I don't get the ego and its own. I've read it two times and I still don't get it. Am I retarded?

>There's nothing wrong with philosophy, but it is losing significance.

considering the times were living in and the things that seem to be just around the corner its bound to start picking up significance like never before

In what way? Explain please.

well, say, for example, stem cell/embrio research

scientific facts alone cant realy tell what to think about it, one way or another youll have to use some sort of logic to make up your mind on weather you want your legal system to allow only stem cell research or if experimenting with whole living embrios is fine, if doing gmo shenenigans in this context is ok or if it should be forbidden and if so why and so on

this is similar to the abortion issue, notice that in many cases these things come down to either religious discourse or basicaly liberals and conservatives fighting over mere semantics, its difficult to get a objective oppinion across in a meaningfull way, and one way or another its ultimately a ethical question, unless were imagining a system in which shit just gets done for results, which ultimately ends up to usualy be the case, but even then you get to ask yourself(or whoever is in power does) which results and why

as things progress theres more and more such issues, both in the context of science and scientific research and discovery, technological development and so on, basicaly the problem of the relation betveen the possible and the permited, but even more so stuff like social dinamics and mass migrations and the recuring normalization of war and the as of yet not understood impact of new media etc. and off couse as allways things like value of life, attitude to suffering, notions of freedom etc...

a culture that rejects 'thinking things trough' in favor of just accepting facts and effects and then reconbining them in some desired way is both running a high risk of going full autist, but also probably operating under complete illusion as to what the facts even signify and what effects are even desirable, it looses the ability to self-reflect as a system

this is clearly obvious precisely in the current anti-philosophical stances in newatheist circles, like say harrises notions on suffering... why? why conclude that and not the other?

Well you are absolutely right that morals, value and ethics stay relevant. I did not mean to say that those domains are more interesting from a scientific perspective.

They are not and not everything can be reducted to science. Though I do wish that in some instances philosophers would incorporate more of other fields.

I usually see philosophy in popular science books and textbooks, but the other way around is much less common.

most contemporary philosophers of worth are usualy well informed on general scientific and historical knowledge, often they concentrate on some issue specificaly as it is exposed by current science, or as it manifests due to general social/technological development, cite references and statistics and sources and so on, this is considered standard practice if you want people to think youre not just pulling things out of your ass, weather someone agrees with their conclusions or not, or accuses them of getting this or that wrong, is a different story

usualy the sources are mentioned or listed somewhere, but its rarely elaborately discussed if its not the actual subject of the particular work

now of couse say, nietzsche or striner dosent realy call upon neuroscience, hegel is pretty much based on hermetic tradition and such, the more you go back in time the less science there even is to cite

If you have any papers or philosophers to check out, I would be really thankful.

that's because he disproves their entire purpose in process of academia

>hello welcome to philosophy 101
>today we will be discussing Stirner and why philosophy as a whole is a worthless abstraction
>[entire class drops course]

>Much of philosophy was written when we knew hardly anything about the world

Empiricist scientism normie get the fuck out

A young, fresh and cherry STEM student walks into the halls of a sterile English department with his head held high. Stern and with a proud heave, he bellows through the cavern at the beanie-sporters scattered through the hall:

" WHAT WOULD YOU RATHER STUDY, HEATHENS? "

Seven fragrant dreadlocked beards spew coffee from their continental gullets. Free-range hens shuffle out a window somewhere.

" WORDS ON A PAGE OR THE FUCKING COSMOS? "

An emergency evacuation is called. Afghan clogs stuff the exit. Native tears are shed. A triad of cauldrons full to brim with boiling kamquat loose their bellies with a fever on the frantic patrons all around. The shelves are raided. Looters stuffing oriental knapsacks leave no kitsch untouched.

From the roaring depths of chaos in the halls, through sheets of stirring fire: calm and rigid comes up looming in the haze a stoic English professor, tailored suit to keen perfection, forty thousand pages full of Marx and further reading in an unstained palm.

Expressionless, with firm phenomenologic hold on mind and body, he whispers to the STEM student, currently engaged in evil laughter:

" What would you rather study, child? "

The student is hushed. Voiceless. The man has snared his subjectivity entirely.

" Nature - or the nature of nature? "

Of an instant all the place is silent. In the corner, captive underneath the groins of several existential theists, one brave soul begins to clap. Soon the place is flooded with cheer.

The next day, all sciences were cancelled nationwide. The shells of disenfranchised rockets sheltered lonely bohemians everywhere. All was well.

>don't bother the guy that says bread is shit, the bakers guild disagrees

oh my please no......

holy heck that is good

It's a book full of memes and in-its-year puns and colloquialism

i don't know why stirner wrote it that way knowing full well what hegel said about the change that occurs in subsequent generations

one of these days i'm gonna write a small book called "the guide to understanding the ego and its own" explaining the references in the book

it makes me sad that all of the threads about one of the most firmly grounded logicians in history are always cringeworthy.

Probably. It's one of the least dense philosophy books I've read. Stirner rarely gets too deep into metaphysics.

I would really like to see this scene in a college movie. It would be such a good throwaway joke.

Just replace spook with social construct.