I picked up Stirner so I have to ask
1.is it worth finishing? He seem to have written the book for himself or assumed some things to be universal. He is moved by his experience and wants but they do not mach mine.
2. is it so needlessly long because the publisher paid by the words and the goal of his ego was to get paid?
3. is it worth having in my collection? Does it give me lit cred?
Stirner
Thomas Perez
Other urls found in this thread:
Jace Bell
Is our continuous not part of us and is it not often shaped by outside factors?
Chase Taylor
>that pic
lel
Based Google, they always fall for it, Stirner would have been so pleased.
1. Yes. He is indeed talking about Max Stirner.
2. The ego did what he wanted.
3. Among anarchists.
There is one world and one Max Stirner. This is all Stirner concerns himself with.
Brayden Turner
>Stirner: why hold ego to a scale of values? Whereas Nietzsche: we find abominable any decadent spirit who says: 'Everything only to me!'
He is no better than everyone he denounces before him, considering that his intellectual endeavour amounts to nothing more than a seduction. In its own little way it is a sort of immature, petulant and infantile seduction as well, one that does not have the sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but on the other hand it has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric (and I mean rhetoric in the general, system-level sense that I think De Man uses) that ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a child who disregards the rules of a game because he is tired of losing at it or some such poor behaviour.
Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history. Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.
Assuming that he has ghostbusted the spooks is to assume a very ideologically-charged perspective about the progress of conceptual thought in the west. And it's not only that, we must also consider that language is dialogic, which means that the language, the concepts Stirner uses to poke around with in first place are all shaped and ideologically charged before he even gets to employ them, he inherits his words and thereby whatever ideology is embedded in them, so it is not even clear whether there is really a distinct Stirner-type ideology critique and not just some permutation of a prevailing ideology. His whole endeavour is shot to shit and full of presuppositions, which is why people are debating over ideology, why Stirner did not solve the problem of ideology, and why its usefulness even as a concept today is in question.
Charles Turner
>Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement
He did find the center, in the person he could trust the most.
Bentley Thomas
>There is one world and one Max Stirner. This is all Stirner concerns himself with.
sounds like solipsism
>He is no better than everyone he denounces before him
Well the book opens with his proclamation that he wishes to join the big egoists of the world.
>no center to prevail in replacement
his answer is "not my problem"
>ghostbusted the spooks
How could he have done that if the church is still a big part of his writing and his continuous still has aspects that were hammered in by the systems?
Austin Lopez
>a man accepts the world as is
Thinking like that would have kept us in caves
Colton Wood
>He did find the center, in the person he could trust the most.
The person Stirner uses to poke around with in first place is shaped and ideologically charged before he even gets to employ him, he inherits his words and thereby whatever ideology is embedded in him, so it is not even clear whether there is really a distinct Stirner-type Stirner and not just some permutation of a prevailing ideology. His whole endeavour is shot to shit and full of presuppositions, which is why people are debating over ideology, why Stirner did not solve the problem of ideology, and why its usefulness even as a concept today is in question.
>Well the book opens with his proclamation that he wishes to join the big egoists of the world.
>his answer is "not my problem"
Yet ended up as an irrelevant girls school teacher, instead of influencing the Borgias of this world.
Sebastian Turner
>sounds like solipsism
How many Cartesian subjects do you have within you?
There is one subject in Stirner's life, from which Stirner experiences life, that particular first person is Max Stirner. It's an unique relationship that no other person can claim in his life.
That the world of Max Stirner is... well, Stirner's, is just as tautological.
Quote properly:
>The man is distinguished from the youth by the fact that he takes the world as it is, instead of everywhere fancying it amiss and wanting to improve it, i.e. model it after his ideal;
>in him the view that one must deal with the world according to his interest, not according to his ideals, becomes confirmed.
>muh normative war on ideologies
Show me where he uses the word 'Ideologie', spooked one.
>Yet ended up as an irrelevant girls school teacher
Living the dream.
Ryan Parker
>Yet ended up as an irrelevant girls school teacher, instead of influencing the Borgias of this world.
When you cast away everything else and go with animistic truths of "Might makes right" and "all that I can lay claim to is mine" than all you are left with is the persons raw power and potential. casting of pretension could boost one but nothing will help when your raw potential is lacking. In other words Stirner was not destined for greatness even in his own world view. another important thing to keep in mind is that while some trappings of society are unnecessary, others make a good fallback so a skilled person needs to know what bridges not to burn or how to be cautious but Stirner as an outsider looking in would critic them as slaves to anothers ego