Is there any real counter to him?

Is there any real counter to 'I know you are! But what am I?'

So does he really think eating eggs for dinner is a spook, or is someone misquoting him?

>>8369212
Not really, no. When you're right you're right.

Common sense.

File: Paine - Common Sense.jpg (42KB, 291x475px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 291x475px

>>8369241
Not so much a counter as a companion piece. Imo

>>8369254
You either misunderstood Paine or Stirner, most likely both.

He's right. Women are property.

Excuse me, what was Stirners deal?
Everything is a spook? No truths!
Truths keep the individual down?
The individual egoist wins all the philosophies?

I don't waste time reading recycled memes.

>>8369314
Yes, they are.

File: 1466428576145.png (101KB, 531x557px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 531x557px

>>8369212
"Only teens like him, I bet you're still in highschool."

The only counters involve ad hominem or straw man (>>8369320).

>>8369320
You are shit

>>8369312
No. I just enjoy Paine, no matter how spooked he was.

>>8369314
Impossible. Since women own you.

>>8369320
Lots of meme-ing. You should read up on it. It's simple enough

>>8369328
>Are there any real counter to Ronald Mcdonald?
>crickets and mockery
>haha, look at all these spooked ad hominem arguments. Lolol ronald mcdonald is great

>>8369212
Nope no one outdoes Vash the stampede

>>8369357
>impossible
Nay, for I am the Unique One

If Christianity is right, Stirner is wrong. Ditto for nearly every other religion, or at least every religion with creator/moralizer deities. Stirner is only unbeatable in an atheistic universe.

Two Stirner fans meet:

I am Enlightened and this is mine
No its mine
No its mine
No
Nuh uh
Yeah huh
[murder]
There is nothing wrong here he is my property

>>8369369
What about Knives?

>>8369383
Stirner specifically accounts for God

>>8369386
Perfectly acceptable behavior for certain values of "this"

>>8369216
I know you are but what am I is a counter to I know you are but what am I

it's an infinite loop

>>8369393
IM RUBBER YOU'RE GLUE

>>8369383
literal bullshit

File: hqdefault.jpg (13KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 480x360px

>>8369216
A GARBAGE MAN

>>8369378
>Says just another anonymous.

Oh, mien eigentum.

>>8369390
I don't see how Egoism and Christianity, a religion entirely devoted to submission, are compatible.

>>8369453
You have much profound information to give about God, and have for thousands of years “searched the depths of the Godhead,” and looked into its heart, so that you can doubtless tell us how God himself attends to “God’s cause,” which we are called to serve. And you do not conceal the Lord’s doings, either. Now, what is his cause? Has he, as is demanded of us, made an alien cause, the cause of truth or love, his own? You are shocked by this misunderstanding, and you instruct us that God’s cause is indeed the cause of truth and love, but that this cause cannot be called alien to him, because God is himself truth and love; you are shocked by the assumption that God could be like us poor worms in furthering an alien cause as his own. “Should God take up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?” He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must “serve a higher cause.” — Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is — a purely egoistic cause.

>>8369424
Slut

>>8369225
>>8369254
>>8369357
wait is this the real Butterfly? Is she actually back?

I leave /lit/ for a while to hang out at /mu/ and this shit happens.

Also, no, Stirner tells it like it is. Helpful advice for life. Not the only advice, I'm actually reading Ligotti's Conspiracy and it's a bit freeing.

They both help, different ways of approaching the same goal.

>>8369212
>Is there any real counter to him?

Yeah, there is. There are several "spooks" that are very useful, even if they are at bottom without merit, such as the family etc.

While I find a great deal of affinity with his individualism, I can't seem to shake the feeling when I read him that it was either the purest form of psychopath that wrote it, or someone who was clinically depressed.

>>8369571

Family isn't a spook

It's evolutionary psychology

All of stirner is basic tier psychological egoism

you're all better off reading pinker than stirner! there is no hegel in real life!

>>8369583
Family is a spook if you sacrifice yourself for them.

>>8369393
Not when you're trying to argue against that kind of approach.

>>8369320
>>8369328
Nice samefagging

File: 1464231004986.png (76KB, 1017x709px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1017x709px

>>8369571
>>8369386
>>8369391

See you you really try to read him. The thing that makes his philosophy different is it is against guys like Marx and guys like Nietzsche and Rand.

