Union of Egoists

>he wastes mental space on le stirner meme

>>8976000
Literally no one here is so unloved that they have never been in an egoistic union.
>>8976265
I bet you think spooks are "meaningless".

>>8976287
define spook

>>8976287
>Literally no one here is so unloved that they have never been in an egoistic union.

All the negatives in this sentence are confusing me.

What the fuck are you trying to say?

>>8976265
I am discussing his actual work, so fuck off.

>>8976327
>stirnerite is illiterate
woah

>>8976336
le I didn't read the book so I'll shitpost

Go back to >>>/reddit/

>>8976351
stirner is the most redd*t 'philosopher' that exists
he's pure pseud and only appeals to pseuds

define spook

>>8976327
It's not particularly difficult.

Everyone has someone who has, at some point, been involved in an egoistic union with them. Several someones, in fact.

Just think of our dear old mothers.
>>8976313
I was arguing with an autist which made two of us who kept getting butthurt about my use of the word "spook", because I was obviously just throwing it around. So I just replaced "spook" with its definition, and he was happy.

The moral of the story is: people who hate "spookmemers" have no fucking clue what they're talking about.
>>8976363
Holy shit, I thought you were joking.

Anything which is produced by the creative nothing which you nonetheless hold over yourself.

Threadly reminder that Stirner is a Cartesian and for people too dumb to read Heidegger.

Back to buzzfeed.

>>8976369
Why would you read Buzzfeed? Serious question.

>>8976368
the creative nothing is a spook, reified by dumb kids who haven't engaged with heidegger

stop shilling your cartesianism, no intelligent person buys your semantic distinctions that somehow make stirner's ego not a complete spook

also, he was a literal cuck

>>8976363
So you don't know the definition of Spook yet criticise Stirner?

That is quite literally NOT an argument. I am not one of these Stirner posters.

Try reading his actual chapter on Spooks if you want to find out instead of speaking about books you haven't read.

I'll give you a hint, redditard, it's part 4 (The Owner), chapter 3 (my self enjoyment)

>>8976000
>Anyone here ever been part of a Union of Egoists?

Yes, actually. It was Stirner, his wife, and her lover.

>>8976000
Also while I am an egoist, even I am getting a bit tired of all the Stirner threads. Still, no more tired than all the Green and DFW and Pynchon threads.
>>8976377
Fuck off spookmemermemer. And read Stirner's Critics, because you somehow didn't get it from The Ego.

>>8976366
>>8976369
Stop samefagging, thanks.

>>8976378
> get proven wrong
> Y-YOU JUST HAVEN'T READ HIM

no intelligent person is going to waste their time on this guy

stirner is for adolescents only

>>8976384
Oh wow, I didn't catch that. Christ, this is some special autism. Maybe we should post more Stirner threads...

OP here.

No one who has posted in this thread so far has shown any ounce of having read Stirner.


The thread is made up of two groups:

1. The people who meme the word 'Spook' like effeminate nu-males

2. The people who hate 1. and think I (the OP) am one of them
I am neither 1 nor 2.


Kindly, fuck off!

>>8976368
>creative nothing
I take it that this is essentially means higher principle. If I lived my life for the sole purpose of making sure my kids had as good of a life as possible, would the product of my major motivation in life be a 'spook'? Is going to work and providing for my family a spook? Is discipline a spook?

Help me out here.

>people who hate "spookmemers" have no fucking clue what they're talking about
irony

>>8976387
Why would you ask me to define Spook? It's an incredibly minuscule part of Stirner's philosophy that literally appears a couple of times in a book with hundreds of pages. This thread is about the Union of Egoists.

Go back to >>>/r/eddit

>>8976393
>I take it that this is essentially means higher principle.
Why would you take that.
>If I lived my life for the sole purpose of making sure my kids had as good of a life as possible, would the product of my major motivation in life be a 'spook'?
No. Your product would be a real thing. Your major motivation in life would be a spook.
>irony
Oh boy you sure showed me anon.

>>8976366
>>8976392
>Global Rule 7

>there are still only 4 IPs in this thread
Huh...

>>8976404
>Your major motivation in life would be a spook
So having any motivation in life outside of personal pleasure is a spook?

>>8976409
Blame the Redditors that came to shit it up because they don't know how to read an OP.

Or are you one of them? Huh...

>>8976411
Outside of what you want to do.
>>8976412
Bitch we talked about unions and you just complained about negatives. If you want to talk about them, talk about them.

Wowie can I join in the samefagging?

Stirner is a pseud! A pseud!

>>8976418
>Outside of what you want to do.
Ok, so from what I gather, Stirner is the new pseudophilosopher icon for edgy teenage nihilists who lack the IQ to be logically coherent in their belief structure because they're not white. Got it.

>>8976426
Yep, you did it anon! You understand Stirner as much as the best of /lit/. And you didn't even need to read him!

>>8976429
Still waiting on that 'spook' definition.

>>8976432
No you aren't.

>>8976432
No you are not.

>>8976432
No, you aren't.

>>8976432
Negative thou art not.

>>8976432
no u

aren't

woah

>>8976434
>>8976436
>>8976438
>>8976442
>>8976445
We are unique.

>>8976434
>>8976436
>>8976438
>>8976442
>>8976445
define the goddamn word

>>8976450
But we did.
>nuh-uh I didn't like that definition
Sorry kid.

>>8976450
He already did you dongle.

