Stirner

...

no
but government sure is a spook

Equality is not a spook, we would all be better off in a more equal society

fairness is a spook but I doubt it's a common thing here to be against capitalism because of its "unfairness"

not nescessarily
what about people who enjoy wielding power? or people who would be brought lower by equality?

There is nothing wrong with Egoism.

...

Really, this is the thing here.

Egalitarianism, however, is not (strictly) a moral position, and you replaced the individualist-collectivist dichotomy (again, not a moral dichotomy) for individualist-egalitarian: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

Which amounts, in a way, to the political failure of not choosing sides, and pretending that historical change can occur through ignoring the main moving force of history.

Marx correctly identifies the proletariat as a kind of negative substance (if you don't fall for Lukács's view) that can abolish itself through overcoming of the antagonism.

As for Nietzsche, who is infinitely more important than Stirner, .pdf related:
plijournal.com/files/11_1_Badiou.pdf

With Stirner, this is a given – who takes him seriously (and by seriously, I mean seriously in a way that produces more than self-masturbatory fantasies involving esoteric interpretations of X phenomenon to make the few on here and in lifestyle narcho groups more enjoyable), anyway? Stirner perfectly fits the current "end of history" narrative; that all one needs to do is be ineffectually edgy within any world-systemic paradigm, be it capitalism or otherwise.

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.

Now, I don't really expect more than a "um, have u EVEN read stirner? lolz" or "X is a spook" (both unironically or "ironically"), so if you really want to make your case for Stirner ITT I suggest actually putting in some effort or simply reaffirming second pic related for another round and making this yet another thread where Stirner's substance is discussed only to, by consequence, weaken his little more than memetic role and make him more and more of a fad we're ultimately going to be fully tired of.

isn't stirner more of a game plan than an overriding ideology? like play along as much as you have to to avoid negative consequences but be sure to not find yourself believing in spooks and always have an underhand goal

Precisely: a lifestyle. One, like all lifestyles, without any clear goal or ethical or philosophical substance (any Stirnerite at this point will call these a spook, alas) besides this very vague "there is a collective interest in being selfish, but this selfishness is little more than whatever you want it to be, man. Also, it's definitely not doing [bad thing] but [bad thing] is only bad because [moral injuction within my lifestyle guide], dude spooks lmao."

Also, he essentializes his self's ontology with the ego, which is a trap not even the predecessors who influenced him, self-mentioned by Stirner or otherwise, fell into.

If it weren't enough for this idea of atomized idea of the self and decision-making to be incongruent with any kind of notion of pan-class action set on clear goals with a power that goes beyond setting up a milk firm, it going out of business and dying to the sting of a bee, literally every properly refined theorists of the mind have concluded that the ego is completely anterior to the self's forming; that the ego is a fundamentally social category that can't but exist because it's mediative and informs all of its conceptions (and by this function its decisions) through this process.

It would perhaps be more precise to say that a vast majority of people would be better off in a more equal society.

Screw the outliers, if they can't make others their property, why should the rest of us make it easier for them? If the BDSM subculture can figure out ways of matching dominants and submissives in mutually beneficial relationships, so can fetishists of other types of hierarchies.

...

kys boi and >>>Holla Forums

'better' is a subjective concept though

Stirnerposters are everywhere, they're the truest libertarians.

Why think about them or that the slave should delude themselves that they are slaves? The whip and the papers that says you're property is a spook.

pic unrelated really, I was making two different points

Yes but the painful mark on your chest from the whip is not that much of a spook

It's not but being told that you are a slave when you don't want be one is. You know yourself that slavery isn't what you want and therefor shouldn't care for the chains that hold you down.

stirner

yeah just like your mom

Kek, did you lacanian fags learn nothing from the last thread?

Perhaps you should read Stirner and form your own conclusions rather than buying into hearsay and memes.

Nobody claims that stirner's is a complete political theory or program. You do have to take his contributions, which is on its most basic level a critique of ideology, and combining it with other ideas, in the same way zizek combines lacanian psychoanalysis with German idealism to create his own unique blend of thought.

An egoist can certainly care about changing history, and most egoists I imagine would press for liberry and equality as that is to their own benefit.

Regardless, I find his critique valuable, particularly in discussions with polacks.

It depends on what people mean by equality and their relationship to the idea.
If they just mean everyone in every sense must one day be equal, then it would be a spook. There are numerous socialist who don't think this way, though. Fairness for the sake of being fair would also be a spook, but socialist have their own concept of fair in relation to workers owning what they create, and I think most are aware of this. The capitalist wouldn't consider this fair, but we are assuming socialist have power at some point and can dictate what is fair according to their standards. It's power that determines what is fair, after all.

Apparently not, because they don't understand the difference in definition between Stirner's ego and Lacan.
It's an imaginary conflict developed in the fever dream of some autist, who can't get over the fact Stirner didn't live in a time where he could include Lacan into his work.

You fags always mention stirner has got me intrested. What book of his should I start with?

Read "The Ego and his Own", but then read "Stirner's Critics".
About every problem people are bitching about in this thread is answered in the latter.

The one that first ended with all proper criticism of Stirner followed by its entire ending which was just epic funnies and a shitflinging contest between scientism and continental philosophy?

Also, amazing argument. 10/10 wtf i love stirner now?