The whole idea is spooks is that they are ideas that control you in a way that only real things should.

From example: If you think that family is important and try to help out and so on you are being spooked by the idea of family, but if you help out because you love your family and it makes you happy then it is not really a spook since there are real people you are doing something for; the fact that they are your family such be irrelevant in your choice to help them.

You base everything off yourself and judge everything by how it affects you. To go and fight a war for your country is a spook, but to fight a land developer would wants to destroy a forest you love is not. The idea of the country is not a real thing but a forest is a real thing that you enjoy seeing and so to fight for it would not be a spook. Now if you were an environmentalist and wanted to protect the world for future generations or whatever, then that would be a spook reason to go out and fight for a forest.

His philosophy is about being free from control. It is not about being a sociopath. If you think you are obligated to lie and deceive people to better yourself then you are just as spooked as anyone else and Stirner would be against it.

Niggers.

>>8369212

Its shitty proto-pomo philosophy that has been revived by wanks on the internet and some bonghead anarchists.

Marx shat on Stirner directly.

Freud / Lacan shits on Stirner ideas

Husserl / Heidegger also shit on Stirners ideas

That covers pretty much the entire intellectual foundation of the only people that would be inclined to take Stirner seriously.

Althusser "revived" Stirners philosophy by observing how it influenced Marx; pretty much the only thing Stirner can be credited with.

Wouldn't pleasure be a spook as well

>>8369893
Could you present a summary of one argument? For real, I'm curious.

>>8369958
No.
Read the book.

>>8369893
did any of these include refutation or was it just "i disagree"

File: Marx was a spook.jpg (185KB, 555x400px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 555x400px

>>8369893

>Marx shat on Stirner directly.

Yeah, and he still didn't manage to refute him.

Funny, that.

Gautama Buddha destroyed Stirner millennia before he was born. Stirner couldn't see that the biggest spook of them all was the self.

>moral facts exist!
>b-but we can't actually detect or measure them because of...reasons
>but our "intuition" can tell us what they are, because the unconscious parts of our mind are magical

This is what realists ACTUALLY believe.

>>8369367
>spooked
I didn't know R Mcdonald had a similar philosophy to Stirner.

Keep your shit consistent

Im new here whats this meme

Depends on which part of him.

Its pretty hard to counter him if you mean his egoism and nihilism and whatnot. Moral nihilism is probably the only un-counterable moral philosophy; can anyone really claim more than "well, we should still pretend that moral facts exist and thus "create them"", which is still nihilist at core. Of course, this is ignoring those who take the pretending to the level of a claim of the existence of a god or something.

But its pretty easy to attack some ideas like that union of egoists stuff, any part of him that deals with more than an individual, really. Even, or particularly if, we accept his egoism, it still doesn't mean that we need to go anarchist.

Basically though, his vision is only one way to go based on nihilism. We can very well insist on another way.

>>8369595
Sacrificing yourself for your offspring when you can no longer reproduce may not really be a spook

File: Untitled2.jpg (28KB, 740x172px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 740x172px

>>8369854
Could you recommend me one of his books. You got me interested and I'm new. Its the first time I hear about Stirner.

>>8370932
Just read Ego and it's Own.

>>8370058

>Stirner's conception of Ownness is then a type of self-mastery in which one's actions are unrestricted by any internal or external constraints - "I am my own only when I am master of myself, instead of being mastered by...anything else".To attain autonomy, the individual must free himself from all forces, such as ideologies, religions, ethics, other persons and even their own desires.

Property is probably the most biggest spook.

Buddha beats all philosophy always

>>8369212
Wittgenstein-2 and memetics.

>>8370786
The majority of professional philosophers are moral realists and definitely not nihilist at heart. Read a book on contemporary metaethics.

>>8371482
proper grammar is an even bigger spook

>>8371506
>>8370786
Or read this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Definitely not "pretending". Not that I agree with moral realism.

>>8371513
Fuck this is depressing and causing me anxiety.
Lately I misuse words, repeat words confuse stuff etc.

I fear for the worst, some kind of brain related illness.

