Is the best and most accessible refutation of Max Stirner

german ideology

>>9971070
Christ, Kant, and basic Game Theory to name a few.

>>9971076

>Game Theory
>Refutes the philosophy of rational self interest

You're dumb dude

>>9971081
>Placing the egoic "I" above all else instead of working with other "I"s
>maintaining a hard solipsism so Others are reduced to tools and talking meat
>natural end of a Stirnerian world is an AnCap hellscape
>rational

I think you may be looking for Epicureanism my dude, Stirner and Game Theory is just a Machiavellian highway to hell.

>>9971104
I don't think stirner's philosophy is meant to apply to everyone or is a way for all of society to operate.
It is merely a way to adapt society to your own needs by neglecting the needs of others and society as a whole when it conveniences you.

>>9971175
I can accede to Stirner being of value to the individual in a world of self-effacement and enforced collectivism. However, "Stirnerism" as a philosophical school of thought is Ayn Rand tier.

To be fair I'm biased because I'm ethically Kantian, and if Stirner's way of thinking became universal law then society would collapse. We'd be living in a Hobbesian nightmare where everything is everyone's property patiently awaiting eight billion souls to exert their power over them. It would
be hell on Earth.

Seems like no one in this thread even read a third of the book.

>>9971104
Try reading the author before trying discuss him. That way you won't waste everyone's time and embarrass yourself.

File: 1840613944.jpg (18KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 500x375px

>>9971070
1) Scrooge is only grumpy.
2) His employee get what he wants.

So what's the problem? :-S

>>9971070
It's just gib moni to chavs plos

>>9972105
What part of that post belies a misunderstanding of Stirner?

Your /r9k/ philosopher is incompatible with society, sorry you're a bitter NEET that can't into basic ethics.

File: 0000000000001.jpg (104KB, 1045x445px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1045x445px

>>9972094
/lit/ doesn't read anyomre

>>9972125
He isn't "just grumpy", his obsession with his finances has destroyed him as a human being to the point where he has no friends and sits alone staring at a fire grate every night. This in turn leads him to make other people miserable, for the love of money is the root of all evil.

>>9971081
Guard 1: Roll over on your accomplice now and take a five year plea or we'll throw you both in for ten years!
Prisoner A: Never! I stand by our alibi! We are both innocent!

*Meanwhile*

Guard 2: Stoolie on your buddy and I'll give you a nickle. It's a dime for the both of youse otherwise!
Prisoner B: Incarceration is a spook. You are my property.


He'll be OK.

>stirner thread
>nobody has read stirner
Every time.

File: Thinking_Face_Emoji_grande.png (143KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 600x600px

>>9972234
I like the idea of reading more than reading itself. Basically only "books" I've read are Wikipedia and Stanford Plato pages.

Is there any reason to read if you aren't interested in the prose itself? I'm not.

And SEP explains the philosophers way better than reading the source material for 99% of people who are sub-140 IQ

>>9972263
How do you know SEP is better if you've openly admitted to only reading Wikipedia and SEP?

>>9972261
Fucking this

>>9972236
you're thinking of ayn rand in the op, not stirner of all people lmao

>>9972223
>What part of that post belies a misunderstanding of Stirner?
all of it

>>9972273
Of course it was exaggeration. I've read main books and I find SEP better source of reading than the main texts myself. So focused, clearly explained, without fat - what a relief it was to read Kant this way and not to crack his abysmal writing.

>>9972297
>implying Stirner doesn't make the "I" constitutive
>implying Stirner's main thesis doesn't rely on hard solipsism
>implying an entire civilization acting as if the entire world was their personal property awaiting the assertion of power isn't indicative of an AnCap hellscape

Seems pretty consistent with Stirner to me. Do you have any specific refutations?

>>9972298
It's definitely easier but you're supplementing reading Kant with reading interpretations of Kant. Put in the work to actually form your own opinion and you'll be in dialogue with the SEP instead of reading it as bonafide dogma.

>>9972329
Smarter people than me have interpreted and studied Kant, why wouldn't I read them instead of trying to hack my way through him? I am certainly not nearly as smart as Ivy League / top uni professors.

File: 1503760932538.jpg (17KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x400px

>>9972321
>the most propertarian ideology in existence
>Stirner

>>9972390
If Stirnerism is taken to a societal level then property will most definitely exist, it will just be defined in Nietzchean terms (whoever can exert the most power will have the most property).

>>9971070
>morals represented by literal spooks
>refutes stirner
wdhmbt

>>9972297
Yawn read him and you would know.

>>9971070
...no? Scrooge was spooked as fuck, he was rich and himself ate gruel.
>literally gets visited by ghosts

>>9971104
>>9971081

>implying stirner believed in the rational actor meme

Stirner didn't give a shit whether people were rational or not. He wasn't fucking Rand.

>>9972236
Sounds like a classic case of grumps to me

>>9974823
Good point. He was spooked by money. Than the new spooks show up and spook him with charity.