Stirner

Is our continuous not part of us and is it not often shaped by outside factors?

>>9155014
>that pic
lel
Based Google, they always fall for it, Stirner would have been so pleased.

1. Yes. He is indeed talking about Max Stirner.
2. The ego did what he wanted.
3. Among anarchists.

>>9155029
There is one world and one Max Stirner. This is all Stirner concerns himself with.

File: stirner.jpg (59KB, 607x608px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 607x608px

>>9155014
>Stirner: why hold ego to a scale of values? Whereas Nietzsche: we find abominable any decadent spirit who says: 'Everything only to me!'

He is no better than everyone he denounces before him, considering that his intellectual endeavour amounts to nothing more than a seduction. In its own little way it is a sort of immature, petulant and infantile seduction as well, one that does not have the sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but on the other hand it has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric (and I mean rhetoric in the general, system-level sense that I think De Man uses) that ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a child who disregards the rules of a game because he is tired of losing at it or some such poor behaviour.

Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history. Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.

Assuming that he has ghostbusted the spooks is to assume a very ideologically-charged perspective about the progress of conceptual thought in the west. And it's not only that, we must also consider that language is dialogic, which means that the language, the concepts Stirner uses to poke around with in first place are all shaped and ideologically charged before he even gets to employ them, he inherits his words and thereby whatever ideology is embedded in them, so it is not even clear whether there is really a distinct Stirner-type ideology critique and not just some permutation of a prevailing ideology. His whole endeavour is shot to shit and full of presuppositions, which is why people are debating over ideology, why Stirner did not solve the problem of ideology, and why its usefulness even as a concept today is in question.

>>9155049
>Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement
He did find the center, in the person he could trust the most.

>>9155037
>There is one world and one Max Stirner. This is all Stirner concerns himself with.
sounds like solipsism
>He is no better than everyone he denounces before him
Well the book opens with his proclamation that he wishes to join the big egoists of the world.
>no center to prevail in replacement
his answer is "not my problem"
>ghostbusted the spooks
How could he have done that if the church is still a big part of his writing and his continuous still has aspects that were hammered in by the systems?

>a man accepts the world as is
Thinking like that would have kept us in caves

>>9155064
>He did find the center, in the person he could trust the most.
The person Stirner uses to poke around with in first place is shaped and ideologically charged before he even gets to employ him, he inherits his words and thereby whatever ideology is embedded in him, so it is not even clear whether there is really a distinct Stirner-type Stirner and not just some permutation of a prevailing ideology. His whole endeavour is shot to shit and full of presuppositions, which is why people are debating over ideology, why Stirner did not solve the problem of ideology, and why its usefulness even as a concept today is in question.

>Well the book opens with his proclamation that he wishes to join the big egoists of the world.
>his answer is "not my problem"
Yet ended up as an irrelevant girls school teacher, instead of influencing the Borgias of this world.

>>9155071
>sounds like solipsism
How many Cartesian subjects do you have within you?

There is one subject in Stirner's life, from which Stirner experiences life, that particular first person is Max Stirner. It's an unique relationship that no other person can claim in his life.

That the world of Max Stirner is... well, Stirner's, is just as tautological.

>>9155089
Quote properly:
>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.

>>9155108
>muh normative war on ideologies
Show me where he uses the word 'Ideologie', spooked one.

>Yet ended up as an irrelevant girls school teacher
Living the dream.

>>9155108
>Yet ended up as an irrelevant girls school teacher, instead of influencing the Borgias of this world.
When you cast away everything else and go with animistic truths of "Might makes right" and "all that I can lay claim to is mine" than all you are left with is the persons raw power and potential. casting of pretension could boost one but nothing will help when your raw potential is lacking. In other words Stirner was not destined for greatness even in his own world view. another important thing to keep in mind is that while some trappings of society are unnecessary, others make a good fallback so a skilled person needs to know what bridges not to burn or how to be cautious but Stirner as an outsider looking in would critic them as slaves to anothers ego

File: 2e46b2_5451413.jpg (80KB, 780x528px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 780x528px

>>9155145
>>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.
What if improving the world(molding it to my ideal) is my pleasure. people who make visions into reality are important but first you need a vision so to say that having ideas that have not yet been hammered out is a sing of immature youth is disingenuous. tldr ver : ideals can be interests
>Living the dream.
not his dream

File: cia.jpg (51KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1280x720px

>>9155166
>What if
It's a big if.

