Do I need to read anything before going into Stirner?

both are immense wastes of your time.

Not really. After reading The Unique One and Its Property you should read Stirner's Critics (essay Stirner wrote to reply to his detractors) and then you might want to read Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity or Marx' German Ideology or something.

If you think you're roughly familiar with Stirner's ideas and you have heard a bunch of arguments against him, you can even read Stirner's Critics first because it contains some things which are clearer than in the book and it destroys 90 % of the arguments which are brought forth against Stirner even today.

How so?

Thanks.

Thank you but I have a question regarding your meme. I thought that Anarcho communist liked Stirner?

...

>I thought that Anarcho communist liked Stirner?
Check out legacy of Stirner within anarchism, he was more popular within illigalism and insurrectionism than anarcho-syndicalism/collectivism wich took more inspiration from Rocker, Kropotkin and eventually Marx and was more collectivist centerd.

>I thought that Anarcho communist liked Stirner?
I'm more or less an anarcho-communist, I only made the meme as a joke. I just don't believe that there's some sort of transcendent principle which founds anarcho-communism.

No.

If anything, read these fellows after reading Stirner, to get a better understanding of how he's able to dispense with them so quickly.

So why do you want to read absolute shit again?

hello my property

>let me write tons of pages about how nothing matters

Okay honey, time for your nap.

>>let me write tons of pages about how nothing matters

Confirmed for brainlet who criticizes what he hasn't read

...

>Comes in thread.
>Insults everything and doesn't contribute to discussion in any meaningful way
>Communicates solely in memes.

You must've clicked on the wrong board friend.

Here's your home

>>>>>>>

Back you go.

Oh sorry, one thing does matter to Stirner, namely Stirner. With preschool-level reasoning, his ramblings have all the depth of a five-year old's temper tantrum. "ME ME ME!!!"

kill yourself

>willful misunderstanding and childism

I'd feel sorry for your children, friend, should you have any. Maybe try reading again, if you did at all? The only thing that matters to Stirner is not Stirner, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to write anything at all.

>implies there can be a meaingful discussion with egoist dimwits who are completely unprincipled because being unprincipled is actually the basis of their """philosophy"""

hello my property

You don't need to read anything. He is pretty simple. Honestly he's a pretty good introduction to The Western Canon, because he'll strip away any hazy modern conceptions you have so Plato et al can build them up again.

But: perhaps it might be worthwhile to check out Stirner's Critics, so you avoid making all the mistakes people like do.

>Not writting for yourself

...

>Fort denn mit jeder Sache, die nicht ganz und gar meine Sache ist! Ihr meint, meine Sache müsse wenigstens die »gute Sache« sein? Was gut, was böse! Ich bin ja selber meine Sache, und ich bin weder gut noch böse. Beides hat für mich keinen Sinn.

Vollidiot.

Stirner doesn't matter to Stirner. The ego ("his" ego, for want of a better language) is what matters to him, and even that only maybe.

>pfostiert beziehungslose Zitate auf Deutsch in verzweifelter Hoffnung seine thematische Wissenslücken und Verstandsmängel zu verbergen

He is a quackish blowhard who, similar to Nitzsche, uses non-analytical fuzzy language. By doing so, he manages to distract certain readers (mostly edgy teenagers) from the fact that his """arguments""" are ultimately based on nothing more than "because I say so".

In any event, egoism is to ethics what anarchism is to politics, namely the most unreasonable position one can take. Yet, despite being self-contradictory, they are the last refuge of those whose thoughts are utterly unprincipled.

The quote underlines what I just said.

This one does too: "Mir geht nichts über Mich!"

>pfostiert
War ja klar, dass jemand vom Kinderschänder-, Neonazi und Tierquälerforum Stirner toll findet.

It would be poetic justice if Stirneans were raped and tortued. The cruel sociopath could always remind his wailing subject that he is simply doing what he wants and that it is therefore fine.

He writes for himself, so his writing (which is an object) must matter to him.

What? He literally says there "away with everything that is not my business." His business is not him, in the same way that I am not my writing: it is an object that is mine, that I can dispose of at my pleasure.

> """arguments""" are ultimately based on nothing more than "because I say so".