File: hypocrite.jpg (63KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 480x608px

>>8371518
I was just joking my man. English isn't my first language and I make stupid mistakes all the time, even when using my native tongue lmao

>>8371518

Just lay down the alcohol

File: uugh.png (417KB, 500x700px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 500x700px

>>8371506
>The majority of professional philosophers
Why the fuck should I care what paid agents of the bourgeoisie think

>Read a book on contemporary metaethics.
Make me

>>8370932
Read ego and it's own, and then stirners critics. The latter isn't very long and it clears up a lot in terms of what he was striving for.

>>8371482
>Much of Stirner's prose—which is crowded with aphorisms, emphases, and hyperbole—appears calculated to disconcert. Most striking, perhaps, is the use of word play. Rather than reach a conclusion through the conventional use of argument, Stirner often approaches a claim that he wishes to endorse by exploiting words with related etymologies or formal similarities. For example, he associates words for property (such as ‘Eigentum’) with words connoting distinctive individual characteristics (such as ‘Eigenheit’) in order to promote the claim that property is expressive of selfhood.
Basically read the original or stop trying, same as Heidegger. And the Frenchies from what I've heard.

>>8371529
I know it isn't my native either.
But lately it started happening really frequently, it's scary.

>>8371536
I wish it was alcohol, I don't drink.

File: 1440606885676.jpg (120KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 500x500px

>>8371537
>Why the fuck should I care what paid agents of the bourgeoisie think
>mfw this board is slowly becoming a post-ironic /leftypol/

I see so many lit fags say 'stirner changed my life'. Give examples/at least some idea of stay a 'the secret'-tier meme

Stirner never really explains what happens when external and INTERNAL constraints are stripped away. What the hell are you left with? Even "instinct" is an internal constraint of sorts.

>>8371553
>I don't drink
maybe you should start drinking then

>>8371566
>Even "instinct" is an internal constraint of sorts.
So even animals are spooked?

>>8369854
"I love men" -Max Stirner

lmao I always knew he was gay

>>8369212
Not really, no. There are counters, but they're fairly equal, and don't destroy him even if he doesn't destroy them.

>>8371537
My negro acquaintance, it was you who asked the rhetorical question (in your mind) whether anyone can claim more than self-made meaning. They can and they did. See SEP if you are too lazy to pick up a book >>8371516

Your moral nihilism is nothing special, nothing that secretly makes everyone go "woah, better find a way to thwart this mastermind so we can maintain the status quo". You're simply not as smart as you think you are.

File: tiger.jpg (226KB, 900x908px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 900x908px

>>8371566
http://www.gornahoor.net/Individual/IABW.htm

>>8369314
>women
Also, they're not "property", they're MY property.

>>8369559
>wait is this the real Butterfly? Is she actually back?
No, it's another mentally disturbed tranny.

>>8371506
Are there any realists who don't rely on "intuition", "popularity", whig history, or dualism to justify themselves? Every single argument I've seen from that side is downright retarded.

>>8369357
>I just enjoy Paine
So that's why you're here.

>>8369369
I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that.

>>8371615
>>8371516
>>8371506
I'm not too well acquainted with that, I'll be honest. Sounds like it'll run into some pretty big problems, though.

But uh, still seems like pretending to me - or a form of saying that moral _truth_ does not matter for practical ethics, which is of course a valid position. I don't want to give up my ability to make moral judgement in real life, either, and I don't need observable moral facts to use this pretend-morality as a tool.

Without objective values to weigh deeds against, there just can't be a morality that isn't, at the end of the day, pretending.

>>8369424
Get your German right at least you sub human.

File: 1469006743001.jpg (77KB, 454x340px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 454x340px

>>8369583
Stirner rejects psychological egoism at least implicitly but it's been a while since I read the book. Lemme try to explain; When an individual finds himself the slave of the will of another man, spook or even the will of his emotions then he's not his own. Acceptance of the best psychological "deal" you can get is irrelevant to Stirner's concept of ownness. In other words you can be a psychological egoist and still not fulfill Stirner's criteria for being your own master. Sorry for my English

>>8371529
What's this quote from?

>>8369254
Truly you are the worst tripfag I have ever seen, and I've seen a lot of them.

"Everything is a Spook" Is a Spook

>on /lit/
>doesn't know the difference between "it's" and "its"

Why are you even here, retards?

