Redpill me on Stirner, Veeky Forums

Stirner never suggested a revolution (in fact, he was pretty critical of the notion). He's also not a leftist.

That sounds disgustingly selfish and short-sighted.

Stirner pretty much was a leftist in all honesty.

t. didn't read the book

But he was hardly a righteous Aryan Nationalist who put blood and honor before anything else eithet t b h.

It is selfish, but not in the way you're thinking. You can still be altruistic, you just acknowledge that you're altruistic because you want to be, for whatever reason, not because you're serving something "higher."

It's really only as short-sighted as you make it due to choice and the limitations of your faculties.

But aside from that, it's one of those things that even if you reject it, you're still stuck in the same position. The only person capable of making your decisions for you is you, and so you ultimately can only do what suits you; you can either own up to that fact and evaluate your decisions from that perspective (perhaps gaining a bit more intellectual consistency and sincerity in so doing) or you can reject it and claim your decisions are somehow out of your hands (they're in serve of a higher cause, they come from a greater power, etc.).

>Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.

He really was though.

As much as Stirnerposters like to pretend egoism transcends the left-right spectrum if you actually applied it to politics you'd just get full anarcho-syndicalism.

But that's all just common sense.

Not really. He rejected tradition, hierarchy and private property, but he also wasn't an egalitarian and saw no value in establishing some sort of communal property arrangement.

Honestly, I recommend against viewing his work as a political one, as it offers no actual programme for society, except perhaps a suggestion on how people could interact in a fashion that respects the egoism of the involved individuals.

You'd think so, but not really. How many people live their lives the way they do because they "have to" due to something they consider greater than them?

Stirner came before Rand or Sartre though. Even though egoism is primary, and spooks are secondary, his analysis of the property spook is excellent.

It's far-sighted. Doing things for the spook is short-sighted. Of course it's selfish. Your agency is what defines you as an individual.

Now it is. A big part of how Stirner explains egoism is his analysis of the spook. It's not simply just be selfish. It's an analysis of what it truly means to be selfish, not just what you would assume to be a selfish arse.

He did not reject private property, that is, if you have the private means to defend it. His work is still useful in ideological analysis, because if it's not compatible with Stirner, you know it's spooky.

I don't know that anyone who hasn't undergone significant brainwashing really does, given that human beings have an innate sense of self; most people are at peace with being manipulated by those around them even if some (most, even) would indignantly say they aren't just because they've never thought about it or it would bruise their ego to admit.

Do you think property is a natural right? If so, you're spooked.

>Stirner came before Rand or Sartre though. Even though egoism is primary, and spooks are secondary, his analysis of the property spook is excellent.

Of course. I'm just trying to put it into a context that people might get here. The egoism is primary, but it's not really what we associate with egoism these days. There's a reason he's associated with existentialism.

He did not reject private property, that is, if you have the private means to defend it. His work is still useful in ideological analysis, because if it's not compatible with Stirner, you know it's spooky.

He rejected it as some sort of external essence. The idea that "owning" something etches it into a cosmic ledger that will deny any others legitimacy in possessing this thing you "own."

There are no rights at all, just mutual agreements between parties to act like they exist.

But most people believe those are actual unalienable rights, not just a mutual agreement to not fucking cross that line because shit will go down.

And? They would come to the same conclusion if they ever spent some time thinking about it, and most of them have probably come dangerously close and then NOPE'd in the opposite direction because it was easier for them to live with than the uncertainty.

That's the point? People don't think about it? Because they don't want to and it's uncomfortable and they'd rather be spooked. But you claim it's common sense and everyone knows that? And you have to be "significantly brainwashed". Not to mention you were born into a world where subjective morality is considered normal.

An insurgency to create a union of egos then.

It follows that after the "insurgency" the egoists will be free of the (previous) state but not free of the belief it is in their self-interest to injure, enslave, rob or murder others. Also they will still lack a realistic view of the world and how to proceed. The next step would be to adopt the principles espoused by Ayn Rand.

>He's also not a leftist.
pic related, though "leftist" is a bit of a meme word and it muddied the water so maybe I should have left it

Then if most people don't come to this conclusion, it's not common sense, you goddamn putz. Stirner was writing philosophy in a time when people were attempting to put rational basis to these ideas as though they were self-evident universal facts, to which people still do (Chomsky is a big offender, pretty much every libertarian thinker is even worse, and John Rawls was a highly influential political philosopher who focused on creating a fair society based on a notion of social justice).

Moral anti-realism has no good arguments in favor of it while moral realism has some good arguments in its favor therefore moral realism is to be preferred to moral anti-realism

>but muh queerness
>but muh is-ought gap

Please keep up with the literature

>but not free of the belief it is in their self-interest to injure, enslave, rob or murder others.
How do these things have any inherent value to the ego? All you'll do is piss people off so they retaliate.

