Why does Peterson never mention Stirner? Is he too incompatible

File: 1496658769857.jpg (125KB, 899x693px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 899x693px

Abolish Bill C-16, PLEASE!

Because Stirner exposed the ideas of religion, tradition and morality Peterson desperately struggles to find justification for as the meaningless spooks they are.

Stiner BTFO'd that spooked out hack Peterson a hundred years before he was even born.

>>9929741
Because Stirner falls into the category of games which are easy to play, according to Peterson. Just call everything a spook and you suddenly don't have to justify anything you do. You are good to go. You don't need excuses and you are letting yourself stay unsorted because lmao dude spook who cares. It's not healthy to think of fundamental things as meaningless.

>>9929771
That's not what Stirner is or does at all. You haven't even read him, you're basing this on memes people like to espouse. Also you don't understand what people mean when they claim something is a "spook" either. It is overused but not without meaning.

>>9929973
Enlighten me.

>>9929979
'Just call everything a spook' is not what Stirner does, so either you don't know what a spook is or haven't read his book at all

The ego isn't a spook, rocks and trees aren't spooks, etc.

>>9929741
Stirner is a lot more obscure than you think, no one's going to encounter him unless they're digging deep into 19th century German philosophy or outside internet memes

>>9929741
Because no one cares about Stirner outside of meme internet pseud communities

>>9930079
I never implied they are, you nitpicker. You know what I meant. I meant thing necessary for a healthy life: moral, meaning etc.

>>9930119

Stirner didn't believe there were no morals, he just believed individual will is morality. Morality can only exist when two people want something and come together to bring it forth.

>>9930137
Individual will cannot be moral unless it wills the good of another, for example.

>>9930140
t. Thomas Aquinas

>>9929979
Have you tried reading the fucking book that explains all of this?

>>9930149
Did.

See my response >>9930119. Peterson does not think those are things are spooks nor does he agree with anything that denies objective morality, rules, etc. That's why he probably doesn't give a fuck about Max.

>inb4 you prove to me how I am wrong about Max and how he actually somehow does believe in all this just in a different way

>>9929741
STOP TALKING ABOUT JORDAN "I AM A RETARD" PETERSON

>>9929771
Confirmed for not knowing shit about Max

>>9930205
Confirmed for another anon not rebuking what I said in this thread.

>>9930167
>Peterson does not think those are things are spooks
How would you argue they aren't spooks? I think he would agree that they are spooks based on Stirner's use of the spook, but that that doesn't mean you should dismiss them as such

because stirner is a buzzsaw and peterson cares for his own safety

He is a Christian, or so he says. That immediately makes him incompatible with Max.

>>9929771
>Stirner falls into the category of games which are easy to play
That doesn't mean he's wrong though.

>>9930451
>He is a Christian, or so he says.
Why are you unsure about whether he is or not?

>>9930514
Not familiar with him. I've just seen a few vids and he claimed to be Christian. I don't know what his practices are.

>>9930137
Stirner is very vague in relation to morality. I've read his book, and when it comes to the question of whether (as you say) individual will is morality, he gives some vague unconvincing transcendental argument. There is certainly a kind of morality in Stirner, but it's mostly a result of his lack of philosophical rigor

>>9929741
Because Stirner is completely inconsequential and irrelevant, contrary to the memes on /lit/.

>>9930738
>Stirner is completely inconsequential and irrelevant

Except we are still discussing Stirner over 100 years after his death, and Peterson will be forgotten within 2 years

>>9929741
No one in academic philosophy mentions Stirner because he's a non-entity. Not to mention Peterson is a trained psychologist, not philosopher.

>>9931079

This

I go to northwestern and study philosophy

Maybe half the professors have heard of him, maybe 2 have read the wiki page for the ego/property

File: 1502253055352.jpg (32KB, 480x550px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x550px

>>9930208
Max didn't call everything a spook and went into detail of how one avoids them and how the ego should be free, that post you made was factually wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs

>>9931036
>we
/lit/ shitposters are also inconsequential and irrelevant.

Stierner is a brainlet philosopher

He would say spooks are more real than you are

File: 1485608466203.jpg (198KB, 750x400px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 750x400px

Stirner recognized the latent absurdity in life but he didn't realize it existed in his philosophy too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU7Ty8DuyXA
>people actually getting engaged at Peterson events

Well /lit/?
Has he finally jumped the shark?
Or is this just proof of the efficacy of his so-called "pseud" message?

>>9931332
Jordan Peterson is just a surrogate Dad for nerds who think they can improve themselves into happiness

File: 1450668768607.png (503KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 500x667px

Even as a fan of Stirner I know hes an obscure (even in his own time he was) figure, it would quite frankly be bizarre for a physiologist to have even heard of his name let alone studied him. Indeed the only possible way for Peterson to have ever come into contact with him would be if gained an obsession with Nietzsche and his influences.

>with his philosophy?
And what exactly is that?

>>9931339

Which is a lot more than you.

>>9931367
Don't lash out, feel safe

>>9931370
>wildly lashes out like retarded animal at anon who calmly observes with imperturbable rationality

>>9929973
>Also you don't understand what people mean when they claim something is a "spook" either. It is overused but not without meaning.
The meaning is that everyone who uses the word unironically is a fucking idiot? Cancer word for cancer people?

>>9929741
What is even the appeal in Stirner? The breadth of his work pales HORRIBLY in comparison to someone like Nietzsche's, who offers similar notions yet far more of them and in a so much more intricate way.

>>9931616
>What is even the appeal in Stirner?

The same appeal you get in figures like Heraclitus and Parmenides - an uncompromising philosophy that takes its reasoning its pure end point.

Likewise his individualism can be very liberating and constructive.

>The breadth of his work pales HORRIBLY in comparison to someone like Nietzsch

Should we only read Plato or perhaps Aquinas?

>>9931648
Everyone you named is from a very different time period, however, so they do offer some differences. Stirner was from the same century as Nietzsche. There's just not enough reason to read him.

>>9931447
No, you could claim that for anything. Your reply is insubstantial, you literally said nothing. Read Stirner.

>>9930140
>will
>moral

>>9931616
>>9931648
I just finished Beyond Good and evil
Would it be overkill to dive into Stirner?

>>9932056
>Would it be overkill to dive into Stirner?
Absolutely not

>>9931616
>The breadth of his work pales HORRIBLY in comparison to someone like Nietzsche's
Because some of us want a philosophy that works for life rather than a life that works for philosophy.

>>9932056
Not really although his writing will not be as nice as N so you might feel like it's more work

>>9931670
Come now should we also not read Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky as well then? Or should we ditch all of them and focus on Kant or Hegel?

N and stirner are two very different thinkers and in no way does reading one replace reading the other. If you think individualism and ideology is an important issue you will be missing out if you don't read both these thinkers

>>9929747
Peterson's entire position is that religion is an internal mechanism for coping with reality. It actually ISN'T a spook at all.

Stirner BTFO'd Marx, not Peterson.

>>9932546
Isn't he making a spook out of reality then? Where does the commandment to survive come from?

>>9932503
>Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky
Completely different guys. Nietzsche and Stirner are also different but there's more crossover between them than Kierkegaard or Dostoevsky, the latter not even a philosopher.

I want to know what he thinks about Junger

>>9929741
As implied throughout this thread, P doesn't mention S because he has not read him. It's that simple.