Could someone please explain to me, what did this man actually believe?

>I don't have time to read some surface-skimming Kraut clown who doesn't even have his own metaphysics and who's too busy shoving his whole head in late nineteenth century Germanic academia's ass to ask the really big questions.

I rest my case. Stay an ignorant cretin in your prejudice, user. Have a wonderful day.

>can't even explain why the man he worships is worth reading
Not who you were replying to by Me thinks you really don't know.

What makes stirner something other than a shallow " Ido wut I wantz" type? Why should we listen to our ego? How do we know we have an ego? What is an ego? Why are abstractions "spooks" if the effect is in very real ways?

>People who haven't read Stirner pretending they've read stirner for the thrill of telling people off online

kek your life must be so fascinating

Just like communism was powerless in tell the communist revolution established the union of socialist republics, egoism will be nothing but a pipe dream in tell we stirnerites start an egoist revolution and form a Union of Egotist Republics. I think the American west and south west, with its disaffection with the union and it's history of rugged individualism combined with libertarianism makes it the perfect spot for our revolution.

>So humans are naturally egoistic or not
Yes, but he goes over it very quickly because it's obvious and irrelevant. His point is that serving a "spirit" makes you sacrifice all other enjoyment to it, and thus makes the "involuntary egoist" live a less fulfilled life.

>If I am a commie who gets a thrill from being part of an ideological movement and working towards a goal, am I not working for my interest?
Assuming you're telling the truth, then you are working for your interest. Stirner hated people who reject everything spiritual as much as those who reject everything earthly. However, if you are a commie because it's the right thing to do, you are serving a spook according to Stirner.

>Can one not be an egoist and a good person at the same time?
According to Stirner, good is what is in your own interest. This might be helping people who are important to you (he calls them your property) or raping strangers, although the latter is not a good idea if you value your life.

>His point is that serving a "spirit" makes you sacrifice all other enjoyment to it, and thus makes the "involuntary egoist" live a less fulfilled life.
Not true though. Religious people purport more happiness and satisfaction in life for a reason. Just following "muh ego" doesn't make people happy. Just give them temporary pleasure.

>because it's obvious and irrelevant

no it isn't, and the fact that egoists consider this matter a simple settled fact speaks volumes to the average egoists' outlook in life. Stirner makes no argument toward this but the feelings of babies, as if my outlook at 2 is supposed to determine my outlook at 32. It's bullshit. Stirner wasn't a neurologist.

Grazze

You seem like the helpful sort. What makes Stirner not a surface-skimming clown? I'm being serious here.

why does happiness have to be the good? More importantly, why does there have to be a good?

>I demand axioms in 19th century existentialist philosophy

Loooooool, this place is a circus

>what did this man actually believe?
In himself and himself.

One of the main points in the book is that each person is unique, and thus his interests depend on him alone and can't be generalized. Believing in and loving God is not necessarily against one's interests, but putting God's good ahead of your own is.

>Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist ... in short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, and abases himself (combats his egoism), but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of "being exalted", and therefore of gratifying his egoism. Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake... [on] this account I call him the involuntary egoist.
This is a shortened version, but you get the point. No man believing in morals would follow them if he believed a moral man was bad. Therefore, by not being an egoist they prove to be better than egoists, making their motivationd selfish as well.

You need to give me something more. Why do you think he is s clown?

>HaHa let's follow laws that aren't for our well being and literally pray things get better without improving life ourselves

He has no metaphysics
His ethics are lazy and ultimately unfounded (no reason for action is given or justified, its just assumed that action happens)
He deals with political philosophy to an extent that tells me he's reacting to outside forces in German academia at the time rather than creating his own self-contained theory or at least arguing in favor of someone else's that he thought was viable

To me, the biggest problem with nihilism is that the nihilists don't justify their continued existence, or define it really at all.

