In this thread we unironically discuss the literary merit of the Ego and Its Own and other things

>some of this book
why not all of the book user

Tell that to Derrida.

You can make arguments and use word play at the same time, you know. It's not impossible. I don't think his account of history is extremely accurate, but I don't think that knocks down his central points.You should cite some things so I know what you mean by "wild conjecture".

I honestly can't think of a counter argument to the Ego and his own unless you assume the existence of God

And?
Just because there is nothing much to add (and thus academics to work on), doesn't mean it's bad.
It's not too much about "us", so people will complain.

>How can you *unironically* discuss a merit of a work that makes a point not through logic and argumentation but through fucking WORD PLAY and speculation? It's just a series of wild conjectures about human nature, history and society - nothing more, nothing less.
The beginning of the book (>conjectures about human nature, history) is a Hegel parody.
Yes, there's a lot of word play, it's a funny book. I can understand if you don't like that, but the majority of philosophy books (everything leaning on Hegel) is not "logical" in the positivists or even Kantian sense.

And what would that argument be then?

If you literally believe in God, you're likely just spooked.
But let's assume that's not the case. If you believe he'll punish you if you don't follow him, then he's like a strict father who has actual power over you, and you're fucked. If you believe in God but not in consequences, then God is just an agent and you can learn about and look at Gods cause and also make it your own (or not).
In either case, you don't run into a contradiction with Stirner.

stirner is the least academic philosopher.
which also happens to make him the most useful one. the concepts he covers are concepts that some would've already found out for themselves.
it's really more of a self-help book for anyone with some degree of intelligence and self-awareness.

The early sociologists were also academic philosophers

ok. and?

I missread you, nevermind ;^))

Anyway, Stirners notion of what he calls "property" is cool and maybe people would think of it themselves, but I don't really get his notion of "self", "I", or what's called "ego" in the English versions.
Can you elaborate on "the creative nothing", if you think it's easy to come up with for normals

what's there to get? "I/ego/self" is you. it only gets complicated if you're spooked.
basically, your "self" might really be someone elses "self". for example when you act a certain way for someone you don't really care to act that certain way for but you feel you need to.

the creative nothing is basically saying you are your special snowflake which as much as the herd on Veeky Forums likes to scoff at is pretty true, if only you'd stop scoffing.

Logic, rationality, and argumentation are spooks, user.

Now I'm curious. Does the venerated academia laugh at our stirner memes? Can someone confirm?

They dismiss him with the "egoism is bad, mkay" mentality without reading him.

Here's one guy speaking, with a questionable interpretation, and who likes him
youtu.be/HvsoVgc5rGs

They're right though, people acting like selfish asshole get annoying in the long run. Solipsism is so fucking boring because it's the easiest way out.

This thread is a spook

>people acting like selfish asshole get annoying in the long run.
Indeed.
Stirners hope is that people are capable enough to see that elevating one another is the best way to go - then egoism isn't detrimental.

If you have a garden, you may cut the leaves in an English garden style, or in a French garden style. If you properly own it, you can also decide not to give a fuck and not water it and let it die.
If you have a dog, you may decide to feed it an extra bone on its birthday. Or you may be an ass to it. If you love your dog, you own it less, because you find yourself not capable of doing whatever with it.
If you have a t-shirt, you may throw it away. If you can't because you're tied to it (it's the t-shirt of your best friend who moved to India), then some emotional spell has power over you. If you can drop the t-shirt, it's YOUR OWN.
Being hungry isn't a spook, because it's physical and real.
Or if your teacher slaps you because you're not doing your homework, or if you don't show up to school, and thus you behave, then he exerts some real power over you.
But if you can't bring yourself to invite your black neighbor over to dinner because you're born a racist, you're just spooked.

If you own a t-shirt, you're inclined to treat it well and wash it. There's benefit in looking out for your property.
Stirner says people should own everything, and each other. You'd do enough to protect, enable and elevate your property (the others, and all things), and in turn they would protect and enable and enable you. Being an asshole would not be a good strategy. Dropping out would be possible but stupid. unless due to change from outside powers it's objectively not a good idea to stick with it. A union of egoists, like a communism without a common pool of property and one that always reasserts itself.

PS I'm not claiming this can be realized. Stirners egoism is mentally challenging, I think, especially if lots of change is happening in the world (like at these times).

But his idea of unspooking yourself and his notion of ownership (which is not simply legally owning something on a piece of paper, but instead having power AND simultanously independence w.r.t. something) is great.

Part of why he became a meme was academia. They were removing references to him in certain editions of some of Marx's work.

Interest in Stirner waxes and wanes over periods of about 20 to 30 years too btw.

>born a racist
I meant raised to be one

Being an asshole to people is, in the most case, not actually in your best interest, so not egoistic in Stirners sense.

>Stirners hope is that people are capable enough to see that elevating one another is the best way to go
nope. the idea is that nothing is permitted and you are free to do whatever the fuck you want.
you can do mental gymnastics about what stirner wanted for society but the book is more of self-help than some socio-political text. whether someone decides that once nothing is permitted that they want to be a gigantic asshole is irrelevant to the text.
take it with a pinch of salt or you'll never apply it to your actual life.

I sincerely don't believe anyone who has read the book has taken the ideas in it to heart, and I don't think they are capable either.

The individual person who actually acted out the thesis of that book, would probably end up in jail for multiple homicides.

>homicides
You really misread

Stirner made Marx a materialist.

That makes no sense at all!
If you come to the conclusion that homicide would land you in jail, then the Stirnerian guy would do that too and avoid homicide, at the very least to avoid jailtime.
(And beyond that point, why do you think people would be inclined to kill others in the first place, are you projecting?)

Even as someone who is interested in his ideas, I don't think of him as much of a philosopher. The Ego and Its Own is really a provocative personal statement on the part of the author rather than a philosophical work. There is very little in the way of argumentation

Stirner isn't completely obscure. In any discussion of the history of anarchism, for instance, his name will inevitably come up

Sure, and what would constitute an 'argument' to you? And what's 'personal' got to do with it? Are you honestly recommending a biographical interpretation of Stirner's Ego, a dismissal of his whole philosophy just because you think it has a pissy tone or whatever, and then you criticise Stirner's argumentation?
Mind you, several excellent academic essays and studies have been published on Stirner which highlight his merits and expand on his argumentation, e.g. Carl-Friedrich Geyer's essay occasioned by Stirner's bicentennial (2006) or Lawrence S. Stepelevich's older 'Revival of Stirner' (1974), lastly Kurt R. Jankowsky has written a neat biographical essay on Stirner, published by Gale in the 90's if I remember correctly, and they all think you're a disingenuous philistine.

>the literary merit of the Ego and Its Own
Influencing Marx and Engels, basically all German anarchism (Steiner, etc.), Camus and non-German anarchists - and supposedly Nietzsche, though scholars argue viciously over whether he is Nietzsche's second biggest influence after Schopenhauer or not, and whether Nietzsche plagiarised Saint Max or never read him at all.

In the case or more contemporary writers, he's been called a proto-post-structuralist by post-anarchist Newman, his spooks and relationship with Marx received the attention of Derrida in the Spectres.

being this spooked by 'academia'

you sound like a faggot

This is one spooky post.

anyone interpreting stirner, or strawmanning some shit about what he wanted for "society", or what kind of society we should live in DOES NOT GET IT.