Hello /lit/erati, I have some questions: 1. Have you read The

>>9089698
>1. Have you read The Ego and its Own by Max Stirner?
Yes.

>2. If so, did he convince you to agree with his philosophy?
Nope.

>3. If not, what arguments do you hold against him?
He literally refuses to be reasonable because reason is a spook. Also he's a laughable historian.
Most of the points he make are just basic scepticism in a new form, and those problem have been dealt with for thousands of years. Nothing new.

File: DMFrNfJ.jpg (54KB, 479x592px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 479x592px

>>9089725
lmao you either lied about reading stirner or didn't understand his message

>>9089698
>1. Have you read The Ego and its Own by Max Stirner?

Yes

>2. If so, did he convince you to agree with his philosophy?

To the extent that I understand it

>Stirners philosophy is the hardest one to refute of anything that I've seen until now.

Any refutation of nominalism would do it that said though its hard to refute Stirner because he doesnt really make much of an argument as much as he points out hypocrisy in existing thinkers

>>9089698
buzzfeed get out

>>9089725
back to >>>/facebook

>>9089698
>>9089698
>1. Have you read The Ego and its Own by Max Stirner?
yes, in german

>2. If so, did he convince you to agree with his philosophy?
yes, but i already was an anarchist then

>3. If not, what arguments do you hold against him?
stirner wants us to refute any virtual value/entitiy (religion, state etc) that dominates over the individual. he explains how we internalize unachievable superego injunctions.
in catholicism your relation to the absolute/moral judge was mediated by the priest. after the reformation you related directly to god, so that you became even more guilty.
in humanism you don't even relate to an outside force but to the ideal man, that you are supposed to be. so you split your personality in two: the real flawed you, and the ideal, that you can never achieve.
this is how you succumb to slave morality.
stirner can be attacked for his solipsism. he argues, that one would be altruistic, because it is in ones own interest. although this probably is the case it makes you wonder, why so
maybe because you tell yourself a narrative about yourself and your relation to the world, which is ofcourse guided by outside influences and principles. those could be regarded as spooks. but i think there is a way out:
stirner doesnt say that you should be totally autonomous, but that you shouldnt take anything unquestioned or unchallenged

>rationality
top meme

Nietzsche didn't argue from logos, he argued from muthos.

>1. Have you read The Ego and its Own by Max Stirner?
Yes, I did.

>2. If so, did he convince you to agree with his philosophy?
Ideologues and utopians can die in a fire, yes.

>Stirner doesn't seem to suggest that the self is an actual, unchanging entity
I can do without that tiny metaphysical, idealist appendage of the creative nothing, but I'm not particularly bothered by it, because it's not some kind of soul, and he explicitly rejects any Fichtean absolute ego to embraces "this transitory ego of flesh and blood." Honestly if he was writing today he wouldn't even bother with that last fragment of German idealism.

Since it's transitory, Stirner denies that "because I was a fool yesterday I must remain such." Stirner, like Heraclitus, understands that he cannot cross the same river twice, because neither the river nor he would be the same.

If we were always the same we couldn't grow, age, learn, or forget, change or adapt.

>He might just be the philosopher that killed Nietzsche, even before Nietzsche was born.
He's a proto-postmodern, proto-existentialist, proto-pretty much everything fashionable today, because he was the only sane man left in the land of romantics, German idealists, and other chasers of the Absolute, the Spirit and the Absolute Spirit.

>Stirners philosophy is the hardest one to refute of anything that I've seen until now
Because Max Stirner writes about Max Stirner and his troubles with his contemporaries, he's not a normative philosopher. His work doesn't tell you where the spooks come from, either, it's the job of sociology, psychology, cultural studies... He's the beginning, not the end.

But if there is a moral you might consider, it is that if whoever you are, if you want a successful political theory and action, you probably want people to be (self-)interested in what you're after. Involve them, get them to join you not because the spooks say it's the righteous thing to do, but because a Max Stirner may ask you: "What's in it for me?"

>>9090097
>muh thos