>>8372019

>stirner rejects psychological egoism

he most certainly does not, it fundamentally lies at the heart of all of his thought

>>8372622
Might be people whose native language is not English. Thus, they might actually be very /lit/erate in their own language.

>>8370932
Don't even bother. He is a 4chan meme. No one in academia takes him seriously. The reason he isn't discussed at all in philosophy is not because he was so right that he ended ethics (which is patently false considering the huge amount of work being done in ethics) but rather he is so wrong he doesn't even contribute to the debate so they ignore him à la rand.

>>8371778
>Sounds like it'll run into some pretty big problems, though.
>It's the philosophers who are wrong
>Not the guy who just admitted to not being acquainted with moral realism

>>8369212
He counters himself. He repudiates everything so that must also include the truth value of his own assertions of intractable moral relativism.

>>8371778
>I'm not too well acquainted with that, I'll be honest
Not to sound like an ass but it shows with what you said in the rest of your post.

>Without objective values to weigh deeds against, there just can't be a morality that isn't, at the end of the day, pretending.

You need to sit done and learn what these terms you are using actually mean, because they don't mean whatever it is that you think they do.

File: fuckyoubutterfly.jpg (9KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x250px

>>8369225
I was really hoping you'd killed yourself. That's a shame.
I was looking for a proper reaction to your reappearance and found this picture in an old folder, which, I shit you not, was actually saved under this filename. It doesn't really convey my extreme disappointment at your continuing existence, but I have to post it for Old Times' Sake.

P.S. Actually fucking kill yourself this time.
P.P.S. If you aren't actually Butterfly, all of this still applies.

>>8373193
This is basically like saying that a philosopher dismissing the question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" doesn't even contribute to the debate and therefore it is right to ignore him.

I can understand the dancing angel perspective, but really it's just butthurt that someone dismissed your fraudulent intellectual game.

>>8372637
>he most certainly does not, it fundamentally lies at the heart of all of his thought
Nope, sorry, no, that is incorrect (and you should learn some humility). Stirner most certainly does not base his thoughts on psychological egoism. He recommends among other things emotional detachment and makes a clear distinction between actions governed by piety and egoism. And that's just the surface. The real problem is that you don't understand how Stirner's concept of own (which he likes to call egoism here and there) differs from your intuitive definition of egoism. I recommend reading some secondary lit because this discussion is over.

>>8373244
I've been away for a while. Butters was going to kill herself?

>>8371621
Source?

>>8374326
No problem buddy!

>>8374329
I replied to the wrong post.

>>8374366
That's what I said.

File: trust oobermansh.jpg (203KB, 649x1788px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 649x1788px

>>8369212
No.

>>8372637
People have always supposed that they must give me a destiny lying outside myself, so that at last they demanded that I should lay claim to the human because I am – man. This is the Christian magic circle. Fichte’s ego too is the same essence outside me, for every one is ego; and, if only this ego has rights, then it is "the ego," it is not I. But I am not an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique. Hence my wants too are unique, and my deeds; in short, everything about me is unique. And it is only as this unique I that I take everything for my own, as I set myself to work, and develop myself, only as this. I do not develop men, nor as man, but, as I, I develop – myself.

>>8374792
rekt

Soo, was the good translation in english completed or am I gonna have to start learning german?

File: Der Einzige und sein Eigentum.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>8375385
Last ı heard it was almost done. It's not like the older translation is ureadable either y'know.

This Side of Paradise

actual relationships with real human beings

What was Camus's argument against him?

>>8373552
If you want to read him as a purely scholarly pursuit that is fine. However if you want to actually engage in philosophy as a means to truth then he is a waste of time.

>>8369212
Your 15th birthday.

In all seriousness, once you realize that although something fits into the category of "spook" it isn't necessarily bad you've effectively moved passed him.

>>8376941
>However if you want to actually engage in philosophy as a means to truth then he is a waste of time
What do you propose one would read?

>>8374375
/thread

Fuck the rest of you pretentious faggots

>>8376168
last I heard it was almost done years ago how hard is it to write spooky spooky spook on a piece of paper

>>8369221
Probably a misquote someone made in reference to that god awful John Green passage.

>>8376978
How do you even go about answering such an open question? It's like saying I like listening to music with singing, what do I listen to.

