What does Veeky Forums think of Stirner?

>meanwhile he would wore clothes he didn't sew, eat what he didn't hunt/grow/cook and live in a house he didn't built.
None of this is in any way incompatible with his philosophy.

the distinguishing of capitalism and socialism is spook? great egoist anarchism RIGHT HERE

>not implying social democracy isn't capitalism

No I am not, but the 'right' and 'left' wing are very broad concepts which have different meanings for everyone. People who consider themself 'left' wing can also be capitalist, but also communist. The concept is just too broad to have a significant meaning.

meh it works for me

>tfw can't handle the subjectivity

I mostly agree with you but they do have utility for the average person and media talking about politics. I've yet to see someone come up with a system that improves on Left vs Right wing in any significant way, I doubt we'll move away from it before one comes along

as long as we're using the 2D political compass, including level of spookiness

Meme philosopher

Replace 'spook' with 'meme' and his philosophy makes just as much sense

It's really just causing the necessary division between people.

We don't have class struggles anymore, we have ideology struggles now. I'd even say that we don't have race struggle anymore either (it's just that a lot of minorities are left wing).

I can't carry out the class struggle with a Trump supporter

Class struggle doesn't exist anymore, atleast in the west

Apart from when y'know

Actual socialists struggle

if you haven't created your own union of egoists you're probably being controlled by one :^)

the version of anarcho-syndicalism that busts spooks

You don't see people from a certain classes banding up anymore, you see people from certain ideologies / political parties banding up

>feed and house muh babies
>pay for muh granny's oxygen tank

>Actual socialists struggle

>implying that fighting against police brutality or building barricades to protect against Erdogan's men doesn't happen

you're obviously a very good socialist

>Actual socialists struggle

true but you still sometimes do see liberals and socialists working together these days, I understand what you mean though.

converting people to anarchism so they will be willing to revolt is preferable

>implying that I think labour is socialist

nice one

Doesn't matter what you think. The fact is they self-identify as socialists, and yet they are the most hypocritical bunch of retards ever.

They are also conversely the typical kind of socialist you meet these days, the kind of person who is personally extremely well-off, but thinks he's a champion of the poor.

labour does not advocate for worker's control over the means of production so therefore is not socialist

Kill yourself.

>maintaining liberty and law and order is somehow socialist

Erdogan and his opponents once had a common ancestor, I guess "class struggle" began when one cousin gained an upper hand on the other and the loser kept making babies, the solution to that problem seems fairly obvious

>is losing argument
>can't think of one
>use overused 'kys'

I'm not losing anything, you're just deflecting.

There's no point in history where Labour has not been for worker's control of the means of production you opportunist cocksucker.

what about right now?
classcuck

>is losing argument
>c-classcuck!!!!!

Kill yourself.

it's funny because

ahem

classcuck

...

wat

This is a completely accurate depiction of Stirner and his philosophy.

10/10

An absolutely fantastic philosopher. I wish the memesters would knock it off.

spooks are spooks

He's all we ever fuckin talk about

People gotta read the damn book srsly.

The most basic way to describe him is that he's a guy who explained that men inherently act in self-interest(which is observably true), that if you have the means to own or control something you may own it(which is observably true), and that artificial concepts such as moral systems or state codes have no inherent reason to be regarded(which is observably true).

All he was doing was making simple observations on how reality works without making any "oughts", presenting a logically flawless statement that was really painful for some contemporaries who had devoted their life from proving an "ought" from "is". His book is basically taking a huge, inescapable shit on 99% of philosophers and political idealists. This, paired with his obscurity makes him the perfect meme.

>falling for the dichotomy meme

He's a meme machine.

I know that image was probably several meme responses to an original meme image but it's weird that it put him counter to Nietzsche in someway. If there's any philosopher who can compliment Stirner mostly painlessly it's Neetch.

A spook is literally the same thing as a meme.

He's the greatest philosopher of all time.

Wise observation.

Dawkins beaten to the punch by superior thinkers once again.

>We don't have class struggles
But we do, and always have and always will.

The struggle of those with and those without is the only constant of human society.

Is empathy a spook

It could be if you slavishly put it ahead of your own self-interest.

No since its your own emotion.

I am an egoist, so sort of highly. I found that his philosophy is much, in a way, how I felt in general about many things.

Guys.
What if logic is a spook

Yeah, so he did nothing. Where i did not understood Stirner? He's an academic and i hate academics. Talking shit and do nothing, is what got us to this position in the 1st place.

All these observations seem kind of obvious now to be honest, I haven't read his books or anything though so maybe there are some more complex ideas in there.
I guess people nowadays also aren't really taught ideas that go completely against Stirner's as much as they might've been back then, like objective morality or strong religious devotion. So maybe it was less obvious then.

When he his stuff was written nationalism, religion and freedom were hot topics.

