Stirner Thread

>right and wrong are spooks
>it's wrong to be spooked
into the trash it goes

I really wish we could just have threads about philosophical memes without idiots trying to think the memes are a substitute for reading.

>no rare stirnerinos

one job Veeky Forums, one job

what did google mean by this...

where does he say its wrong to be spooked? do you actually think that?

Please take your plebian antiphilosophy elsewhere

Take ur plebin philosophy somewhere elsewhere lol

The dude runs an egoist "news" service

anarchistnews.org/content/open-letter-concerning-witch-hunt

As long as you believe in the truth, you do not believe in yourself, and you are a –servant, a–religious man

>I have nothing but contempt for all racism and all racists, no matter who they are.... I have nothing but contempt for all nationalism and all nationalists (and these days, that isn’t political correct). I have nothing but contempt for all fascism and all fascists (including the red fascists who hide behind their hammer and sickle).... and I also have nothing but contempt for ALL political systems and those who uphold them: democracy and democrats, republics and republicans, socialism and socialists, communism and communists. And I will add in here, though it is technically not a “political” system: capitalism and capitalists.
woah..

u mad

>True and false are spooks
>being spooked means you aren't being tru-

lol brainlet he doesn't say that

Being spooked means you are putting a foreign cause/idea above yourself, you are sacrificing yourself to it, basically lowering your individuality in the name of it, same with truth and rationality lol.. I wish u were not speaking in greentext so I could understand what ur really trying to say with that last part

...

There is no individual without a foreign cause

Damn....

So what

But he changed spooks

Foreign causes cannot be placed "above" the individual because the individual is already a culmination of outside influences. One can seek to live without foreign influence or ideas, and in doing so one ceases to be an individual. When I say "individual" I am not only speaking of the concept of the individual but also any notion of "I", "me", "ego", etc.

...

>being spooked means you aren't totally selfish at all times and using people as means to your ends
>being spooked means you have principles and values bigger than yourself
oh so being spooked is good.

>lets become egoists and reject spooks
>also we're diehard leftist ideologues
What did they mean by this?

Individual is a bad word to use here I guess cus it can be classified as a spook or label as well lol. By individual I just meant a collection of experiences and perceptions, you as a human, not to perpetuate the idea of there being a concrete self or the self being an object of substance. Being spooked to me means limiting or restraining your actions based on thoughts like having to be a good citizen or a moral person. Are you the same person who posted the greentext post
The idea of good itself is just an idea. It exists only as an idea in your thoughts. Its a part of your imagination. Outside of language "good" doesn't exist, you can't point me to it irl, its not an object, you have no method of verifying if something is good without words

>Being spooked means you are putting a foreign cause/idea above yourself, you are sacrificing yourself to it, basically lowering your individuality in the name of it, same with truth and rationality lol
It's not so much that we are putting things above ourselves but recognizing the facts of our existence and situating ourselves properly in relation to them.
For example, it would be idiotic to deny the facts of chemistry: that arsenic is toxic, that water is nourishing, that gasoline is flammable, that STDs transmit by blood, that humans have finite lives because we feel them to be "fixed ideas" that subordinate our individuality in some situations.
Likewise it would be foolish to have this attitude towards any sort of truth, whether its psychological, mathematic or religious.

>foreign ideas/causes
Who defines what is foreign to us? What is a "fixed idea"? To me Stirner has a foreign aversion to God, a fixed-idea of atheism, a fixed-idea of selfishness and amorality and a fixed-idea of anti-statism, and discounting others for his own benefit.
While to me God and morality are inherent to my nature. I'm infinitely curious about them, even when I was an atheist I could not stop thinking about morality, how to live the "good" life, and questioning God...

We did not create ourselves, some greater power created us, so we should investigate this power accordingly and relate to it with reverence, even a fedora atheist should feel some sacredness some value towards SOMETHING, be it nature, or family, or race or art...something greater than himself, otherwise he has no individuality, just a nebulous movement from one impulse to another. imo.

>I am a centrist, I think both sides are wrong and stupid, it is not about whether we should kill all the dogs or all the cats, it is about whether we should kill half of each or not
>I also happen to watch Rick and Morty

Have you even read his book? You should at least read the wiki page for moral nihilism

>The idea of good itself is just an idea. It exists only as an idea in your thoughts. Its a part of your imagination. Outside of language "good" doesn't exist, you can't point me to it irl, its not an object, you have no method of verifying if something is good without words

We watch two videos, one has a mother taking good care of her baby and showing love. Second has a man breaking into a house and beating up the baby brutally.
For the first video all it would take is a smile and a thumbs up and people would understand the goodness of the situation.
For the second video I could frown, clench my fist, and shake my head in contempt and anger , and any normal person would understand exactly what I mean and grasp the immorality and evil of the situation without us saying any words.

If things in the world weren't actually "good" or "bad" the words wouldn't be able to refer to anything.

