Is there any real counter to him?

"Only teens like him, I bet you're still in highschool."

The only counters involve ad hominem or straw man ().

You are shit

No. I just enjoy Paine, no matter how spooked he was.

Impossible. Since women own you.

Lots of meme-ing. You should read up on it. It's simple enough

>Are there any real counter to Ronald Mcdonald?
>crickets and mockery
>haha, look at all these spooked ad hominem arguments. Lolol ronald mcdonald is great

Nope no one outdoes Vash the stampede

>impossible
Nay, for I am the Unique One

If Christianity is right, Stirner is wrong. Ditto for nearly every other religion, or at least every religion with creator/moralizer deities. Stirner is only unbeatable in an atheistic universe.

Two Stirner fans meet:

I am Enlightened and this is mine
No its mine
No its mine
No
Nuh uh
Yeah huh
[murder]
There is nothing wrong here he is my property

What about Knives?

Stirner specifically accounts for God

Perfectly acceptable behavior for certain values of "this"

I know you are but what am I is a counter to I know you are but what am I

it's an infinite loop

IM RUBBER YOU'RE GLUE

literal bullshit

A GARBAGE MAN

>Says just another anonymous.

Oh, mien eigentum.

I don't see how Egoism and Christianity, a religion entirely devoted to submission, are compatible.

You have much profound information to give about God, and have for thousands of years “searched the depths of the Godhead,” and looked into its heart, so that you can doubtless tell us how God himself attends to “God’s cause,” which we are called to serve. And you do not conceal the Lord’s doings, either. Now, what is his cause? Has he, as is demanded of us, made an alien cause, the cause of truth or love, his own? You are shocked by this misunderstanding, and you instruct us that God’s cause is indeed the cause of truth and love, but that this cause cannot be called alien to him, because God is himself truth and love; you are shocked by the assumption that God could be like us poor worms in furthering an alien cause as his own. “Should God take up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?” He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must “serve a higher cause.” — Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is — a purely egoistic cause.

Slut

wait is this the real Butterfly? Is she actually back?

I leave Veeky Forums for a while to hang out at /mu/ and this shit happens.

Also, no, Stirner tells it like it is. Helpful advice for life. Not the only advice, I'm actually reading Ligotti's Conspiracy and it's a bit freeing.

They both help, different ways of approaching the same goal.

>Is there any real counter to him?

Yeah, there is. There are several "spooks" that are very useful, even if they are at bottom without merit, such as the family etc.

While I find a great deal of affinity with his individualism, I can't seem to shake the feeling when I read him that it was either the purest form of psychopath that wrote it, or someone who was clinically depressed.

Family isn't a spook

It's evolutionary psychology

All of stirner is basic tier psychological egoism

you're all better off reading pinker than stirner! there is no hegel in real life!

Family is a spook if you sacrifice yourself for them.

Not when you're trying to argue against that kind of approach.

Nice samefagging

See you you really try to read him. The thing that makes his philosophy different is it is against guys like Marx and guys like Nietzsche and Rand.

The whole idea is spooks is that they are ideas that control you in a way that only real things should.

From example: If you think that family is important and try to help out and so on you are being spooked by the idea of family, but if you help out because you love your family and it makes you happy then it is not really a spook since there are real people you are doing something for; the fact that they are your family such be irrelevant in your choice to help them.

You base everything off yourself and judge everything by how it affects you. To go and fight a war for your country is a spook, but to fight a land developer would wants to destroy a forest you love is not. The idea of the country is not a real thing but a forest is a real thing that you enjoy seeing and so to fight for it would not be a spook. Now if you were an environmentalist and wanted to protect the world for future generations or whatever, then that would be a spook reason to go out and fight for a forest.

His philosophy is about being free from control. It is not about being a sociopath. If you think you are obligated to lie and deceive people to better yourself then you are just as spooked as anyone else and Stirner would be against it.

Niggers.

Its shitty proto-pomo philosophy that has been revived by wanks on the internet and some bonghead anarchists.

Marx shat on Stirner directly.

Freud / Lacan shits on Stirner ideas

Husserl / Heidegger also shit on Stirners ideas

That covers pretty much the entire intellectual foundation of the only people that would be inclined to take Stirner seriously.

