Wow stirnerfags btfo

Wow stirnerfags btfo

Can ego be an illusion of the consciousness if it is the consciousness?

Stirner actually says the ego is a spook.

Are spooks a spook?

Is there anything that isn't a spook?

>philosopher so irrelevant that there aren't even real pictures of him
>retards on Veeky Forums love him

>retards on Veeky Forums love him
i think they just love the memes. i doubt most people have read him

It would only be funny if Nietzsche says "yeah, well, that's just, like, your perspective man".

>It's an user confuses the psychological ego and the creative nothing thread.
Nigger he explicitly addresses this in the book. How many fucking are we going to have to go through this shit? Do you need a chart?

post rare jays

post nude jays

he's fairly popular on /pol/ too

huh? really?

maybe they've just bought into the memes

Post Bailey Jays.

she's a W H O R E

a chart would actually be nice

Of course they have. /pol/ isn't smart enough to actually read Stirner.

I think probably most people on this board have read little if no Stirner. Some probably thumbed through the Ego and Its Own.

It's weird because I read Stirner in college and I'm not entirely sure why he is so fucking popular here.

Pretty garden variety anarchist/nihilist edgelord.

Actually I guess I answered my own question.

Any good English translation of the Ego and Its Own?

As I don't read or speak German I'm not so sure. I read the Cambridge blue book one.

He's posted slot on leftpol, though I don't notice him posted much on pol

>she

To be fair, he is pretty well known.
My library has a few books on him.

Leftypol

Avoid anyone which translates Spuk with spook.

...

Source?

Stirner effectively amounts to nihilism. No wonder he died like a bitch.

>Stirner planned and financed (with Marie's inheritance) an attempt by some Young Hegelians to own and operate a milk-shop on co-operative principles.
>This enterprise failed partly because the dairy farmers were suspicious of these well-dressed intellectuals.
>The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.

What did Stirner mean by this?

>Stirner
>Nihilist

When will the meme end?

Replace 'spook' with 'meme' and Stirner's philosophy makes equally as much sense

Never because it's a perfect summary of what Stirner amounts to.

Stirner is the opposite of a nihilist, though.

>The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.

tfw spooks literally caused his business to fail

What do you believe in user?

>why he is so fucking popular here
Critique of hegelian/cantian autistic ethics, liberals of various kinds and ideologies in general. He provides a great framework for a contrarian.

He's a nihilist with the alibi of private language. As far as communication between one Stirner/Stirnerites and someone else (including another Stirner/Stirnerite) has more than 0% success rate of transferring information, he's a nihilist to the degree he allowed himself (against his better judgement!) to enter the arena of common language with the expection of successfully exchanging information and coming to a mutual understanding.

There is no meaning without common language, only empathy or lack thereof. Stirnerites revert to animalism which a scientist can merely behavioristically examine and come to the conclusion that S. e.g. prefers one behavior over the other with a certain group and if that behavior is human-like enough on some level of abstraction, the scientist may anthropomorphize that behavior and share with the world that S. is, say, altruistic. But that would be our language, not the Stirnerite's. Mutual empathy is the best you can get when one party refuses to seek a common language.

But nihilism is negation of meaning which is fundamentally a matter of language. As the adage goes "Life has no meaning. So what?".

But Stirner/Stirnerites purportedly speak a private language. "Ain't gonna make a servant of truth out of me" and so on.

>le dilemma face

Stirner is nihilism (to the -- Max) as far as this conversation ís to you that which it is to me. Inside your head, assuming you're a Stirnerite, he can mean anything you want him to. But if you were you could have denied any of the basic premises I made in this post in which case I just talked at a brick wall. That's ok though, sane people are reading too.

>b-but Stirner is not a solipsist
Indeed. He's an animal (a rather sexually repressed one). Animals are nihilistic by their nature and relation to us via medium of language, q.e.d. We may still pet them and cuddle with them however :3

Spooked af senpai

You are an animal too, user

That's exactly why he's popular, with one addition; he's also plausibly right. That is, he wouldn't be popular if he was shit.
There's only one. It's okay.

