Are all stirnirfags ancoms?

enlighten us

*tips*

how exactly?

If you're a fascist

oh gott

Simply put, the social precedes the individual (chronological critique). There are no children developing language, culture, civilization without the process of being lured into them first (developmental critique). The pre-linguistic animal (babby) first has to experience that strange signifying order around him exercised by his caregivers as a Demand aimed at him to enter it (logical critique) – and by no means is this the end for him in the process of becoming human.

for an intro:

But more was stated:
This needs to be extracted…
Stirnerian egoists equate the body of one with his ego. This is obviously false. While your corporeality is a simple fact of biology, your ego is a result of the complex process of identification (which is, put in layman terms, the child's individual work in the field of the social, relating to the social, distinguishing himself from X, Y, and Z, etc.). From this predicate they construct several fallacies. To mention the most significant one: treating the "ego" as something completely separate and autonomous from the social. We've already seen that the ego is only possible through work in the field of the social, and 'being in the social' is only possible first by acquiring language, and to be a speaking being you first need to be lured into it.

There are more political implications. With Stirner's faux-Hegelianism the concept of "right" (as something provided by the state) transmutes into the same conceptual apparatus with a different origin: right (although he doesn't call it that) from the self – notice the never-ending chain of tautologies (ego, self, the unique one, muh me, muh I)!

The irony is that Stirnerites in practice end up being paradoxical "egoist-humanists", the complete anathema for marxists, for they identify an "essence" (the ego, as self-constructive, self-constituting unit) confirmed by the very existence of itself: "I am me [essence] because of my myness [partaking in essence]" – with humanists: I am human [essence] because of said rights [provided by states].

So what is the individual if not something "positive" or "self-creating?" From another (in my opinion closer to Marx's) POV: a relational and operative fictional concept. Relational, because it is nothing without reference to the Other; operative fictional, because I am nothing without this illusion of myself.

I hope this helps.

kys

So basically Stirnerites base their whole philosophical edifice on a "spook" not recognized as one (ego)?

The spook is the nothing Stirner supposedly set his cause on, because the creative nothing is not nothing, the ego is not a tabula rasa.

You actually think the ego/self/i is the same as the unique/creative nothing?

Completly wrong, the nothing is the creative nothing wich is nothing. The Ego is an idea and a property of the unique, The Ego can not be seperate of his property as the ego is a property.

Stirner's book is titled The Ego and his own, but Stirner's ego himself is not his own, his ego is not something he can remake as he wishes, nor it is equal to himself or constant as Plato would describe a person's soul.

Saint Max is not a Platonic Being, there is no creative nothing, there is only becoming, becoming through a dialectical interaction with his environment, constantly reshaping him and redefining him: the process called life.

no they don't. stirner never actually said that. the ego simply means "you" or "me", including the psychological aspect

exactly

again, no. the first part of the ego and its own analyze an individual's life, where the children are restricted by material forces; in the youth, the individual manages to overcome these restrictions, but becomes enslaved by internal forces; in the final stage (that doesn't always occur) the adult frees himself from all the restrains, both internal and external. how is that not related to society?

the ego is not an essence, since it's formed and restrained by society, and i guess you can find a big humanist influence in this since you can free yourself from every restrain, both material and abstract.

read the book before criticizing it

Cute cow

His book is titled Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum.

You dont see the irony in this statement do you?

When Fichte says, “The ego is all,” this seems to harmonize perfectly with my thesis. But it is not that the ego is all, but the ego destroys all, and only the self-dissolving ego, the never-being ego, the — finite ego is really I. Fichte speaks of the “absolute” ego, but I speak of me, the transitory ego.

Most people skim it or base their whole understanding on memes or maybe read it but never actually bother to study it.

There are no "simple" aspects of these categories. Either something is the body or the "psych. asp." – just saying that
is obfuscation par excellence

The children would stay animals without being lured into the social.
How? Being introduced to language does include "restrictions" (more precisely: losing one's former state-of-being, pre-signified sense of wholeness).
How? Which restrictions?
And these "internal forces" originate from where?!
Same question.

I agree, but for Stirner it obv. is.
This doesn't contradict its status as essence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence

Yes, I do see the irony is that Stirner is a spooked man that believes things can originate from nothing.

Like Richard "Of course something can come from nothing!" Dawkins.