>>8369854
Old Hobbesian nonsense. Counter with Coleridge:

>So you object, with old Hobbes, that I do good actions for the pleasure of a good conscience; and so, after all, I am only a refined sensualist! Heaven bless you, and mend your logic! Don't you see that if conscience, which is in its nature a consequence, were thus anticipated and made an antecedent—a party instead of a judge—it would dishonour your draft upon it—it would not pay on demand? Don't you see that, in truth, the very fact of acting with this motive properly and logically destroys all claim upon conscience to give you any pleasure at all?

As for the other bits, it's just not very interesting. The point is merely vividness: it is wrong to go to war because you "must fight for your country"; but if you had a very vivid sense of what set of real things you mean by "your country", and a very definite understanding of why you must fight for it, then isn't it fine? I can see no other commandment here, than "understand what it is you are thinking". If you make sacrifices for a nothingness with a name, you're sacrificing to no purpose; know what it is you mean, and see whether that changes what you think. Sure, that's true enough. But who doesn't know this? Every man who decides to "fight for his country" has some sense of what that means; if it weren't concrete to him, he wouldn't care enough to do it. People don't generally enslave themselves to empty abstractions; but they do often labour for rich and useful abstractions.

>>8377001
cool false equivalnce

I think stirner would have appealed to me a lot when I was 17 but he doesn't do much for me now

>>8377407
How come?

>>8377516
Because I'm now all grown up!
:^)

>>8369212
i know i am too late but i just finished der einzige und sein eigentum and want to add a few points:

stirner cannot completely be refuted but annotations and mild criticism are necessary.

in essence his philosophy can be summarized as: don't take any idea of something more seriously than the actual thing. follow your own desires. only trust your own judgement. don't follow an unachievable ideal.

the problem is: how does one know what to desire. how to distinguish between given feelings/spooks and reinterpreted/own ideas? how to eliminate fiction from life?

>>8373193
Stirner is more than that. You guys really overstate how obscure he is and his lack of influence. Stirner is pretty damn influential.

>>8377017
Stirnerists BTFO

Kierkegaard.

Stirner literally is that guy who never made it to the second half of Either/Or

>>8377017
>I can see no other commandment here, than "understand what it is you are thinking"
That's true. Stirner's teaching is not negative, as any action falls within egoism as long as it is you who want to do it and not some sort of ethical system that imposes itself and the action onto you. Which Stirner clearly states many times.

>>8369212
His entire argument is constructed as to be impossible to refute.

>>8377516
because I used to call myself a nihilist, enjoyed myself morally, intellectually, etc, didn't believe in any higher moral commandments, but also thought that this freed me to behave according to my own sense of morality and enjoy myself guilt-free—whether enjoying 'harmless' pleasures, or enjoying my conscience when I did what felt morally right.

I think Stirner would have confirmed a lot of what I already thought.

anyway that way of thinking led me to a flippant disregard for truth, which eventually led me to apathy about my former atheism, and opened the way to Christianity. Funny enough, it was only when I became a Christian that I was compelled by my religion to care about truth, and then to doubt the claims of my religion again! I only began to worry about the intellectual honesty of faith when, by faith, I had come back to a belief in the necessity of honesty and of the love of truth.

>>8372188
It started as that image, it's not from anywhere.

>>8378400
Did you grow up in a christian environment? Because it sounds like you always were one, just that the stage of teenage nihilistic denial lasted more than it usually does.

File: tips Christian morality.jpg (21KB, 474x528px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 474x528px

>>8378400

>Funny enough, it was only when I became a Christian that I was compelled by my religion to care about truth

>>8378514
my father is an atheist, my mother is "not religious", my grandparents aren't religious (my father's parents were presbyterians, but they died around the time I was born), I went to a secular school where I made friends with atheists, when I was a kid my dad showed me the writings of Bertrand Russell which I loved at the time. I wasn't much exposed to religion until I began studying poetry in university.

>>8377600
Influences such as?

>>8376527
explain

>>8376993
>stirner is the endgame of philosophy and literature

>yet somehow his readership's main demographic is edgy 19-year-olds on 4chan

>>8376972
but spooks are, like, self-evidently bad. by definition they hinder action without reason.

