Is there anything useful from Max Stirner's philosophy? How is he superior to Ayn Rand's objectivism?

He is wrong on everything it is only superior and inferior and the superior survives no matter if it is a spook or not

I just use him for memes. I'm not even an AnCom

Glad you could find the bit you could understand (a statement about a simple relation).

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Would it help to clarify that in this context a "choice" means commitment (either to the slave or to the master), and that the pretension of a non-commitment in a non-neutral field (namely, a society structured by class antagonism) is inevitably a commitment to the master?

With Stirner, this is a given – who takes him seriously, anyway? Stirner perfectly fits the current "end of history" narrative. With Nietzsche, this is easily shown to be false. Zarathustra's prophecy of the coming of the Übermensch designates a future occurrence, a clear goal. Nietzsche even puts Cesare Borgia on a pedestal in his Ecce Homo, hinting that he's close to this ideal, the same man who inspired Machiavelli's Prince. His "revaluation of all values" is political violence proper.

I didn't quote Badiou, I provided an article from Badiou.

Pure idpol-tier reasoning. Pic very much related.

I still can't for the life of me understand what Stirner actually believes.

It seems like a radical individualist philosophy, yet I constantly see socialists quoting him, who are typically collectivists. His philosophy seems to tie in pretty well with social Darwinism, yet, again, I see him being quoted by left wing egalitarians.

You sir, are an autist.

I have read him extensively and can sum it up this way:

Stirner's philosophy is not even a philosophy, it's the natural state of being of a man. It's basically how communism would and will be.

You obviously don't understand that even materialism is a metaphysical position. No, this doesn't mean that it's "spooky."

Nice arguments, btw.

Good morning, assumption of utilitarianism

If it feels good do it: the ideology

Informative. Where did I state otherwise? Unless you think relata is not metaphysics.

Where did you state anything? You have no stakes in this thread, just loose trolling attempts.

Being is a spook.

You should end it then, if you know what I mean.

Am I shitting up your attempt to appear smart by claiming transvaluation had anything to do with political violence in the 593839483th "was Stirner our guy" thread? You memers are probably the ones responsible for pushing him in the first place and now look. Look what you've done. Why couldn't you have memed Hegel instead?

Because Hegel's dialectics is woo. Marx knew this that's why his dialectics have a material basis.

...

this is all i have to add

I guess I should have said Hegel's dialectics is complete woo. Marx's dialectic is useful but its use is limited.

What does it mean that Hegel's dialectics is woo? What are the limitations of Marx's dialectics?

Hegel's dialectics is pure mysticism.
Marx's can be useful predictively but they're also reductive - external factors can throw their predictions off. Communism isn't inevitable if capitalism destroys the biosphere.

What does it mean that Hegel's dialectics is pure mysticism? Can you present how this is the case?

What are these external factors for Marx, and how is he reductive?

I just explained how Marx's model is limited. As for the mysticism of Hegel, here's Marx:

What does Stirmur mean by "ego."

Is he only talking about the self?

Scientism shibboleth.

Nope. If you want, do it. And it's not ideologic at all.

Yeah, because some autists take science too seriously, that means there's no such thing as woo.

It's just an awkward term primarily thrown around by """scientific skeptics""".

Imagine the average le spook xD stirntard…. there's your answer.

Idealism period is worse than new age pseudoscience because some influential thinkers actually take it seriously.

Really modulates the synchronous electrochemical synaptic action potentials in my perfectly physicallly describable mind

literally god of the gaps

Don't even know where to begin with this one tbh. But rest assured, it's Dawkins-tier faggotry.

Fuck off idealist.

You should get a trip; you'd make the perfect successor to old AnFem, except you'd be even more annoying and obtuse without doing it ironically. At least until you get banned for being that worthless altogether, of course.

...

ummm

You're only asshurt because the philosopher-physicist died after the 50's and nobody serious pays attention to your Holla Forums wank sessions anymore.

Tiny Marx needs a beard

Identifying spooks is useful, since they're one of the main things the right relies on.

wow, that image seriously btfos the fedoras

This should unironically be the extent of the practicality of Stirner's philosophy. I actually believe that if we can inspire Holla Forumsacks and right-libertarians to read Stirner by comparing him to Rand, we might be able to sway some of them over to leftist thought. A lot of people on the right love to jerk off over logic and rational thought &tc, I think many of them genuinely believe in those values but have fallen for the libertarian meme bc they started with the wrong premises, or that it has never been demonstrated to them that capitalism and private property inevitably lead to heirarchies and the withering away of freedoms.

I rambled a bit but I do think Stirner can be useful for spookbusting the right to a degree.

Define serious.

Theoretical physicists are still highly philosophical, they're just completely intellectually dishonest about it for whatever reason these days, and as such, tend to do both bad science and bad philosophy, while peddling anti-philosophical claptrap. It's absurd, really.

Jesus, you couldn't be more spooked if you tried.

My advice: pick up a book.

Ethics in the philosophy of science might have stopped him from working on The Manhattan project. Also people who think they're free of the clutches of philosophy are as deluded in ideology as a Zizek defined "cynic." They just follow a more primitive implicit philosophy without critically thinking about it and it shows in his particular writings and ideas beyond science.

Not just spook busting the right, but even the Left.
Like eliminating Idol worship of tankies, whether it's some dead Soviet leader or Lenin/Marx.
I want to see a new Left that's willing to strip away 20th century nostalgia, and present a new blueprint and ideology for the 21st century that the working class can get behind and support.

Stirrer's illegalism and writing's on anarchism are one of the few anarchist writing's I enjoy.

ayn rand thinks self interest means respecting property rights as a moral imperative. It doesn't follw

this
Theory doesn't mean the same thing in science. Any scientific theory's experiments can be reproduced by anyone, even you.

Welp, we've come full circle. The book meme to uphold ignorance however, is par for the course.

True, it's taking me a while to dig the tunnels for my cyclotron though. In the mean time, can I borrow your freezer to get a Bose-Einstein Condensate going?

Now onto the topic of what to do about "ex"-right wing individualists, who got de-ancapped by Stirner and are still trapped in the former ideological fragments. (Most Stirnerites.)

a priori synthetic
a priori synthetic

IT'S LIKE I'M LIVING A LIE!

...

...

You are a joke.

Yeah but you still don't appear to know anything, except what your feelings are telling you in this instance. Proof: you haven't said anything, you can't say anything. All you have is this little tantrum of "you're a snowflake, j-joke, that's w-wank, read a book like me", saging, and weeping into your handkerchief. That's what happens when you have cortical atrophy from scientism folks: it's progressively neurodegenerative. Did I reject every single modern physicist out of hand? Or just the public """intellectuals""" you've uncritically wrapped your gums around, grasping for an intellectually fulfilling (Dawkins) "atheism" like oh say, the mathematical universe of Max Tegmark? Anthropic principle isn't (bad) philosophy it's uh… Well, there's only 2 options, full on Christian religidiot or credulous, assmad crypto-metaphysical naturalist like me.

All this fluff and personal attacks for no counter argument.

Your anti-intellectualism will earn you no cachet here. Marxism is science.

Ok so name some prominent modern physicists who uphold Marxism as science? It's almost like without philosophy, you're totally lost, no matter how many layers of pure topology you're on.

Good thread bump 10\