Give me your serious opinion of Max Stirner. No memes

Stirner is basically right about everything as long as you also read Stirner's Critics and use that to correct for all the Hegelian leftovers in EAIO (Ego and Its Own). If we want Stirner to be useful to us today, the most important task is probably to adapt his critique of spooks to a more 'perfomative' struggle against 'microspooks'. Stirner's spooks are the State, God, the Human etc., these are the most abstract aspects of the 'society of the spooktacle'. Conversely, his joyous outcry and shrugging off the spooks is extremely concrete, bodily, and comes before any symbolic expression. We have to actually struggle through the vast range of things between that and destroy those parts of our lives that are dominated by irrational injunctions. A good way to understand what I mean is to read Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality.

>vast range of things between that
lie in between those two poles

whoops, forgot a part

I like to take bits and pieces from his philosophy. As an author he's a pretty entertaining read, but I feel like he tries too hard to be edgy and provocative and as a result comes off as almost nihilistically self-centered.

Important thought I think he had: clearly define your ideals, and do not let them control you

A person who does not understand what they want is doomed to be manipulated by others. This requires constant vigilance, because it is too easy to fall into a trap of filling others' desires while thinking they're your own. If a politician you previously supported does something you cannot abide, you must disavow them. If a friend is constantly dragging you out to places and events that you cannot stand, you must stop hanging out with them.

By understanding your values, you can make clear and informed decisions regarding them. Perhaps you don't value going to nightclubs, but you do value the relationship you have with your friend. You can make the conscious decision to go out with them to a nightclub once in awhile because the value you gain by reinforcing the friendship outweighs the value you lose by going to a place you don't like.

Every person has their own value system. A person is not stupid or crazy if their values happen to be polar opposites to your own. Idiocy and insanity can only exist if you consciously and consistently act against your own values. Own your own ideals, seek them out in like-minded people, but refuse to belittle or insult people who authentically follow their own ideals as well, just the same as you would refuse to have done to you.

how do you reconcile a therapy with stirnerism?

ayyy spooky digits

>how do you reconcile a therapy with stirnerism?
This specific books is pretty cool not only because the theory is a nice and highly productive addition to 'Stirnerism' but it also includes a second part which are exercises you do yourself in order to become more aware of the habits you have acquired of blocking your own creative impulses and thus prohibiting yourself from making meaningful contact with your environment and living situations according to your needs instead of performing fixed scripts which you have internalized. Seriously, it's the direction Stirner reception should go in it has so much fucking potential.

I'm actually writing a paper on Stirner right now, but I'm still extricating myself from the reading of Stirner as comparable to post-structuralist anarchism (which he is in some ways and very different in others and it's interesting but I want to move beyond it to be honest) but I'm sneaking in a hint that Gestalt Therapy is where it's at.

5,200 words, I need 7-8k, wish me luck fellow Egoists.

check out my meme-titled paper if you like: academia.edu/11021623/Would_the_Real_Max_Stirner_Please_Stand_Up

no, guy, you are shit. i don´t wish you luck at all.

>As an author he's a pretty entertaining read, but I feel like he tries too hard to be edgy and provocative and as a result comes off as almost nihilistically self-centered.

All good German thinkers are like this. See: Nietzsche

>mfw the title is relevant
I Stirnerpost irl too. You're making the world a better place, son.

>he tries too hard to be edgy and provocative and as a result comes off as almost nihilistically self-centered.
This is because of the debate context of young hegelians which consisted of constantly being edgier than the last guy and beating on your drum very hard. They mostly developed their theories in drunken discussions, as can be seen in this famous drawing.

If you want the sober, non-edgy and clear version of what Stirner believes, read Stirner's Critics. This text is absolutely mandatory for actually understanding Stirner and unfortunately even many scholars have readings of Stirner which don't take this text into account and thus fail to capture what Stirner is going on about.

Where to start with Stirner?

The first most critical mistake that all young males make is they read too much Nietzsche.

The second most critical mistake that all young males make is they do not read enough Nietzsche.

Read his books.

>Where to start with Stirner?

Either this:
>Read his book[no "s", it's just one].

or if you've heard about him and already know the stereotypes of petty bourgeois egoist etc., you could even read this before the book:

sites.google.com/site/vagabondtheorist/stirner/stirner-s-critics/stirner-s-critics-1

>blocking your own creative impulses
you don´t see the spook?, really?