>>8377017
>>8377606

Stirner's point is that "useful abstractions" are not useful at all. Most people would know that the country is just an abstraction but most would see value in patriotism.
Stirner is saying that there is no value in it at all and it is an idea that controls you for its own gain all the while being not real.

You might see a sense of community and belonging as a benefit and that people will help you out from your country and so on, but these are not real benefits of patriotism but rather benefits of appearing patriotic. The difference being you can act patriotic without ever really being loyal.

If you are all alone in a forest or something, then your patriotism is useless and being patriotic will not get you anything. Working out, or learning things to improve yourself are all real things and will have an impact no matter what and so would not be spooks.

If you want to help out an individual person so they like you and help you out then there is a real and simple reason for this and so it is not a spook. You never should want access to food, you should just want food.

That's the whole idea behind the "creative nothing." You can appear patriotic or moral or anything else when it is necessary, but if you need to you can drop all values because they were never really there anyway.


I don't understand what the first part has to do with it because that sounds like it is in agreement with Stirner. You do good things because you feel you should and not because it gives you pleasure. That guilty feeling is in a sense the spook enforcing its will. If you never thought murder was wrong then you would never feel bad about it. Think of all the religious extremists who belief that God has given them permission or whatever: They never feel bad about killing certain people.

>>8380485
>If you are all alone in a forest or something, then your patriotism is useless and being patriotic will not get you anything. Working out, or learning things to improve yourself are all real things and will have an impact no matter what and so would not be spooks.

Is it impossible for patriotism (or loyalty) to be avenues in which someone can improve themselves? Does Stirner believe that self-improvement through philosophy (by approaching manners through a patriotic lense) or general knowledge of the self (by questioning one's patriotism) or being drawn to a community through patriotic feeling is a spook?

I'm generally wondering about this, because while blind loyalty or patriotism is never good, being part of a community is useful, and being able to affect your own feelings by bringing about feelings of patriotism can be useful, right? Besides, attempting to appear to be patriotic (to get those benefits which aren't "spooks") usually comes from genuine patriotism

This might apply to love in general, since patriotism is really just a love of one's country, and love can be beneficial. If you love something else, that shows you that you can love yourself, after all, and being happy brings with it health benefits

This all could be bullshit, tho

>>8380941

Those are interesting points because learning about yourself is not a spook since knowing your limitations and weakness will have real life benefits and are therefore not spooks. Stirner was pro-community: He would call these "unions of egoists."
No one would have loyalty to the union but it would be a more primal way of people doing things for each other in return for others doing things for them. Everyone is good at different things and to try and appear as if you are good at everything is a spook so everyone just lets it all be out in the open. The community is useful to everyone as an individual.

The big thing about patriotism is that the country as an abstraction is really not doing anything for the individual. Someone would go out and die for a country and not get anything because they're dead. No one would die for a unions of egoists because that wouldn't be useful for anyone.

Another big difference is that the country controls people while the unions of egoists is a mutual agreement between people who are all equal, and people could just leave when they stop seeing the benefit in it.

Now this is the reason why to call Stirner an anarchist would be wrong since someone could (as Stirner himself did) participate in a nation as a unions of egoists in a sense. You pay taxes and then you get healthcare or whatever. But following the laws and being truly loyal is unnecessary as long as you can get away with it.

I think you could live as a patriot in a sort of post-ironic way (not really the right word at all, but a similar kind of result) and the main difference being the non-spooked person could drop the patriotism at any time if they need to. If they need to burn a flag to start a fire or break some laws to get by they could do it without feeling guilty at all.

Stirner's philosophy is a way of thinking and not a way of acting.

"Just observe the nation that is defended by devoted patriots. The patriots fall in bloody battle or in the fight with hunger and want; what does the nation
care for that? By the manure of their corpses the nation comes to 'its bloom'! The individuals have died 'for the
great cause of the nation,' and the nation sends some words of thanks after them and – has the profit of it. I call that
a paying kind of egoism."

Note how the Stinerian recoils with anger and horror when he is called an edgy teenager; this reaction is not without reason, for he has finally been found out

>>8380999

>edgy
>teenager

Spooks ahoy

File: 1470770016865.png (148KB, 330x256px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 330x256px

>>8381003
Wow. Look at how angry this man is. Clearly >>8380999 (nice trip btw) was right.

