Stirner: "Philosophy doesn't mind you convincing people to believe in spooks, Friedrich...

I mean I disagree with the guy you're replying to but Stirner is most definitely not talked about frequently, especially not in academia. For most people he's just some guy that happened to be around at the same time as Marx and Marx supposedly BTFO. If anything though, I could see a bit of a revival of Stirner in the next decade because the memes have introduced him to a good chunk of people.

>"""""people""""" who """"""""actually"""""" """""study"""""" """""""philosophy"""""""
Literally brain-dead delusionists caught up in their world of fiction (philosophy). Take what you can get from the decrepit intellectually regressive cesspool that is """""philosophy"""", don't let it own your mind. Certainly don't let propagandist institutions dictate the specifics of that ownership.

Come now you honestly believe that Max Stirner is just popular because of Veeky Forums? You're just plain wrong. The Ego and Its Own is a book commonly read by people studying philosophy, plain and simple.

No I don't think he's popular specifically because of Veeky Forums, I don't think he's popular at all. Obviously he wouldn't be talked about here if he weren't seriously discussed elsewhere by philosophers or historians of philosophy, but Stirner is definitely one of the lesser figures of 19th century German philosophy. He might beat out most of the other Left Hegelians, but outside of people studying Marx (whose only interest in Stirner is in Saint Max, which wasn't even translated into English in full until the 1930s) anarchists (who usually prefer Bakunin or Kropotkin instead anyway) and people trying to tie him to Nietzsche (which has more or less fallen out of favor recently), Stirner goes pretty much unnoticed. He didn't write much and there isn't all that much written about him.

why does he scare you so much faggot

>Neitzsche

What if the captain of the police force after reading ego and my own arrested Stirner and put him in solitary confinement for the rest of his life only entering the room every now and then to piss and shit on him as he was laying there in his straitjacket: would Stirner agree?

What? I think Stirner is pretty interesting and I'm glad I read him. I'm just saying that he really isn't considered to be that big of a deal outside of a very niche audience.

hmm?

I have not read Stirner so I dont know if he was a complete anarchist anything goes do whatever you want heck all the rules, or if he was more rightfully and rationally being semi socratic in his questioning of held beliefs that may not have any value or warrant or validity or truth. Is the spirit of Stirners writing/views more: Burn down a strangers house if you feel like it: or: I dont think you should believe that the reason you found a nickel in the street was because the fairies your ancestors told you to pray for placed it there for you to find?

hmmm? Any Stinerites?

I'm not really sure what you're asking, what is it that he would be agreeing or disagreeing with?

You're full of shit. The only book.you've ever read is cloudy with a chance of meatballs.

does his philosophy permit, celebrate, appreciate the possibilities of such activity? The way I see him memed it, I can only say, appears like they believe his philosophy contains and represents a 'literally doing whatever you want' as the highest truth, purpose, value.

Ok will spell Nietzsche correctly next time

I think he would agree with the notion that the activity is something that can be done but would take issue with the term "permit." Permission is something given by an outside force; Stirner would probably reject calling any action permissable on that note. But if the cop we're practicing what Stirner preaches, then yes, the cop would view Stirner as nothing more than his property which he can use in any way he sees fit.

Some people here do interpret Stirner as a "lol do whatever you want bro" kind of guy but that's doing him a disservice. He stresses self-mastery as true freedom. To just go around impulsively doing whatever you want is to be a slave to be a subject of your own desires, and Stirner wants to argue against the individual being subjected to any force, be it the state, the church, other people, or it's own desires.

> Is the spirit of Stirners writing/views more: Burn down a strangers house if you feel like it: or: I dont think you should believe that the reason you found a nickel in the street was because the fairies your ancestors told you to pray for placed it there for you to find?

Neither, but more the former than the latter. Stirner didn't label himself an anarchist. And he definitely wasn't trying to explain science to superstitious people.

The main idea is that he recognises no authority higher than his own(the unique).

I have a hard time believing its not a mistranslation/ misunderstanding of the "I believe a person literally should be able to do whatever they want", "you are literally my property and I can do whatever I want with you" (insinuating everyone can view me the same; ala my example): I am not sure he didnt mean like 'guys borders arent really real, they are just made up lines', or 'dude...I was naturally born of this world so I own the world, you cant just put up 1000 miles of fence around that oasis and call it yours because you feel like it, thats my property to', 'my opinions of you, the construct of you in my head is my property'... because there is no getting around the logical acceptability conclusion of my example if he said "fuck all laws, laws dont exist, they shouldnt exist, I dont believe in them or obey them'. Someone needs to quote the lines that support this, or dissupport the logical conclusion of my example.