>let's follow laws that aren't for our well being
Who's to say they aren't. Who's to say you even know what's best for yourself. After all, a mentally retard and disabled can't decided things on his own. Should he "follow muh ego."

That's because it's nearly impossible to define being in general and reach a consensus. Stirner builds off of his contemporaries. He doesn'the need to make his own independant system to be important when his contributions to existing philosophies was very important.

Not an argument.

>nearly impossible to define being
That's my point; his philosophy is lazy. Unless he tries answering the really hard questions, he's wasting his time.

Also, why is consensus even relevant?

...

Philosophy just might not be your cup of tea, fampalan.

>he has no metaphysics
True, no one ever claimed he had that. There was no need for it.

>His ethics are lazy and ultimately unfounded (no reason for action is given or justified)
Not true at all. The reasons for people's actions are unique according to Stirner, but they do exist. This causes the fact that all ethical theories that claim there is an optimal way to live are false, because no person's interests are the same. I can explain why he thinks you should (and everyone does) follow your own interests if needed.

>He deals with political philosophy to an extent that tells me he's reacting to outside forces in German academia at the time rather than creating his own self-contained theory or at least arguing in favor of someone else's that he thought was viable
This is partly correct. He is reacting to outside forces for most of the book, but does have his own proposal as well (the union of egoists).

>nihilism
Please stop. Stirner isn't a nihilist. He is only saying that your reason to live depends on you and cannot be made into an universal law.

If your don'the trust free will and the judgement of man, then you too far gone.

Not an argument.

Isn't free will a Christian concept?

>trust the judgement of man
Wew

The honest existentialist answer is "I don't know, because they rely only on perception and perception can be flawed. It's not lazy, it's intellectually honest.

Apparently the idea is that people can will whatever they want but nothing can beat God's will and whoever does that wins.

>the union of egoists
When will humanity be ready to establish the union of egoist over all the earth and usher in the new golden age?

>trust free will and the judgement of man

Well spooked my property

>First point
So how does he justify anything?

>Second point
How does he know that each person's motivations are unique? How does he even know what a person is?

>Third point
Could you explain the union of egoists in a bit more detail? It sounds like a society without a government, but something tells me that's not exactly correct.

>Fourth point
Good to know. I won't be calling him a nihilist in the future. Also, how does he know that one reason to live can't be made into a universal law?

Not inherently, and Jesus supported free moral agency.

This is the problem. Everything is a spook. One would be better off being an epicurean an being honest about the lifestyle they desire to live.

Fine, to clarify what I meant
"The generally rational nature of the ego"

>spook
just say mental construction
you know, like real philosophers

>Debating epistemological skeptic
>Ever

Ishygddt

It'll all just end in semantics, circular reasoning and ultimately - a waste of time.

Is this thread literally just one guy constantly begging to be spoonfed? Fucking delete /hHis/ already, weve gone full cancer.

Pretty much. Where are the fucking mods

Spookfed, actually.

t.butthurt egoist
Union of egoist when?

I'm not an epistemological skeptic

I just don't think any philosopher who doesn't justify his ethics with a real argument (probably rooted in metaphysics) is worth wasting my time on.

Also, it's totally possible to debate epistemological skeptics. Like so:

>We're talking
>you seem to be understanding me
>if knowledge is impossible, how is communication possible?

That at least starts it off

Can I also say that this is a surprisingly productive Stirner thread?

>first point
I don't understand the question. If you mean how does he know that the ego exists, then the answer is pretty simple. The ego is you, and thinking about if you exist is pointless unless you get some enjoyment from it, in which case you're already following Stirner's philosophy.

>second point
Because people are different. You can see this in real life very easily. Some people support communism and some don't, some can run faster than others. People are not the same. What persons are is irrelelevant, what matters is your ego (you).

>third point
An union is a kind of alliance where people stay only as long as they gain something from it in. He spends a lot of time talking about "fixed ideas" (too long for me to explain here) and believes a regular society is one of them. In short, people believe a society should be maintained just for the sake of it unlike an union. Every society starts as an union.

