Why was this cuck so hung up on concepts such as 'Self' and 'Ego'?

you have an odd combination of philosophical inexperience and philosophical arrogance

some familiarity with Hegel and Feuerbach would help

why are you so hung up on the concept of the cuck?

>you have an odd combination of philosophical inexperience and philosophical arrogance

Wrong.

>This book is dense and frustrating for me.
>It must be shitty philosophy.

Stirner could very well be worthless but you're not doing a very good job of demonstrating why people should pass him up

You're just flailing

>Why was this cuck so hung up on concepts such as 'Self' and 'Ego'?

Same reason buddhists are user

>Please explain what exactly there is to 'get' out of Stirner's philosophy.

That as a unique individual you can have interests separate to those of ideologies and social constructs and that if you do not acknowledge it you will at best run into the same issues of contradiction and being arbitrary as he demonstrated with those political examples. At worst you will end up living your life as a martyr for something that only exists in the heads of men.

> typical philosophical mistakes/misunderstandings.

What are some that you have noticed?

>Not him but I've tried to read the book and it's filled with dense language

For what it is worth he is probably the least dense writer of the German Idealists. However that aside. As long as you make sure you write down/note what he means by:

Creative Nothing

and

Property

The rest of his work is fairly straight forward. However if that is not sufficient, try reading Stirners critics beforehand.

Yes, that's what it is.

Philosophy is a misunderstanding of language :^)

READ THE FUCKING BOOK.

wittgenstein pls go

Not an argument
Not an argument
I've read his books. Sorry I'm not dumb enough for your le sekrit spook club.

This is a good post

>Not an argument
Im the user from which part of my post did you take issue with/ like me to expand on?

>Same reason buddhists are user
Not an argument

The only defense Stirnershits have against this retarded philosophy is

> DUDE READ THE BOOK MAN

we get it, you're a shill

> Stirnerfags are so deluded they think they live in capitalism and aren't affected by capitalist ideology

you guys are maybe 13 or 14 years old mentally if you like stirner

anything half intelligent in Stirner was done better by Heidegger, but of course, Heidegger requires real effort to read and his philosophy cant be reduced to Veeky Forums reaction images

Ah I get you, like Buddhists Stirner focuses heavily on the concept of self and ego as these things in their view form part of if not the foundation of human experience and life. Hence how you view an act regarding these things has a really serious outcome for your actions and motivations.

Did the rest of my post address your concerns properly?

>you guys are maybe 13 or 14 years old mentally if you like stirner

You dont have to be a young teen to enjoy a guy who flustered Marx so hard he wrote an entire book trying to refute him that he failed to get published.

wew.......

>The only defense Stirnershits have against this retarded philosophy is

Its like for like, the criticism here have just been calling him a cuck or a bad writer. The closest there has been to a criticism of his ideas has been and even that didnt actually contain any arguments or criticism of his specific ideas.

What is your argument or criticism of his philosophy?

They haven't read him so can only criticise based on memes.

because he is right

A literal translation of "einzige" or "ego" would be "only one." It isn't the same thing as the Freudian ego. "Ego" in Stirner's vocabulary means "self." It comes from the Greek word for "I."

me and my high IQ friends agree that Stirner is inevitably correct, however also is Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Hegel, and Wittgenstein. So do with that what you ""will""

a union of egoists would make a good anime villain organization

>unions
>egoists

PICK ONE user

have you even read the book or are you just memeing

I want David Lynch to make his biopic.
>two qts walk up to Stirner smoking in front of his milk shop
>"Hey Johann, want to come to a party?"
>"I am a party to myself."
>"Uh..."
>goes back into his milk shop

...

Yes I've read a book. My record is 26 in 60 days. Go fuck yourself and provide and argument.

How about this:
You are an egoist
You meet another conscious egoist
You enjoy their company
They enjoy yours
The Union of Egoists is born

It's actually a fairly simple concept

*teleports behind you*

He literally has a whole chapter of his book on how a union of egoists would function.

I haven't read the book, and yet I'm not asking the stupid questions, gee I wonder why...

(Hint: I'm into ghosts, and spooks are my thing.)

(No, I'm not part of any ghost hunter gang looking for stupid ghosts, that's a waste of time.)

iceburn well done user

I take that back, the ghosts are less stupid and spooky, at least they know when and how to scare the living shit out of you.

you're making yourself look very stupid here dude

Stirner philosophy is the least "cucked" philosophy in the world. Its all about freeing your own ass from dumb spooks/beliefs.

yeah

>What is your argument or criticism of his philosophy?

The creative nothing is a spook. Literally a reification of the ego.