Transitory is not enough, it's a dialectical one.

Stirner will never admit that as the ego gazes into his property, the property also gazes into him. It's a two-way communication.

He can write all the pages of ranting, and all the fantasies of property and power over it he wants, he can never escape Becoming.

He is the property. The property of history, like every other piece of shit on this universe. You're welcome.

Jesus the amount of irony in your post display the unforgiving amount of ignorance for applying idealistic structures towards his philosophy. Its like you havent put any effort in trying to understand the relation between the go and the unique and why he begins with the ego and ends with the unique.

Verry waterd down understanding fam, try again when you actually understand Stirner.

*The Ego and the Unique

First I want you to show me the creative nothing, and how creatio ex nihilo isn't a spook.

Isn't a spook a descriptor? The Ego doesn't demand you subordinate your desires to it - it isn't a thing. It merely represents the act of being.

Whats a Nothing in the rhealm of ideas?

Cause Stirner his philosophy is a leave from Idealism to subjectivism within nihilism wich still is a brance of idealism but where you come back to the nothing.

Anyhow you can not show a creative nothing as it isnt even a thing but only a name without content.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics

A spook litteraly is a fixed '''idea''', all idea's can be fucking fixed. Every single idea!

The Unique is like calling yourself Anonymous or Bob, it says litteraly nothing about your charrachter, who you are, where you are from or any other information but only a name. You have not a single idea who or what Anonymous or Bob as you only now his/her/its name.

The Ego is what you make it to be, its an idea but also can and can not be a fixed idea. It depends if you consume it or not.

oh wow he used something he's heard marxists say before. let's see if he actually understands what it means or if he's just using it as a vague platitude

well, only took one sentence for that to fall apart into Cenkspeak, let's see where he takes it from here

like 90% memes at this point, let's see if he can make it all the way annnnndddd….

HE DID IT. CONGRATULATIONS YOU ABSOLUTE FAGGOT YOU ARE NOW A LIVING MEME

i never said that these categories were "simple", i said that the ego is used as a word to describe the whole "you", taking into account both the body of an individual and his/her psychological aspect
why?

ok, i was too unclear in my synopsis of stirner, but i read that a long time ago, so i'll try elaborate better: in childhood, according to stirner, "liberation takes the direction of trying to get to the bottom of things", that means that a children will try to comprehend everything that he can. thanks to his obduracy he will eventually outgrown a number of things, for example: "when we have got at the fact that the rod is too weak against our obduracy, then we no longer fear it". in this way, the child, using his reason, is able to go over material limits like parents.
in the youth, however, the mind can't attain autonomy because of the "spooks", which are fixed thoughts in the mind like religion, nationalism, ideologies etc. they of course don't come from the abstract self, but from society.
the egoist adult is finally able to pursue full autonomy by breaking all these limits.

so, the ego is not really an pre-existing essence, since stirner also believes that there is no soul, no personal essence of any kind, but that the individual's uniqueness consists solely in its "creative nothingness" prior to all concepts. the self is just creative nothing.

sorry if i was too unclear, if you want me to elaborate tell me.

There is no being. Only becoming. Particularly according to Stirner's own anti-absolute, transitory definition of his ego.

Not that I would ever believe in a Platonic metaphysical realm of Ideas, but:

Did you hear the one about the man who went into a cafe and asked for coffee without milk? The waiter replies: sorry sir, we are all out of milk, but can I get you coffee without cream?

Now, if one of those nothings could somehow create anything…

"I have no clue what I'm saying: the philosophy."

Well that's worth setting your cause on.

No, Saint Max, you're neither.

There was no creation, and even if there was the creator wouldn't be you, as you are not a tabula rasa nor able to design and/or redesign your psyche as you desire.

Wake the fuck up.

Or did you hear the one about the woman who took a glass of water to bed in case she got thirsty, but also an empty glass in case she didn’t?

Only accordign to your idealistic structure of thought eh? Proving Stirner right there, spooked as fuck tbh.

Where the orginallity at eh? And not even an argument against what the creative nothing should be according to you. (*according to your idealistic structure you submit to aka fixed idea.)

>"I have no clue what I'm saying: the philosophy."
Fleeing back in Willfull ignorance is pretty cute fam.

kek, babby first confrontation with philosophy.

