Did I get memed or what? Stirner can be adequately reduced to "can't tell me what to do, *". How the fuck is this a revelation to anyone?
(*mom, god, ideology, feels, morals, in-group values, memes etc.)
Much wow very eye opening.
Is this like the Veeky Forums version of "you lost the game"? In that case well rused and thanks for wasting my time. Whatever.
You sound a little... spooked.
> Stirner can be adequately reduced to "can't tell me what to do"
Why dont you try reading his one book and perhaps grasping his idea of property and power.
Fuck you you condescending cunt.
His "idea of property and power" is pure jargon. What I "empower" myself to I can make my "property" and do with as I please and this is the single justification I need.
In other words * has no power over me.
You're wrong.
It can be reduced to "you already don't want to be told what to do; here's how you are, in fact, being told what to do".
A lot of it has basic assumptions about your beliefs, because it's more of a reaction to other ideas than its own thing (although it is still its own thing).
Property as in "the property of steel is hardness".
>"you already don't want to be told what to do; here's how you are, in fact, being told what to do".
That's fine too. Nitpicking doesn't make me wrong tho.
>Property as in "the property of steel is hardness".
Immaterialization? Is that what you are getting at?
Please, how is Stirnerspeak not just a jargony way of saying something very simple?
Holy shit I just realised his name was Stirner and not Stimer like I've always read it. I feel like a tool.
I've only seen him mentioned here and been disinterested but has made me want to read into him.
>His "idea of property and power" is pure jargon. What I "empower" myself to I can make my "property" and do with as I please and this is the single justification I need.
Your mother can have power over you due to your affections and emotional attachment to her likewise those other values can through the people they haunt.
His destruction of the sacred and the spooky had never been done in Western thought before him.
>destruction of the sacred and the spooky had never been done in Western thought before him
as if that were an achievement. and no he was not, not by a long shot. ever heard of the sophists of athens? technically they were trying to prevent spooks from catching on, but stirner has the disadvantage of coming along several centuries later.
It's no one here's job to justify some random philosopher to you
If you didn't understand what he wrote, which you clearly didn't, you need to go back and re-read his work instead of glancing at it on Wikipedia and throwing a shit-fit because you're too stupid to understand it
>as if that were an achievement. and no he was not, not by a long shot. ever heard of the sophists of athens? technically they were trying to prevent spooks from catching on, but stirner has the disadvantage of coming along several centuries later.
Not really the sophists might have had some relativists amoung them but didnt go beyond that. Whilst they might argue for there being no universal morality they didn't argue that it was bunk as a source of appeal. They thought they could make people virtuous citizens after all
Bear with me guys, I will now do an OP-style analysis of Socrates.
>[Statement]
"I don't know what [element of statement] is. Can you define [element of statement]?"
Much wow very eye opening.
>Whilst they might argue for there being no universal morality they didn't argue that it was bunk as a source of appeal.
Effectively, the same. No?
>They thought they could make people virtuous citizens after all
How? Following their special teachings and their special teachings only. Stirnerites would fit right in.
>all philosophers were right
>it's just our job see how right they were
>read their book
>agree with everything inside it
>and shut your mouth
can't tell me what to do
>Please, how is Stirnerspeak not just a jargony way of saying something very simple?
Did you ever think maybe that's the point? He's making fun of Hegelianism with his language... Stirner was targeting his work towards well read philosophers not laymen
Marx does the same thing in The Holy Family:
>If from real apples, pears, strawberries and almonds I form the general idea “Fruit,” if I go further and imagine that my abstract idea “Fruit,” derived from real fruit, is an entity existing outside me, is indeed the true essence of the pear, the apple, etc.; then, in the language of speculative philosophy I am declaring that “Fruit” is the substance of the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. … The ordinary man does not think he is saying anything extraordinary when he states that there are apples and pears. But if the philosopher expresses those existences in the speculative way he says something extraordinary. He works a wonder by producing the real natural being, the apple, the pear, etc., out of the unreal being of reason “Fruit,” i.e., by creating those fruits out of his own abstract reason, which he considers as an Absolute Subject outside himself, represented here as “Fruit.”
No, no I didn't think of that. I thought was reading Stirner, not Hegel. So does his contribution amount to what OP said, plus "kek, Hegelianism is gay?"
Also,
>tu quoque
kys
Oh, I found what you were talking about...
>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. (Stirner's account of egoistic property—see below—gives this otherwise orthodox-looking Hegelian claim a distinctive twist.)
>This rejection of conventional forms of intellectual discussion is linked to Stirner's substantive views about language and rationality. His unusual style reflects a conviction that both language and rationality are human products which have come to constrain and oppress their creators. Stirner maintains that accepted meanings and traditional standards of argumentation are underpinned by a conception of truth as a privileged realm beyond individual control. As a result, individuals who accept this conception are abandoning a potential area of creative self-expression in favour of adopting a subordinate role as servants of truth. In stark contrast, Stirner insists that the only legitimate restriction on the form of our language, or on the structure of our arguments, is that they should serve our individual ends. It is the frequent failure of ordinary meanings and standard forms of argument to satisfy his interpretation of this criterion which underpins Stirner's remorselessly idiosyncratic style.
Now I see why you Sirnerites are just impossible.
>Property as in "the property of steel is hardness."
THANK YOU. I just had an Oprah "Oh" moment. It all makes sense now
>Effectively, the same. No?
No. Universal morality is a spook but it is one of many. Listen to everyone else in this thread and read the fucking book before you jump in and start acting like a faggot.
or kys
>Stirner can be adequately reduced to "can't tell me what to do, *"
Unless you actually want to tell people what to do, how is this a bad thing?
Cute.
>>This rejection of conventional forms of intellectual discussion is linked to Stirner's substantive views about language and rationality. His unusual style reflects a conviction that both language and rationality are human products which have come to constrain and oppress their creators. Stirner maintains that accepted meanings and traditional standards of argumentation are underpinned by a conception of truth as a privileged realm beyond individual control. As a result, individuals who accept this conception are abandoning a potential area of creative self-expression in favour of adopting a subordinate role as servants of truth. In stark contrast, Stirner insists that the only legitimate restriction on the form of our language, or on the structure of our arguments, is that they should serve our individual ends. It is the frequent failure of ordinary meanings and standard forms of argument to satisfy his interpretation of this criterion which underpins Stirner's remorselessly idiosyncratic style.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
>Effectively, the same. No?
Not really, to compare it to political terms its the equivalent of federalism or in religious terms each people should worship their own Gods
>How? Following their special teachings and their special teachings only. Stirnerites would fit right in.
Dogma of any kind is aborent to the egoist described by Stirner. Indeed being such an egoist could lead to one possibly being comfortable in any society from monarchy to pirate republic. Thats why his thought is so destructive