Category error but yes, that is a correct observation. Just not relevant to what I said.

A hammer that shatters the shallowness of complacency.

Stirner goes at it tooth, claw and nail in the philosophical rooms of pretension stripping the layers of wallpaper one by one. Christianity, Socialism, Liberalism, Morality, Belief, Virtue, Ideology, Nationalism, Patriotism are all consigned to the trashcan of history.

Marx hated him, both for his iconoclasm and for disassembling Marxism. Belief in forces laying outside of the self were the anathema, god is as laughable as the proletariat, both exist as wheels in the head.

Therefore, what remains? Existential nothingness, the dread of being. The feeling of being trapped or released from your own thoughts, the zest of being alive. The world is composed through the individual who is thrashed, psychologically derided and nullified until they accept their place in the hierarchy. This is all an illusion and exists as a form of mass hysteria in peoples heads. They back it up with weaponry and zeal but there belief system means nothing in the sum totality of the universe. The first stage in recognition of the multiplicity of freedom.

Stirner is the man who went through the wallpaper, through the pain, and found the coated layers of plaster underneath - unsullied. He shares many of the same qualities as Nietzsche, except Stirner was the first to reach the cold North Pole and plant his flag.

Enjoy your animal dasein, friend.

"If consciousness is an illusion then who is being fooled?"

Psychologists would have a field day with Stirnerites. I would actually pay hard cash to see some existentialist weenie reveal his cognitive dissonance again and again while showing all the signs of delusions of grandeur and depression at the same time.

I can't even

>>Psychologists would have a field day with Stirnerites.
So would cannibals, what's your point?

Oh, it's you again. Poor man.

>"If consciousness is an illusion then who is being fooled?"
It's not illusionary, it's ontologically nonexistent. Consciousness is an "illusion" like the wetness of water.

...

>Psychologists would have a field day with Stirnerites
Same could be said about your post there buddy. But to be honest I'd like to see some coherent arguments against Stirners philosophy.

Why can't I hold all this lowbrow ;___;

Oh, you're delusional, ok.

>But to be honest I'd like to see some coherent arguments against Stirners philosophy.
There is no private language. You can't say things mean what you want them to mean. The meaning of a word is its use in the language. The mere fact that you understood Stirner means you contradicted his philosophy.

I can fix his philosophy with one sentence however: "What you do outside of language is up to you.".

But *that's* not very fancy huh..

>he wouldn't be popular if he was shit.

Exploitable epic may may waiting to happen.

linguistic reification

stirnerfags are closeted cartesians and won't take the big leap but talk a big talk

put it in the fucking garbage

> the Ego and SEMANTICS are not spooks

there's a reason stirner isn't read outside Veeky Forums

>stirnerfags are closeted cartesians
Nigga how top kek

>Psychologists would have a field day with Stirnerites.

So might Homeopathists and Astrologists.

Doesn't mean I have to take them seriously though.

I don't know what Stirnerites even want in threads like this. If you were a fundamentalist (I don't know anything about you so I can only argue per proxy against the book) you wouldn't participate in any such discussions since they are a violation of your dogma of the self as creative nothing. I would have no access to you, literally.

So, if you are here this means you are still on the fence. But what is it that you are unsure of? What needs explanation? I hear "prove him wrong, prove him wrong" in every thread. What do you want to hear? Stirner preemptively denies institutionalized value and the axioms of a common language.

Protip: That's a closed belief system. Like nihilism or materialism or psychological egoism. You can just deny, deny, deny all day long by inflating the definitions of what it means to have no meaning, nothing outside matter, no action that is not selfish respectively.

Do you think those "damn SJW" philosophers in Cambridge and Stanford or whatever shudder in fear when they hear Stirner's name? No, into the trash he goes because his philosophy is uninteresting and offers exactly -zero- accessible explanation of the world or anything. Zeeerooo. Ok?

Does that make sense?

???

>Psychologists would have a field day with Stirnerites.
And Nietzsche was a psychologist.

>Doesn't mean I have to take them seriously though.
Never said you had to but you might care about your mental health.

