Why is it that nobody seems to understand Stirner?
It seems like people only try to appropriate his ideas to try and further their own beliefs (trying to categorize him as pro-socialism or pro-capitalism, for example).
Why is Stirner so hard for people to digest?
People on this board use him to defend christianity too. it's hilarious
Egoism was a mistake 2bh.
Because they didn't read him. They only know that there is something called "spook" and use it in the sense of "something you like that I don't like" and not in any way put forward by Stirner. Nevermind that his book talks much more about property than spooks, for example.
i just the ego and his own, what can i expect
this.
Spooks are spooks xd.
A compelling argument for egoism. And a compelling argument against any other kind of ism.
>implying anons of Veeky Forums understand other philosophers
Stirner and egoism have a reputation of being a philosophy for greedy cunts. Stirner's all things are nothing to me prologue is misinterpreted by plebs as being not a justification for selfishness but selfishness as a proper end. There's a lot of nuance average IQ people don't understand, just as with any other work. (I'm looking at you, Bible.)
>A compelling argument for egoism
Can you summarise this for me? I read it ages ago and I remember the arguments against other isms, but not the argument for egoism
everything else is a spook
Basically everyone is an egoist whether they know it or not and so you might as well become a conscious and voluntary egoist than an involuntary egoist.
>you might as well
Why?
Its sort of obvious in that sentence but read the book.
Like said, you should just read it, but the idea is that you live your life as a prisoner to spooks, and those spooks themselves (the state, religion, etc) are egoistic (god wants things done for no reason other than because he wants it, the state wants things so it can keep itself going, etc), so being an egoist yourself benefits you the most.
Firstly he demonstrates the hypocrisy of socialists and liberals before demonstrating that as individuals we have interests as well which are just as legitimate of those of ideological constructs
spooks
Page 11? We can't be having that.
Spooky bump.
>"trying to categorize him as pro-socialism or pro-capitalism, for example"
>le truth is somewhere in le middle, even though he literally says workers should seize the means of production
He is pro class warfare, anti socialism. He rejects all concepts of public or societal ownership.
Nope. He was writing in the early 19th century before Marxism was a thing and before anarchism was properly established. His "anti-socialism" is referring specifically to the reformist humanist socialist movement of his time and place. But when we consider what he was saying within our own context, it definitely comes under the definition of socialism, as he is saying that the spread of egoism would lead to the workers seizing the means of production and establishing a union of egoists (essentially full communism). Wilde expands on this side of Stirner's thought in "The Soul of Man Under Socialism".
> he literally says workers should seize the means of production
>should
Read it again, he uses the example of revolution as an example to demonstrate how spooky private property can be. He doesn't make a normative argument to seize it.
>His "anti-socialism" is referring specifically to the reformist humanist socialist movement of his time and place.
Still his talk about reverting individuals to ragamuffins though seems to be a solid critique of the class based view of society of the scientific socialists.
Stirner isn't really pro or anti any ideology, he's for egoism and if socialism will result in a better life for (you) then it is logical and consitent for an egoist to push for socialism.