Red pill me on Max Stirner Veeky Forums

Red pill me on Max Stirner Veeky Forums.
What is a spook?
What is the core of his philosophy?
What was it Marx hated so much about him?
Where do I start with reading his work?

Other urls found in this thread:

theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/max-stirner
youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs
youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>What is a spook?
>What is the core of his philosophy?
>Where do I start with reading his work?

read the ego and his own.

>What was it Marx hated so much about him?

read die deutsche ideologie.

Got it, I'll probably post my thoughts/interpretation later.

Not OP but do you think one can jump straight into the ego and his own and understand it?
I haven't read anything philosophy related but I happen to have this book and I'd like to give it a try.

A spook is a value or an ideology, often one imposed on you by culture, but ocassionally by yourself.

The core of his philosophy is trivial nihilism, and, I shit you not, think-for-yourself, in regards to choosing your own spooks.

Marx probably hated him because nihilism is trivial and unassailable. Most people grow out of it in their late teens, Stirner did not.

You start with his only book.

>What is a spook?
Ideas/concepts/abstract principles and the like which are separate to ourselves and which we hold above our own interest.

Things like duty, honour, logic, humanity ect but note that the realtionship element is what is important. You can understand and have a concept of good or duty without it being a spook.

>What is the core of his philosophy?
Uncompromising individualism

>What was it Marx hated so much about him?
He destroyed any claims to moral legitimacy that socialism or communism had.

>Where do I start with reading his work?

>theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/max-stirner

Some of his works are fairly contextual. Start either the Ego and its Own in full or read Stirners Critiques then the EAITO.

If you want to see Stirner at his most obstuse take a look at Art and religion.

Adding on to this take a look at this lecture first if you want to ease yourself into understanding him.

youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs

Also whilst he is easy to read compared to his peers, that doesnt mean hes easy to read overall.

False, as that fails to account for the relationship element to it.

The relationship part is exactly what I mean when I say think-for-yourself and choose your own spooks.

I've asked this so many times to no avail - what seperates Stirner from standard nihilism?

nihilism dont believe in nothing
stirner on his own

>The relationship part is exactly what I mean when I say think-for-yourself and choose your own spooks.

The fact that you talk of "choosing" spooks shows you do not understand the relationship element. If you can choose it, then it is your property and not a spook.

>what seperates Stirner from standard nihilism?

I would say (assuming you are talking about nihilism when it comes to morals) that he is by far the most uncompromising of any nihilist thinker and doesnt fall into the trap of destroying one moral system only to prescribe another one in its place.

bump

>Red pill me

Is rooting for my country at the Euro against Stirner's philosophy?

Stirner is against patriotism so yes.

The reason why Marx hated Max was because Communism/Marxism (and all their derivatives) hate the individual with a burning, though often well-disguised passion.

Nietzsche points out this simple observation quite elegantly. If you are an individual, or a free spirit in the highest sense, stay way from Marx's children (and bastard children) at all costs.

I mention Nietzsche in the same breath as Max, because it is 90% likely that Max was in fact one of his chief motivators.

Bear in mind that none of what I've said is any excuse to go to the other anti-individual extremes (Nationalism/etc). Also, be smart and use Orwell's distinction of Patriotism and Nationalism. The German hatred of Nationalism is down to them never having had any Patriotism in the English/Orwellian sense.

German/Prussian Nationalism necessarily conquers others. Must be something in their psyche.

he's also against equality and feminism

why was this guy such a racist?

why are you such a nigger?

See
It might be a spook or it may not be one depeneding on your circumstances

Yes
Confirmed for never reading any of his works.
Just stop posting you retard, at least until you've actually read him.
He wasn't

>He wasn't
He literally said that black people aren't human and his work doesn't apply to them.

youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0

How about you take this opportunity to tell us all how Stirner differs from run-of-the-mill nihilism?

The guy I was originally asking just confirmed he was a nihilist, with the added quality of being uncompromising.

How about you actually read if you're going to post on a literature forum?

Don't try to read Stirner if you don't know anything about the other Young Hegalians, try to get Feuerbach first

The big hissy fit between Marx and Stirner was just mostly about the methodological differences between a radical socialist sociology (Marx) and an anarcho-psychology (Stirner)

No you won't fully understand Stirner without understanding the Young Hegalian milieu he was a part of. Stirner was a reaction against Feuerbachian humanism.
Also Nietzsche ≠ Stirner, they are miles apart in a LOT of ways... Stirner's Unman would be a deadly enemy of both Feuerbach's Man and Nietzsche's Superman

He directly quotes whomever he is quoting, his works stand up well on their own.

Brilliant.

>German/Prussian Nationalism necessarily conquers others. Must be something in their psyche.
It's the geopolitics. Germans and Frenchmen are at the center of Europe so they necessarily had to play the big empires game. Brits were always a sort of backwater kingdom in comparison and had to mostly stay on their island, having to deal with whatever peoples came their way. So Brits could play the merchant empire role having separated colonies here and there because, to begin with, they didn't have to try to make well defined borders to function. In comparison Germans (which were relevant, but never the most relevant in European history, see >H>R>E) are all about the well definition (see all their philosophers), and Frenchmen are all about being tyrannical, from Foucault, to Napoleon, to the way their provinces are arranged.

I mean, I'm doing it out of my own enjoyment, and the NT is real, unlike the spirit of the state.

Sure they are real, but your support for them us still a spook if it's based purely on the notion of them being your countrymen.
Let's say you're French and root for France because it's your homecountry. -> Classic spook.
Now if you're French and root for Iceland because you enjoy watching them and the brilliant show they run -> not a spook.
The difference is being owned by the idea of national pride vs owning the team by gaining enjoyment.

It's entirely possible to be French and root for France without it being a spook. Really depends on your motivation. The example of two countries is just easier to understand.

That's kinda what's happening. I'm Italian and I've been rooting for the NT since always, but I've been enjoying their matches at these Euros even more because they've been amazing. Same thing for Iceland. They're really good and they're also the underdog.