(Tho I'm not even that sure in the case of Stirnerfags)

>Implying psychology isn't a politically hijacked field of science anyway

>Do you think those "damn SJW" philosophers in Cambridge and Stanford or whatever shudder in fear when they hear Stirner's name? No, into the trash he goes because his philosophy is uninteresting and offers exactly -zero- accessible explanation of the world or anything. Zeeerooo. Ok?

You sound just like Marx when he was shitting himself, too.

I can smell the denial.

>I think probably most people on this board have read little if no Stirner.

Sure.

Sigh. Mental illness existed before the field of psychology. I am saying you might want to watch out because humans crave such things as love and I don't mean Stirnerian Jesus-love but practical, real-world "normie" affection and friendship and all that stuff.

Please don't alienate yourself because of some stupid book. Your life is worth more than that. Remember, Stirner died impoverished, alone and (as some speculate) a virgin.

You are better than this and you know that. Good luck.

>Remember, Stirner died impoverished, alone and (as some speculate) a virgin.
.............so what?

His whole point is to shatter closed belief systems. If you haven't noticed, he doesn't deny anything but boundaries imposed by various ideas (aka spooks). His point is, laws, humanism, social order, loving each other is fine and great. Just don't pretend they have any intrinsic value apart from the fact that these are making people feel good, directly or indirectly.

>Muh happy/fulfilled life

No, you are the one who is in denial. Stirner's philosophy is a closed belief system. The reason he is not talked about is the same reason Ayn Rand or nihilism don't get much attention. Reread my first post until you get it or you can muster up a counterargument.

>Do you think those "damn SJW" philosophers in Cambridge and Stanford or whatever shudder in fear when they hear Stirner's name?
i'm pretty sure there are no philosophers in cambridge or stanford

"wetness" is a physical property, use a different metaphor

what part of 'coherent' didn't you understand

>psychological egoism
Causality confirms it though, denying this would require you to have a closed belief system.

That is a superficial reading of the book. I see that a lot on here. That's fine. You are not a Stirnerite however, just a hedonist or similar.

Be honest with me, are you a woman?

This

>I am saying you might want to watch out because humans crave such things as love and I don't mean Stirnerian Jesus-love but practical, real-world "normie" affection and friendship and all that stuff.
lol what the fuck is stirnerian jesus-love

the stirnerian form of love is practical, i.e "i like you therefore will marry you and treat you nicely and maybe even die for you but I won't elevate your position as my beloved into some sort of ideal where I let that concept dictate my behavior rather than my love for you"

>Remember, Stirner died impoverished, alone and (as some speculate) a virgin.
his wife literally died during pregnancy

Can you provide quotes that prove my reading being superficial?

Good example, thanks for participating.

What you gave me: I can only assume some kind of modern cognitive woowoo muh causality definition of egoism
What you implicitly did: Hyperinflate the definition of egoism until your rationalization module resolved your cognitive dissonance because you subscribe to a closed belief system. "It must make sense, it must!"

This exact phenomenon is what I meant. thank you.

Superficial reading.

>Animals are nihilistic
Really makes you think.

>his wife literally died during pregnancy
C U C K
U
C
K

great comment fagtron

>"i like you therefore will marry you and treat you nicely and maybe even die for you but I won't elevate your position as my beloved into some sort of ideal where I let that concept dictate my behavior rather than my love for you"
Is there a difference though?

Stirner adresses this. Have you even read him?

You have not made any coherent arguments against it. What you did is some very poor psychoanalysis based on your own insecurities (hey look i can do it too!) It's not that ''it must make sense'' It does make sense, for the time being.

Yes. In the former example, you love a person. In the latter, you love the concept of a person, or driven by the ideas of the "proper" behaviour of a lover. In normal situations, your behaviour will be similar in both cases, but not always. Like there's literally no need to kill yourself (or your loved one) in most cases lovers do kill themselves or their loved ones if you're not spooked by the idea of "love", but simply do love.

the ego is the transcendental object of the unreflective act of reflection

How can spooks be real if OUR spook isn't real?