Why does Veeky Forums like stirner so much

Yea. You tell him.

You're so right, man. So right. In all of the ways.

Learn German

Typical Stirnertard, no argument, just buttblasted ego attack.

I'm always right. My mom said so.

mad twats on Veeky Forums today
flappin about

Absolutely. She even mentions you when someone's cumming on her. She's THAT proud.

Been learning it for a year now.
Why would you think I tried to read it without at least some knowledge of german.

Yeah if by someone you mean MY DAD. PLS NO MORE VERBAL ATTACKS!

Isn't that all you need then?

Technically, I said nothing wrong here.

No insults. Nothing. Just saying.

Your mother's that proud. Hell... Part of me is proud of you.

Bravo.

Bravo. (y)

Oh, in that case.. Thank you!

Seriously? Do you not sense the sarcasm?

Are you so fucking enamoured by yourself, that you think a stranger on the internet is going to compliment how smart you are?

Why?

Because you insulted some guy, for no reason?

Damn, man. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Wait I thought you were complimenting me, WTF? I thought we were closer than this, man. And now here we are...

He's a cunt, and /lit mostly consists of cunts, so they like him.

At a split road. And it seems your direction is Cuntville (Population: You.)

Enjoy your stay.

Nah, population me and your mum. And I've been vacationing in the area FOR YEARRSS. And yeah I WILL ENJOY IT

His mom is terrible, old and smell. You have weird fetish user.

Too much childhood porn fappin has turned me sour, user.

Haha what an idiot. Typical Stirnertard, can't pick up on sarcasm when he's getting rekt.

This is why you read other books.

>His ideas fit well with the teenage mentality to disregard rules and other people's ideas and to just be "free"
>Once people mature, they gravitate to ideologies and philosophies that incorporate more developed ideas of freedom

Thats not what Stirner talks about.
Stirner puts into perspective all preconceptions, beliefs and ideals, and through that it forces you to go beyond your own worldview, and to tackle your held beliefs for what they ultimately are. To be able to question yourself this way, to be able to separate yourself from your ideals and to reinterpret them and reconsider them, its an actual sign of maturity.
Stirner questions exactly the individual in relation to the other, and how that relation is molded. Trying to understand how joint culture, shared experiences and ethics gain value is exactly what Stirner tackles.

Spooky

It's good to be skeptical, and I am of my own ideology and others. But I can also say certain things are true about ethics, social systems,culture etc. If Stirner just wants us to only consider what you want to do minus considering those actions from a more objective and holistic angle, it's still immature.

He calls good things spooks, and the primitives here whether they actually get it or not, adhere to this simplistic interpretation of life, mostly because they live lives of privlige in which they rarely actually have to do a serious self anaylsis. Stirner ends up ironically not a tool for self analysis, but a way for the dogma of individual selfishness to flourish.

Stirnertardicus.

you've never read stirner have you?

because the only arguments against what he is saying is "you'll grow up" and "entry-tier philosophy". I have yet to see anyone explain why

Because Stirner is Babby's First Anti-Ideology Ideology.

Cause of the word spooks and because of meme pictures.

Here is an anime song about spooks:
youtube.com/watch?v=vJVZAvrg-ts

Not an argument.

You might grow up, I know people who stay children their whole lives, thinkers like Stirner help enable this.

That's 100% an argument. He's arguing that since you're saying wrong things, you haven't read it.

I like the Hegelian approach to it. Stirner is all about the individual but I think that the external knows the individual more than the individual does himself.

which includes you finding out about Stirner in the first place. The individual isn't going to come to those conclusion on his own

I don't think you know what an argument is.

What does Stirner say to standing up against evil. O wait, that's a spook. Useless ideology. Do you fight fascism or do you just do what you want?

It's primitive relativism. If I'm wrong, make an argument, otherwise shut up.

>What does Stirner say to standing up against evil
not him but I thought according to Stirner the concept of evil itself isnt a spook but it comes from a spook (religion, the state, liberty, etc). You would fight fascism if it conflicts with your egoist desires or if you were motivated to do so by a spook

>teenage mentality to disregard rules
>the importance of joint culture, shared experiences, ethics

These are some dank spooks

Also this:

Rand>>selfishness
Stirner>>spooks

You know both are intellectually bankrupt because their entire thought system boils down to one simple idea, and a shitty one at that.

Ideologies for children, that's why when you disagree with Stirnertards, all they can say is.... spooks. Too stupid to realize that this in fact is the worst spook of all, to actually think they have a grasp on things because they deny all things, forgetting that their own ideology then becomes self defeating.

Nice try kiddo!

In your own words how would you define the term spook?

