Why has Germany produced so many philosophers? Something in the water?

>claims Marx is better thabn Stirner
When did he say that?

Not to mention he is. In terms of influence and pure scope Marx is a thousand times the better philosopher.

I never said Marx was better than Stirner, retard.

I said Nietzsche was.

major misreading my friend, apologies, I'm a bit hazy

STAY STRONG MATEY

I came here to post this

Russia isn't European

STAY STRONG MATEY

The entire basis of Germany is imitating French shit long after the French have already moved on to something else, and destroying it by pushing it to its most nonsensical autistic extreme.

That's what post-Descartes philosophy is.

Because autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, autism, /thread

Hegel said that the German language suits philosophy best, toppling Greek even.

...

STAY STRONG MATEY

STAY STRONG MATEY

>good like Nietzsche
Kek

STAY STRONG MATEY

: /

STAY STRONG MATEY

STAY STRONG MATEY

>Stirner
>A U T I S M posts
>obligatory anti-German post

Never change Veeky Forums

>Marx
>German

The irony is Stirner was mocked incessantly by Marx and Hegel to the point he wrote a book refuting them.

Stirner himself was more an anarchist than anything.

Can you refute his argument or simply take baseball swings at his superior pitching of the non relevance of external structures given precedence by the subservient mind created by the volkisch delusions and thought forms rigidly enforced by autism?

T. Known Boss

Is Stirner taken seriously on Veeky Forums? It feels like people just make fun of him.

I already failed this entire semester, but STAY STRONG MATEY

lack of affection in early infancy plus no proper social means to compensate for it in later life

Refute his arguments? Easily! That can be done using the very same means in which they were eastablished; Dismiss everything as a spook. Especially the things you don't like or don't understand

I'll never understand why /leftypol/ sucks Stirner's balls so hard. His shit is so plebbish it makes me secondguess every criticism I ever levied at Albert Camus

>Dismiss everything as a spook. Especially the things you don't like or don't understand

You can just admit that you didn't read the book, y'know.

>being illiterate and autistic all at once

As expected of German threads.

Ignorance like this genuinely triggers me.

>ragamuffin
lel. Forgot about this.
Also, nice cold steel meme.

Anglo-saxons: Utilitarian-mercantile
French: Rationalist-politician
German: Romanticist-philosopher
Prove me wrong

STAY STRONG MATEY

Anglo-saxons: Hume
French: Derrida
German: Kant

wow that was hard

I have a confession to make, Veeky Forums

I do not know who Stirner is. I had never heard of him before coming to this board. I have never read his works, I have never even read a summery of his works.

However!

For the past month or so that I have been aware of his existence, I have taken to calling many things "spooks". It does not matter what it is, or in what context it is used. That ideology? It's a spook. Your theory about race? Probably based on spooks.

You may ask, "user, do you even know what a spook is?" The answer is no. I do not. But for the past month, do you know how many times someone has corrected me on my usage of spook to define everything? It is a number greater than 1, but smaller than 3.

Based on these observations, I have come to a branching conclusion. Either
a) No one knows what "spook" actually means, and thus, no one actually knows anything about Stirner's philosophical viewpoints (which are themselves spooks)
b) Everything is a spook, which makes the entire philosophy irrelevant.
c) No one had the heart to tell me that I've been using "spook" in the wrong context. Since this is Veeky Forums I will assume this is not the case.

So Veeky Forums, what are your thoughts?

>2090305

No chances now

STAY STRONG MATEY

Hegel and Cant are incredible idiots, but was canonised by young German nationalists. Marx and Nietzsche are empty demagogues.

Look up essentialism and constructuism.
Stirner argues that everything we take as granted as "killing is bad"/ eg. Morals, traditions etc are all so called spooks, we believe in god and act "good", not because we truly believe in those things or care at all, but to satisfy our own egos.
He simply means everything is made up(socialconstruct) spooks.