I sing as the bird sings
That on the bough alights;
The song that from me springs
Is pay that well requites.

No spooks now, just shitposts.

i like the reading.
Do you think Stirner would consider himself an anarchist if he can?
>i think not

Also, i always considered "the union of egoists" the most blurred part of his work. Stirner is really good in her critical position not in the constructive one. i mean. when you read it, you can feel the motive why he`s writing is to shitting around to "sacred concepts" (and he doing it right), but not to give "the union of egoist" idea to the world. you know what i mean?.

you really just need to grasp the concept of spooks, it's one of the only useful things in philosophy that you can use in life. would help retards with OCD

He's very misrepresented by both memers and people who actually read his works.

He doesn't really bring anything ''new'' if you've already lurked enough philosophy. But I like the way he presents his ideas.

He's a bit of a cheeky cunt at times:

''If I had before me Jews, Jews of the true metal, I should have to stop here and leave them standing before
this mystery as for almost two thousand years they have remained standing before it, unbelieving and without
knowledge. But, as you, my dear reader, are at least not a full-blooded Jew – for such a one will not go astray as far
as this – we will still go along a bit of road together, till perhaps you too turn your back on me because I laugh in
your face.''

>Jews of the true metal

kek

guy who hasn't read stirner alert. stupid fucking tards on this board.

>He doesn't really bring anything ''new'' if you've already lurked enough philosophy.
Which philosophers said what Stirner said??

He shares concepts with Buddhism and various Esoteric traditions. I do not mean that there is no novel aspect to his thoughts. But let's take his concept of ''The creative nothing'' for example; and compare it to the Buddhist ''No self''

Overrated trash

I know you are but what is Stirner?

He's dead. RIP lil' homie.

>tfw have OCD and it has helped

You guys seem pretty damn spooked.
That's not what confirmation bias is at all.
Those are like the least important things you could take away from Stirner.

Look into the "property" thing: it's key to everything he says.

Also this:
>but refuse to belittle or insult people who authentically follow their own ideals as well, just the same as you would refuse to have done to you.
is spooked.

>I feel like he tries too hard to be edgy and provocative and as a result comes off as almost nihilistically self-centered.
But that's what I like about him.

Actually, I like the little excerpts of his life he inserts into the text more. Like some random reference to the milkmaid yelling through the window as he writes, or sitting opposite him as he waits.
You can just jump in. It helps to know what the fuck he's responding to, but it's not necessary for two reasons:
1. His reasoning applies to anything nowadays, too.
2. He goes into a fair bit of detail building up the opposing arguments before he casts them down.

I would even go as far as comparing the Madhyamaka idea of Sunyatta (literally emptiness, lack of inherent existence) to Stirner's idea of spooks. Both look at concepts and say they are nothing but concepts, do not get attached to them there's literally no reason u fkn pleb, only difference is Sunyatta goes further and rejects inherent existence in all material things as well.

I have OCD, but it doesn't help. OCD, at least mine, does not operate on a rational basis. In German it's called Zwangsgedanken/Zwangshandlungen (forced thoughts/forced actions), which I like more because it captures that aspect. If it could be defeated by recognition or reason, then it wouldn't be "forced".

Makes sense, but I personally feel like he unrealistically ignores the way in which individuals are intricately entangled with society and conceptual identities.

I think it's less the reason than having that internal narrative of "that's just a fuggen spook!" Stirner memeposting gives a kind of humourous perspective to look at the ridiculous thoughts that try to force me into action. Hasn't played a very big role though, it's just one of those small things that helps.

You're right though, the thoughts are completely irrational and can ultimately only be avoided by removing yourself from them and seeing them for what they are, than debating them. No matter what it tries to hold you hostage with, you just gotta say no, even though it's the hardest thing in the world. It's rough shit mayn. Sympathies fellow OCDbro.

You as the imaginary observer of your thoughts may recognize them as irrational, but consider that you are in fact your thoughts, and as Stirner points out; they are not fixed, thus the creative nothing. How can there be a ''you'', if it is a collection of repetitions of thought?

Concerning your OCD, as you clearly understand the irrational nature of these thoughts, i.e: the fact that they serve no actual purpose, and may even act in detriment. You fail to realize that without taking action from this realization, no change will be brought about. The next time you *need* to do or think something, try observing the thought without judgement, as to see its pointlessness, but also restrict yourself from acting on it. With enough time you will stop reacting/having these thoughts. It's not easy at all, but it works.