>if you can't point to it, it ain't real, its just imaginary or something
This is really bad, materialistic, faulty reductionism. This argument defeats itself since #1 it relies on language to get its point across, #2 the word "real" is harder to point to than "good" in fact the word real is even hard to define using other words...

>j-just read him again
I did read his book and the wiki and articles about him. This was a few years ago. I remember the gist of his stuff, not specific verses.

You can still feel empathy and just regular emotions while not believing in something being objectively good, and something that everyone must follow

>This is really bad, materialistic, faulty reductionism. This argument defeats itself since #1 it relies on language to get its point across, #2 the word "real" is harder to point to than "good" in fact the word real is even hard to define using other words...

I don't understand how using language to get my point across defeats it lol, can you explain? By real I mean something you can perceive or experience. We have no cognitive access to facts which would lead us to believe that something is objectively good or that we must follow a certain system of norms. Like to me its just words vs words

Its the ugly truth that a spookless life doesnt lead to a hippy lovey dovey outcome

>I don't understand how using language to get my point across defeats it lol, can you explain?
Your argument disqualified language as a means of arriving at truth/reality/objectivity. You said the idea of "good" doesn't exist "outside of language" itself, as if language is not a vehicle for truth, and so it's not real. Your criteria for "objectively real" was whether or not your fingers can point to it.

Thus your argument defeats itself. I could say your argument isn't true, it's just words, unless you can express its conclusion with just your fingers, by pointing...??? which you can't, its too complex. So your argument is void unless you can mime it to me.

>By real I mean something you can perceive or experience.
I experience and perceive language, most humans do so quite easily, verbally or audibly. Language is a vehicle for truth, and deception, we have to use reason and intuition to figure things out.
I reject your weird empiricism.

>We have no cognitive access to facts which would lead us to believe that something is objectively good or that we must follow a certain system of norms. Like to me its just words vs words
Morality is in our conscience and nature, sometimes it gets distorted or handicapped, that's where sacred scripture comes in. Stealing, adultery, murder, lying, all objectively wrong.
Even a thief doesn't want their property stolen and a liar doesn't want to be lied to and tricked. Hypocrisy exists but even hypocrites have a conscience and understand when they've been wronged. Lots of things are objectively wrong. We don't need words to appreciate those events when they happen. We need words to communicate and clarify immoral events though.

>Morality is in our conscience and nature
Do you think language is in our conscience and nature?
>sometimes it gets distorted or handicapped, that's where sacred scripture comes in. Stealing, adultery, murder, lying, all objectively wrong.
Why? Because people feel bad when it happens to them? What makes the sacred scripture objectively right?
>Even a thief doesn't want their property stolen and a liar doesn't want to be lied to and tricked. Hypocrisy exists but even hypocrites have a conscience and understand when they've been wronged
Obviously, I feel like that's their defense mechanism / instinct. People are multifaceted, you can't put them into one box like that, human nature is riddled with contradictions
>Lots of things are objectively wrong
why?

Are you saying that things are objectively wrong because people feel bad when they are hurt? That's just regular human reactions, how does that prove some actions are objectively wrong? Could you tell me what u mean by objectively wrong?

He means his philosophy teacher told him about objectivity so if he uses it to back up his argument that makes it irrefutable

Is language invented by humans or is it internal to us? If something is truly objective then why don't we feel it naturally, and why do we have to use language as a tool to figure out what's objectively right?

>language doesn't real
>"good" is just a word in your imagination
>if you can't point to it it doesn't real
>thus "good" is just words or something....

I'm still waiting for you to mime this argument to me, since we can't use language to express truths according to you.

>why are somethings objectively wrong
because they contradict the Good, because they are the product of ignorance and delusion.
see Plato. better yet see Christ.

>What makes the sacred scripture objectively right?
God.

We can use language to express truths, but I don't see how objective morality exists outside of your thoughts and why you should follow it?

It just seems very baseless to me, so objective morality exists because you say it does?

>If things in the world weren't actually "good" or "bad" the words wouldn't be able to refer to anything.
this tbquiteh
Words are links to reality as real as our senses

>why you should follow objective morality?
there's only one kind of morality, the objective, true kind.

once we understand what morality is we see that it is beautiful and desirable, we are obliged to follow it. Otherwise we are hypocrites. We should follow it because it's an expression of our true nature, our dignity and appropriate for us. Anything less than moral behavior is delusional, petty, and a sign of weakness.

An instance of using language to express a truth is saying that I am able to see a tree. Objective morality and the thought of any normative statement is gained through words alone and is not based on experiences in real life, there's no reason to believe in it, you can't sense that something is objectively good. How am I wrong lol

>i point to a tree so tree is real
"tree" is a general idea or general form, you can't point to it by pointing to a 'particular' tree. You can point to a particular person, Mike, but you can't point to "person" as such. This is called "the problem of universals".

