I'll start
>Remember that life is made up of loyalty: loyalty to your friends; loyalty to things beautiful and good; loyalty to the country in which you live; loyalty to your King; and above all, for this holds all other loyalties together, loyalty to God.
-Queen Mary of Teck
Other urls found in this thread:
plato.stanford.edu
en.wikipedia.org
warosu.org
twitter.com
Quotes are a spook.
Triggers are a spook.
Stirnerists are all spooks.
>All belongs to all. All things are for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men have worked in the measure of their strength to produce them, and since it is not possible to evaluate every one's part in the production of the world's wealth. All things are for all.
-Peter "the anarchist formerly known as Prince" Kropotkin
kek i know anarchos that actually get mad if someone refers to him as "Prince"
He himself hated it.
Is Stirner's entire philosophy based on the rejection of the fact that humans are inherently social creatures? Thats the only way I can make sense of it.
No, Stirner doesn't deny social use, but rather he reframes it in terms of property and ego: to Stirner human being socially utilize each other in the same way you utilize a blender. Talking and kissing and caring are ontologically the same as pushing a plunger.
Ah, I see. So, autism then.
Stirner would respond, "If I own by autism and it pleases me, then I embrace it, for if I do not then autism would cease to be my property and become a spook."
Don't listen to Constantine. To him any interaction that doesn't involve you doing so in a Godly fashion is simply utilizing someone. Stirner acknowledged that social interaction was absolutely vital to one's self interest, you needed to interact as part of society, and part of your makeup as an individual included drives towards love, attraction, loyalty, etc. He felt that these things shouldn't become sacred "things" of substance that should be held ahead of you, but instead recognized what they are: ideas.
Do Anarchists have friends in the fist place?
He felt that all these things were purely an expression of ownership of the person you were interacting with, and done solely to gratify the ego.
Isn't that what the internet is for?
Constantine, is shitposting here the only thing you do here all day? Don't you have any friends to hang out with?
Because in that case, I think that first quote triggered you much harder any 'stirnerist' did (whatever a 'stirnerist' is).
Anyway, go outside sometimes, you sad sack
I do have friends, although none of them are anarchists. A couple are interested in socialism, and I'm going to try to get them into anarchist thought.
>He felt that all these things were purely an expression of ownership of the person you were interacting with, and done solely to gratify the ego.
That's not the same as utilizing them the way one does a tool, unless you truly think that the vast web of emotional entanglements ranging from petty to sublime that would constitute "gratifying the ego" is a simple as utilizing a tool, you bloody cretin.
I actually have a lot of friends but I dislike going out except when it comes to horses and church for some reason. Every time I do, unless it's something special, I always am dwelling on when I will go back home
>tfw I'm autistic and my feet hurt
>All belongs to all
Wait, wouldn't that be what Stirner would say as well? Or more aptly be the logical conclusion of what Stirner said about how you own everything and have but to claim it, when you consider that it applies to everyone.
A more complex tool. Just like a computer is more complex than a screwdriver, but less complex than a human being.
People I talk to on imageboards is not what I consider friends. The guy I have known for 12 years since childhood and been in fights for to protect him is what I consider my friend.
Stirner says, "All belongs to me."
I'm kidding
You never know sure on Veeky Forums lad.
srs bzns
Only if you stretch the definition of tool to its breaking point. As I said, any interaction that doesn't involve the Godly is utilizing someone in your view.
In Stirner's view a person could either be a means to an end, or an end in and of itself. There's literally no reason the former would have to be the sole case, as gratifying the ego could easily mean considering them the latter.
Yes, but in Stirner's view everyone ought to be an egoist. Which would mean all belongs to all, as to the egoist all belongs to them, and everyone being an egoist would mean all belongs to all.
To Stirner, everything is a means to an end, which is gratification, and everything is his property to be used to this end, including other people.
>ought
No, in Stiner's view everyone IS an egoist, some just don't want to be...but they still are.
>Which would mean all belongs to all,
Egoists are under no compulsion to recognize the property of other egoists, in fact Stirner's model is based precisely on not recognizing anyone's property but your own.
>it's episode 7446826 of "he's wrong cos he didn't share my religious beliefs: the subtle shilling 4 orthodoxy series"
They're no more a means to an end in Stirner's view than under any ideology including your own. The person can easily be the end in and of itself, through which gratification of the ego comes.