Just like Nietzsche, extremely misunderstood

They could be talking about the like touch the doorknob 100 times 100 different ways and nervous ticks type of OCD

Or it could be their evil spirit twin trapped in the nether world fighting for control of the joystick of their ying yang soul

I have tried, trust me friends. It's a cursed thing. I can resist, but it sucks the joy out of everything. Giving in means reinforcing it, and also I give myself a lot of shit over it afterwards, but not giving in means reinforcing the nihilistic feelings that plague me anyway.

Dude, just next time you are having your OCD, just think "i dont want this OCD, it is a spook", just dont have your OCD, why cant you just do that?

Balance my nigger. Try what I posted, and keep trying. In what you posted just now, you clearly show a schism of thought, this will be resolved by balancing it out with the methods I mentioned.

I have tried, I really have.
I can stop engaging with my OCD. I can let thing be contaminated, I can let the contamination spread, I can stop considering things holy and cursed/disgusting, truly set my cause on nothing etc., but at that point I really don't even need to live anymore.
And it's easy to think that what you are reading is the writing of someone who is scared, and you would be partially right. But it's not just that. I know well that there are some things that you cannot understand from a certain perspective. It's easy to think that, if only I did that, the OCD would disappear eventually, but it doesn't. I speak from experience. Years and years of it.
OCD truly is not a spook. "I have to do this because otherwise I will burn in Hell" - that is a spook. A muscle twitch is not a spook. OCD more resembles the latter than the former.

But thanks for trying to help, forgot to say that.

Emotional contamination OCD is horrible.

I gave advice based on experience as well. What you have seems to be way more fucked up. If you don't mind; what is the nature of these tics?

Reading it again, I realize how unclear my post is.
I have a couple of related things, and at it also evolves and morphs, so perhaps it's easiest to start with where it started:
I make mental associations between things. Like some people, if they go on vacation and listen to a song there, that song will in future remind them of their trip. But for me, this happened with many things, and eventually I realized that it was happening with bad things as well, and that was the fatal moment, because as soon as I started fearing that it would happen, it happened more and more often. What eventually happens as well is that your values get polarized: you fear the uncomfortable because it might ruin things, which in turn makes them far more uncomfortable. Similar for the good, by contrast it becomes more good. I observe little children who seem to be completely comfortable around boogers or stuff (I actually don't want to type anything worse), and it makes me realize just how far this has gone.
Eventually the fear of bad things got so big that whenever I saw something bad or disgusting, it would haunt me for days. And for days I would be afraid to even think of anything I liked, lest the two become associated. I am afraid of enjoying things, because the "forced thought" always comes of "What if this would be associated with [one of my greatest nightmares]?"
I don't think I can even convey how deeply some things, even harmless things (since it spreads) disgust and scare me.
I began lying to myself. Denying reality. Altering what I had seen to something more pleasant whenever I saw something uncomfortable. This just made it worse, because it reaffirms the negative value you've placed on those things you deny.
It spread to other more common forms of OCD as well like general contamination, also physical (and I started obsessively washing my hands for some time, though I managed to stop this for the most part), obsessively imagining horrible things, also at times ticks and rituals (though I managed to overcome those as well).
I can let go, I can give in, and for a period of months I went full in on this idea, but it didn't work. And it robs me of what little joys I have in life. I can recognize that there is no inherent connection between two things, or that something isn't inherently dirty, that it is all just in my head, but it doesn't stop the fact that it reminds me of something horrifying or makes me feel deep disgust, and it doesn't make that any less uncomfortable.
Perhaps it can be overcome that way, but how long would it take? Like I said, I have tried for several months like that, I'm not sure I'd last for much longer.
To a degree I've accepted that if I am going to live life, it will be life like this.

According to the biography John Henry Mackay wrote, Stirner was a pretty friendly, quiet and polite man, that everyone, from back then till now, misunderstood as some smug edgelord.

Also, Stirner was blonde, I don't know why all depictions, apart from the Engels sketch, depict him with black hair.

I was very similar for a long time, especially the ''associations''. It took me 2 years to control it, and 2 or so more years to apply the methods I've posted. I still recommend to you these methods. It is not about knowing it or even applying it. Before the application you must fully understand.

>To a degree I've accepted that if I am going to live life, it will be life like this.