As opposed to the dogmas, regressions, or outright circularities employed by other disingenuous """"""philosophers""""""? He's one of the only honest writers of philosophy, other than Bruce Lee (who was by no means exhaustive in his writing) and perhaps Hume.

>War ja klar, dass jemand vom Kinderschänder-, Neonazi und Tierquälerforum Stirner toll findet.
>Hitler mochte X, deswegen ist X schlecht

If I commit a rape, as the state defines it, I'm putting myself at the mercy of people who believe in the state. Doing what you want is not necessarily doing what benefits you. The egoist does not commit sadistic violence because the outcome always leads to the potential for vengeance.

Do Stirneans lack basic reading comprehension and that's why they defend this lunatic? The passage, especially when you read the context, is about how he himself is the be-all and end-all. Stirner's book can be summarized as "I want X, therefore X".

>As opposed to the dogmas, regressions, or outright circularities employed by other disingenuous """"""philosophers""""""?

Wow nice tu quoque argument you got there. "Somebody else does it too, therefore it's ok!"

No, as opposed to those attempt to derive their conclusions from first principles, logic, or axioms that are self-evident.

Das eine folgt nicht aus dem anderen, Abschaum.

Except when he gets away with it.

>b-b-but let me come up with another ad hoc rationalization

You don't "need" Hegel but it would be beneficial to understand the method of philosophizing which the Young Hegelians were doing, Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity is a better starting place than Stirner or Hegel to understand the dialectic

>can be summarized as "I want X, therefore X".
No, it can't. Don't project your lack of reading comprehension onto others.

>No, as opposed to those attempt to derive their conclusions from first principles, logic, or axioms that are self-evident.
These are exactly the people I'm talking about. "First principles" and "axioms" are other names for "dogma." Look up the definition of this word. I can't be a Kantian unless I agree with Kant's "first principles." And proper logic is all the same, so applying it to dogma results in nothing but an analytic proposition. Anyone working from Kant's principles would come to the same conclusion, if they used their logic properly. The problem is that these "first principles" have no basis, hence their nature as "first": they themselves are the basis.

>b-b-but they're self-evident!
No such thing as general self-evidence.

...

>hurr if I call it ad hoc I win

If he "gets away with it" in an absolute sense, you've admitted the uselessness of the state and general morality, so I really don't see what you're whinging about.

>Don't project your lack of reading comprehension onto others.

Says the person who reads a butchered translation instead of the original texts, which may partly explains why he thinks that Stirner's drivel makes sense.

>"First principles" and "axioms" are other names for "dogma."

Buy a dictionary if you didn't know that the terms are defined different.y. A dogma requires faith because you are supposed to believe it even without adequate grounds for doing so. An axiom is believed because it is either self-evident or inexplicably useful.

>No such thing as general self-evidence.

What are logical absolutes?

Besides, even if your claim was correct there is still a difference between deriving your conclusions from something that is regarded as obvious by most of your peers and just an assertion that is completely baseless. The former scrutinizes the internal consistency of people's positions, the latter is unprincipled, arbitrtary caprice.

>i suck dicks for free

>If he "gets away with it" in an absolute sense, you've admitted the uselessness of the state and general morality, so I really don't see what you're whinging about.

"if at least one person can pick the lock of my front door, I might just as well leave my door open hurr durr"

"if a mathematical theorem is ignored by everybody, then this means the theorem must be wrong hurr durr!"

God I hate Stirneans more than any other group of people. They are even worse than libertarians and positivists. Maggot-minded morons, each and every one of them.

Thank you for that concise, well though-out response. You're obviously a person with an abundance of brilliance and charm.

>A dogma requires faith because you are supposed to believe it even without adequate grounds for doing so. An axiom is believed because it is either self-evident
So, again, they are the same thing. You're just calling your own faith "self evidence."
>or inexplicably useful.
Not "inexplicably," because one can understand why they're useful (e.g. "I won't commit legally defined murder because this makes me a target for state and personal vengeance."). And when they cease to be useful you don't use them, as you seem to be admitting.
>What are logical absolutes?
Concepts that assist in logical thinking. They're no more real than a dream, and if they aren't useful in a situation (e.g. using the reflexive property when the transitive property is called fore), one won't use them. If one does, this is called a "fallacy."
>if your claim was correct there is still a difference between deriving your conclusions from something that is regarded as obvious by most of your peers and just an assertion that is completely baseless. The former scrutinizes the internal consistency of people's positions, the latter is unprincipled, arbitrtary caprice.
Now you're appealing to intersubjective utility as opposed to essential "self-evidence." "Self evidence" has become "that which is regarded as true by most of [useless, obfuscatory qualifier] your peers."