>No, in Stiner's view everyone IS an egoist, some just don't want to be...but they still are.
No, actually. This is something you're objectively wrong about. Stirner is not a psychological egoist, though commonly characterized as such. He clearly states he believed someone can act against their ego. Though ought was still a poor choice of word on my part.
>Egoists are under no compulsion to recognize the property of other egoists, in fact Stirner's model is based precisely on not recognizing anyone's property but your own.
Of course they're not required to. All would still belong to all. Communist property relations are not even remotely out of the question here.
>What is meant by ‘egoism’, however, is not always clear. Stirner is occasionally portrayed as a psychological egoist, that is, as a proponent of the descriptive claim that all (intentional) actions are motivated by a concern for the self-interest of the agent. However, this characterisation of Stirner's position can be questioned. Not least, The Ego and Its Own is structured around the opposition between egoistic and non-egoistic forms of experience. Indeed, he appears to hold that non-egoistic action has predominated historically (in the epochs of realism and idealism). Moreover, at one point, Stirner explicitly considers adopting the explanatory stance of psychological egoism only to reject it. In a discussion of a young woman who sacrifices her love for another in order to respect the wishes of her family, Stirner remarks that an observer might be tempted to maintain that selfishness has still prevailed in this case since the woman clearly preferred the wishes of her family to the attractions of her suitor. However, Stirner rejects this hypothetical explanation, insisting that, provided “the pliable girl were conscious of having left her self-will unsatisfied and humbly subjected herself to a higher power” (197), we should see her actions as governed by piety rather than egoism.
plato.stanford.edu
What does this entail with the involuntary/voluntary egoist distinction? Well ultimately that if you're doing what you feel you want to be doing, that you're probably doing it for egoistic reasons, and acting unegoistically means doing something other than what you feel you wish to be doing.
I don't think Stirner would argue with "All belongs to all"; I think he'd argue with Kropotkin's justification. Kropotkin invoked morality by suggesting that it was right to share because of need and because the people who produced worked hard.
Maybe. Stirner's beliefs on morality are odd. He wasn't opposed to moral thought, he just felt that morals should ultimately serve the holder.
Things that trigger Constnatine
*Max Stirner
*Karl Marx
*Fredrick Nietzsche
*Saint Augustine
*David Hume
*Origin
*Origin's penis
*Zoroastrianism
*All metaphysics not made by Christians
*Gnostism
What else I am missing?
The ego is always an end in Stirner's philosophy. For everyone, whether they know it or not
> He clearly states he believed someone can act against their ego.
He states someone can try, but really all they're doing is being egoists using false information, similar to a doctor using humour theory.
Please actually quote directly from Stirner, who explicitly groups people into two types "voluntary egoists" and "involuntary egoists"
Even Origen was trigged by Origen's penis
Ludwig Feuerbach and Bruno Bauer.
>The ego is always an end in Stirner's philosophy. For everyone, whether they know it or not
Again, they're no more a means to an end in his ideology than in any other, including your own.
>He states someone can try, but really all they're doing is being egoists using false information, similar to a doctor using humour theory.
Nope. He states that people that pursuing causes they believe are higher than themselves are ultimately only pursuing their own cause in a roundabout way, he never says you can't act against your own ego.
>Please actually quote directly from Stirner.
Go read the damn book yourself, they gave the fucking page number. Though I know for a fact you'll butcher it anyway, as it doesn't support your ideology, so I wont waste the fucking effort.
Hey it was lost in the las thread but how old are you, what is your education background and how long did it take you to work your way through the German idealists ?
How did you come to the conclusion ?
>he never says you can't act against your own ego.
He says you can try to, but the pursuit of a cause against one's own ego is ultimately driven by the gratification gained by believing oneself to not be an egoist.
>they gave you the page number
And I quote, "The pliable girl brings herself as a sacrifice to the peace of the family. One might say that here too selfishness prevailed"
I'd rather not talk about me, I don't want to become a topic of conversation, that sort of thing is precisely what gives tripping a bad name.
Aquinas
>Constantine
Who? OH it's a tripfag. Just filter them, for nothing's sake.