> Also they will still lack a realistic view of the world and how to proceed.
Egoism is one of the most realistic world views. It's not comprehensive, but what it does cover is realistic.

>The next step would be to adopt the principles espoused by Ayn Rand.
What the actual fuck, it's like you haven't actually read Stirner. Rand is spooky as fuck.

>pic related, though "leftist" is a bit of a meme word and it muddied the water so maybe I should have left it

You mean that group of people that his work was partially a polemic against the ideals of? Top fucking kek.

He also never makes rebellion against the social order a moral imperative. He suggests owning up to your own freedom and becoming cognizant of your egoism, which means you choose whether to go along with society are go against it, but you're not under any compulsion to pick the latter option.

>i have no argument the post

He's done this before. He's a troll. Ignore him.

My point is that if you keep thinking about these things ("muh rights", motivations, one's role in society, etc.) it's the inevitable conclusion but most people don't get that far simply because they don't feel the need to or that line of thought makes them uncomfortable.

Please, do tell me the arguments for moral anti-realism.

Yes, and Stirner dared to go there, and beyond, in the 1800s. It's a path most people refuse to go down. His work was largely ignored or mischaracterized by all philosophers because they found the idea so revolting they steered clear of it. The only reason Nietzsche is more widely appreciated is because he makes the idea more aesthetic and palatable. Of course it's the logical conclusion, that's what makes it irrefutable. Egoism isn't as simple as being selfish, and spooks aren't as simple as everything being a social construct, that's the essence of what it is, but the analysis is more in depth than that, and I'm guessing he thought about it a lot more and a lot further than you're willing to go.

stirnerfags can't provide arguments, who would have thought

>There are no arguments against Stirner

Hows about a complete misunderstanding of language?

>implying anyone can understand german

Certainly; I've never bothered reading him because of how much he's shitposted.

But if according to you, what he says is common sense, when someone memes Stirner, they're really just using a meme that means "use some fucking common sense"

Yeah, but in a really obnoxious and usually condescending way.

It's a meme you dip. Use some fucking common sense.

>if you actually applied it to politics you'd just get full anarcho-syndicalism
No. You don't need to see your world through class or race struggle, you don't need other people to accept your ideas, you don't need to organize society according to any particular ideology - all this stuff might even work against your egoism. If you want power, status, money, love, food, sex, whatever, why wouldn't you simply exploit the tools society has laid out before you rather than try to bring about an utopian state you might not even live to exploit?

You don't even have to be sincere in your beliefs to others (but you might be better off if you were sincere to yourself).

Stirner's egoism is apolitical. Sure, you are ultimately free to be a nazi, communist, a socdem, etc. But ask yourself to what extent being a pawn for an ideological movement actually gets you want you want.

...

>It's a meme you dip.
So is cuck porn. Doesn't mean I'm going to start watching it.

>you'd just get full anarcho-syndicalism.
Sounds cozy, to be quite honest.

I once dated a women's studies major, and vaguely pretended to be a lot of things just to fuck her.

>what is monopoly of violence

Indeed. Surely fascism is completely compatible with egoism assuming you (wanted to) have a good spot in the hierarchy or even if you just thought it would help improve the place you lived the best.

It sounds like some version of Kantian utilitarianism.

Theres not much of a point in being 100% egoist.

Usually the best thing for you is being kind and making allies, and once you have tons of money purely aiding yourself is a little boring. So long as you have lots of money to invest, why not grease the wheels of family members on christmas for 15 grand each?

Truth is being an egoist will only protect you from lowly ideology. It wont protect you from capital markets and other equally brutal arenas.

>Redpill me

the fucking mods on this board are /pol/ transplants

>triggered by memes

>and if they have any inclination towards being a good person
A vast majority of people don't, so if the masses were to adopt his philosophy, nothing good would come of it.

You're still expected to understand what it entails.

He's a spook

Not Stirner's problem. He is not a political theorist. If some fascist tyrant can find enough lackeys who get off on following orders and subsuming their own 'egoism', that's their issue.

>All you'll do is piss people off so they retaliate.
What if they can't retaliate?

>Egoism is one of the most realistic world views.
Stirner's egoism erases spooks, it does not provide answers.

>Rand is spooky as fuck.
Sounds like you haven't read Rand.

>you choose whether to go along with society or go against it
but which society do you go along with?

>What if they can't retaliate?

Then they can't retaliate, and you still might have a whole shitload of reasons not to be a dickhead (basic human empathy springs to mind).

>Sounds like you haven't read Rand.

Rand is based on the assumption of there being an objective moral good and on private property rights, two things that Stirner rejects.

>but which society do you go along with?

The one you're currently in, if it suits you.

Imagine trying to argue philosophy with someone that thinks reason and rationality either don't exist or don't matter.

He thought that rationality existed, he just didn't think it was an inherent good.

pure delusion with no application.