But honestly, I agree with this, since you seem to mean there's a distinct difference between touching someone's beloved spook and hypothetical argument-for-fun. In the former case, as you say, "the internal consistency of people's positions" is scrutinized, which will make people who fix an ideology either angry or afraid, and in the latter case, there is no commitment involved. The argument is had for the sake of ironic amusement.

But the logic used in both cases is the same, it's simply that the first instance is more dire (there is "more at stake") than the second.

>"if at least one person can pick the lock of my front door, I might just as well leave my door open hurr durr"
Total false equivalency. You've already admitted that the lock has been picked (not can be), that all your possessions have been stolen, and that they will never be recovered (hence "getting away with"). The failure of the lock was presupposed by you, and now you're talking as if it was never meant to fail. Of course it's not "meant to fail," but they do and this one has.
>God I hate Stirneans more than any other group of people. They are even worse than libertarians and positivists. Maggot-minded morons, each and every one of them.
Sounds like someone's closing in on your beloved one.

neat

>So, again, they are the same thing. You're just calling your own faith "self evidence."

Can you cunts stop abusing language for just a second? No, blind faith in some arbitrary proposition is not the same as believing something you cannot help but to believe because there is no alternative for you that can be consistently imagined. We don't even have to go that far. It's also clearly different from propositions that are supported by evidence or which are believed because of intuition.

>Not "inexplicably,"

Yes, inexplicably. This is true for almost the entirety of science, because science is largely inductive and there still isn't a conclusive solution to the problem of induction. Yet, it nevertheless seems to work too well to be just a coincidence, so we keep inducing.

>because one can understand why they're useful

>I won't commit legally defined murder because this makes me a target for state and personal vengeance.

You not committing legally defined murder is clearly an axiom. /s

At least keep track of what we are even talking about, you stupid cunt.

>Concepts that assist in logical thinking. They're no more real than a dream, and if they aren't useful in a situation (e.g. using the reflexive property when the transitive property is called fore), one won't use them. If one does, this is called a "fallacy."

Deepak Chopra-esque gobbledygook.

>Now you're appealing to intersubjective utility as opposed to essential "self-evidence." "Self evidence" has become "that which is regarded as true by most of [useless, obfuscatory qualifier] your peers."

I gave you an example of something that is self-evident to which you gave the typical Stirnean "NO THAT DOESN'T EXIST" response and then moved on to something else. Now you're misrepresenting me by conflating two separate comments.

>But honestly, I agree with this, since you seem to mean...

The confused rhetoric that follows has nothing to do with what I said.

>Total false equivalency. You've already admitted that the lock has been picked (not can be), that all your possessions have been stolen, and that they will never be recovered (hence "getting away with"). The failure of the lock was presupposed by you, and now you're talking as if it was never meant to fail. Of course it's not "meant to fail," but they do and this one has.

And your conclusion was that therefore locks are useless. This doesn't follow. One person escaping law enforcement doesn't prove that law enforcement, in and of itself, is useless.

Besides, the original point was that it would be poetic justice for a Stirnean to be raped and tortured because, if he were to be consistent, he would have no legitimate complain. However, Stirnean cunts rarely if ever are consistent since even logic itself takes a backseat to their caprice.