The Truth exists. You exist. Acclimation relatively occurs and it doesnt, with your help and without.

Good post. The articulation of your experience helped me understand what it's like to have OCD. I'm sorry user. Mental illness is a stone cold bitch.

I've always thought of his Unique One as the Atman.

>It is a social construct, thus it is meaningless

I disagree.

Anyway, I mentioned him to my philosophy teacher. Shit was gucci

Shit was overpriced middle class trash?

>>It is a social construct, thus it is meaningless
>I disagree.

At least read Stirner before using him to win good boy points with your teach.

I would never mention Stirner in a serious discussion about anything even when i agree with him in almost everything.

Smart. Never reveal that you agree with anything he says. Plebs just assume you're some sociopath or some nonsense.

I like his stuff and try to follow it. It's enlightening, but it's also hard to follow with all the "programming" that has been drilled into us in society for so long.

>thinks he can escape ideology

my god

I would anyone come here if not for the memes?

what did they mean by this?

idk but its kinda spooky

"Why would anyone come here if not for the memes?"
referring to OP's request for no memes.

t. internet retard comprehension wizard

Why is there a Veeky Forums board on an image board website? Life is full of idiots. No wonder Hiroshimoot is going to abandon ship and shut this shitshow down.

Why did he call 'why' 'I'?

Is this a philosophical statement?

Auto-correct on smartphones cause typos this.
Millenial philosophy comes with gnome man pics, not pepes.

Who is gnome man?

This guy.
That was an overgeneralization, pepes come with philosophy sometimes, but it's typically purposefully contrarian philosophy.

They're ultimately never going to accept that mental illnesses are actual illnesses, and cannot be fought by sheer willpower.

These are the kinds of people who read Stirner to "better themselves". They aren't interested in impossibility.

Take many drugs.

>I don't know why all depictions, apart from the Engels sketch, depict him with black hair.
Because he looks like some smug edgelord, and black is the edgiest colour. His hair just *looks* so damn black.

>society and conceptual identities
both spooks

>Millenial philosophy
It's literally been just (Me) though. I haven't seen anyone else use G-nome child macros in un/post-ironic philosophical discourse. Perhaps the indolent repetition of images has bamboozled you into believing there was more than one person, that the memes were spreading--a comprehensible data loss due to compression caused by habitual thinking.

Regardless, and to make this post not-sageworthy, one of my favorite things about Stirner is that he isn't damaged, but enhanced by the memes stemming from him. In fact he'd probably be happy that we're using him so much.

>incomplete and lack of internal argument
Isn't that kind of the point?

>Isn't that kind of the point?
What did he mean by this?

That Stirner's philosophy is not supposed to be exhaustive nor justified.

A nihilist who is only good to counter any duty towards an ideology or idea. A good tool but not a good foundation.

That's what nihilism is you dongle.
The building is in the tearing down.

Foundation for what?

You're implying an ideology in which things ought to be founded, it seems.

I think he is very shallow. People claim that Nietzsche ripped him off, or that he is a better Nietzsche, but he's more like a severely watered down and solipsistic form of Nietzsche that derails the majority of meaningful discussion with his idea of "spooks" — basically a radical materialist solipsist.

I know you're memeing, but I actually think it's a shame he's so resolutely un-solipsistic. His anti-materialism is spot-on, though.

I'm a bit thrown that Veeky Forums, being the argument inspectors that they are, hold in highest esteem two thinkers who's claim to that title rest on assumptions which amount to "it's [current year], so believe what I say." Or, "it's [current year], time to whips the slate clean with feels."

no? what a poor summary

you're an individual. don't ever forget that.

How was that? I'm trying to make fun of them you know.

> Black Flame
>One of the most sectarian works published where the author even was revealed to be a neonazi.
Why have you taken one of the most sectarian and biased works of anarchist theory user? Why that book of all the god damn anarchist books?

>That's what nihilism is you dongle.
That's exactly why I don't find him interesting.

For living your life and for it to have value.

Why do you assume lives need foundations? It's a building nor a system.

Shit Ayn Rand-tier philosopher.

I think he's a cool guy
He made Marx pissed as hell and doesnt afraid of anything

also has cool glasses and stuff

>creating spooks to aquire value

oh son

>Social Construct starts getting too mocked for it's use as a tautological argument
>I know let's call it Spooks instead, surely this will go over better with the public whose attention we desperately crave

>tautological argument
>implying

Get a rosary.