>not
yes

>>9155192
>It's a big if.
How is it a big if?

>>9155145
>Living the dream.
>Girl's School Teacher v.s. (youngest ever) Professor of Classical Studies at Basel
>marriages displaying class traitor and cuckold nature v.s. insincere marriage proposals and generally playful nature with women
>>"Stirner was a very sly man whom she had neither respected nor loved, and claiming that their relationship together had been more of a cohabitation than a marriage" v.s. "My husband, like myself, always kept friendly memories of Nietzsche [...] his behavior precisely towards women was so sensitive, so natural and comradely"
>died in poverty v.s. brain cancer after years of climbing mountains, eating healthily, engaging with the highest people and culture of the day
>>legacy: relatively-unknown guy that triggered Marx and precursor of "relativists" like Nietzsche v.s. legacy: among best known philosophers today, only Plato matches him in fame for aesthetic/literary presentation
>philosophy: "so where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. On the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction" v.s. "interested in the enhancement of individual and cultural health, and believed in life, creativity, power, and down-to-earth realities, rather than those situated in a world beyond. inspired leading figures in all walks of cultural life, including dancers, poets, novelists, painters, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists and social revolutionaries"
>>rambling Hegelian-satire prose that obscures his reception despite having only one book v.s. one of the most distinct writers in German, Romanesque icy-clear objectivity and concise, sometimes over-flowing romantic affirmation

>>9155049
>the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using,
what is he meant by that?

>>9155291
Wittgenstein's metaphor for his own philosophy is similar to a logic of negation:
>My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

Basically, when your philosophy is comprised of axioms that BTFO all philosophy, including your own.

>book preface is about how max is a tolerant egalitarian and nothing in his tolerant egalitarian excludes others
opne book
>jews can't discover the spirit,
>jew is blind to pure spirituality because he always has to assign value to things

>>9155218
Because you have no fucking clue, particularly on how the spooks you are currently chasing are going to betray your expectations.

You want to be like those millennials telling their boss they want to quit because 'they're not making an impact', when they've been working there for only four months, go ahead, not my problem if you do, but it is not 'their pleasure.'

And retroactively they find out it wasn't in their interest either, imagine if they started from that to begin with.

>>9155276
>doesn't know about amor fati

>>9155330
>Tractatus
But Witty went beyond logical atomism, and neither he nor Stirner are anti-philosophers or full radical skeptics.

>>9155353
>tolerant egalitarian
Where?

>>9155361
>Where?
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0ctpeneZ0xe

is Stirner a Christfag or not?

Stirner and Nietzsche are all cognitive dissonance and no action. It's obvious why such types are popular with the stay-at-home rebels. I implore you to take a step back and try to see these concoctions for what they are. Stirner's book is the confession that he couldn't in2 abstract thought without taking it as an attack on his feels-- Nietzsche was the warrior of his daydreams but everyone knows he never smacked a bitch or took a cold shower ever in order to test his hypotheses empirically.

Thoughts without content are empty, folks. It's true.

>>9155511
you speak truth but who could I read, who will show me a new truth without it just being a conformation of all that I l already know?

>>9155511
wtf
nietzsche took cold showers!

>>9155014
what stirner an nietzsche have in common, is that they criticize their fellowmen instead of taking actions against their oppressors.
they indulge in, however correct and righteous criticism of their fellow radicals instead of taking up a fight.
they did a great job though

>>9155380
Nowhere it is.
>>9155448
Nope.

>>9155511
>stay-at-home rebels
>>9155871
>instead of taking actions against their oppressors
The Prussian authorities never managed to stop Max Stirner's magnum opus from being published. Stirner kept demonstrating his lack of respect for his oppressors and their spooks by changing location and name to evade his creditors over and over. They never got their money back.

It's fascinating how I manage to see more lies about Max Stirner's biography - with the totality of what the scholars could unearth being but a few paragraphs - than, say, 21st Century US presidential candidates. Or Pope Francis. Or whoever else that keeps intruding on the pixels of my monitor.

Oh, and for the record, Max Stirner isn't even his real name and the photo in the OP isn't him.