enlightened person: reason > muh feels

unenlightened person: muh feels > reason

Egoist retards: muh feels = reason

>Can you cunts stop abusing language for just a second?
You're the one playing language games.
>No, blind faith in some arbitrary proposition is not the same as believing something you cannot help but to believe because there is no alternative for you that can be consistently imagined.
You choose what you believe. There's nothing one "cannot help but believe."
>We don't even have to go that far. It's also clearly different from propositions that are supported by evidence or which are believed because of intuition.
Yes, I agree, given your definition of dogma as "useless," which isn't how the word is defined incidentally. Even if I let you make a mockery of this word, "belief due to intuition" and belief in "proofs by evidence" still require faith (loyalty) in one's own intuition or certain metrics of evidence. You have to understand that I'm not saying that this faith is a "bad thing." In the case of scientific inquiry, faith in inductive methods that produce measurable results is the only real way to "solve the problem of induction."
>You not committing legally defined murder is clearly an axiom.
Not as you define it, i.e. a general axiom. It's a transient axiom that I have given myself in this moment: if I come to a situation where I must commit a legally defined murder or die, I would surely commit the murder.
>Deepak Chopra-esque gobbledygook.
>"M-m-maybe if I compare him to Deepak Chopra he'll shut up and I'll look like I'm making an argument"
>I gave you an example of something that is self-evident to which you gave the typical Stirnean "NO THAT DOESN'T EXIST" response and then moved on to something else. Now you're misrepresenting me by conflating two separate comments.
Prove that 1 = 1. If you say, "it's just self evident," you're using circular logic ("The proof of self evidence is its own self evidence."). Also, I'm not misrepresenting you, I'm just not letting you get away with juggling language to suit your nonsense.
>The confused rhetoric that follows has nothing to do with what I said.
I'm sorry you can't see what it has to do with what you said. What is a "person's position" in this sense if not a philosophical, political, or ethical (all ideological) position?

>And your conclusion was that therefore locks are useless
No, my conclusion is that the broken lock is useless, not all locks. It follows quite obviously. You're over-generalizing.
>One person escaping law enforcement doesn't prove that law enforcement, in and of itself, is useless.
It proves that law enforcement was useless in that situation, which is the situation we were discussing. Now you're backpedaling and fleeing into generalities.
>
Besides, the original point was that it would be poetic justice for a Stirnean to be raped and tortured because, if he were to be consistent, he would have no legitimate complain
There's no such thing as general "justice," or "legitimacy," so what you say is true.

But, of course, you wouldn't have a "legitimate complaint" either, because if the sadist were to torture you, he'd probably just get off on your feeble appeals to the spook of "acting justly." I, at least, wouldn't give him the satisfaction of fearing him or his pain.

The fact that you enjoy thinking about this shows exactly what sort of malicious person you are. Not saying that's a bad or good thing, only that I wouldn't like to meet you.

>Egoist retards: muh feels = reason

Wait... where do you think what you call "reason" arises from?

>1 = 1
follows immediately from the definition of equivalence relation on N x N
stop using math examples in your mental masturbation contests, illiterate fags

>1 = 1 because N = N
Sure, bud. Now prove that N is N.

trying too hard

1/10 see me after class

Telling someone that they're baiting is not an argument.

What? Are you retarded? It's always fucking spectacular when cretins that engage in long-winded quasiphilosophical debates pretend to have abstract thought capability, yet lack basic understanding of set theory. Fucking kys yourself, retarded piece of shit.

Not an argument. I'm sorry you're spooked by math. Get angrier.
>kill yourself yourself
Who else would be doing it?

>lol i was le epic stirner trolling all along ecks dee spooked by my masterbait heh not an argument KEK
Strongly consider suicide.

Stirner? Isn't he that guy who is only famous because a funny drawing of him exists?

>There's nothing one "cannot help but believe."

Try believing that you (i.e. the entity that thinks your thoughts) does not exist.

Try believing that something is true and not true at the same time.

If you claim that you can, you're lying.

>You choose what you believe.

In most cases, belief is not a choice. I cannot choose to believe that I will survive jumping in front of a train. I either do or I don't. In rare cases, somebody may be able to trick himself into believing something he otherwise wouldn't.

>given your definition of dogma as "useless,"

I never defined a dogma as useless. I said that a dogma is an assertion you're supposed to believe even if it is BASELESS.

>Even if I let you make a mockery of this word

Says the person who rapes language by conflating terms with different meanings.

>"belief due to intuition" and belief in "proofs by evidence" still require faith

Which still isn't the same as blind faith, i.e. believing something for no reason other than being told to (i.e. what Stirner fanboys do).

>You have to understand that I'm not saying that this faith is a "bad thing."

THIS faith? As opposed to what? Moments ago, you equated all positions one can possibly hold because all of them are dogmatic.

Why are some dogmas ok and others aren't? Because your ego wills it?

>faith in inductive methods that produce measurable results is the only real way to "solve the problem of induction."

