Hello, Veeky Forums
I admin a discord server about debates, especially about politics and literature and Max Stirner has increasingly been used to derail conversation there.
Can someone explain to me what's the deal with his philosophy and why it's being used by trolls?
Thanks
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Part of it is because his philosophy appeals to /pol/ crossboarders.
Odd. Stirner is anarchist, not wingnut
Likely they're just memers who don't even understand.
But he does win all
>Can someone explain to me what's the deal with his philosophy and why it's being used by trolls?
Because its a hammer against most common ideologies
It's a surface-level understanding, yes, but so is most everyone else's here-- I guess it's just fun to shout "spooks!" at feminism and postcolonialism.
epic meme philosopher Veeky Forums obsesses over because nobody else knows he exists
also believed in ghosts what a fucking idiot
what the fuck is a "discord server"?
>Stirner is anarchist
I've never hated you more, fuckfly.
Do you not realize that the obsession with "anarchy" is just as much as a spook as capitalism, Marxism, or democracy? Quit applying names you don't understand to philosophy that you so obviously don't understand.
Those who haven't read him see him as a weapon against grand ideology and empty language. He was certainly an opponent. But beyond that, they don't understand why he was an opponent and they don't understand the dialectics behind it. Basically the less someone knows about a topic the more eager they are to mouth off about it
If you want an easy way to counter them, read his book and point out when they fuck up.
No, I understand it quite well.
Let me guess, you're one of those people that think we're incapable of being not religious.
>you're one of those people that think we're incapable of being not religious
I have no idea what you mean by this. I know you'd like to find some easy way to manipulate me into admitting to being a Christian so that you could tear me to shreds by your ever-so-superior atheist "logic", but that's not going to happen.
If you read any clear translation of Stirner in English you'll recolonize that he sees the reckless nature of anarchists to be just as dangerous as any political system which claims itself to be the end-all be-all of political theory. Stirner's entire message is that any institution that claims to have the truth within its ideological parameters is missing the point. I hate, hate, hate any idiot who reads Stirner and misconstrues it to be a proto-Ayn Rand "lol do whuteva yu'd like" anarchist treatise. There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING within "The Ego and His Own" that implies a preference for anarchy. If you want to try and show quotes from Stirner that advocate anarchy, without being taken out of context, feel free to quote them to me.
(before I say anything I'll clarify that I'm the same person you're talking to)
It's obvious you can't respond coherently to what I confronted you on. I'm sick of you turning any argument you're loosing to a religious argument, like you were just doing with that uncalled for reference to religion, because you know that you're inadequate at discussing anything other than you sad, sullen atheism. Honestly, butterfly, don't you realize that this board would be so better off if you just posted anonymously? I hate ever seeing you appear in a thread, and I know I'm in the majority in that regard. There've been substanital Veeky Forums trips, but you're only regarded because of your immense ignorance and reactionary boisterousness. I seriously feel if I could persuade you to just give up your trip that it'd be the most productive moment of my life (yes, I know it's pitiful).
Seriously, just give up. Who here on Veeky Forums actually likes you? You only post because you're a lame contrarian who has a vagina and you think that makes you special. You just need to quit posting.
>I'm not going to admit to being a Christian
Okay :)
>If you read any clear translation of Stirner in English
Maybe not. I will get a more recent one in time.
In life, as in language, things meld and melt. Political theories do the same
>There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING within "The Ego and His Own" that implies a preference for anarchy.
It is a description of a personal anarchism. An anarchism at it's purest form. As unattainable (I would imagine) as Nietzsche's übermensch. He's unconcerned with other anarchists and so too would they.
>I have no idea what you mean by this.
Because you misunderstand what anarchism is.
>Rand
What the hell?
>It's obvious you can't respond coherently to what I confronted you on
Not on a empty stomach.
The uncalled for reference was about terminology, nothing more was meant by it.
Not knowing you, or anyone here, I have to guess a lot of the times. Someone bags on Hitchens, and I have no idea from what end until he identifies why.
Atheism, MY atheism anyway, isn't sullen at all. I've never felt more alive and happy. In spite of it all.
>you think that makes you special.
You're special, user. Goodnight and sleep well
>There we two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist have not at heart the welfare of this 'human society', I sacrifice nothing to it I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform it rather into my property and my creature; that is I annihilate it,and form in its place the Union of Egoists
>I am free in no state.
I assume this is what you took out of context to make him completely apolitical
>Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed. The revolution commands one to make arrangements, the insurrection[Emporung] demands that he risse or exalt himself [sich auf oder emporzurichten]
Which is really just him saying individualistic anarchy is what he's advocating not social anarchy
>Okay :)
I know why you're saying this. If I admitted to being a theist of any sort, you'd absolutely dismiss my opinions. Isn't that true?
(by doing so you're representing that same aspects of religion that I think you abhor: absolutism, dogma, hatred of anyone who feels differently from yourself)
Spoiler: I am a firm believer in the glory of God.
>Maybe not. I will get a more recent one in time. In life, as in language, things meld and melt. Political theories do the same
You're deflecting the issue. What translation of Stirner have you read?
>It is a description of a personal anarchism. An anarchism at it's purest form.
That's true, but trying to formalize it into a series of laws & ideals like anarchism works against itself. The fact is that "anarchism at it's purest form" (I'd like to point out that the possessive third person neutral pronoun is "its" and not "it's" [which means "it is"]) would not have a name, which anarchism sadly tries to ascribe.
>Because you misunderstand what anarchism is.
Would you like to explain it to me? What's your (definitive) definition of "anarchism" Mrs. Perfect?
I'm starting to feel like you're not even the real butterfly. Even she wasn't this dense and inadequate. Are you drunk?
>Not on a empty stomach.