Nietzche tries to form an "ought" from an "is", and is just as spooky as any religious zealot. Existentialism is inherently flawed in this way, humans don't need any form of abstract meaning to exist.

>He doesn't know about the milk shop

Which is it?

That no one went into because they were spooked

He never said you need meaning to exist. He suggested that meaning was a socially and intellectually useful concept to hold dear, and that the erosion of meaning could have unpleasant consequences for the human individual in the long run.

fuck off ethan

How can society be a spook? Did Stirner not realized that society is the first thing the human species created? Before they could control fire, before all those tools, before music. It was the first thing humans invented, because together their chances of survival increased more than being alone.
This is why i fucking hate academics who have no grasp about the real world.
People like Stirner spend too much time coming up with their theories, instead of creating something that actively can change people's life for the better.
And this is why true terrorists run the world today.

Because society seeks to exist when people no longer give it recognition. He never rejected the utility of social organization, and in fact outright says it's vital to pursuit of self-interest.

People really ought to actually read his book (it's only one damn book) before spouting off shit.

>ceases to exist

A spook is merely a fixed idea whose importance is held over your own interest.

Many of the things we interact with every day are not real. There is no "state", or "law", or "society", or "morality". Those are simply mental abstractions layered on top of the reality, which is of course atoms, energy, buildings, mountains, lakes, people, food, etc.

And these mental abstractions which fill the world, these ideas that people have created, which have no inherit existence but only persist because people believe in them, are not always good for you.

Stirner does not teach you should destroy all mental abstraction, but rather he teaches you not to hold mental abstraction over yourself. To not be blinded and constrained by things that do not exist, by IDEAS which haunt the real world.

>"state and law is just a spook, I'm above this"
>steals
>gets jailed
>"jail is just a spook"

The state and the law are just ideas, the people enforcing both are not.

This. You're intentionally missing the point because you want to be able to oversimplify Stirner into a mindless anarchist who wants to burn down the world. That is not the case.

Saying "Ideas are just mental abstractions layered unto the physical world, they lack inherit being" does NOT mean "Ideas are dumb, burn it down"

So basically Stirner is just Ayn Rand on steroids i.e. be an egoistical fuck since everything is a spook but don't be a criminal?
Please enlighten me then. Seriouisly, I'm not baiting. I want to read him but I'll wait 'til I digest some other stuff, since I've never read philosophy before.
What's Stirner's conclusion?

>So basically Stirner is just Ayn Rand on steroids i.e. be an egoistical fuck since everything is a spook but don't be a criminal?

No, not even close. He never makes egoism a moral ought, he simply suggests that placing yourself first is a viable means to help preserve your autonomy and intellectual consistency. Second, he outright rejected the notion of accumulating wealth as an especially viable course of egoism, considering a dehumanizing rat-race that would leave you little time to actually enjoy the fruits of your labour. Third, he doesn't consider property sacred, and doesn't consider the law anything special either (both are just ideas); in his system, one would choose to not be a criminal for egoistic reasons (preserving social standing, autonomy, or just not getting shot) or they'd choose to be a criminal for their own reasons, either is up to them.

>All these observations seem kind of obvious now
Top fucking kek. Most people still get madder than Marx when presented with Stirner's ideas.
It still clashes very strongly with the majority's beliefs.
I've met plenty of people who got legitimately scared when I tried explaining him to them.
I'm pretty sure there were a lot of people who agreed with Stirner back then too, otherwise the book would have just disappeared, after all it's not like there weren't any other philosophers before him who bluntly stated the superfluity of oughts (Machiavelli and Gorgias to name two).
It's just that "a lot" might still be a small minority given the size of our society.

it is

Stirner's idea, his core idea, is simply this.

Ideas are not real. They are not physical objects, they do not exist except in people's heads, and the only existence they have is what existence we choose to give them.

Because this is the case, we should keep this understanding in mind, so we never put ideas above our own interests and desires.

For example, if you don't want to fight in a war, because you think its stupid, and someone says 'You must fight, otherwise you're a coward', THAT is a spook. Cowardice isn't real, its just an idea. The reality is things like fighting or fleeing, surviving, what is actually at stake, and what you're actually willing to risk. Calling you a coward is a way for others to shut down your thought process and simplify the issue.

If you want to do something, and someone says "You can't, its illegal". That's a spook. The law might be stupid, and you may want to petition to get it changed. Or even just break it, if the risk of danger is insignificant enough.

The whole point of Stirner is how we allow ideas, fixed solid principles or concepts, or completely override our thinking and prevent us from viewing every angle of something, and making our own decisions based on what WE think, and what WE want.

He isn't saying "No rules! Rape, kill and pillage!"

He's saying "Free yourself from your conditioning"

Can Stirner be a spook?

Yes. A great many people completely misunderstand his ideas, and as such turn him into a spook.
See for an example: a moron like that would be blinded by the spook of everything being a spook and do stupid shit.