It seems as if you think any idea, concept or abstract construct is automatically a spook to be discarded.

If that is the case then you misrepresent Stirner as its how we relate to something which determines its spookiness.

>Stirner ends up ironically not a tool for self analysis, but a way for the dogma of individual selfishness to flourish.

In what part of your ideological and educational development did you read Stirner? Whilst Rand might be able to fill that role you are attributing to him here Stirner actually winds up destroying all dogma, even that of selfishness.

Let's use HIS words. "Whoso is full of sacred (religious, moral, humane) love loves only the spook, the “true man,” and persecutes with dull mercilessness the individual, the real man'?".

As I was saying, all the things that are a part if the higher life, an ethical life, being good, is to him a spook, an ideal. And that's just primitive relativism. For the real man can be good and kind, and stand against evil.

>you're a child if you don't do what I tell you!
>you're a child if you act in your own self interest!

no one gives a shit, spookman

you're like fat single moms telling people to "man up" and marry them

>Let's use HIS words. "Whoso is full of sacred (religious, moral, humane) love loves only the spook, the “true man,” and persecutes with dull mercilessness the individual, the real man'?".

The reason I asked you to use your own words is that its very easy to take Stirner out of context which is what you have done here. In this quote the key word here is sacred. Under his understanding (which he demonstrates in his chapter "the possessed" sacredness is a trait that defined by it being distinct and alien to the individual. Which is something that can be equally applied to the sociopathic individualism of Rand.

So I ask you again can you give *your* definition of spook?
>As I was saying, all the things that are a part if the higher life, an ethical life, being good, is to him a spook, an ideal. And that's just primitive relativism. For the real man can be good and kind, and stand against evil.

I cant really respond well to this until I get your personal definition of the term spook here.

Spooky

I've given it already, and even commented on his own words. It's an ideal, anything that the individual pursues that isn't something their ego driven mind wanted.

PSA: Read Stirner's book BEFORE you try to make an argument against it.

You look like a fucking retard when you don't. It is not a very long book and if you spent as much time reading as you did making strawman arguments you could have already finished it 10 times.

Too busy reading actually good thinkers and authors. So little time, it becomes a moral choice of what to read, so we have to make decisions on the best available evidence.

In terms of what philosophers to read, you look at what is actually respected by actual philosophers, given your own interests, and then factor in the fact that the only people who like Stirner are autists and virgins on an anonymous Vietnamese bamboo collection forum, and the choice is clear.

>Too busy reading actually good thinkers and authors
Christ you even admit you havent read him. What is the point of criticizing him if you havent even read him

>what is actually respected by actual philosophers

we're reaching maximum spookitude here

lol m8, the enriched cultural environment you desire, as well as your nice little ethical systems are all selfish desires you yourself posses. you sir have been spooked.

Spooky

Orly? So caring about other living beings is selfish? This is why I know Stirner is an awful thinker, his followers actually think this.

>Too busy reading actually good thinkers and authors.
>So little time

You're lying. You're not too busy. If you we're too busy you wouldn't be on a Stirner thread spouting shit.

Spooky mate, spooky. Keirkeegard (an actual philosopher), tells us not to judge others for you can barely penetrate the truth of who they are.

Calm down Spookton. Try making an argument defending your Spooky ideology.

>It's an ideal, anything that the individual pursues that isn't something their ego driven mind wanted.

Alright this is much clearer now, the passage you chose for commentary wasnt one that fit well with the point you were trying to make.

That aside what bars an individuals ego driven mind from desiring to act ethically/good/manly/ect ?

Stirner would answer nothing. This is why he actually induces a good deal of self reflection as he doesnt provide a simple proscription like other egoists, positivists or idealists do. The line between spook and genuine desire is a difficult line to draw.

>n terms of what philosophers to read, you look at what is actually respected by actual philosophers, given your own interests, and then factor in the fact that the only people who like Stirner are autists and virgins on an anonymous Vietnamese bamboo collection forum, and the choice is clear.

Not true, there have been about dozen or so articles published within the past decade and there is a new translation in the works of his book. Stirner is starting to rise from the grave of obscurity

Literally his ideology is the most selfish of all. Could you possibly be more spooked?

>Orly? So caring about other living beings is selfish? This is why I know Stirner is an awful thinker, his followers actually think this.

Do you deny that helping those your care about feels good and seeing them suffer causes you to suffer?

Coz he's a fucking cunt.

Why do you care about other living beings?

And it's silly to answer nothing, when there are obviously things that we can do that are good.

And again, the idea that a spook is bad, is just silly. Even religious conviction can conference courage during fucked times, like American slaves and Christianity.

