do I actually have to read the Illiad before I can read Plato

>>9181677

Why do you want to go in with the goal of becoming a 'Stirnerite'?

This isn't team sports. You should read philosophy to help form your own ideas, and if your view on life somehow lines up with another philosopher than maybe you can identify with them.

File: max-stirner_fondo-magazine.jpg (21KB, 200x273px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 200x273px

>>9181693
Stirerites rule bro I don't want to form my own ideas I want to become a stirnerite

bump stirnerites rule!

bump! who #stirnerite for LIFE?

>>9181677
I'll sum it up so you dont have to read any of that
>the things that you prioritize above your ego that do not benefit you are spooks
>everything is potentially a spook
>everything is your property, regardless of whether or not it's actually your property, you just haven't conquered it yet or have no need to
>this includes other people and also your spooks
>eradicate spooks from your life until you are spook-free
>things that you prioritize above your ego that work for your benefit are not spooks
>spooks spooks spooks
>muh property
everyone in this thread is now a certified Stirnerfag. go sperg it up.

>>9181677
You should open a milk shop and make it so opulent none of the plebs want to go inside. When it fails, you can truly understand Stirner.

>>9181925
What is 'my benefit'??? What is good? At what point is the resource burden my existence places on the state and other individuals amortized? Philosophy is one big sorites paradox of human turds.

>>9181943
>What is 'my benefit'?

If you have to ask this, you haunted AS FUCK to the point you might be beyond saving yourself

Also, this >>9181693

>>9181943
exactly.
the point of Stirner's philosophy isn't that it's right, it's that it's not wrong. he designed it to be unfalsifiable.
the axioms are vague enough to shift into truths under scrutiny, but not under a granular lens.
the axioms are also rigid and empowering enough to engage the "Stirnerite" with enough to get moving, but apply genuine weight to them and they fall away.
it's like when those theoretical mathematicians can prove on paper that 2+2=5 with math wizardry. sure it's "correct" but that doesn't make it "right".
I like Stirner's accessibility, but I don't go HAM and expect that tool to fit every situation and aspect of life

>>9181961
He denies axioms as well as formal logic in general. Do you really believe that you do not fit every aspect of your life?

>>9181961
Stay away from mathematics analogies. Just trying to help you out. That shit was retarded.