's not against morality, as it is useful for maintaining society and society is useful for satisfying one's egoistic wants, he's against making a god out of morality. And so on.

I think the crucial link between Hegel and Marx is Max Stirner, who most people just read as a 'do-whatever-you-want' individualist anarchist, which is a serious misreading. Stirner's book is primarily an attack on the 'Young Hegelians,' Feuerbach chief among them. Feuerbach's book, 'The Essence of Christianity,' says that our idea of God is really just the superlative of all 'good' human traits; knowledge, benevolence, etc. Stirner says that this idea is full of shit, and that Feuerbach has merely swapped 'God' for 'Man' (with a capital 'M'!). When Stirner says we have to ignore and be contemptuous of all 'higher concepts,' he's not trying to make us 'more free' or anything like that. It's an argument against Hegel, where the Idea trumps everything. Stirner says there are no ideas that take precedence over the immediate fact of being.

>>8351329
Also
>>This rejection of conventional forms of intellectual discussion is linked to Stirner's substantive views about language and rationality. His unusual style reflects a conviction that both language and rationality are human products which have come to constrain and oppress their creators.
>Stirner's remorselessly idiosyncratic style
>Stanford wiki
All that leftists' saltiness. Orwell wrote exactly this about language some 100 year later and everyone praises him as a visionary.

Just switch 'spook' with 'meme' and his philosophy makes a lot more sense

>>8351983
By Zeus, you're right!

>>8351668
Yes, he goes a lot deeper, but it's the more banal part of it that benefits me most from day to day in practical affairs.

>>8351329
>In real life you play by the conventional rules of language or you get btfo
Then clearly it's in your best interests to play by the rules. Stirner doesn't talk gibberish at all, he's pretty straightforward.

Have you read any of his works?
Its immensely advantageous and probably one of the most powerful texts on authenticity. Putting yourself above ideology and social constructs is the way to happiness and contentness bar none.

>Stirner insists that there should be no restrictions on language and arguments than those that serve our individual ends... how does this work in practice? What do you do when someone disagrees with you? Talk gibberish (or as the wiki puts it "remorselessly idiosyncratic style")? But that doesn't work. In real life you play by the conventional rules of language or you get btfo by people versed in argumentation and rhetoric because this "style" if you will pervades society and thus puts you on the losing side in any constellation that involves more people than yourself. So in the end your absolutist self-serving style of communication actually will not benefit you as much as if you argued like a lowly "servant of truth".

What Stirner is going on about here is avoiding reification or confusing the map for the territory. How that works in practice means prioritising things like communication over formal rules of language. If that means you need to follow those rules in a debate then you do so, but if you don’t need to ie you are communicating with friends you do not.

>> Accepting truth as beyond individual control lowers creative self-expression... is that not what people call knowing better than to act like a dumbass? What truths are there to be found that are within your control and how would you go about finding them? Is this something you can practically accomplish, is this something you would want to do or are we talking theory here?
Nah this just basic moral nilhism ie truth is subjective. Allowing others to determine truth for you does lower creative expression unless you accord exactly with them.

>>8353532
>basic moral nilhism ie truth is subjective
What does morality even have to do with truth? Truth can be understood in either empirical way (if you do something, you will get something else, like an experiment) or analytical way (2+2=4 because it follows from the definitions we agreed upon). Morality is completely another story.

>>8354821
I meant to write moral before the truth part

>>8351329
>is your philosophy supposed to net you any advantages in the real world?
This will always depend very heavily on _you_ and your own thoughts, the problems you are interested in and so on, especially when it comes to ethical "how should one live" kind of questions. Maybe someone is already a moral nihilist or egoist blah blah and so on, maybe he won't get that much out of Stirner (or maybe he'll love it because its his own thoughts articulated in a better manner, or maybe there's a point that he didn't think of, or something).
Exposure to other philosophy matters, too; if you're already big into Nietzsche, maybe Stirner won't revolutionize you (no, they are not the same, but maybe some of the typical "wow, this changes my life" aspects are quite similar enough).

And the theoretical importance of Stirner has already been explained in the thread, but you wanted something related to "the real world" so I suppose that isn't what you want to get.