Lol, a dozen articles in a decade. Matey, no one cares about his primitive skepticism. Talk to some philosophers. What use and benefit and truth value do they even hold? Not much.

That's not how it works. His book is the best argument for his ideology.

You should read his book then present an argument against it. Then I can try and refute that argument.

If you only care about "respected actual philosophers" then why are you on this thread?

If you added up all the words you've read in Stirner threads on Veeky Forums I bet it adds to more than the words in his book.

I don't care much personally about most peoppe, and yet I can still say it's important they do not suffer.

Also, even if it feels good, it doesn't mean the act itself doesn't arise from altruism. Hume pretty much refuted you idea well before Stirner was even sucking dick, this is exactly why it's important to read actual philosophers.

You can decide to do what is ethically right, and even if you get a feeling benefit from it, the reason you did it in the first place is not for the feeling, but because it is right. The feeling is just a bonus.

Because I care about things that suffer, things that desire, things that have potential. Because they are beautiful, and themselves care about things. And I exprience many things and know what it is like for others, and if I want certain things for myself it stands to reason other beings deserve it too.

Literally the only act i can think of that fits the standard of not desiring pleasure or relief from pain is suicide in that there's no light at the end of the tunnel since you're dead. Although one could even argue that the organism tricks itself into believing that there's relief after life, or that nothingness is a relief from pain.

Whatever the case is, i believe that, as humans are derived from much simpler pain/pleasure driven organisms, and our ethical systems came out after those things, that they are merely a result of seeking pleasure, but as reasoning (that builds ethical systems) seems to posses an independence from pleasure and pain, we forgot the real origin of altruism and moral precept the like.

Ok, I'll read his book if you can convince me to without referring to any spooks.

Go ahead, tell me why I should read it and don't use any spooks.

>muh spooks = child philosophy
>muh ideologies = adult philosophy

because he was an overlooked philosopher that had some great insights. more relevant now than ever.

that's why he's popular in this online community.

I understand your point. Now I hope I can combey mine as well as you did yours.

I can agree that our ethical system might arise from more primitive systems, however this does not tell us that the system is wrong, or untrue.

An ethical system (simply put), is talking about certain kinds of beings, with certain characteristics, and from there can logically arrive at certain moral truths, given the nature of these creatures and what experience is like for them. Thus torturing other creatures for fun, is wrong morally, and that is true, even if the feeling arose from more primitive systems.

Well spooked kiddo.

>And it's silly to answer nothing, when there are obviously things that we can do that are good.And again, the idea that a spook is bad, is just silly. Even religious conviction can conference courage during fucked times, like American slaves and Christianity.

Were these meant for another poster? UNless they are missing a few words I dont see how they address any of the points in that post, particularity about the original point of his value in self analysis.

>Lol, a dozen articles in a decade. Matey, no one cares about his primitive skepticism.

Yet they are going to all the trouble and expense of creating a new translation of his work.

> Talk to some philosophers. What use and benefit and truth value do they even hold? Not much.

Quite a bit on an individual level given he the value of his thought when it comes to introspection. At an academic level his thoughts are helpful in understanding the thoughts and development of the left heglians

Can any Stirnerfag tell me why anyone should read his book without referring to a spook?

Protip: you can't, and that's precisely the problem with his ideas.

I'm not trying to make you read his books. You can do whatever you want.

But nothing anyone says here about his philosophy is going to be as insightful as actually reading his book.

If you are going to spend time on Stirner it should be on his book.

If you think he is a waste of time then stop posting about him here because that is an even bigger waste of time.

>Also, even if it feels good, it doesn't mean the act itself doesn't arise from altruism. Hume pretty much refuted you idea well before Stirner was even sucking dick, this is exactly why it's important to read actual philosophers.

How did you come to the conclusion that I or anyone else thinks that Stirner is the only philosopher one should ever read or that no other thinkers have any value?

>You can decide to do what is ethically right, and even if you get a feeling benefit from it, the reason you did it in the first place is not for the feeling, but because it is right. The feeling is just a bonus.

You wouldn't be trying to derive an ought from logic after mentioning Hume would you?

>Because I care about things that suffer, things that desire, things that have potential. Because they are beautiful, and themselves care about things. And I exprience many things and know what it is like for others, and if I want certain things for myself it stands to reason other beings deserve it too.

Seems like a whole lot of feelings.

>philosophy
>insightful
>waste of time

Well spooked. So basically you A. couldn't even give an actually good reason to read it and B. still got a little spooky.