File: You're making me nervous.jpg (224KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 960x960px

>43 posts
>4 IPs

>>8976418
>implying anyone has ever done anything besides what they wanted

>>8976469
Yes.
>Oh but I mustn't masturbate! My good Catholic schoolteacher told me it was immoral.
As opposed to you yourself deciding you don't want to masturbate for whatever reason.

>>8976470
>for whatever reason.

Like you agreeing to go to a Catholic school and submitting to its authority?

>>8976458
JUST

>>8976453
>>8976455
>But we did
You literally didn't.

>>8976475
Like you thinking it is a better idea to do what your Catholic school tells you to do than to masturbate. This is -you- thinking this, by the way.

>>8976479
Oh wow, that's really profound, anon
Like, all those years of Western and Islamic theology, as well as everything in Upanishads, were a spook
Thank Me for Stirner, what would I do without Me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)

>>8976486
Welcome to philosophy anon.

>Have you philosophers really no clue that you have been beaten with your own weapons? Only one clue. What can your common sense reply when I dissolve dialectically what you have merely posited dialectically? You have showed me with what kind of ‘volubility’ one can turn everything to nothing and nothing to everything, black into white and white into black. What do you have against me, when I return to you your pure art? —Max Stirner

jesus christ what an edgy pseudointellectual fedora retard

>>8976491
BASED

>>8976488
What would I do without Stirner, anon? I'd be lost to to spooks, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism

>>8976265
>Thinking mental space is limited enough to be filled up during your lifetime

Our only mental limit is time.

>>8976526
>people can remember as much information as they can possibly take in
you must be a stirnerite

>>8976366
>unions are a spook
Just imagine I sang "union of egoists" instead of "ego":

http://vocaroo.com/i/s0NVXGMSLNyt

>>8976596
Huh...so this is the power...of the anti-stirnerite...woah

>>8976363
Have you actually read his book though?

I hate the "SPOOKY" posters as much as anyone, but he really ties solipsism to politics in a very novel and interesting way.

>>8976763
>I hate the "SPOOKY" posters as much as anyone
Aw, are they too difficult to argue against?

>>8976772
Memes aren't arguments, what you're doing is no different than Ctrl+V.

Have you even read the book?

Stirner is a spook.

>>8976801
Yes, that's how I know it's not a meme. Memer.
>>8976839
At this point, yes, he is.

>>8976839
spook spelled backwards koops, which is really k' oops

stirner mistake

I've never read Heidegger. How does he invalidate Stirner?

I always thought Stirner had some good points about not being a slave to anything. I'll admit I haven't read much philosophy, though.

Can I just start reading Heidegger immediately or do I need some background. Don't give me the Greeks meme either or it'll be a decade before I can read the fucking guy.

>>8976930
You can really just read the Republic and a few Stanford articles over the course of like one week and have a really solid foundation on the Greeks.

>>8976982
Mb Nichomachean ethics, too.
Just to see what a fucking hack Aristotle is.

>>8976930
Bare bones necessities for Heidegger are Heraclitus and Husserl. If you want to actually understand him, you'll also need Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard. Nietzsche and Freud wouldn't hurt either.

So wait, how many people does it take to have a union of egoists?

>>8977235
Two, at minimum. Any less and it's more like masturbation.

>nihilism
into the trash it goes

>>8976265
There are a lot of great uses for that dirty baby, just make sure its only bath water in the bucket

>>8976368
Should one rape if they felt like it and were certain they would not be caught?

asking for a friend

>>8976377
>also, he was a literal cuck
out of all the possibilities of this thread I am most interested in this (I am a cuck cuck) , give us the deets plz?

>>8976469
>>implying anyone has ever done anything besides what they wanted
>implying slavery has never existed
>implying the concept of 'spook' is the concept of the entire spectrum of types of slaveries, from physical to subtle mental

>>8976839
Stirner is a Doctor, if you are not sick, you dont need his medicine

The world has long been based on Unions of Egoists. What do you think Families are, what do you think Corporations is?

>>8977723
>should
No.

However, would it be rational? Yes. It's much more complicated than "would I be caught" though; you must consider everything that factors into deciding what you should do.

For myself, this means the actual answer to your question is "no". But maybe you're more psychopathic, what do I know.

>>8977825
You don't understand how a union of egoists works.


Kindly fuck off.

File: 1473564502071.jpg (50KB, 613x771px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 613x771px

>>8976000
>Anyone here ever been part of a Union of Egoists?

I have not, the closest I have come is having a free association with a few friends and family members who whilst they arent familiar with him effectively practice the thought in this respect.

>I have been in quite the few
Interesting, can you share your experiences of how you found these as well as how they formed?

>once one begins to suffer within the Union and cannot reap the rewards of his property, he has condemned the Union to disrepute and it becomes a party like figure, a sham.

The difficulty I find with this is the question of long term vs short term suffering. Gym membership and networking with others is something that I loathe doing, however the end product ultimately servers my interests enough to justify it in the short term.

>Something I notice about such Unions is that the moment they begin to have rules or a structure they begin to fall apart.

Which is why Stirners thought will never become a "popular" reality, people are far too unique for large unions to be feasible.

>How would one break down Academic establishments in order to form their polar opposite, the Union?

Destroy the state and copyright laws would probably help.

>>8978402
>You don't understand how a union of egoists works.
>Kindly fuck off.
currently fucking myself off...hard.....kindly

Explain

>>8977251
But Stirner and Nietzsche compliment each other to perfection.

>>8981064
One day you'll grow up.