Imagine a human living in a empty room, his whole life. He shits and eats im this room, no outside contact etc. That person wouldnt be "someone" he would be a 0, cant speak therefore cant think, no experience, no nothing. Its the interaction and communications with other humans that create "you" and you create "them", by saying their names, calling them stuff and sharing experiences and knowledge/information.
This knowledge/informations creates rules and myths belifes etc, which are spooks who tie down individuals

Tldr; fug off

>Everything is a spook, which makes the entire philosophy irrelevant.
Hit the nail on the head!

Except that if you have a human being living in an empty room for his whole life, with no outside contact at all, that person would still be someone. As long as they have some form of perception, be it tactile, auditory, direction or whatever, they have thoughts. They may not be thoughts as YOU would recognize them, but that does not make them any less valid.

Also, if everything is societal constructs, isn't the idea that every is a societal construct ALSO a societal construct and therefor a spook in and of itself? Doesn't that kind of render the whole concept moot? Isn't it then pointless to assign some kind of objective "goodness" or "badness" to said spooks, since such concepts are spooks themselves?

It's the classic "If everyone is a extraordinary, everyone is ordinary." It's literally meaningless.

>Stirner

DUDE NOTHING IS REAL LMAO

Not all constructs are spooks. Stirner's not opposed to constructs in and of themselves, just ones that are held before the individual as though they were things of substance (because they're not). So you can be religious, be a socialist, be moral, be whatever, just don't hold these ideas as inviolable things to sacrifice yourself to because they don't exist, and even if you do, you're probably just serving your ego in some roundabout fashion that lacks in intellectual honesty.

I recommend reading the book. There's more depth to the idea than local memery would have you believe.

But that still doesn't change the fact that the philosophy itself is a spook, and thus you shouldn't treat it as if it has ANY depth because duh, spook.

It's not a spook. As I said, not all constructs (ideas) are spooks. Yeah, if you tried to server Stirnerian ideas as some sort of sacred essence higher than yourself, it would be a spook, but as a general "hey, consider this" set of ideas to use as a lens to look at the world through, it's not.

Please, just read the book (or someone at least post the section that explains what a spook actually is). You're basing your evaluation of it in how it's been used as a meme, but the ideas behind it are themselves not much like them.

His idea of egoism is closer to existentialism than Rand.

Not who you were replying to, but that's not what the post is saying. "Spooks" are anything that's put ahead of your self interest. You would, in theory, use the philosophy to enhance your ego or self interest, but not put it ahead of it, because then it would become a spook.

What prevents self interest from being a spook?

You need to read Stirner before you start declaring things spooks or not. Just because something is a spook doesn't mean it's without value or depth, it means you're putting it above your own self interest/ego when it should serve your ego

The fact that you can't put yourself ahead of yourself. In theory a particular conception of self-interest could become a spook, but self-interest in a Stirnerian sense is similar to Sartre's ideas of radical freedom: it's about owning up to your own sense of agency and admitting that you do the things you do because you want (on some level) to do them.

Spooks are abstract concepts, like religion or devotion to the state, that people put ahead of themselves. It's not as if any concept could just be a spook, cause if everything was a spook then nothing would be. Unlike on here, in Stirner's works, spooks are a specific thing

fuck the ego why is it more important than anything else

I refuse to read the works of any philosopher, and prefer instead to come to my own conclusions based on personal experiences, conversations, and other things. I feel that doing so will prevent my worldview from becoming corrupted by outside sources attempting to sway me in any particular way.

It's a hard life, but one neccesary for an highly intelligent memeber of intelligence such as mine self. :^)

Because it's ultimately the deciding point for any action you can take. Only you can make your own decisions, and Stirner would suggest owning up to this fact.

fuck stirner and fuck your bullshit system that replaces the god with self it's nothing more than another illusion to delude and belittle away your time with

Because the individual and his life are tied to his ego, or his self interests. Would you not feel like your own self interests are important?