Heidegger isn't as dumb as this to make the same mistake.

Yeah but you don't put the creative nothing above yourself because you literally are the creative nothing.

Not an argument

Stirner was all for cucking people and letting others cuck you.
That's the most cucked philosophy ever created because it was created intentionally for the sole intent of being cucked.

Thank you good sir for providing me with a sound argument. I appreciate our repartee.

I don't know what this "means" if anything at all. *sigh*

>implying i've even read the book

Wow there user, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Your ignorance is showing.

Nice ad hominem.

>he still thinks the true manifestation of self-interest is competition and not cooperation
stop drinking the ayn rand koolaid

Meaningless meme post

>Thank you good sir for providing me with a sound argument. I appreciate our repartee.

Is this sarcasm? I grant that the argument is simplistic, perhaps even in relation to Stirner's, but I think it's a fair approximation of the concept. Another way to put it: whenever you are socializing with your friends, and this socialization does not cause you to suffer, you're in a union of egoists. As soon as you start engaging this society while suffering, i.e. if somebody you're chilling with can't get a handle on their spooks and they're just boorish to be around, the society has gone from being a union of egoists to a prison society. That is, you feel that you are compelled by something outside of yourself (in this case the Idea of Friendship) to be there.

cuck, cuck cuck! everyone is a cuck!
lol, why is everyone so obsessed with cuckoldry? fucking cucks

what was stirners justification for obeying one's own desires rather than controlling them

being self centered is the natural state of the human mind from the moment it is brought into existence

any wortwhile philosopher must address this

Define "desire." In Stirner's conception, "hedonism" meant something like "freedom of sense," and religion meant "freedom of mind." Your mind and your senses are only yours when you apply this "your" to them (apply the "my" to them), and take strict possession of their powers. There is no way to tell an egoist from a half egoist other than their consistent happiness and selfdom, e.g. when someone says "I want to learn," this could be meant literally or it could mean "I have been told to want to learn," or "I should want to learn." There is no way to distinguish a difference in the meaning except through the person's own actions. If they themselves learn, they themselves want to do so, but if they must be compelled to learn, they don't want to.

I understand what you mean, something like Schop's "Man can do what he wills but cannot will what he wills," but to Stirner this is a non-issue; I have my will, and I use my will as it suits me. Any further ontological inquiry is navel gazing

I'm fucking diabetic, I don't drink ayn kind of Kool-Aid, whatever that means.

Jesus user, verbose much? I was being sincere, not everyone's an ironic titwit from England Proper.

bump

>The creative nothing is a spook.

How can you subjugate yourself to yourself? If its something your are interested in though check out the small article Stirners critics where he responds himself to this challenge.

>Literally a reification of the ego.

Not really its just a way that defines something as unique as the self without being contradictory. If anything it escapes reification.

Ill clarify it for you.

Your Question: "Why was this cuck so hung up on concepts such as 'Self' and 'Ego'?"

Premise 1: Stirner's central philosophical view is that the concepts of ego and self are the foundation of human experience and life

Premise 2: Stirner wrote down his philosophical views

Conclusion: Therefore his writings focus on the self and ego.

>what was stirners justification for obeying one's own desires rather than controlling them

His points were more that individuals have interests separate to those of ideological constructs and that they have no higher claim/justification over your own

>Not really its just a way that defines something as unique as the self without being contradictory.

thats literally a reification

fucking animeposting stirnershits

>you literally are the creative nothing.
> are

what do you mean by this?

what entails a creative nothing "being" a creative nothing?

what does stirner mean by this?

>thats literally a reification
A using a word to describe something =/= reification

His entire philosophy was a narcissistic fap session to try to rationalize his own shitty personality and life choices. By all accounts, he was a rotten and selfish person, and rather than face that truth and sincerely try to become a better person, he tried to lie his way around it by building a grandiose lie.

In the end, he was only spooking himself.

>His entire philosophy was a narcissistic fap session to try to rationalize his own shitty personality and life choices.

All his book did was demolish the Left Hegelians and demonstrate that liberals and socialists were hypocrites.

>By all accounts, he was a rotten and selfish person

Only the account of his ex wife. None of his contemporaries - even opponents like Engles or the Bauers- made statements along those lines.

Most of the accounts were positive to neutral. As for his life it was the rather plain and uneventful of translator and teacher who failed at applying the lessons he learned from his work translating Adam Smith and possibly Riccardo?.

Not that user but I my reading was that the nothing was based on it the self or the individual's uniqueness and the creative part being tied to how it is the source of our values and will.

Though it probably has far more to do with Hegel than I understand.