>real argument
>rooted in metaphysics

Got me good there, son. Well meme'd

Thread should have ended here.

It's like edgy atheist comedians who make dead baby jokes but go white as a sheet at the prospect of someone making a joke about brown people.

>I just don't think any philosopher who doesn't justify his ethics with a real argument
Stirner has none.

Not the argument, the ethics.

Anything rooted in atheistic matetlism is not worth the time of day. As science confirms more and more other dimensions exist, it because clear we aren't alone in existence.

>First point, cont.
Let's say the ego is me
Why does the ego want things?
Why should enjoyment be the goal?

>Second point
If he doesn't say what he means by people, how do we know what he's talking about?
Also, how does he prove there are other people besides me?
What makes people different?

>Third point
What would they be gaining and why would that be good?

Look, I'm not trying to autistically bait you. If this guy is worthwhile, then his work should be able to answer these questions. Have you ever read the Nicomachean Ethics btw?

What's energy?
What's a dimension?

Hahahaha, holy shit, keep it up senpai, I'm having a blast here.

Right?

>just sitting here having no ability to explain anything about spookman
>having a blast
Egoism has turned you delusional.

3 principals can describe stirners ideology

The only good spook is a dead spook

Spook me once, shame on you. Spook my twice, shame on wu

Better dead than spooked.

>the ego is rational
This is what stirnerfags actually believe

>Let's say the ego is me. Why does the ego want things? Why should enjoyment be the goal?
Enjoyment is the same thing as achieving your own interests according to Stirner. You should ask yourself why the ego wants things.

>If he doesn't say what he means by people, how do we know what he's talking about?
He only brings up other people to point out the mistakes in other ethical theories that assume they exist. He also never claims to know they do exist.

>What would they be gaining and why would that be good?
Again, that depends on the person. Stirner wasn't trying to create an ethical system, but prove that trying to build one is madness.

>Have you ever read the Nicomachean Ethics btw?
No, I'm a complete philosophy newfag 2bh. The only real philosophical book I've read is The Ego And Its Own, and that's why I'm not trying to claim Stirner is a great philosopher or even right, because I don't have enough others to compare him with.

>Let's say the ego is me
No, it's me.

Obviously
why do you want things?

Stirner, seeing the dissatisfaction the worker had with spooks, envionsed a worldwide union of egoist would one day rule the earth.

>he only real philosophical book I've read is The Ego And Its Own,
>Stirnerfags in a nutshell

Ok, but principles and shame are a spook.

Because they're my property.

I just explained afterwards that I'm not a "stirnerfag". I'm not trying to defend him, but explain him.

Did you just try to spook me, property?

He believes humans often believe things that hamper their ego and prevent them from serving their ego.

>I was only 9 years old
>I loved Stirner so much, I had all his books merchandise and memes
>I pray to Stirner every night before bed, thanking him for the life I've been given
>"Stirner is love" I say; "Stirner is life"
>My dad hears me and calls me a faggot
>I know he was just jelous of my devotion to my self interest
>I called him spooked
>He slaps me and sends me to go to sleep
>I'm crying now, and my face hurts
>I lay in bed and it's really cold
>Suddenly, a warmth is moving towards me
>It's Stirner
>I am so happy
He whispers into my ear "You are my property."
>He grabs me with his powerful egoist hands and puts me down onto my hands and knees
>I'm ready
>I spread my ass-cheeks for Stirner
>He penetrates my butt-hole
>It hurts so much but I do it for Stirner
>I can feel my butt tearing as my eyes start to water
>I push against his force
>I know this is in interest of my unique self
>He roars in a mighty roar as he fills my butt with his love
>My dad walks in
>Stirner looks him straight in the eyes and says "Morality is a spook."
>Stirner leaves through my window
>Stirner is love. Stirner is life.