Not really people like Wolfshiem, frater k and no true scotus have talked on that matter without detracting from Thier reputation or the quality and reception of their posts. It's only when a tripfahs personality dominates their post content - which in your case it is Cleary not - or their arguments are poor that it suffers
Your story with respect to these very neutral and impersonal questions would greatly help my own journey whist not harming you or the reputation of trips
>And I quote, "The pliable girl brings herself as a sacrifice to the peace of the family. One might say that here too selfishness prevailed"
Read further.
I'll get back to you tomorrow. The book is in my roommate's room, and I don't wish to wake him. I'll discuss this further then as I actually remember the example in question.
All this after I said I wouldn't expend the effort. You really do drive me nuts Constantine, and I can only consider myself the fool for it.
They're not comparable, since was a brief cult of personality in regard to be back in February, which is why I dropped by trip for a long time. I'll help you in any way else I can, but I'm set against providing personal details because of this.
To be perfectly fair to Constantine, he's been mocked for what few personal details he's offered. He probably wouldn't be if he'd drop the trip, but then we wouldn't be filterable.
>Subjected and sacrificed, because the superstition of piety exercised its dominion over her!
The "superstition" in this sentence is, of course, a stand in for "spook". For Stirner, egoism can be sacrificed in this way, but it is built solely on the ego's illusions, spooks. It is like saying, "I do not want to stay in that house even though I really want to stay in that house, because it is haunted." If the ghosts, the spooks, were real, then it would be true egoism, but the egoism is sacrificed because they aren't real, it is delusion, a ruse.
Is the concept of spooks itself a spook?
That ugly incident was based on the more personal issue of gender. A similar issue happens on lit with feminister and butterfly surely you can see the distinction here?
I mean you there was no harm when you talked of your friends. Could we not discuss autodidacty with no harm ?
It is not
But egoism was none the less sacrificed. As I said, the distinction lies in whether or not you'd rather be doing something else. She'd have rathered take her lover, and was sacrificing her egoism in giving him up.
You're making a mistake in conflating all actions of the self with egoism, the very notion of unconscious actions and habits dispenses with that rather handily.
Doesn't the very existence of unconscious actions and instincts negate the idea of egoism though?
Not really. You can still act in your self interest, it just means not everything you do relates to it in a conscious sense.
What Stirner was getting at with egoism I think has more to do with what Sartre was getting at rather than what Rand was getting at; how he would rather we be aware of why we do what we do, and that we do those things because we want to do them.
They don't. They have comrades.
Sex. Don't forget sex, which is icky and filled with cooties.
>Remember that life is made up of loyalty: loyalty to your friends; loyalty to things beautiful and good; loyalty to the country in which you live; loyalty to your King; and above all, for this holds all other loyalties together, loyalty to God.
Damn that quote physically hurts to read
Catholicism
Slavs and Greeks being the only fruit of his Church.
>Stirnerfags haven't read Wittgenstein
the french revolution
I dislike Napoleon more to desu. The damages of the Revolution could have been mostly repaired if it weren't for him.
>dude language lmao
He's fucking irrelevant, noone cares how we use language.
...
>he says when in a stirner thread
Wanna know how I know you're a retard?
Sex is objectively disgusting.
What exactly are spooks?
Not between two spouses, then it is intimate and romantic...and...mmm. :)
well reasoned arguments that use solid evidence
you're a pseudo chrisitan, i bet you think realist art is great too
stop browsing the internet and form a relationship with christ that isnt posturing, thanks
...
No, I don't think realist art is great. Not at all
You can see my views on art here: warosu.org
...
...
Ideas or concepts that we hold above our own interests (ie you act for their sake not your own). The term spook is quite illustrative in demonstrating how they function - they have no presence outside of those who they "possess"
Whilst that's tied to it, you could still hold things like justice to be real and objective without turning it into a spook. You could arguably be a Platonist and and egoist at the same time. It's more a relationship issue
....only for the purpose of procreation so no sinful contraceptives
autism is a spook
some do. Anarcho-syndicalists usually roam in packs
Spooks are spooks
Conflating Orthodox and Catholic there
Nah they are generally opposed to it as well
Help.
All this talk about Stirner is making me develop a Stirner fetish.
Constantine defends it the faq