I finished The Ego and It's Own

Holy shit, what a wild ride! Definitely the most entertaining read I've ever had, I finally understand the memes as well. Stirner was a fucking genius. However, I do have some questions:

1. Though Stirner decried capitalists wouldn't by his definition a capitalist also be possible to be considered an anarchist which by him is simply someone who doesn't have a leader, doesn't sacrifice himself to an idea, to which a cappie could just not care about his workers, or are capitalists by their position or state of mind spooked? Actually now that I think about it, this would violated the union of egoists since the worker doesn't want to be exploited. But then again, people are also property right? Is it ok to keep someone as your property even if they don't want a voluntary egoist union with you?

2. This line:

"In words and truths (every word is a truth,
as Hegel asserts that one cannot tell a lie)"

Hegelians pls explain.

3. Stirner asserts that the poor are as much to blame for being poor as the bourgeois oppressors, since, after all, they allow their oppressors to exist. If they didn't they would just kill them already. I hate bourgeois scum too, but don't you think maybe he has a point?

4. Could sacrificing yourself to save someone's life whom you cared about be considered egoistic?

5. Didn't Nietzsche basically just rip-off everything from Stirner?

1.
No because as he explains the capitalist gives himself wholly over to the pursuit of money. Everything else is simply incidental to this.

5.
Yes

1. See poster above

2. He means though you may think you are lying you don't actually know that what you are saying is false, and the words actually implicitly hold the truth within it.

3. Yes

4. Yes, "I love all men with the consciousness of egoism". The property cannot be separated from the person, and since all things are your property all things are an extension of me. And since I must love myself to be an egoist, I must love everything as myself and as my property.

5. Idk, ask n1x.

Wait, is this something to do with subjectivism? Not sure I understand, give me an example?

I'm almost done with Man, I'm going to monitor this thread, as it is now my property.

A bit harsh, but yeah, he does. If your choices are to live as a slave, die as a slave, or murder everyone around you, what difference does it make?

A fascinating question. I would argue no, as to put value on someone to such a point where you consider them more valuable than yourself is not egoistic. However, allying with someone and punishing the person trying to hurt you is very egoistic.

Nietzsche is a fag lol

Great job. Now go read Wage Labour and Capital.

Fascinating. I revoke my point, I should've read the thread before posting.

Actually, the reason one would value someone to the point of sacrifice is because they themselves are pleased by their existence too much to either lose them or see them damaged.

/thread

pls respond some1

Capitalists are moralists, they belive they are making the world a better place and helping the worker by providing them with a wage, they are not egoists, they do not see their workers as their property, otherwise they would take care of their property

Capitalists are the willing slaves of capital.

1. Yes
2. What makes things false is lack of truth, every falsehood is thus only false as incomplete truth. Nonsense isn't false, it's just nonsense. It is also the case that what we say can objectively betray what we think we mean, and indeed says what implicitly we truly believe yet deny to.

3. The poor are subjects and have free will. Steiner is absolutely right and anyone who denies it is denying the very human agency of the proles.

4. Yes
5. Yes

Does this philosophy even have consistency?

Good job, I'm never even going to start that book.

disgraceful tbh

With regard to 3: say I'm a poor worker who decides to kill my oppressors. I could probably take out a few porkies, but then I'd just end up dead (which, from my perspective, is worse than being exploited) or in prison (where I'd still be oppressed and exploited). So the poor AS A CLASS allow themselves to be exploited, but I (as an individual worker) can't really do anything about it.

...

I've had it put to me this way, "Nietzsche is a Stirnerite that claimed to have never read Stirner."
You should move on to The German Ideology

Stirner is a /his/ meme, newfag.

I meant to say /lit/

Nietzsche started off from a basic position that resembled Stirner's heavily but his philosophy is a lot more broad, deeper and touches on more subjects than Stirner's ever did. It's a lot like when people ask if Rand has any similarities to either of them, yes they're there but there is also a lot of broad differences.

Also a quarter of Stirner's work wasn't on his bromance and divorce from Wagner. So there is that if nothing else.

Wagner was way too cool for good ol' freddy anyway
Hanging out with Bakunin and the lot, no wonder he dropped nerdy Nietschze

Is the English translation bad? I've heard people complain about it like the title being wrong and other shit.

ITT: questions that are answered with "it depends."

I think that your definition of "capitalist" is spooked.

It benefits a "capitalist" if the people that he employs are not just efficient but powerful in their own right.

It means that at a moment in the future a given statement may become true even if it's false now. I think I once heard it described as Schrodinger's foot or something.

The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't know.

If it's "foolish" to keep that person alive, then no.

Nietzsche tried to apply Stirner to more "authentic" scenarios.