The irony of sutch level is only found on Holla Forums and Holla Forums and always crawls up when people are confronted with the real content of the memes they spout, truelly this place only produces parodies.

why are anprims always so fucking retarded

I'm an antitheist leninist against normalfag ideology.

Rate my ideology

7/10 could have more syllables

I am a libertarian christian marxist anarchist feminist with brocialist characteristics

All I see is biological and non-biological processes that are incapable of staying the same. Particles are waves and waves are particles. I simply reject permanent or timeless substances, i.e. Being. There is no idealism here, only naturalism.

And the authorized personnel still cannot translate him in English, because of his obscurity and made-up words, making his thoughts completely devoid of any meaning? Pfft.

Well, if nothing is created and everything transforms, and you don't like it, blame your creative nothing for not being creative enough.

I wouldn't know.

Fixed.

fuck off, feminist cunt

Well there you go, drop stirner right now cause he can only be approached in idealism. In all other schools of philosophy (like yours) he is incomprehensible and proving him wrong outside of idealism is like calling Hegel Stupid cause he is a wizard. Its kidna like a positivist disregarding philosophy cause le science meme.

What are you even doing in this thread?

My gosh your critique has completly changed my mind, all those details and sutch a deep analysis truelly i must follow your guidelines of how to live and to think.

I don't remember Stirner ever saying it was a tabula rasa, and I feel you missed the point . Its a creative nothing for the exact reason that its always in flux and becoming.

He says:
Does Saint Max possess the ability of originating himself as a biological organism?

Was Saint Max blessed with a tabula rasa, instead of receiving his language and original personality beginning earlier, pre-linguistic then proto-linguistic interactions with his environment?

Does Saint Max possess the ability or designing and/or redesigning his psyche as it pleases him?

Does and act of creation or re-creation ever occur at all, when Saint Max rejects the Fichtean absolute ego, and says "I speak of me, the transitory ego", rejecting a metaphysical Platonic or otherwise Idealist Being and embracing the ever-flowing, ever-changing Becoming?

Did Saint Max somehow escape the clutches of Becoming, where nothing is created and everything transforms, by creating or being created?

Does Saint Max think, that he can quit and resume smoking anytime, instantly and by sheer force of will, and unlike other smokers, simply by recreating himself as a non-smoker and then back again as a smoker?

Does Saint Max have an excessively high opinion of himself?

My contention is that Saint Max is a product of his environment, and not as separate from it as he claims he is.

And again the question remains unanswered: what does the creative nothing create?

But debates between naturalists and non-naturalists happen all the time, tell me more about Stirner's supernatural beliefs, and yours, will you not?

What I want.

Almost no Stirnerfag is an ancom. Also, noone is Holla Forums is actually an ancom or anything, those larping bourgie kids have been a thing since 1830
The 0.01% of people quoting Stirner who have actually read anything from him are simply nothing, either slaving away at some shit or, if they were born into property, enjoying the good life.
Also, every single post defending Stirner is by its definition a shitpost, and shitposts of shitposts spiraling after the pleasure of the unique and the appropriation of ideology and so on

I like this tbh, but you should not take it seriously regarding politics.

At first I disliked it when he became a meme because I found him interesting when I read him back in the days, but what can you do, seems he's well suited to chan culture.

Looks like Tywin Lannister.

What is idealism even for?

An egoist only needs himself, and property. Not incomprehensible.

No, but the biological processes from which he originated do belong to him.

I don't think he claimed he did

He has the power to the best of his ability, as does everyone.

Stirner just pointed out that which creates. The creature Stirner is subject to all the forces of the world, but the creator Stirner creates. He has no choice but to. He is bound by mind to do it.

Becoming is nothing but the creative nothing in action.

He can simply put down his cigar, and pick it up again, yes. :^)

Perhaps, but why not?

Which is why creator and creature makes perfect sense. The creature is always tied to the environment, the creator is what interprets it.

All that it is able to.

Its an extreme baby tier philosophy and no fun at all, i prever chit chat with an hedoist, lacan or hegelian mutch more.

There is litteraly nothing wrong with shitposting.

And egoist is the most ironic person. Anyone who calls himself an egoist or stirnerite is living a ironic ruse and is living a meme.

Note that I'm responding to your recollection of Stirner.