> morality and the thought of any normative statement is gained through words alone and is not based on experiences
False, but even if that is the case it wouldn't matter. Most Math is not based on experience yet it arrives at very strict and logical truths just fine. If morality was purely a priori this would not invalidate it.

> there's no reason to believe in it, you can't sense that something is objectively good. How am I wrong lol

Morality is linked to truth. Immorality is linked to delusion.
By not distinguish the two you are susceptible to deception. By ignoring the differences you degrade and shame yourself.

Why should you care? Would you care if you were about to eat a shit sandwich instead of a ham sandwich? Or would you be indifferent?
Your question should be, 'what is my true nature and how do I express it appropriately'? The answer will help you begin your understanding of morality.

>False, but even if that is the case it wouldn't matter. Most Math is not based on experience yet it arrives at very strict and logical truths just fine. If morality was purely a priori this would not invalidate it.

Why is it false? Cus ppl feel bad when they are hurt, or cus god says so? Why wouldn't it matter? It's not math though. I just want to see why my statement is wrong

>Why is it false?

Because not everyone is a sage who can derive morality purely a priori, by intuition. Most people have to observe the real world, go through trial and error, listen to wiser folks, until they appreciate the differences between good and evil and understand how to practice what is good. Even though the knowledge is within them, it's hidden under a layer of ice, so to speak...

> Cus ppl feel bad when they are hurt, or cus god says so?

I gave you some reasons. Immorality is a form of self-delusion, weakness and pettiness, don't you care if you are deceived? You seem to care about what is true, so you think objective truth exists, no?

I didn't mention God or other folks because egotists don't care about others and don't believe in God. So I gave you the shit-eating example and the self-deception example, immorality degrades the subject, even if it ''seems'' they are acquiring a short-term advantage.

Let me ask you, what is the purpose of your life, why are you here, why do you even exist? How do you know what is objectively true and what is false? What is ultimately good for you?

source on the landstreicher stuff?

>phenomena eliciting other phenomena in the subject means an intangible concept purported to be intrinsic to the first phenomenon actually exists.
>physical impulses define a human's true nature
Or, even worse.
>humans have a true, fixed and ideal nature

>>phenomena eliciting other phenomena in the subject means an intangible concept purported to be intrinsic to the first phenomenon actually exists.
what do u mean? whose side are u talking taking

>videos making people sad means goodness exists

alright, why didnt you say that in the first place

I literally did, not my fault you're illiterate

yeah but why didnt you use simple speak at first?

hey whats the last book you read? just curious

My point is that you cannot define "you as a human" without either A: referring to a culmination of outside influences or B: perpetuating the idea of a concrete self. Option B falls apart because one has to posit, as you did, that a collection of experiences and perceptions can exist as a metaphysical entity, & if we're already playing the game of metaphysics, there is no justification for asserting one metaphysics over another on the grounds of it being "spooky"

Ok so wat should I do or believe in ? Telle me fr

HEGEL. Literally, read hegel

Why

1. He wore a night cap
2. He was the realist nigger around

Pic related and also

anarchistnews.org/content/open-letter-concerning-witch-hunt and

what is the hegel connection with Stirner?

>Also anyone read Max Stirner: His Life and His Work?
Yes. 1 month ago it's amazing.

>And does Stirner advocate for nofap? thanks
No. Do what pleases you. What satisfies your ego.

Stirner used to hang out with the Young Hegelians, including Marx and Engels.
Sections of The Ego and its Own also parody the hegelian dialectic.

>>being spooked means you aren't totally selfish at all times and using people as means to your ends
Read the fucking book you autist
> I am everything to myself and I do everything on my account."
> "because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me."
> "For me you are nothing but my food, even as I am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use."

Bonus Kropotkin
> But now here is another man, whom every one agrees to recognize as virtuous. He shares his last bit of bread with the hungry, and strips off his coat to clothe the naked. And the moralists, sticking to their religious jargon, hasten to say that this man carries the love of his neighbor to the point of self-abnegation, that he obeys a wholly different passion from that of the egoist. And yet with a little reflection we soon discover that however great the difference between the two actions in their result for humanity, the motive has still been the same. It is the quest of pleasure.
> If the man who gives away his last shirt found no pleasure in doing so, he would not do it. If he found pleasure in taking bread from a child, he would do that but this is distasteful to him. He finds pleasure in giving, and so he gives. If it were not inconvenient to cause confusion by employing in a new sense words that have a recognized meaning, it might be said that in both cases the men acted under the impulse of their egoism. Some have actually said this, to give prominence to the thought and precision to the idea by presenting it in a form that strikes the imagination, and at the same time to destroy the myth which asserts that these two acts have two different motives. They have the same motive, the quest of pleasure, or the avoidance of pain, which comes to the same thing.

>Sections of The Ego and its Own also parody the hegelian dialectic.

Is it really that superficial?

tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.histeuroideas.2007.11.001

You can find the full paper on scihub

thanks, did you find the article moving?

existentialcomics.com/comic/209