>"Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies

God follows his own desires, he can't follow a higher power because he is the highest power.

>>9449576
Desires are a spook though

Seems pretty self explanatory to me senpai.

>>9449670
Worthless post

>>9449503
God is an egoist, ergo you should be as well. Or rather even God is egoistic and self centered.

>>9449653
They're enjoyable spooks, though.

>>9449681
Worthless post

>>9449653
This is actually kind of interesting. Could desires actually direct God's hand? Doesn't that make him less than God? Or is that just nitpicking?

>>9449724
This seems like a category error.

>>9449503
Basically its saying god is egotistic and self serving. The part above would help you understand because it lays out why god is egotistic

He is saying that we are inside god's head and we follow his rules.

a) Maybe read beyond the first page?
b) Stirner is here making fun of the Christian paradigm within which most of his contemporaries operate. He isn't literally making a statement about God.

>>9450025
How does it feel knowing I've read very little of the mans work, yet I clearly have a better understanding of it than you do. Making fun of the Christian paradigm? He isn't literally making a statement about God? Lmao
Read more, you fucking dunce.

>>9450025
this is what happens when pseuds read books out of their depth

>>9449503
Serving the idea of God has a purpose for the advancement of the idea only, and serves no purpose for the individuals serving it.

If you would picture the idea as a person, it would be an egoist - not caring for anything but its own cause.

>>9449874
A category error is when a complex unity is incorrectly said to be independent of its constituent parts. How is this that?

File: Screenshot (988).png (301KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1366x768px

>>9449503
I highlighted this on a pdf and screenshotted it just yesterday

>>9451171
fug it's not a pdf it's an html

>>9449653
no they're not. desires are spooks if they're manifestations of some idea outside of yourself that you've given authority over yourself.

>>9449503
stirner is saying that the god most people worship does nothing spooky. he's going to say that most things people have submitted to, like god, humanity etc., are themselves egoistic entities that demand submission but do not submit. then he's going to say, why not be like that yourself?

this might help you read:
motivations that come from outside of yourself are spooks. take family for an example. liking your dad and hanging out with him doesn't make you spooked. hanging out with your dad BECAUSE he is part of your family even though you hate him means you've been spooked by the idea of ‘family’, which comes from outside yourself. this isn't much more than basic criticism - he's pointing to society’s sources of values that tell you to do things and saying, “they’re all the same, all outside yourself, all as valid as 'commands' from a christian god.” what makes stirner unique is his solution. most critics dismiss one particular source of values and then replace it with something else that's also outside themselves; think of someone disparaging christian values, but replacing them with the just-as-spooky values of liberal humanism. stirner says the way to get back of spooks once and for all is to take motivation from only one place, from inside yourself: from the ego. nietzsche has a great description of how someone can start to live like this in thus spoke zarathustra when he describes the camel, lion and child. try to understand what he's really getting at it in the ego and its own, which is pretty revolutionary once the subtleties are understood, before you listen to how people have applied his reasoning to moral theory, political theory, etc. don't try to argue with his anecdotes or anything like that, they are just stand-ins for what he's trying to do, and can be replaced with whatever you'd like.

>>9451229
Yes, the external world which contributed to your brain chemistry and therefore your desires, etc.

>>9451582
stirner doesn't make any metaphysical claims like that - what you're saying is more like spinoza

>>9451604
What is your point? Are you claiming we should disregard all other works that are related?

How low is your IQ?

>>9451736
yeah, im really stupid

>>9450451
I suppose I was using the term incorrectly.

But what I was trying to say is that Stirner seems to be making a mistake in applying human attributes to an entity that's fundamentally not human. Or, rather, very far beyond humans.

>>9450029
Grow up

>>9451789
>t. Low IQ turbo pleb

File: __You__.png (190KB, 480x475px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 480x475px

>>9451171

>>9449503
>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

I love this quote precisely because I believe in God and realize there is nothing higher than Him. "Well, even if you believe God is meaningful, why?" --- Because He is.

>>9449653

Not if Kierkegaard's paradox of the individual and universal.

>>9449860

What would drive him if not desires?

If he seeks to obtain these things, why do we not call them desires?

Anything with will has to have desires, or that will won't manifest.