That doesn't solve the problem at all, dimwit.

>It's a transient axiom

Stop making up nonsense. It's not an axiom at all.

>"M-m-maybe if I compare him to Deepak Chopra he'll shut up and I'll look like I'm making an argument"

You are using words that have established definitions inconsistently with those definitions, and you're not clarifying the definitions that you're using instead. You continually misuse terms in such a way as to suggest that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, and when pressed on this fact, only further entangle the issue with MORE inconsistently used words. The net effect is a clusterfuck of confused rhetoric that has the apparent design of being intended to impress people who don't understand what's being discussed, and baffle people who do understand what's being discussed into intellectual submission. Hence: Deepak Chopra-esque gobbledygook.

>I'm not misrepresenting you

I never claimed that all things that are generally considered to be true are self-evident. I said that there are further distinctions to be made between dogmatic belief and other kinds of belief. You misreprented me.

>Prove that 1 = 1.

It doesn't require a proof. That's the entire point, dimwit.

>I'm sorry you can't see what it has to do with what you said. What is a "person's position" in this sense if not a philosophical, political, or ethical (all ideological) position?

Whether a position is "for fun" or "beloved" has nothing to do with internal consistency.

>No, my conclusion is that the broken lock is useless, not all locks. It follows quite obviously. You're over-generalizing.

Those were your words "you've admitted the uselessness of the state and general morality".

State = locks

One case of a lock failing =/= all locks are useless.

One case of the state not protecting his subjects =/= state being useless.

This is not hard to understand, honey.

>Try believing that you (i.e. the entity that thinks your thoughts) does not exist.
That I exist doesn't mean I have to believe it, but it certainly helps. I can conceive that I don't exist, e.g. in the paradox "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" This simply means that the only way to solve the paradox is to reinsert myself into it: if no one is around, how does anyone know that a tree is falling?
>I cannot choose to believe that I will survive jumping in front of a train
People do this all the time. They say, "I may 'die,' but the meaningful part of me, my soul [i.e. "the true I"] will survive."
>I never defined a dogma as useless. I said that a dogma is an assertion you're supposed to believe even if it is BASELESS.
>A dogma requires faith because you are supposed to believe it even without adequate grounds for doing so. An axiom is believed because it is either self-evident or inexplicably useful.
>Yes, inexplicably. This is true for almost the entirety of science, because science is largely inductive and there still isn't a conclusive solution to the problem of induction. Yet, it nevertheless seems to work too well to be just a coincidence, so we keep inducing.
You're the one who has equated "basis for belief" with "use," my man. I'm agreeing with you, but I recognize that you're always going to come to the unjustifiable (in your words, "self-evident") end of any dogmatic (axiomatic) system that you use.
>Which still isn't the same as blind faith, i.e. believing something for no reason other than being told to (i.e. what Stirner fanboys do).
I didn't say it was, I said it was useful faith.
>Why are some dogmas ok and others aren't? Because your ego wills it?
Some are useful, and some aren't. You're the one who defines a dogma as inherently negative ("baseless"). But you've already agreed that mathematical axioms require faith in self-evidence, so now I don't see what your quibbling about. Faith is faith; some of it is useful ("grounded"), some of it is useless or baseless.
>I said that there are further distinctions to be made between dogmatic belief and other kinds of belief.
Only because you use the word "dogma" in a negative way, which, again, is not how the word is used.
>It doesn't require a proof. That's the entire point, dimwit.
Right, you need faith in it. We agree again.
>Whether a position is "for fun" or "beloved" has nothing to do with internal consistency.
I agree, that's what I said here: >But the logic used in both cases is the same

Yes, I said that you admitted the uselessness of the state and general morality in a specific situation, which is perfectly true.

This is not that hard to understand either, m8y

>I can conceive that I don't exist

That has nothing to do with wether or not you believe it. You do believe that you exist and cannot "choose" to not believe it. Nor can you believe that something is true and false at the same time.

>People do this all the time.

I was talking about me. I cannot pick and choose them like a set of clothes. Changing them is not a matter of choice, but a matter of being convinced somehow.