It doesn't replace God with self. Where in the hell did you get that idea? It just acknowledges that the only thing capable of appreciating and valuing God (if you choose to do so) is yourself; no one and nothing else can make that choice for you.

Question for you fans of Stirner.

Where does your self-interest end? I mean, depending on how you look at it, you could say that it would be in my self interest as a fertile male to sex up all of the women, with or without their consent (the concept of which may be a spook).

If your argument is that such an action is not in my self interest because the various laws of the state supersede my desire to procreate, does that not make those laws spooks themselves?

If your argument is that the desire to engage in sexual activities is a spook, then how do we clearly delineate between self-serving actions that are also spooks and self-serving actions that are not spooky?

>Where does your self-interest end?

Wherever you want it to. As stated previously, it's not self interest in the typical view of it, but more akin to "authenticity." There's a reason Stirner is sometimes considered to be a sort of proto-existentialist.

If you want to understand Stirner's headspace, I suggest (in addition to actually reading the Ego and Its Own) reading the early philosophical texts of Taoism (The Tao Te Ching, The Chuang Tzu, The Lieh Tzu) and the works of Jean Paul Sartre, as both state somewhat similar ideas in less loaded language than Stirner.

STAY STRONG MATEY

stay strong matey

STAY STRONG MATEY
I better not fail my geometry test you faggot

STAY STRONG MATEY

STAY STRONG MATEY

They live a boring life that suits sitting in a room thinking about nothing.

>Every Discussion about Stirner degrades into a shitfight of spooks accusing spooks of being spooks
Dammit, Stirner! This is why none of your contemporaries took you serious!

they are just superior, accept it underman

Pretty sure Stirner all but says that art is the labor of the egoist e.g. not a spook.
But then again why would I expect people on Veeky Forums to actually have read The Unique One and his Property?

Memesters that never read Stirner's work started it by calling everything a spook, then the butthurt victims of this memery tried arguing against the ideas of Stirner as espoused by memers. At this point, there seems to be two Stirners on Veeky Forums: the one that wrote the Ego and Its Own, and the one that shitposters wave at people and idiots try to refute.

I'll take never read the first paragraph of one book for 200

It's the complete opposite. Stirner demolished Marx's worldview that Marx got so assblasted that he sperged out a book just to refute egoism, Marx's ramblings were so incoherent it was unpublishable so in the end Stirner got the last laugh.

The most interesting thing in Stirner's philosophy to me is that it isn't mutually exclusive with other ethical systems so long as you believe those systems serve you. His philosophy is more of a lens to judie things by than aset of rules, whicheck I think makes it very open and appropriately individualistic.

I would argue that it was deep seated German disunity since HRE. The best philosophers are produced in decentraised places (see: Greek city states, Confucius, Western thinkers). Its significant protestant and catholic populationso would also lead people to discerning theology more in their daily life.

I personally suspect Marx never published the German ideology because he had to admit the guy had a point, which is why he also switched from idealism to materialism afterwards.

stay strong matey

STAY STRONG MATEY

STAY STRONG MATEY

thanks for breaking the trend of retarded alt-right nationalism that's been going around and electing the Greens

STAY STRONG MATEY

Another Austrian here, but it honestly doesn't mean much. Our President's role is almost entirely ceremonial. The Premier is the actual head of state.

Anarkiddies form /leftypol/ does

Are you dense? He was born in Trier.

STAY STRONG MATEY

Stirner isn't a leftypol meme. They just stole it from Veeky Forums because they're uncreative meme stealers.

German humor

STAY STRONG MATEY

>a nigger born in scandinavia is a swede
marx was a jew, doesnt matter where he was born

...

Lack of copyright law

why does that invalidate them?

Fuck I was born in Hong Kong. I guess this makes me a gook even though I'm actually white.

STAY STRONG MATEY

STAY STRONG MATEY