What does lit think of the new translation? Also stirner thread

.

>Humans crave structure and order
wrong
>benefit of the world
Back to r*ddit, humanist

Anyone got a pdf?

track5.mixtape.moe/wtjgrl.pdf

Prefer it, more accurate translation it would seem.

>wrong
damn...

I hate how people always talk about it like its some self-help book or political ideology. Its a spiritual book that aims to describe how things are rather than how thing ought to be. To fucking take Stirner's spiritual and moral considerations and reduce it to something like money is disgusting.

...

t. Someone that knows nothing about philosophy

Linear time is a spook

If we didn't crave structure and order then art, cities, laws, language, and science wouldn't exist.

whats that mixtape moe website?

All of those are myths of lower humans.

what do you mean? i feel like people do crave structure and stuff, but people also crave everything contrary to that. or do you mean only base people crave structure? either way structure, and creating religions is a part of humanity and you may be the the exception to that feel me

>i feel like...
Leave, beast.
>and creating religions is a part of humanity and you may be the the exception to that feel me
This is what anthrocuck atheists actually think

FUCKING WEIRDO LOL, YOU MUST GET NO PLAY

Haven't read it, but I always preferred this translation of the title. Because of shitty Freud scholars the word ego has certain connotations in a philosophical/psychological context, so Unique fits better. On top of that, a core part of what Stirner is responding to is the Young Hegelian ideas of property, and the word own in the traditional title doesn't quite express what Stirner was talking about with ownness as well as the word property does.
Really, philosophy is a lot like math. A lot of ideas in pure math are fairly irrelevant to the "real world" and are the results of mathematicians circlejerking. But eventually, maybe even hundreds of years later, someone might find a "real world" use for the idea (see: boolean logic and computer science). In modern history, you can see this play out in a lot of political revolutions. Two quotes come to mind that show this really well. The obvious one is Marx, who said "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." Whether or not you agree with anything Marx said, you can't deny that his words and ideas have had an extreme influence on the world. The other one is from Thomas Carlyle. He was apparently at a dinner party one day talking about books when someone said "'Ideas, Mr. Carlyle, ideas, nothing but ideas!" Carlyle's response: "There once was a man called Rousseau who wrote a book containing nothing but ideas! The second edition was bound in the skins of those who laughed at the first."
As for your statement "most of these fucks have literally contributed nothing of value to the world", it was Isaac Newton who said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Yes Plato was influential, but who would Plato have been without Socrates and his intellectual ancestors? Kant himself basically said that he wouldn't have had his ideas if he had never read Hume. The great philosophers have all traditionally been well-read and would not have had their best ideas if they were not building on some already existing idea.
To ignore its political undertones is to completely remove Stirner from his context as a Young Hegelian. And calling the book "spiritual" makes it seem like you missed a big part of his dialectical argument about the ages of man.

He is hegelian only to coyly mock hegelian thought.... think of it in the same sense as nietzsche being christian in zarathustra

Yeah, he clearly is appropriating Hegelian tools to point out the flaws in the thought of his contemporaries. I love his quote about this: "Have you philosophers really no clue that you have been beaten with your own weapons? Only one clue. What can your common sense reply when I dissolve dialectically what you have merely posited dialectically?" But he is still responding to a specific group of people and answering Hegelian questions. If you focus on what Stirner is saying but don't have a decent grasp of Hegel and Feuerbach at the very least is selectively listening to half of a conversation but insisting that you know the full of what it was about.

>If you focus on what Stirner is saying but don't have a decent grasp of Hegel and Feuerbach at the very least is selectively listening to half of a conversation but insisting that you know the full of what it was about.
should read
>To focus on what Stirner is saying but not have a decent grasp of at least Hegel and Feuerbach is like selectively listening to half of a conversation but insisting that you know the full of what it was about.

Though that still might not be much better.

>real world use
Fuck off back to /r/eddit with your utilitarian bullshit, you disgusting pig.

I don't see how you're interpreting that as if I meant it in a utilitarian context. By "real world" use (and please notice that I did put real world in quotations) I just mean something physical or tangible. For example, a lot of number theory, especially the facts it derives about prime numbers, historically haven't had much application but play a huge role in modern cryptography. At worst I'm letting a bit of my philosophy of math as a formalist seep through, in that I don't see math as necessarily being connected to the physical world in any way but being much more a game with certain rules, but if you think I'm making some statement about moral obligation to the good of the group or even that we should seek out practical applications for their own sake then you're misinterpreting something about what I'm saying.

>physical and tangible
That's utilitarian, you turd.
>facts
Don't exist
Utilitarianism extends beyond ethics you fucking idiot.

Grow up.

What I think is that it should really be released as an epub, the worst thing is that it's just PDF.

Utilitarianism is literally an ethical theory. If you're using it in a different way, you're the one going against the orthodox definition, and I would love to read your definition of utilitarianism and how it envelops any idea that makes a distinction between the existence of a mathematical theorem and an application of that theorem (ie. the difference between an abstract idea and some far removed action). And more than a few greentexts would help me understand what you're saying a lot better.
>>facts
>Don't exist
You state that as if it's a fact.

No, it's not.
>orthodox definition
No, that's merely the ethical definition. People use 'utilitarian' to describe mere fashion, even, all the time.
>You state that as if it's a fact.
No, study up on epistemology please. Maybe you'll learn of this 'utilitarianism' there, as well.
Just so you know:
>pragmatic epistemology:
What is beneficial is true.
>utilitarian epistemology
What works is true.

Note that there is a matter of quality differentiating the two.

It changes 'spooks', so has no meme value and is therefore worthless

>not reading it in german
Stupid americans.

"Phantasm" is a better translation, just as the title is.

you cant meme phantasm

So, I actually bothered to google 'utilitarian epistemology'.

This, and pretty much only this, is what kept coming back: stevepetersen.net/petersen-utilitarian-epistemology.pdf

>Standard epistemology takes it for granted that there is a special kind of value: epistemic value. This claim does not seem to sit well with act utilitarianism, however, since it holds that only welfare is of real value. I first develop a particularly utilitarian sense of “epistemic value”, according to which it is closely analogous to the nature of financial value. I then demonstrate the promise this approach has for two current puzzles in the intersection of epistemology and value theory: first, the problem of why knowledge is better than mere true belief, and second, the relation between epistemic justification and responsibility.

Doesn't really sound like 'what works is true' to me.