Just aced my master's thesis on the spookbuster. AMA

>Grades, school, employement: none of these are spooks.

So you believe that your life and your property should be based on what is quite literally other people's opinions? Or have you suddenly discovered employers and teachers who base their judgments of merit on something that cannot be subjective?

What's your opinion on Marx's Die Deutsche Ideologie?

Why are you so fat?

Let's see it.

>implying that ego and anything related to "self" isn't a spook
>mfw

The ego is a linguistic reification. Stirner sneaks in his Cartesian subject here. The distinction between ego and non-ego has always already been deconstructed.

It's a metalepsis Stirner is not strong enough to overcome, like Zen and Heidegger have.

There's a reason on Veeky Forums retards read Stirner.

They are only spooks if they stop you from doing what you want.

you're a metalepsis

that grade was a spook, you wrote a thesis on a meme man

good job, random people on the internet will be variably proud or disappointed in you.

Spookbusta my ass. It's a facebook trier teenage riot philosophy that literally no one with any philosophical background takes seriously

But it's not. He never attempts to define the ego. He just asserts that it is something that does indeed exist, and it obviously does. There's a very distinct line between self and not self, and it ends at the terminus of your body; you're quite literally trapped behind your senses, so while you can never fully understand or articulate yourself, you do indeed know it exists.

youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs

This fellow does.

Aaa yes americans, I forgot about them

Oh wow, where did those goalposts go? I could have swore they were right there.

He's not favoured in philosophy because he's an obscure philosopher with a small body of work that largely got eclipsed (in my opinion, unfairly) by Nietzsche, not because he's a bad philosopher.

Can you discuss what the relationship between a spook and a fixed idea is?

Is a spook only a social construct or is it any social construct that we hold a sacred or above ourselves?

Is it correct to say that Stirner makes no arguments only observations?

put the Finn in the bin

didnt Stirner just wrote his stuff in order to troll Marx?

No. He wrote it to demolish Marx's idealist predecessors (namely Bruno Bauer and Ludwig Feuerbach), which he did rather handily.

What's funny about Marx's hate for the man is that his brand of philosophy is largely untouched by Stirner, as Marx focused on a material dialectical conflict as the driving force behind his communism rather than some sort of idealistic moral ought, which makes it easy to justify egoistically.

He's obscure precisely because he so irrevelant. Nothing worth of notice. Just a angry teenage version of petty bourgeois philosophy: muh me, muh mine, muh property, muh more more more. Nietzsche is a completly different league. Do you realy think that radical "modern" (post 1900) philosophers didn't know about him?

One could also argue that stirner's use of the heigelian dialectic is to highlight that it makes anything sound good. Even communism.

oh you're a marxist.

no wonder you seem so butthurt

Commies love Stirner if /leftypol/ is to be believed.

Nietzsche covers a lot more ground and derives rather different conclusions. I'd agree that he's in a different league, but part of his success is the fact the he trashes so many systems in so many aspects of life, whereas Stirner trashes a bunch of systems in a much smaller area of life.

As for Stirner's relevance, that's a matter of what you view as relevance. He certainly wasn't widely discussed or influential, but that wasn't indicative of him being a bad philosopher. What he covers, he covers in an absolutely rock-solid fashion.

>petty bourgeois philosophy

He was highly influential to Marx's thinking and encouraged him to give up idealism. The two are not even remotely incompatible.

Frankly, you do sound positively asshurt.

Oh yes, his use of dialectic was definitely in parody of Hegel. Though one could argue that even Hegel's use of this dialectic (which preceded him) was used for a similar purpose.

Stirner doesn't really touch much on Hegel himself however, he focuses mostly on utterly destroying his ideological children.

Linguistic reifications abound. You're so spooked. Dig that implicit defense of Cartesianism.

You're stupid.

> le willy-nilly-do-what-I-want-Cartesian-man

Nice argument. Demonstrate a reason to believe the self doesn't exist.

>spooked

Oh my fucking God. Why do imbeciles keep doing this as though they're being insightful? You can't place yourself ahead of yourself.

Also how is that a defense of Cartesianism? I propose no distinction between mind and body.

Bumping for an answer on this

>implying you have any background in philosophy

Pic related, it's you

An institution is still a ghost of a thing regardless of how beneficial it is. But you should be considerate of whether or not they're serving your interest either way.

Milo is pretty based though

"Ach," he said, "I was very disappointed in Klinger. He was a philistine, I feel no affinity with him; but Stirner, yes, with him!" And a solemn expression passed over his face. While I was watching his features intently, his expression changed again, and he made something like a gesture of dismissal or defense: "Now I've told you, and I did not want to mention it at all. Forget it. They will be talking about plagiarism, but you will not do that, I know."
Nietzsche plagiarized Stirner. He even he admited to his friends that if he ever mention Stirner they would acusse him of plagiarism. Deal with it. Stirner was one of the most relevant philosophers in the XIX century.

No, it's not just any social construct. It's the latter. He basically says to use ideas as tools to your own benefit.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last statement. I'd say he makes arguments against the substance of common constructs.

>"Ach," he said, "I was very disappointed in Klinger. He was a philistine, I feel no affinity with him; but Stirner, yes, with him!" And a solemn expression passed over his face. While I was watching his features intently, his expression changed again, and he made something like a gesture of dismissal or defense: "Now I've told you, and I did not want to mention it at all. Forget it. They will be talking about plagiarism, but you will not do that, I know."

What's that from?

Stirner aint got no love for property like that. Commies get nothing, which is fine. They're used to it.

Oh right. A philosopher's relevancy rests solely on their measurable talent for philosophy. I must have forgotten.

Thomas H. Brobjer, "Philologica: A Possible Solution to the Stirner-Nietzsche Question", in The Journal of Nietzsche Studies, Issue 25, Spring 2003, pp. 109–114
The quote was from Franz Overbeck's wife ,and we know that Nietzsche lived with them,and that they owned the unique and its own

>literallal parrot that tries to appear smart
>Linguistic reifications abound. You're so spooked. Dig that implicit defense of Cartesianism.

lmao

when did you realize he was a troll and gave nothing but philosophical dead ends?

Thanks, where do you see the line being between a fixed idea and a spook?

Would you say the idea of reification accuratley covers what a spook is?

What sources or secondary materials did you use regarding him other than the Ego and its Own?

>Humanities master's degrees

I don't have a question, just wanted to congratulate you.

Define 'exist'

>Thanks, where do you see the line being between a fixed idea and a spook?

When you try to serve the ideal, rather than have the ideal serve you. So for instance, you could use stoic ideals to better yourself (whatever "better" means to you) and deal with your life, but trying to be a stoic for the sake of being a stoic would be where it becomes a spook.

>Would you say the idea of reification accuratley covers what a spook is?

>What sources or secondary materials did you use regarding him other than the Ego and its Own?

The Stanford online encyclopedia article about him is very good, and I've read excerpts of Stirner's Critics.

I don't play the philosophical why game.

What's a spook.

>Ranking philosophers based upon the width of their scope rather than the actual conclusions they come to

>blacked dot com
I sincerely enjoyed this meme

>Nietzsche plagiarized Stirner. He even he admited to his friends that if he ever mention Stirner they would acusse him of plagiarism.
Saying that he took enough influence to be accused of plagiarism isn't the same as admitting to plagiarism.

What is the best criticism against Stirner?

What evidence does he bring for his claims?