>>8369212
aren't 'spooks' a spook? His system makes arguing in good faith impossible.

File: grimes-reminder.jpg (76KB, 329x326px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 329x326px

>>8369559
butterfly is claire boucher FYI

>>8380485
>Stirner is saying that there is no value in it at all and it is an idea that controls you for its own gain all the while being not real.

What about the opposite scenario though? You control the idea and use it to control your property. Let's say you're a cult leader. You don't actually believe any of it, you just use the cult's spooks to amass a harem of subservient qts. Seems useful to me.

>>8381082
>let me interject without having read anything about the topic

>>8381811
Sure. I should have been more specific: Being spooked yourself is of no use.

Stirner talks about the a bit in the intro.

But only look at that Sultan who cares so lovingly for his people. Is he not pure unselfishness itself, and does
he not hourly sacrifice himself for his people? Oh, yes, for "his people." Just try it; show yourself not as his, but as
your own; for breaking away from his egoism you will take a trip to jail. The Sultan has set his cause on nothing
but himself; he is to himself all in all, he is to himself the only one, and tolerates nobody who would dare not to be
one of "his people."

>>8380999
The man is distinguished from the youth by the fact that he takes the world as it is, instead of everywhere fancying it amiss and wanting to improve it, i.e. model it after his ideal; in him the view that one must deal with the world according to his *interest*, not according to his *ideals*, becomes confirmed.

So long as one knows himself only as *spirit*, and feels that all the value of his existence consists in being spirit (it becomes easy for the youth to give his life, the "bodily life," for a nothing, for the silliest point of honor), so long it is only *thoughts* that one has, ideas that he hopes to be able to realize some day when he has found a sphere of action; thus one has meanwhile only *ideals*, unexecuted ideas or thoughts.

Not till one has fallen in love with his *corporeal* self, and takes a pleasure in himself as a living flesh-and-blood person – but it is in mature years, in the man, that we find it so – not till then has one a personal or *egoistic* interest, i.e. an interest not only of our spirit, e. g., but of total satisfaction, satisfaction of the whole chap, a *selfish* interest. Just compare a man with a youth, and see if he will not appear to you harder, less magnanimous, more selfish. Is he therefore worse? No, you say; he has only become more definite, or, as you also call it, more "practical." But the main point is this, that he makes *himself* more the center than does the youth, who is infatuated about other things, e.g. God, fatherland, etc.

File: 1451076154642.png (35KB, 244x295px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 244x295px

>>8380982
>I think you could live as a patriot in a sort of post-ironic way (not really the right word at all, but a similar kind of result)
Could the word you're looking for be "detached"?

>>8369854
>to fight a land developer would wants to destroy a forest you love is not. The idea of the country is not a real thing but a forest is a real thing that you enjoy seeing and so to fight for it would not be a spook. Now if you were an environmentalist and wanted to protect the world for future generations or whatever, then that would be a spook reason to go out and fight for a forest.

>Love forest
>Dude I know is trying to cut all the tress down and I fight him over it
Not a spook
>Love forest/all forests
>Want to protect them for everyone because I love them so much and want them to be enjoyed by all future generations
LE SPOOKED DUDE

Am I getting this correctly? I really hope I'm not, there's no way I can be.

>>8382451
See >>8382137

Stirner isn't about scope, he's about why (you say) you do things. It's one thing to protect nature because you enjoy it or because it dying makes you feel bad; it's another to do it because your cause is Nature's cause, which is external to your interests, a "greater" calling, a submission.

>>8369971
(not the guy you replied to) Lacan for example would argue that you have no access to a pure ego which only exists for its own, basically that your default mode of existence growing up in a society is spooked.

>>8378400
Can you tell what works on atheism you read and what lead you to christianity over other religions?

Have you considered that your journey is still in line with his thought?

/lit/ embryos: mad because they haven't read the book
marxists, socialist retards: mad because communism got btfo.
armchair philosophers: mad because they want philosophy to continue after stirner.
post logical positivists / analytic mouthbreathers: mad because they don't understand the concept of the creative nothing.
average stupid normal: mad because they LIKE spooks

so yes, stirner is the best philosopher.