Is that a reference? Or am I responsible for you empty stomach?
To be fair, I haven't eaten in over 40 hours myself.
>Not knowing you
If you care to know, I've confronted & argued with you at least 3 separate times. I'd like to feel like you and I are good détente buddies.
>Atheism, MY atheism anyway, isn't sullen at all. I've never felt more alive and happy. In spite of it all.
That's completely inconceivable from my perspective. But I appreciate your input regardless. (Let us not turn this into a religious debate that's happened thousands of times before.)
i'm from pol and i always thought stirner believed that anything that isn't physical doesn't exist and is a "spook"? i've never seen a genuine pollack promote that belief. pollacks believe in right and wrong, and believe they are right
It's more like Nozick and patterns.
>no MOM his philosophy is too DEEP and COMPLEX to be LABELED like all those other plebs
You're right in what you're saying. And based on your quotes it sounds like you know German, which puts you ahead of me. I really cannot recognize the full extent of Stirner because I don't know a lick of German outside of recipes for cake.
But I feel like his personal sentiments about philosophy do transcend the political and social. To boil down his personal philosophy into a political philosophy destroys the importance of the individual in his writings. Nahmean?
Can I ask what exactly is your point? I fail to see it. What do you mean?
>I don't know a lick of German outside of recipes for cake.
*holds up spork*
I miss the reference.
I was referring to Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte.
wait, what?
/pol/ is satire
I thought you were referring to Die Eier von Satan
We live aware of labels describing baskets of ideas, but everyone has a slightly different set of themes (connections) in their basket.
If you and I share a label amongst observers, there is no way to guarantee that each observer believes we share the identical list of shared themes (connections)
My idea of butterfly and your idea of butterfly share a symbol but not an identical set of glimpses at the truth of "butterfly"
thus it is irrelevant if we share the same concept of ethics, and it is in both of our best interest to define our ethics as we see fit instead of letting others impose an idea upon us that even in their best efforts they could not convey with 100% accuracy
Thus "well spooked, my property lmao"
>As unattainable (I would imagine) as Nietzsche's übermensch.
You people are infuriatingly dense.
Veeky Forums is satire
> Stirner is anarchist
How spooky
>to formalize it into a series of laws & ideals like anarchism works against itself.
only classical anarchists ever do this and even then admit they're trying their best
Almost no one who talks about Stirner has read his work. Almost no one who has read his work understands it. Everyone just makes a bunch of spook memes.
His point is: Stirner preached of the individual realization that only the I / Me / Ego could reach true freedom.
All other political belifes other than anarchism are against this.
Therefore, Stirner lines up with anarchists (and has been studied and kept alive mostly by anarchist and libsoc thinkers up until two years ago.
More like this:
Stirner preached that the Ego is the most important force, that no man's living experience could ever be the same than that of his neighbour, and thus that it was in their own interests to maximize individual freedom, an "Alliance of Egotists" to fight back against the spooks or other artifical constructs that limited the freedom of personal experience.
Thus, while Stirner could be considered anarchistic stretching things a little, he most likely would have found the concept of anarchism (an ideological construct in itself) to be quite spooky.
And I don't even like Stirner.
Shitty meme philosopher tbqh.
>Stirner preached
Wrong and wrong. Stirner isn't prescriptive. His motivation isn't freeing men in itself, but rather the perpetuation of his (ideal) property. That he makes his ideas appealing to you doesn't mean they're for you, it is simply a device so you can carry his memes. Freedom is also a spooky and nebulous concept, the Alliance of Egoists is based on mutual ownership (ie the opposite of freedom). As for limitations, that depends on each one's might and particular interest; Stirner has no problem with you disregarding him and continuing being spooked. Stirner doesn't have a project.
Lastly, if you understand the Unique One as a "force" or a motivator, you don't get Stirner at all. It can't even be said to be an unmoved mover, because it has nothing to move.
>That's completely inconceivable from my perspective
what, that they found a new god in Stirner?
it's some shitty proprietary VOIP program marketed to ledditors that don't understand that obscurity =/= security.
youtube.com
The Ego is literally a spook lmao
>his philosophers need labels
Spooked
Spoiler: I am a firm believer in the glory of God.
Spooked
You don't understand him
You have been spooked if you think Stirnerism is a hammer
Spooked
Sure is spooky in here
He's novel and still said some insightful stuff, his influence is limited but he still warranted attention from Marx/Engels, the latter in a resigning fashion writing something somewhere to the effect of 'Stirner is and remains a curiosity [Kuriosum]', but just in a negative sense, and Engels also called Bakunin out on his philosophy being 'Stirner diluted with a little bit of Proudhon', referring to the mutualist/utopian aspect of Proudhon. Stirner's treatment in The German Ideology is another story, but I can back what I just paraphrased with a non-meme academic, Carl-Friedrich Geyer, who said the 'Utopisten' from Bakunin to Bloch and the early socialists like Proudhon just didn't know what to do with Stirner.
And he makes for funny pics, and I've sources but I'm not making a bibliography for my etchings on a Nootka totem-carving board on the internet.
but not just in a negative sense*
shit
very goog youtube.com
>he still warranted attention from Marx/Engels
That's putting it mildly. Marx shat himself over the prospect that Stirner's work would be taken seriously. It's a great anathema to Communist/Marxist garbage.
Is autofellation another spook lads?
In order to fully understand the individualist anarchism you have to have flexible mind
AND BACK *BADUMTSSH*
>i always thought stirner believed that anything that isn't physical doesn't exist and is a "spook"?
Exactly, the section of his Ego on the communist emancipation of capital being a spook and just another piece of property is gr8
I'm trying to into Stirner right now an am reading Hegel's phenomenology, then The Capital and some Fichte, Stirner's a pretty broad field when you think about it