Althusser "revived" Stirners philosophy by observing how it influenced Marx; pretty much the only thing Stirner can be credited with.

Wouldn't pleasure be a spook as well

Could you present a summary of one argument? For real, I'm curious.

No.
Read the book.

did any of these include refutation or was it just "i disagree"

>Marx shat on Stirner directly.

Yeah, and he still didn't manage to refute him.

Funny, that.

Gautama Buddha destroyed Stirner millennia before he was born. Stirner couldn't see that the biggest spook of them all was the self.

>moral facts exist!
>b-but we can't actually detect or measure them because of...reasons
>but our "intuition" can tell us what they are, because the unconscious parts of our mind are magical

This is what realists ACTUALLY believe.

>spooked
I didn't know R Mcdonald had a similar philosophy to Stirner.

Keep your shit consistent

Im new here whats this meme

Depends on which part of him.

Its pretty hard to counter him if you mean his egoism and nihilism and whatnot. Moral nihilism is probably the only un-counterable moral philosophy; can anyone really claim more than "well, we should still pretend that moral facts exist and thus "create them"", which is still nihilist at core. Of course, this is ignoring those who take the pretending to the level of a claim of the existence of a god or something.

But its pretty easy to attack some ideas like that union of egoists stuff, any part of him that deals with more than an individual, really. Even, or particularly if, we accept his egoism, it still doesn't mean that we need to go anarchist.

Basically though, his vision is only one way to go based on nihilism. We can very well insist on another way.

Sacrificing yourself for your offspring when you can no longer reproduce may not really be a spook

Could you recommend me one of his books. You got me interested and I'm new. Its the first time I hear about Stirner.

Just read Ego and it's Own.

>Stirner's conception of Ownness is then a type of self-mastery in which one's actions are unrestricted by any internal or external constraints - "I am my own only when I am master of myself, instead of being mastered by...anything else".To attain autonomy, the individual must free himself from all forces, such as ideologies, religions, ethics, other persons and even their own desires.

Property is probably the most biggest spook.

Buddha beats all philosophy always

Wittgenstein-2 and memetics.

The majority of professional philosophers are moral realists and definitely not nihilist at heart. Read a book on contemporary metaethics.

proper grammar is an even bigger spook

Or read this
plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Definitely not "pretending". Not that I agree with moral realism.

Fuck this is depressing and causing me anxiety.
Lately I misuse words, repeat words confuse stuff etc.

I fear for the worst, some kind of brain related illness.

I was just joking my man. English isn't my first language and I make stupid mistakes all the time, even when using my native tongue lmao

Just lay down the alcohol

>The majority of professional philosophers
Why the fuck should I care what paid agents of the bourgeoisie think

>Read a book on contemporary metaethics.
Make me

Read ego and it's own, and then stirners critics. The latter isn't very long and it clears up a lot in terms of what he was striving for.

>Much of Stirner's prose—which is crowded with aphorisms, emphases, and hyperbole—appears calculated to disconcert. Most striking, perhaps, is the use of word play. Rather than reach a conclusion through the conventional use of argument, Stirner often approaches a claim that he wishes to endorse by exploiting words with related etymologies or formal similarities. For example, he associates words for property (such as ‘Eigentum’) with words connoting distinctive individual characteristics (such as ‘Eigenheit’) in order to promote the claim that property is expressive of selfhood.
Basically read the original or stop trying, same as Heidegger. And the Frenchies from what I've heard.

I know it isn't my native either.
But lately it started happening really frequently, it's scary.

I wish it was alcohol, I don't drink.

>Why the fuck should I care what paid agents of the bourgeoisie think
>mfw this board is slowly becoming a post-ironic /leftypol/

I see so many lit fags say 'stirner changed my life'. Give examples/at least some idea of stay a 'the secret'-tier meme

Stirner never really explains what happens when external and INTERNAL constraints are stripped away. What the hell are you left with? Even "instinct" is an internal constraint of sorts.

>I don't drink
maybe you should start drinking then

>Even "instinct" is an internal constraint of sorts.
So even animals are spooked?

"I love men" -Max Stirner

lmao I always knew he was gay

Not really, no. There are counters, but they're fairly equal, and don't destroy him even if he doesn't destroy them.

My negro acquaintance, it was you who asked the rhetorical question (in your mind) whether anyone can claim more than self-made meaning. They can and they did. See SEP if you are too lazy to pick up a book Your moral nihilism is nothing special, nothing that secretly makes everyone go "woah, better find a way to thwart this mastermind so we can maintain the status quo". You're simply not as smart as you think you are.

gornahoor.net/Individual/IABW.htm

>women
Also, they're not "property", they're MY property.

>wait is this the real Butterfly? Is she actually back?
No, it's another mentally disturbed tranny.

Are there any realists who don't rely on "intuition", "popularity", whig history, or dualism to justify themselves? Every single argument I've seen from that side is downright retarded.

>I just enjoy Paine
So that's why you're here.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that.

I'm not too well acquainted with that, I'll be honest. Sounds like it'll run into some pretty big problems, though.

But uh, still seems like pretending to me - or a form of saying that moral _truth_ does not matter for practical ethics, which is of course a valid position. I don't want to give up my ability to make moral judgement in real life, either, and I don't need observable moral facts to use this pretend-morality as a tool.

Without objective values to weigh deeds against, there just can't be a morality that isn't, at the end of the day, pretending.

Get your German right at least you sub human.

Stirner rejects psychological egoism at least implicitly but it's been a while since I read the book. Lemme try to explain; When an individual finds himself the slave of the will of another man, spook or even the will of his emotions then he's not his own. Acceptance of the best psychological "deal" you can get is irrelevant to Stirner's concept of ownness. In other words you can be a psychological egoist and still not fulfill Stirner's criteria for being your own master. Sorry for my English

What's this quote from?

Truly you are the worst tripfag I have ever seen, and I've seen a lot of them.

"Everything is a Spook" Is a Spook

>on Veeky Forums
>doesn't know the difference between "it's" and "its"

Why are you even here, retards?

>stirner rejects psychological egoism

he most certainly does not, it fundamentally lies at the heart of all of his thought

Might be people whose native language is not English. Thus, they might actually be very Veeky Forumserate in their own language.

Don't even bother. He is a Veeky Forums meme. No one in academia takes him seriously. The reason he isn't discussed at all in philosophy is not because he was so right that he ended ethics (which is patently false considering the huge amount of work being done in ethics) but rather he is so wrong he doesn't even contribute to the debate so they ignore him à la rand.

>Sounds like it'll run into some pretty big problems, though.
>It's the philosophers who are wrong
>Not the guy who just admitted to not being acquainted with moral realism

He counters himself. He repudiates everything so that must also include the truth value of his own assertions of intractable moral relativism.

>I'm not too well acquainted with that, I'll be honest
Not to sound like an ass but it shows with what you said in the rest of your post.

>Without objective values to weigh deeds against, there just can't be a morality that isn't, at the end of the day, pretending.

You need to sit done and learn what these terms you are using actually mean, because they don't mean whatever it is that you think they do.

I was really hoping you'd killed yourself. That's a shame.
I was looking for a proper reaction to your reappearance and found this picture in an old folder, which, I shit you not, was actually saved under this filename. It doesn't really convey my extreme disappointment at your continuing existence, but I have to post it for Old Times' Sake.

P.S. Actually fucking kill yourself this time.
P.P.S. If you aren't actually Butterfly, all of this still applies.

This is basically like saying that a philosopher dismissing the question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" doesn't even contribute to the debate and therefore it is right to ignore him.

I can understand the dancing angel perspective, but really it's just butthurt that someone dismissed your fraudulent intellectual game.

>he most certainly does not, it fundamentally lies at the heart of all of his thought
Nope, sorry, no, that is incorrect (and you should learn some humility). Stirner most certainly does not base his thoughts on psychological egoism. He recommends among other things emotional detachment and makes a clear distinction between actions governed by piety and egoism. And that's just the surface. The real problem is that you don't understand how Stirner's concept of own (which he likes to call egoism here and there) differs from your intuitive definition of egoism. I recommend reading some secondary lit because this discussion is over.

I've been away for a while. Butters was going to kill herself?

Source?

No problem buddy!

I replied to the wrong post.

That's what I said.

No.