I derive ought from what I know to be right. To think that Hume said no ought can be derived is erroneous. He is merrily saying that LOGICALLY you cannot take an is statement and from there leap to an ought statement. You can still have ought in many other ways, pretending like a logical argument is the only way to decide ethical action is problematic.

I also have no problem with going from is to oughy. If you know what is bad, then you know what you oughy to prevent is you want to be good.

Feelings are central to the human being.

...

It's always sad seeing people shit on Stirner when Max aims to admonish every human in all of history, and they do it all for a system that grinds people down like they were chaff, a system which they themselves use in order to perpetuate themselves and their aims, something which they don't have the guts to actually say, out of fear there could be another way of life where people hadn't the need to get fucked in the ass daily, and so all the horrible things they've done were for nothing (i.e. guilt and remorse)--and even that Stirner accepts of you.

>Can any Stirnerfag tell me why anyone should read his book without referring to a spook?

-His work is entertaining
-Is one of the key works of the egoist school of philosophy
-Flustered Marx so hard that he and Engles wrote a book close to equal length to refute it
-Provides an interesting conversation on the nature of being
-For the influences or parallels with more famous thinkers like Nietzsche
-So that you can better refute the arguments of posters on lit

Can you read?

I said in the first sentence that I'm not trying to convince you to read it.

I'm asking why are you posting about him if you think he is a waste of time.

>t. To think that Hume said no ought can be derived is erroneous. He is merrily saying that LOGICALLY you cannot take an is statement and from there leap to an ought statement. You can still have ought in many other ways, pretending like a logical argument is the only way to decide ethical action is problematic.

Hence why I said "from logic" in my post user.

>I derive ought from what I know to be right.
>Feelings are central to the human being.

Which is pretty much one of the take home messages from Stirners work, because if you base your oughts on fixed ideas that are external to your feelings this process doesnt work.

Really it seems like you would agree with his arguments were they not comming from memesters and shitposters

you're stupid

I don't know you but I dislike you as a person

>He thinks Stirner thinks it's "wrong" for you to be spooked.
>He thinks Stirner is against ideas instead of trying to make you treat yourself and others worse than your fantasies.

why are you people discussing Stirner with someone who admitted he didn't read Stirner? is Veeky Forums this easy to bait?

You won't understand a thing given you've learned contemporary German (which you probably have)
I'm German and his language is pretty hard

I do it to better my own understanding of Stirners work

Because of Engel's drawings, because of the term spook, because of the memes. Plus he's kind of an edgy contrarian or at least perceived as one and most boards here have a thing for people like this (e.g. /mu/ for Scaruffi, /tv/ for Armond)

wouldnt discussing with someone who actually read it be a lot better for that purpose?

That's probably hard to find on the internet. And even if you do find it then chances are he agrees with it, since most people tend to read shit they agree with.

Not him btw.

Filthy smelly Anarchist.

I wonder how many fag hipsters his estates has been funded by today? I'm sure it has procured millions and isn't complaining.

well ok, i guess that's a good point. i have to say though there is a good amount of people in this board that have read it and they dont totally agree. they may agree on the big picture but not necessarily on the subtleties

>Will Trade racists for Rapists

What is he saying? Give me a single argument he makes. Just one. Shouldn't be too hard. Then I'll explain more why I don't think it's either that good (or, since that's a pretty high standard) even interesting.

>-Is one of the key works of the egoist school of philosophy
No, not really. I wouldn't be surprised if most philosophers haven't even heard of him. At most a footnote in even pretty detailed histories of philosophy or ethics in particular (just ctrl+F'd the text of
global.oup.com/academic/product/the-development-of-ethics-9780199571789?cc=us&lang=en&#
, 0 results) probably akin to the place Rand will have in 100 years.

Some real key works: Republic, Nichomachean Ethics, Leviathan, Methods of Ethics, Morals by Agreement

Also, see plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/
if you're actually interested in egoism.

This user is correct. Im currently in getting used to simply knowing what he actually said vs what he did not say and am planning to move onto his ontology soon

>No, not really. I wouldn't be surprised if most philosophers haven't even heard of him. At most a footnote in even pretty detailed histories of philosophy or ethics in particular

I was referring to the arguments he was making rather than his place in academia.

Are you serious, the republic is proto fascism for idiots who think that monarchies work and people aren't corruptible.

Okay, please give me an example of one argument he makes. It'd be best if you could summarize it (or even lay it out premise by premise!), but I'd be happy with a rough statement of the conclusion and a page number reference to where the argument is. Might also help if you say why you think it's an important argument.

The only people who disagree with him are the people who don't understand him.

He states it like it is. The only place to go from there is absolute nihilism where you just think "yeah he's right, but it's not like that matters"