Ok Stirner was maybe the worst place to start then. He's basically just responding to shit that goes all the way back to Kant, who's impossible to understand on his own.

Aristotle is not the GOAT, but he's fucking great. And he tells you what the good is.
[spoiler]
the mean of two extremes
[/spoiler]

He isn't perfect, or even right a lot of the time, but the Nichomachean Ethics is a great place to start if you want to understand how theories are formed and what a continuous, coherent argument looks like. He argues based on preconceptions and accepted notions a lot, but bear with him.

Descartes' Meditations and Discourse on the Method are also great.

The Tao Te Ching (Daodejing) by Laozi is also excellent. It basically destroys ethics 2000 years before it was invented.

For a newfag you're doing well. I'm sorry you got meme'd into starting with Stirner. He just makes too many assumptions. Also, philosophers aren't good based on relative measure, but on the merits of their arguments judged on an independent basis in each case.

Not an answer.
You want food and sex and something to occupy your mind because those things are your... property?

What's property?

I don't think Stirner was that bad of a start. I of course missed a lot of references to Hegel and such, but he was easy to understand snd entertsining. I'm definitely reading Aristotle next though.

>What's property?
What is not the ego.

In a sense Stirner is not the worst beginning because he gets you to question a bunch of widely believed things, even today, which prepares you to build your own philosophical project (or arrange your property to your whims, in Stirnerian terms).

I just say he was a bad start because he doesn't build from a foundation, he branches off a highly developed tradition.

A big part of any serious study of philosophy is assumption crushing. People assume a lot of things to be true and except them without proof. My all time favorites are:

>Energy is a thing that makes things do things
>There is a definite line between reality and imagination
>Language is the simplest expression of thought
>Math is not inherently flawed
>Things exist
>things aren't other things
>gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces act on the world. It's not important why.
>Life is different than not-life
>There are other people
>Pleasure and pain are real

None of these things are absolutely true.

Not what I asked
not "which things are property" but rather "What is the nature of property?"

True: Hegel is the worst beginning.
But that questioning is much better expressed in, say, Descartes than Stirner. Stirner assumes the existence of an other without proof.

>le you can question anything meme

We've got a modern day Socrates here. Every premise and fact is formed upon the basis of its likelihood and as such, is accepted as an axiom. It all goes to show just how limited the human comprehension and logic truly is.

Being what is mine.

What the fuck is likelihood?
What's an axiom?
What's logic?
What's comprehension?
What's a limit?

I seriously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. And you can question everything. Causation has no end until that end demonstrably causes itself, and therefore questioning has no end until every question is definitively answered.

>Energy is a thing that makes things do things
Seems to be the case. I use energy to push something and it moves or exhaust me. Also interactions are exchanges of energy.
>There is a definite line between reality and imagination
There isn't. Just what most people agree to be true. If their is an ultimate objective reality (which I belive so) we can't percive it in this state.
>Language is the simplest expression of thought
Interesting. What does a baby or dog think?
>Math is not inherently flawed
True. Math is flawed and like quantum physics changeable based on many features (like imaginary numbers)
>Things exist
I touch and see things. I interact with things always. Things seem to exist or my brain does a good enough job convincing me things exist that it isn't a stretch to say things exist.
>things aren't other things
See above
>gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces act on the world. It's not important why.
Just random knowledge on the natural world which isn't that relevant to humankind.
>Life is different than not-life
Since we no longer exist in our bodies an almost guarantee
>There are other people
Well if I go grope a girl I think is hot i'll get arrested so whether or not other people exist, my brain does a good enough job convincing me that is the case.
>Pleasure and pain are real
Feelings a real, sure. Even if they are subjective.