>You're the one who has equated "basis for belief" with "use,"

Your quotes don't show that. Saying that certain axioms are accepted because of their inexplicable usefulness, rather than solely because an authority commands it, does not imply this at all. Nor does it imply that dogmas are useless. Dogmas may be used for various purposes, but you're not supposed to adhere to a dogma because it's useful but because an authority prescribed it.

>You're the one who defines a dogma as inherently negative ("baseless")

This entire debate about dogmas started when I said that Stirner's arguments are ultimately based on nothing more than "because I say so".

Your reply was that all other philosophical positions are like that and you used the word "dogma" to describe them.

Hence, you're the first one in this conversation who implied that dogmas are baseless (based on nothing but "because I say so"). Now you pretend that this isn't how you view dogmas because I demonstrated that not all positions are like that.

Use whatever name you want. I showed that not all positions are equally baseless and that was the original point of contention.

>Some are useful, and some aren't.

From your point of view, none of them should be useful. You're a person who believes that one can pick and choose ones own beliefs as one pleases and that one may do so based on what benefits oneself most in the given situation. So what's the point of underlying principles from which you derive your beliefs? Go ahead and believe that you're having sex with a super model right now - not merely imagine it - truly believe that it's happening. Surely that will make you more happy than writing another inane response.

>faith in self-evidence

Retard. Something that is self-evident doesn't require faith.

>Faith is faith; some of it is useful ("grounded"), some of it is useless or baseless.

Something can be useful yet baseless and vice versa. You're talking nonsense.

>Right, you need faith in it. We agree again.

No we don't.

There are beliefs in things that may very well be otherwise and there is no good reason to suppose that they aren't.

There are beliefs in things that cannot possibly be otherwise because they are tautological for example.

Between these two extremes are beliefs supported by different amounts of reasons.

That is my position. Your position is that all are equally baseless and the only """argument""" you have for that is that you can find words which you can use to refer to all these clearly different beliefs by raping semantics.

>in a specific situation

awww baby quickly added some words and pretends that this is what he said from the very beginning so he looks less retarded.

...

>No such thing as general self-evidence.
Do you question if the sun rises every morning

Morning is defined through sunrise, so your example is no more than a silly language trick.

How do you prove N= N though without falling into the self evident circle?

...

can you stirner-readers call me your property
it's pretty hot

I just came here for the memes

...

...

I can't think of any arguments against stirner aside from divine hierarchy
an I a brainlet?

I wonder how much of Stirner's appeal lies in the fact that the only surviving picture of him is just a rough sketch with a slightly smug face. His philosophy is also a very rough sketch and pretty smug.

>be 23-year old american NEET or student
>read Stirner
>"woah I'll just totally be myself"
>discover that you're incredibly boring and most of your thoughts and ideals are derived from images created in various popular media
>you don't have much property either

what's the point?

Acquire property and sever your meme shackles

>discover that you're incredibly boring and most of your thoughts and ideals are derived from images created in various popular media
>you don't have much property either

Then you create your property user and begin the long arduous process of self reflection and discovery of your true self.

Just because you identify something as a spook doesnt mean it instantly goes - indeed just like realising you are an addict or have an unhealthy attachment to something/one doesn't automatically end that attachment.

By uncovering more of your true self you will be better placed to find joy and contentment as you will no longer be attaching it to false concepts.

Egoist anarchism is an important first step towards rejecting politics.

...

>true self
Found the spook

>Say for years that neglecting the metaphysical will take away all basis for action and necessity of anything
>atheists deny it
>Stirner gainst popularity
>every atheist becomes the manifest of the old argument, and thinks themselves higher for it, despite it being obvious for pretty much everybody but them before that

>implying stirner has any influence or relevance whatsoever outside Veeky Forums

Are there any actual photographs of Stirner, or just the drawings? I've looked it up and saw some but was unsure of their validity.

He's got a presence on Reddit too, although only in a very Reddit way.

No there just aren't many.

Help a stembabby out here Veeky Forums
Why, according to Le Ego Man, is "property" considered a meaningful (non-"spook") construct when interpersonal relationships, which predicate property, are not?

The avoidance of spooks and their control has become yet another spook that controls.

He's not talking about property as in private property guaranteed as a "natural right". It's more like factual domination over a thing.

"Rejecting politics" means being conservative.

Individuals are shaped by society. What you deem your self-interest is determined by material and social factors.