This obviously doesn't happen most of the time, correct? The reasons are varying. In most cases children through their personal development mirror their parents' desires, values, etc. completely. And again, I'm not sure that "liberation" as such is a correct term describing a child's path. Liberation from what (again)? He was brought into language by them. He was socialized by them. Are you (or your version of Stirner) suggesting that there's a true and hidden form of freedom behind what happens to every child?

You are using the ancom flag, which I respect (above all the "flavors" of anarchism). You must understand (along the lines of Marx & Engels) that the family is basically an economic unit and as such historically determined.

In my (Freudian) opinion you are describing the relationship b/w the child and the superego, which is far from being so straight as your quote describes it. To use the same metaphors: "the rod" doesn't go against our obduracy. "The rod" is a symbolic instrument for setting the child's dimensions for enjoyment. An example: if you are a homosexual child, and your conservative father's rod (lol) reaches way behind your own "instincts," you will became a self-hating latent homosexual in your adulthood. But! What if your father's influence (rod) is in fact way too weak to influence you? You may become too anemic to live out your passions. What I'm trying to say here is that there's no "correct length of a rod" and no "correct response" to it; the superego isn't measured by its weakness, it is an ambivalent factor that further on becomes a point of reference for organizing your own jouissance.

>in this way, the child, using his reason, is able to go over material limits like parents.
(Putting aside the idealist notion of Reason…) The very fact that you speak of parents as "material limits" shows you understand the Marxist theory of its origins. But don't you see how this contradicts Stirner's?

The individual can not have "creative nothingness prior to all concepts," because there is no individual prior to being absorbed into concepts, language, culture! There's only the animal.

deleted first post, fuck you firefox spell checker

Truly moronic.

So tell me cigar user, what exactly do you define as "consciousness" and how does something to go from a mindless neural system to an "individual"? Why are chimps or dogs not individuals? Hell, even cockroches show differing behavior and preferences when raised in similar environments:

youtube.com/watch?v=oY4u4ps-w1c

Kant's Noumenon, anyone?

Except, you know, society and such.

Yet being is experienced (in the process of becoming) by every living being, giving rise to reasoning you are arguing against.

I'm not trying to substantialize being as such, I'm trying to posit that there is such a thing as "subject under the impression of being," moreover, that the subject is nothing else but.

kek

This isn't even "idealistic," it's thoroughly logical.

ech

I have no clue what I'm responding to: the response.

It's a mystery. maybe it has to do with Mother Gaia?

Stirner is an idealist, though unlike Hegel.

(kekking hard)

(One should extrapolate.)

PBUH

reading comprehension 0/10
sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage sage

kekked hard

brb gotta smoke

...

I'm still not reading where I'm wrong, fam

Isn't that like the dictionary definition of poor reading comprehension?

It would be, if he actually pointed out where that was the case. An attempt wasn't even made.

We should get Muke to run for president

Eh, couldn't be worse than B████, honestly.

There are two separate questions embedded in this one:
…so let's take them apart.

According to your model (that is, if you are this gradualist faggot:

)
"consciousness" is something quantitatively achieved, that is, there are neural networks, there's the given animal's girth (n' such) of the organ we call the brain, there are available influences and there are a number of possible responses to them, etc., and if we take these, vary them, make them more and more complex, even a snail (given "optimal" evolutionary processes) could achieve "consciousness."

so why are we the only ones on Earth with consciousness? Do other species need more time? Did we "adopt" consc. due to optimizing evolutionary stages? [etc.]

BTW, there are no "mindless" neural systems. There are neural systems as such, and there is the peculiar human way of relating to the world through the logic of the signifier, but more on that later.

I'm going to disregard this one as a way to respect your intelligence… You didn't really want to say that stupid shit…

For one basic reason: chimps and dogs do not obey the logic of the signifier, in other words: they are not beings of language, they do not "posses" language (or more precisely: language does not posses them).

So back to your basic Q's:
Consciousness is a body's symbolic relationship with the unsignifiable world. I am born an animal. I am brought into the sphere of speaking beings. Through that process I lose my direct connection with my pre-linguistic wholeness. Since I speak I am separated into signifiers: my leg, my ass, my face, ad infinitum.

Consciousness is also this speaking subject's reflective and retroactive relationship with its illusionary self mediated by his fantasies. Since I'm speaking, and since there are no "objectice meanings," outside there in the world, my very gaze into them retroactively defines my position that takes up a social character.