Why is it yours? What about the existence of ego makes it able to possess? what makes it want to possess?

he's saying things like "mu country" or "muh religion" are spooks

which means that these are just idead/systems that you, in your own mind have unintentionally placed above yourself. basically you've got this system of ideas in your own mind that you believe hold power over yourself

he's just saying essentially to clear that up. it is YOU YOURSELF that is putting these system of ideas above your own interest and ego

and therefore you can stop it

a country is merely a system of ideas in your own mind that (most peopl) hold above themselves (in terms of having power and control)

it's basically just recognizing that you yourself are placing things (spooks) above your own ego that have control and influence over you, when in reality all they are are ideas that you personally are thinking off in your own mind

a country, a moral system. a god. they're just your own ideas that you have unwittingly and unknowingly given power and control over your own ego, by yourself.

and you can choose to understand and recognize this, and then cast away those spooks. and merely focus on your own ego and what it actually wants. it's a way of freeing yourself from the control that you yourself have placed over yourself unwittingly, through essentially believing that ideas in your own mind exist external yourself and have actualy power and control over you when they dont

(I havenm't actually read the book but that's my understand from reading Veeky Forums memes)

>First thing
but what is it?
>Second thing
A schizophrenic hallucinates. That hallucination changes him because he experienced it. He changes other things in the world, which change everyone inhabiting it to one degree or another. How is it possible that something not real can affect everything that is real?
>Third
Have you ever observed the thought process that goes into constructing a sentence?
>Fourth and fifth
What the fuck is a thing, and what doesn't make it other things?
>Sixth
Mass is attracted to mass for absolutely no reason. That's not odd at all.
>Seventh
How do we know that life isn't just a series of incredibly complicated, self-perpetuating chemical reactions?
>Eighth
So you're POSITIVE this couldn't all be a dream or your imagination?
>Ninth
really? if so, what are they? If they are just chemical responses, they hold no intrinsic meaning. They are real, but only as biological signals, not arbiters of good and bad.

>So you're POSITIVE this couldn't all be a dream or your imagination?
Yes. They work quite differently. I'd be able to have much more freedom and much less constraint.

Why are you positive? Is it impossible to believe that there couldn't be a reason that you're imagining this entire world?

Imagination might work in the way you think living works, and "imagination" in this life is just the second layer.

It's tautological, my world is mine.

Only because you say so.
Does Stirner say so, or does he say that since the ego is the only thing capable of possession, it can/should/must possess?

>Why are you positive?
Because I'm not an idiot and can tell the difference between groping a girl I imagine and groping a girl I didn't imagine.

Also you ignore my other point. If something really is amiss about our perceptions of what is or isn't, it's irrelvant as our mind does a good enough job convincing us that is the case that we have no reason to assume otherwise besides baseless speculation. Even if WE did find out everything is an illusion (something certain major religions believe) breaking free involves prayer, meditation and ascetic practice.

...

What do you mean "mind convinces us this is the case"?
you've been taught the difference between reality and fiction, and been given strict guidelines as to what that is. Can you be sure that "your mind" isn't really your conditioning?

Prove to me that this world of matter and energy is real. And please define reality for me.

What IS the difference between groping a girl in your mind and groping her in real life?

(Now we're getting into the fun shit. Don't let your indignation at what you see as my annoying needling get in the way. You will get annoyed. Push through it and you'll gain some insight, and we'll both get some enjoyment out of it.)

>Can you be sure that "your mind" isn't really your conditioning?
It very much is. Still, natural law applies. This state isn't the first nor the last but something we have to deal with for an odd 80 years assuming we live to die a natural death.

We'll find out the highest state of being is being one with God.

>We can't ascertain the integrity of our perception and being to even start formulating knowledge
>"Push through it and you'll gain some insight ;^)"

Don't you ever get tired of doing this?

What's God?
What's natural law?
Why are states tiered and why is that tiering vertical?

I'm training him.
He needs to be able to do what you just did. Plus, I never said that. I just said that nothing has been found to exist that ends causation. Therefore, no argument that is not based on such an end in causation is functional, because the author will eventually accept something as axiomatic even though it isn't.
This guy only just started philosophizing. He's only just starting to get it.