I have heard of the union of egoists. It sounded like he was just upset having to abide by some rules that some random people made that were potentially arbitrary, and like usual some autists (the non savant kind) blew things out of proportion and misinterpreted: dude everythingggg iss a spookokkk brooooo, oh and maybe a certain hinty people took a liking

>But if the cop we're practicing what Stirner preaches, then yes, the cop would view Stirner as nothing more than his property which he can use in any way he sees fit.
so what would Stirner have thought of this, if you are correct in your understanding of his disposition?

If in his tavern where he espoused his theories with those others, if they say "oh, thats what you believe is and should be true?" and then they held him down and beat him, for whatever reasons or none, following their own desires, their own egos, for fun, for meaninglessness, to prove a philosophical point of the stupidity of his theory. And if that really didnt drive home the point to you or him, he gets up and says, ok, ok, pretty funny guys, but I still believe what I said, thats when we go towards the aforementioned logical conclusions.

You're a brainlet if you think Nietzsche and Stirner aren't known outside of Veeky Forums. Especially with Stirner's new translation that just came out.

you are fucking retarded

gret argument spookmeister, care to state one reason why that I can destroy? Unless as I have stated, he did not state the things it seems others believe he did. Please do, I want to show you that you were speaking for and of yourself

the reddit infestation is real

explain explain explain explain explain explain

I wrote all possible interpretations: where did you see a reason to call me retarded?

Failure to respond with decent explanation means that the poster of this post
EVERYONE THE POSTER OF THIS POST IS RETARDED!!!! THE REAL RETARD!!! THEY ARE A TROLL!!!!! THEY HAD NOTHING TO THINK OR SAY!!!! THEY JUST WANTED TO BE A GOOF!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAJJHAHJAHJA

AHHJAHAHAHAAHAH YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION HAJHAHJAHABABAHABHAHBAHBAHBA YOU ARE WRONGGGGGG JAHAFKAKJFSDJKFHSK OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOM

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS WRONG AND HAS NOTHING TO SAY OR THINK BABHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA !!!!!!!

GUYS... THE POSTER OF THIS POST IS RETARDED AND HAS NO EXPLANATION OR PROOF OF ANYTHING TO SAY... HOLY....I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT.... HBABHAHBAHAHAHAHAHA

WAIT....WAIT.....OH MY...WAIT....HOLD ON ONE SECOND....WAIT, HOLD YOUR HORSES... OK....LET ME COLLECT MYSELF....OK...LET ME JUST CLEAR MY MENTAL AURA SPACE OF SPOOKS.... OK....HARUMMM... OK....HAROOM.... OK HMMMMMMMMMM, OK LET ME JUST CLEAR MY SPACE A LITTLE, LET ME JUST GET MY CHAKRAS ALLIGNED FOR A SECOND...YOU MEAN TO TELL ME.... YOU THE MAKER OF THAT POST.... CALLED ME RETARDED.... AND DID SO WITHOUT EXPLANATION? WAIT..... WAIT A SECOND.... IS THAT REALLY WHAT HAPPENED? CAN I....HAVE I EVER..... IN MY WORD....OH MY WORD?.... CAN IT.....CAN IT BE??? CAN THE DICKENS? WHAT THE..... WHAT THEE? .... CAN..... CAN THAT DID THAT HAPPEN..... IS THAT THE CASE...IS THAT THE SCENARIO OF CASES THAT DID OCCUR.... AND THE REASON....? NO REASON....??? NO EXPLANATION??? NO EXCUSE???? NO SENSE??? NO MIND OR METHOD OR MODE??? NO OFFERING OF RELEVANT DATA? A SIMPLE GESTURE TOSSED INTO THE DIGITAL WIND??? COULD SUCH A THING REALLY JUST...OCCUR..... FOR WHAT PURPOSE... .FOR WHAT WAY... OR WAYS??? CAN... IT REALLY BE??? COULD SUCH A ....PERSON?? ...DO SUCH A THING?? CAN SUCH A WHO....? CAN SUCH A REAL TRUTHFUL ENTITY CONSIDER ATTEMPTING TO DO SUCH A DEED.... FOR... THE REASONS... AND SENSE.... AND PURPOSE... OF.....FOR... THE....TO....DO....WHAT.... AND .....THEN.....WITH.....NO.....WHAT.....PURPOSE.....VALUE....MEANING..... AND..... I ..... AM.... RETARDED,,,,,,