Well, good for them, I guess. Do cuckroaches have a language in which its basic unit (signifier) has no substantial relation to the world as such? Can cuckroaches say "yes" and mean "no"? Can cuckroaches signify time? Can cuckroaches express views not experienced by them?

Putting aside this asinine shit…
The basic opposition b/w the quantitative (yours) and qualitative (mine) understanding of the emergence of consciousness boils down to this: if I add 'n' to 'n' ad infinitum, eventually consc. will arise!
vs.
We take the hard path of actually defining the subjectivity, the logic of language, and admit that we have no idea how it come to be.

There are suspicions ofc: error, literal illness, misrecognition, etc. on the part of the yet non-speaking human tribe that eventually lead to a signifying system. So what does your side propose?
>muh growing brain, muh neural networks getting more entwined eventually made language don't ask me about the details, lol
…

what's the origin of language according to you?

vs.

bump

Is this the perfect system, leftypol?

I've been reading a bit about it and it seems nice and comfy. What can you guys tell me about it? Is plain Socialism better?

Wtf dude

Ok so yesterday I went to sleep but I still want to respond to you.

Well, Stirner never actually talks about stuff like language, desires, values etc. when talking about childhood. Tbh this section in the "Ego" is very limited (lol), and I always interpreted the "material restrictions" as concrete objects that the child fears and/or does not understand, like a scary movie, or a complicated toy. These things limit the child in the sense that they are an obstacle to him in one way or another.
Mind you that this is my interpretation of Stirner and I don't always agree with everything he says.

Y-you too

An example: if you are a homosexual child, and your conservative father's rod (lol) reaches way behind your own "instincts," you will became a self-hating latent homosexual in your adulthood.
Yes, and I think that's because you can't affirm yourself and be as homosexual as you want, as you are being limited by you daddy ;^)

Well, I think that Stirner could consider the "being too anemic" a spook, since it's a fixed idea that's not yours. That doesn't mean that an egoist has become anemic to live because it's "spooks", it means that he has to act in his own interests, whatever they may be. If an egoist wants to restrict his sexual activity because it can destroy his life, that means that he is acting in self interest. If an egoist wants to completely lose himself to lust because he likes that and there are no tragic side effects for him that means that he is acting in self-interest.

For Stirner, if the rod limits the child, the correct response is to outgrown it.

It's not his definition, but che can be restricted according to max.

I would be really grateful if you could elaborate on that, just to see exactly what you mean.

Well, it isn't ideastic, because a child actually uses his mind to outgrown a number of things gradually.

Tbh no, not really, if you could explain that it would be wonderful.

I guess that's what Stirner called "creative nothingness: there is nothing but instinct, and the Ego from there can be created and shaped both by the individual and the society

Ancom flag generally means they've read Kropotkin, not necessarily that they've read Marx and Engels.

Also bump for interesting thread.

These are the best threads.

One thing I want to point out, and you might already know this, is that the main thrust of Stirner isn't self-interest, but what he calls "owness".

...

Oh yeah, that's true, I totally forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder

...

Stay salty, friendo

Why and how is language a binary state?

Again, is this not gradual? And if it's not gradual in humans then why can that gradation not exist in non humans? Are you arguing there's a definitive point in time in which you where an animal and then suddenly switched states into not being one? If you are when did this happen and how did it happen? What neuron connections need to be made in order to divide the two? If you can't pin down an absolute point in the change then how can you be sure it exists?

While cockraoches was an example and might not do all of those things there are animals that do. Bees for example can communicate locations via abstract body movements.

How can you lie if there are no "objective meanings" in the first place to hold that "lie" up to?

No, you can't make up strawmen and knock them down. Neurons connecting into a complex network is different than just "n".

I never claimed I did and we weren't discussing the exact origins of consciousness, you're attempting to pivot the discussion.

There's no point in debating if you dismiss any argument against you outright. You aren't debating from any objective, scientific standpoint, you seem to be trying to flaunt a religious view. Human brains don't pop into existence, they develop over time both in the individual sense and in the species sense. If you're going to dismiss neuron and network development do you think the brain works on magic? Do you think consciousness is something outside the physical?

I don't know the origin of language, my argument doesn't hinge on it. In fact I would argue against a singular "origin" of language and that it was a gradual thing, just as there was no singular origin of the eye and when it ceased being a clump of photo receptive cells and and organ proper.