>>8371633
this. old butters was a much better tranny. i'm glad she moved on to an abusive irl lesbian relationship; she deserves it. i miss it ;_;

>>8384000
>average stupid normal: mad because they LIKE spooks
spooks aren't a bad thing m8, you might want to read stirner.

>>8373244

hey fuckface you kill yourself.

>>8384028
>he fell for the bluepilled reading of stirner meme

>>8384124
>he thinks nobody read stirner
>he thinks he can bluff
>he thinks every single person who bothered to read a short book isn't laughing at him trying to lie to be cool
i bet you had a girlfriend from a different town nobody would know or see you with all through HS

>>8382137
>Just compare a man with a youth, and see if he will not appear to you harder, less magnanimous, more selfish. Is he therefore worse? No, you say

Yes, I say. And I'm not the first to have said it, and I'm surprised you are so ignorant of English literature as to doubt that anyone could think that adults have follies of their own. You betray, by this assumption, that you are ignorant of so many great poets and essayists, Wordsworth not least of them. You think the hard, practical man is wiser merely because he is old? Can you not imagine that he has acquired stupidities which he did not know in his youth?

>>8384134
Reducing Stirner to psychological egoism is a rookie mistake and very bluepill misreading, sorry but not sorry.

>>8384190
>spooks have no impact on the material
are you retarded enough to think he meant spooks are bad because they produce no material outcome? kek. that's not even shallow, that's just plain wrong.

>>8384276
You are sub 90 IQ or trolling. This discussion is over.

>>8384314
>i have no argument
>pls don't laugh at me for not reading book b4 discussing
lmao@your non reading idiot ass

>>8371516
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

> That said, it is strikingly hard to nail down

Did this bother anyone else? The dead metaphor of "nail down" with the physical action implied in "striking" and the physical attribute "hard" all mix together to create this mixed monstrosity where it actually sounds like the author is talking about nailing something down

>>8384188
If religion has set up the proposition that we are sinners altogether, I set over against it the other: we are perfect altogether! For we are, every moment, all that we can be; and we never need be more. Since no defect cleaves to us, sin has no meaning either. Show me a sinner in the world still, if no one any longer needs to do what suits a superior! If I only need do what suits myself, I am no sinner if I do not do what suits myself, as I do not injure in myself a "holy one"; if, on the other hand, I am to be pious, then I must do what suits God; if I am to act humanly, I must do what suits the essence of man, the idea of mankind, etc. What religion calls the "sinner," humanitarianism calls the "egoist." But, once more: if I need not do what suits any other, is the "egoist," in whom humanitarianism has borne to itself a new-fangled devil, anything more than a piece of nonsense? The egoist, before whom the humane shudder, is a spook as much as the devil is: he exists only as a bogie and phantasm in their brain. If they were not unsophisticatedly drifting back and forth in the antediluvian opposition of good and evil, to which they have given the modern names of "human" and "egoistic," they would not have freshened up the hoary "sinner" into an "egoist" either, and put a new patch on an old garment. But they could not do otherwise, for they hold it for their task to be "men." They are rid of the Good One; good is left!

We are perfect altogether, and on the whole earth there is not one man who is a sinner! There are crazy people who imagine that they are God the Father, God the Son, or the man in the moon, and so too the world swarms with fools who seem to themselves to be sinners; but, as the former are not the man in the moon, so the latter are – not sinners. Their sin is imaginary, yet, it is insidiously objected, their craziness or their possessedness is at least their sin. Their possessedness is nothing but what they – could achieve, the result of their development, just as Luther’s faith in the Bible was all that he was – competent to make out. The one brings himself into the madhouse with his development, the other brings himself therewith into the Pantheon and to the loss of – Valhalla.

There is no sinner and no sinful egoism!

>>8369212
Counters are a spook

File: file.png (3MB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1200x1600px

>>8369212

>>8386058
file.jpg was a spook.

>>8369367
"Hahaha I am so logical; these things are totally equivalent except one of them is totally ridiculous! Got em' with that epic logic! I'm glad I enrolled in Logic 1001, such an easy class." said the autist.

>>8386058
How doe he refute Stirner?

>>8369212
My barista shop counter.

>>8378597
many, but as simple example: 20 th century reactionaries e.g. Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger