Where do i start with pic related?

>this fuckin guy

I just see myself as someone who wants to read up on Stirner. Nothing wrong with wanting to study some different philosophies.

Ayn Rand's views can be considered pretty abnormal as well, doesn't mean I should stay away from Atlas Shrugged and The Fountain head.

Communism failed and people still study Karl Marx.

The contempt you hold towards reading what some may call "extreme" works only highlights your idiocracy and illiteracy.

>abolish institutions
>abolish the state
>abolish society
>might makes right
>individuals would unite in 'unions of egoists' only when it was in their self-interest to do so
>property simply comes about through might
>whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property
>what I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing
>i do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!

am I missing something? sounds like a right wing Marx desu

I feel like your greentext there described exactly what actually happened in civilization. I mean that's basically how shit went down, people taking what they could and making agreements that were mutually beneficial with those who rivaled them in power.

Seems like Stirner's ideal world is just reality, except he wants everybody to be totally aware of it except in denial about a bunch of shit

a meme

Yea, sure, read and study what you want, but I'm afraid "abnormal" may be too mild a term here.

stirners world is what we would have if oligarchs didn't have to work around spooks, which provide a common defense and secure the general welfare

But since property rights are a spook, what would oligarchs own? Only that which they could possess, which realistically would likely be the clothes on their back. How could someone like Trump, the Koch brothers, Warren Buffet or George Soros possess anything without massive social structures that people believe in to make it possible? If all the people who work for oligarchs now became aware that property is a spook (along with many other ideas), why would they work for them? It wouldn't be self-interest, since these former oligarchs now wouldn't possess anything.

Stirner isn't advocating for anarcho-capitalism, if that's what you're getting out of him.

knowyourmeme.com

thats all you need to know

I recommend not losing time with Stirner, but going directly to Nietzsche. It's the same to be honest, but better done.

>It's the same
Would you care to elaborate

Yourself

The spook bullshit is even mentioned by Nietzsche without referencing it, I remember reading it several times in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Hell, even Nietzsche is known to have ironically remarked that he was plagiarising Stirner.

Regarding Nietzsche's philosophy in comparison/contrast with Stirner's ideas, isn't the ubermensch morality practically the same as the egotist that Stirner praises? Think about it, the ubermensch is an individual who gives a fuck about the frivolous morality that characterises slave-minded people.
Stirner advocated dismissing the state, as well as Nietzsche. Stirner advocated dismissing ideals and embracing the "material" self, so does Nietzsche.

>just read the wiki article on this guy
>how can you take this guy seriously?

HOLY FUCK

10. The Joyous Life of Tuan-mu-Shu

Tuan-mu-Shu of Wei was descended from Tse-Kung. He had a patrimony of ten thousand gold pieces.

Indifferent to the chances of life, he followed his own inclinations. What the heart delights in he would do and delight in: with his walls and buildings, pavilions, verandahs, gardens, parks, ponds and lakes, wine and food, carriages, dresses, women and attendants, he would emulate the princes of Chi and Chu in luxury.

Whenever his heart desired something, or his ear wished to hear something, his eye to see or his mouth to taste, he would procure it at all costs, though the thing might only be had in a far-off country, and not in the kingdom of Chi. When on a journey the mountains and rivers might be ever so difficult and dangerous to pass, and the roads ever so long, he would still proceed just as men walk a few steps.

A hundred guests were entertained daily in his palace. In the kitchens there were always fire and smoke, and the vaults of his hall and peristyle incessantly resounded with songs and music. The remains from his table he divided first among his clansmen. What they left was divided among his fellow-citizens, and what these did not eat was distributed throughout the whole kingdom.

When Tuan-mu-Shu reached the age of sixty, and his mind and body began to decay, he gave up his household and distributed all his treasures, pearls and gems, carriages and dresses, concubines and female attendants. Within a year he had disposed of his fortune, and to his offspring he had left nothing. When he fell ill, he had no means to buy medicines and a stone lancet, and when he died, there was not even money for his funeral. All his countrymen who had benefited by him contributed money to bury him, and gave back the fortune of his descendants.

When Ch'in-ku-li heard of this he said: “Tuan-mu-Shu was a fool, who brought disgrace to his ancestor.”

When Tuan-Kan-Sheng heard of it he said: “Tuan-mu-Shu was a wise man; his virtue was much superior to that of his ancestors. The commonsense people were shocked at his conduct, but it was in accord with the right doctrine. The excellent man of Wei only adhered to propriety. They surely had not a heart like his.”

Well firstly are you a unviersity Student?

Regardless start here

spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001547/secG6.html

then Ego and its Own followed by the essay called "Stirners Critics"

If have read a lot of other german philsophers he will be refreshingly clear if not he will seem chaotic and repetitive.

Concepts/ words to focus on
"spook"
"property"
The "creative nothing" and Stirners idea of the self.

If you follow the suggestions of

99% chance of you burning out before even reading a word of his his work or thought. Only go for his influences after you read his main work. You dont need a huge background to understand Stirner

About half the points you have there are falsehoods and are not consequences or suggestions of Stirners thought.

>Regarding Nietzsche's philosophy in comparison/contrast with Stirner's ideas, isn't the ubermensch morality practically the same as the egotist that Stirner praises?

Not at all, its a horrifical spook and he falls into the same problem as most philosophers in that he can only see spooks in the ideas that enslave others but not himself.

> Think about it, the ubermensch is an individual who gives a fuck about the frivolous morality that characterises slave-minded people.

If you have genuine slave values or attachments to certain actions acting contrary to those in order to be a higher individual would make you just as haunted as someone paralyzed by honor culture

>Stirner advocated dismissing ideals and embracing the "material" self, so does Nietzsche.

Funny that you would write this straight after your ubermench spiel

The only thing you really need to understand Stirner is Critique of Practical Reason. For it gives the prime example of a spook.

Sounds like you need some spookbusting

Nietzsche is the spookiest of them all

With greeks

stirner
>destroy all spooks

nietzsche
>create your own spooks

Raid /x/ with stirner memes, report results. Plenty of spooks over there.

thanks

not really just interested in him

>If you have genuine slave values or attachments to certain actions acting contrary to those in order to be a higher individual would make you just as haunted as someone paralyzed by honor culture
Stop trying to make psychological egoist Stirner a thing it is superficial reading of Ego and Own

>How could someone[...]possess anything without massive social structures that people believe in to make it possible

through force. also, if property is a spook, why then does he seem so preoccupied with the struggle for obtaining and retaining control of it, if it is a useless concept, that is?

>Stirner isn't advocating for anarcho-capitalism, if that's what you're getting out of him

whatever the name it sounds like hell

those are all directly pulled from his wikipedia page. message the admins over there and tell them they are misrepresenting this genius.

Do you imply that wikipedia misrepresenting someone is a rare sight? Because it isn't. There's a reason for why wikipedia isn't used as a source in reasonable discussions.

It shows the general outline of his thought supported by quotes from the text. Must I really read some odd 300 page book (which I plan on doing anyways) and examine the strength of every point he makes to form a basic opinion on the guy? If he's advocating for the abolition of the pillars of civilization that kinda gives me an indicator as to where he's coming from and what his motivation might be. Why do you fags fetishize formal argument and absolutely disdain historical context and teleology?

>idiocracy
a 2006 American satirical science fiction comedy film directed by Mike Judge and starring Luke Wilson, Maya Rudolph, and Dax Shepard

>idiocy
extremely stupid behavior

holy kek idiocracy

Ego and its Own is intellectualized projected loserdom. Only a fool would take his philosophy seriously. Lemme save you some time here and paraphrase Stirner's biography by his biggest fanboy: Virgin, teacher at girls private school where he acted like a sexually repressed omega and was mocked by everyone (literally laughinggirls.jpg), never allowed a woman into his emotional life because he was in a relationship with his mentally ill single mother until the day she died, compensation mechanism kicked in, virginboy threw a sperg tantrum and out came infantile protopsychoanalysis (you don't understand mom!! I'm so much more than my social status!!! love me!! Johann is only a name!!! cant call me for dinner!!!) and le postironic parody of hegelian dialectic and trololo politics, sadly still a virgin post factum, fell into depression, quit writing because of lack of validation (learned helplessness and femininity over 9k at this point), managed to waste his wife's fortune (who said she never loved him decades after his death), compensation kicked in yet again and he thought he was gonna be a big boy milk tycoon in order to restore his masculinity, sadly was painfully unaware that his autistic effeminate demeanor was scaring away business partners and clients alike, died an impoverished and friendless virgin.

Popular with the kids because "parents just don't understand" and "I don't want to read all this fucking daycart and kunt shit just make me feel superior senpai".

>If I see the loved one suffer, I suffer with him, and I know no rest till I have tried everything to comfort and cheer him; if I see him glad, I too become glad over his joy. From this it does not follow that suffering or joy is caused in me by the same thing that brings out this effect in him, as is sufficiently proved by every bodily pain which I do not feel as he does; his tooth pains him, but his pain pains me.

Literally slave morality. Nietzsche laughing in his grave -- such "plagiarism" of him amirite Veeky Forums!!

You're welcome.and PS Emersons's "self-reliance" and Willhelm Reich said the juicy parts better and were less socially retarded and le ironic about it (if you're still set on being too cool for school) and Wittgenstein destroyed his solipsistic metaphysic.

If my post doesn't suffice read the SEP. Stirner was a flyweight and is rightfully ignored in the history of philosophy. Literal autism and not the confident and masculine Anglo autism, weird socially awkward "compassionate" "nice guy" bitchboi in the back friendless virgin autism.

Done.

Nice to hear your opinion, Bertrand.

how about stop being so spooked and read the fucking book

kek

I'm not an analytic fanboy but respect where respect is due and Stirner was destroyed and buried.

Just read the Ego and it's Own. Not really that difficult of a book to understand unless you are severely uneducated in very fundamental philosophy.

>SEP
>Over the course of the book, he variously declines to condemn the officer's widow who strangles her child (281), the man who treats his sister ‘as wife also’ (45), and the murderer who no longer fears his act as a ‘wrong’ (169). In a world in which “we owe each other nothing” (263), it seems that acts of infanticide, incest, and murder, might all turn out to be justified.
>justified
Completely missing the point, as expected. For justice is a spook in Stirner's sense.

>doesn't mean I should stay away from Atlas Shrugged and The Fountain head.
Well you should unless you ironically enjoy reading shit literature

will do friend

I'll also just say that if there are some references and such that go past you, don't worry, it happened to me too, but I still managed to get most of his thesis anyway.

i'll pick it up tomorrow and i'll make a thread again when i have read it. thanks for your contribution

...

i'm planning on reading nietzsche too

>Communism failed

This is why you shouldn't read Stirner yet. If you think that the communism that existed in the 20th century is what Marx was advocating for, you need to seriously sit down and try to understand Marxism as it was outlined by Marx.

The most important thing for Marx was that communism arises during a period of surplus created by capitalistic industry. It had to occur in an industrialized state in order for it to work. If you look at Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, etc., you'll notice that none of them were industrialized pre-revolution. They were almost exclusively agricultural societies.

Anyone got some info on the biography this user's talking about?

Nigger, did you just completely misread everything and project your insecurities into your ''analysis''?

what do you need to understand critique of practical reason?

If one wants to read stirner where would he being? I don't want to miss out on any prerequisites.

If you are really obsessed with not missing anything, start with the greeks. Otherwise, just start reading and ask for prerequisites when you find something you can't understand from contest.

yeah okay so what, i browse reddit. And yeah i'm proud of it. It's a community that is intellectual, insightful, diverse, pluralistic, informative and dialectical. There are many people on reddit and many different opinions. Just because you don't like the opinions of one part of the community, doesn't mean that it's all bad. There is less of a hivemind than here, which shows in everybody here mindlessly and ingronatly flaming at redditors.

>baiting this hard

Then dont worry about secondary sources then unless you want to start shelling out cash for articles

Im not, the point of that post was highlighting the uncomprising egoism of his that makes him more consistent that other figures like Rand or Fruit Man.

The uncompromising uniqueness of individuals means that the unspooked egoist can manifest in a huge variety of different ways.

>those are all directly pulled from his wikipedia page. message the admins over there and tell them they are misrepresenting this genius.

Wanting to abolish the spook of society does not mean abolishing society as the collective actions and feelings associated with communal existence.

Abolishing the spooks of institutions does not mean destroying organised action towards a certain goal or practice.

Abolishing the state as a spook does not mean overthrowing your government. - indeed if that alligns with our egoism the state can be a very useful tool.

For the egoist your goal is to make these your property and not your spooks. Abolish the spirit

That post is kind of deceptive, yes he had a mentally ill mother but no he didn't obsess over her. Indeed she outlived him which created problems because Stirner took a loan from a Jew that was contingent on him inheriting his mothers home.

Secondly he didnt have a whole amount of contact with his mother and spent the majority of his life living with his uncles family and then independently.

Far from being a closed of virgin he had a relationship with his landlady's daughter whom he would marry and who died in childbirth.

The rest of your discussion falls into a lot of baseless insults indeed his translation of the Wealth of Nations was seen as the best German translation up until a decade or so ago.

Likewise his second wife was a tad bitter towards him as she belived that somehow he was responsible for her rebellion against Catholicism and her families middle class values.

>Thinking you have Neetzsche on your said while being this full of resentiment.

>For the egoist your goal is to make these your property and not your spooks. Abolish the spirit

Putting aside the fact that every Stirnerite (and Nietzschian, it seems) has his own interpretation of what he 'really meant," what is the difference between what you said there and the greentext user posted earlier?

If the egoists goal is not to abolish these things themselves, but only their spirit, they have no legitimate claim to authority over the collective or the individual, not to mention any stipulated purpose, and they are rendered useless or inept. What basis does the egoist or the collective of egoists (lel) build a civilization upon if he has no use for ideas? How will you ever advance beyond the bestial competition of several million wills fighting to assert their right?

Please clarify if I'm not getting it.

>pic related

>Dream of a world were no one has starve
>That dream gives the philosophical foundation for regimes that created famines in a never before seen scale.

Marxs intentions are irrelevant, the fucker didnt account for the fact that if you create a big as fuck goverment with no failsafe mechanism whatsoever for the people tyranny and corruption are a matter of time. The guy should be held accountable even if that wasnt his vision, if you advocate for anarchism because taxation is theft and what have you then youre partially responsible when people enslave each other regardless of your original vision.

>If the egoists goal is not to abolish these things themselves, but only their spirit, they have no legitimate claim to authority over the collective or the individual, not to mention any stipulated purpose,

These concepts are already the product of individuals, all egoism is doing is choosing to treat them as mere tools rather than something ethereal and higher than the individual.

>they are rendered useless or inept.
Not at all they are simply rendered a persons property. I choose to be faithful to my partner and serve my community because it makes me happy and produces an nicer way of living. I have made community and fidelity my property I carry out actions associated with those ideas for myself and not for the ideas themselves.

>What basis does the egoist or the collective of egoists (lel) build a civilization upon if he has no use for ideas? How will you ever advance beyond the bestial competition of several million wills fighting to assert their right?

Ideas/abstract concepts are not spooks, only those ideas/ac which we hold above ourselves – giving them authority as a higher source of appeal or motivation. With regards to that other part of your post you make the mistake of thinking that everyone aspires to be some social Darwinist ruggard individual, a woman who wants to spend her life barefoot and pregnant can be just as much of an egoist as the wall street shark. Not only that but nothing about egoism mandates that you spread the idea and “convert” everyone to egoism. There can never be any blueprint for an egoist society – to do so would require you discard their individuality and hence contradict itself. The Union of Egoists is simply one possible society.

Hope this helps.

I couldn't care less about having neetch on my side the problem is he is accused of plagiarism by Stirner fanboys which is ignorant. Stirner's philosophy is naive egoism with an alibi.

>I couldn't care less about having neetch on my side the problem is he is accused of plagiarism by Stirner fanboys which is ignorant. Stirner's philosophy is naive egoism with an alibi.

Stirners egoism is merely consistent

bump

>Stirner's philosophy is naive egoism with an alibi.
You could say that for any philosophy