Well like anyone, he probably wouldn't have liked it if people started beating the shit out of him and he probably would have done whatever he could to get them to stop, but I don't really see how that's relevant. If you really want a specific quote that's somewhat related to what I think you're trying to get at, he says
>I write because I want to give my thoughts and existence in the world; and even if I foresaw that these thoughts would take away your rest and peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the destruction of many generations sprouting from this seed of thought: -still I would scatter it.
So while he doesn't address the consequences his egoism might have on him from others, he does explicitly say that he's not concerned with any violence that will come from people reading his thoughts, which would include violence toward himself.
Did you forget to take your meds today?

>So while he doesn't address the consequences his egoism might have on him from others, he does explicitly say that he's not concerned with any violence that will come from people reading his thoughts, which would include violence toward himself.
oh, and thats why people easily say hes an idiot and wrong, as simply stated in my original post as being put into a solitary confinement for the rest of his life.

How do you not comprehend that?

"I believe it must be allowed that anyone can do whatever they want!"

*all the town folks look at this person*

*place him in a see through cube in the middle of the town square with a toilet seat on top that everyone in the village visits each day to piss and shit in*

"blurgh....blu bbb gluggbbggu No!!! ,,I take i-itt blbgggllgg I take it back!!! I... blggbbggkbg I was just kidding!!! bluggg gluggg gluggggg bglgglglglbglbggkkgbgbglglbgk people cant just do whatever they want ok,.... ok I admit it!!! blbgbgbgbgbglbggl"

His philosophy opening him up to potential violence doesn't invalidate it in any way. If it was that easy Marx wouldn't have spent 300 pages going through Stirner's book line-by-line to criticize it. There are definitely valid arguments against Stirner but "other people might be extremely mean to him" isn't really one of them.

>If it was that easy Marx wouldn't have spent 300 pages going through Stirner's book line-by-line to criticize it
or maybe Marx was just autistic

>isn't really one of them.
I think its likely on top of the list of almost the only one of them.

"There are definitely valid arguments against Stirner"

This is what I need to know: When you say "against Stirner", what do you mean?

What is the:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

Of Stirner?

People made it seem as if it was:

1)Anyone should be able to do anything they want

Me: Offered my rebuttal multiple times in this thread.

Condition 1) = Utterly defeated.

2) ????

If you want a quick summary of his thought the SEP will do a better job of explaining it than I can.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/

And no, the "rebuttal" you gave is not a counterargument against him at all. The possibility that people will take his egoism in radically cruel directions is not an invalidation of his egoism. There's no contradictions there, there's nothing illogical there, it's a consequence that he accepts.

I never heard of Stirner in my life before Veeky Forums and I have a degree in Philosophy

>The possibility that people will take his egoism in radically cruel directions is not an invalidation of his egoism. There's no contradictions there, there's nothing illogical there, it's a consequence that he accepts.
Does he explicitly say: laflsdjgkdshkgjhesdjkghkhgKAHGLKHAG

I have said this 100 times already... stop being dense.a;,glsdglsdjglkjdslkgjkdlsjgsd

does he or does he not say:

PEOPLE CAN AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO ABSOLUTELY WHATEVER THEY WANT WHEREEVER THEY WANT WHENEVER THEY WANT????????
Is that or is that not a component of his philosophy? If it is... my rebuttal makes that statement of his worth less than the shit he would be covered with....

So then.... GIVE ME ONE OTHER STATEMENT HE MADE. THAT ONE IS OVER. STOP BEING AN EMOTIONAL SPOOKED FAGGOT BY BRINGING UP VIOLENCE, ITS A PROV-ED POINT AND IS ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT

And I geuss I was warned for this, classic Veeky Forums pasta esque high literary value post so this will be my last post here. Thanks for being a dense block

Read the article.

I have never been on Reddit.