Because all you have to do is deconstruct Holla Forumsyp autism as the blind, dogmatic adherence a priori social constructs, which is what screeching "spook!" (little more than an esoterically-defined synonym for "social construct") does.

It is undeniable that this is one of the most effective and time/effort effective ways to deal with them, and I mean this sincerely, because you don't need to really infer into Stirner's other ideas for this to work.

But there's nothing inherently wrong with "spooks", and spooks rely on the idea of the self anyway, which is pretty spooky.

A spook isn't just a social construct, it's one that makes you bend to its whims to benefit it, rather than yourself.

This is by consequence the purpose of all social constructs, and why a sub-classification of "spook" for a social construct that does influence you is entirely dependent on individual subjectivization to it. This is why it's useful to say one is "spooked" by a social construct; they are affected by its ideological incrementation into their own ideology.

"They do not know it, but they are doing it"; a social construct in and of itself places the magnitude of its spookiness on all those who partake in upholding it, which is why capitalists respond to the drive of capital and profiteering, and may sometimes even feel like they are doing good or act explicitly as philantropists. This is why spooks are not just born out of human ignorance, but the materially self-reproducing bases they create and which the superstructure strengthens.

I agree with everything you just said.

Not necessarily, since there are ones that exist that don't require my participation. I'm not required to have a family, for instance.

It goes beyond just influencing. The "bending of the knee" has to happen. I'd also take issue with just calling spooks social constructs, since I think fixed ideas aren't necessarily social constructs.

It's dependent on autonomy and whether I am possessed by the fixed idea.

I don't see how this is an argument against Stirner. You are just pointing out that material circumstances help create them.

What did he mean by this?

Does Stirner ever explain why everything is his property or is it just one of his jokes that he never goes around explaining?

It is rather interesting that this statement is becoming a meme in itself.

**I am of the belief that Stirner's philosophy can in fact be used to an extremely large extent. Firstly, Stirner does not promote what you call an "edgy intellectualism":

``"Only as the property of me do the spirits, the truths, get to rest; and they then for the first time really are, when they have been deprived of their sorry existence and made a property of mine, when it is no longer said “the truth develops itself, rules, asserts itself; history (also a concept) wins the victory,” etc. The truth never has won a victory, but was always my means to the victory, like the sword (“the sword of truth”). The truth is dead, a letter, a word, a material that I can use up. All truth by itself is dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the same way as my lungs are alive — to wit, in the measure of my own vitality. Truths are material, like vegetables and weeds; as to whether vegetable or weed, the decision lies in me."``

He simply makes the case for individuals to escape the paradigm of values which society at large has and construct their own, even if it involves the same values which society uses. His egoist determines what their own values are, uses them and then dismisses them at will whenever their value is lost. To simply avoid any causes which one deems to be "spooky" due to their proliferation through the value system of society would inhibit the egoist; indeed, this "edgy intellectualism" may even cross over into the realm of the spectres thus defeating its own purpose! Because Stirner does not utter: "fuck everyone else and what they believe because I said so" whilst slicing his veins in the wrong direction, he is able to acknowledge that people can and will have causes in common even when they are individual.

I would like to know if he says anything about following one's whim without rational consideration: for example, it would be foolish to disregard the fact that other people have beliefs and that if one wishes to change the world, one must use them.

Furthermore, the anarcho-egoist society which Stirner points towards is not one which can be found immediately due to some sudden "revolution of egoists". The "best" intention of the deployment of morals and laws is to prevent conflict, which ultimately occurs due to lack of materials between multiple parties who wish to use them. I would argue that communism is the best way, particularly in its "fully-automated luxury" form; the aim of communism is to liberate workers by removing economic hierarchy and improving the systems of resource distribution (as an example, production for use as opposed to production for sale). Preventing conflict by improving material conditions gives no reason for such parties to come into conflict. In addition, a Stirnerian egoist cannot ignore historical materialism unless they were a fool; it is based on empirical and logical facts. What Stirner warns against is its use in a cause which leads to the subjugation of individuals. A familiar pattern of the use of facts and logic to justify things which unnecessarily inhibit individual freedom can be seen in liberalism, race realism and hordes of other ideologies is prevalent; this does not have to be the case for the extreme left.

My take on all of this is far from complete but I welcome your views.**

**inb4:
(bonus points if it's anime

lol I knew it wouldn't work

Right through might. I see it as, if you don't fight for what is your "property" it is not your "property". You are your own property because you say it is and your power or strength solidifies it.

...

I have already covered this.

In a society in which other individuals exist with scarce resources to hand, there will invariably be interdependence. The cognitive limits of an individual without sufficient levels of material standards and technology will lead them to need to depend on others, thus reducing their autonomy. They must submit to the values of those whom they depend on in order to satisfy them and live.

Hogeye Bill uses this point in a part of some book or another (I found it on some blogpost when someone decided to take one of my shitposts seriously: anaarkei.me/post/28592740142/listen-egoist) but what lies outside the scope of his decidedly right-wing analysis is that communism is entirely devoted to producing a society in which material standards have increased greatly.

Furthermore, do materials and access to them not increase one's autonomy and Stirnerian property? It is not the acquisition of goods which "makes us men" in Stirner's sense, but what one does with them. The absence of such goods means that people cannot be "men".

Considering his ridicule of spooked individuals as madmen and having wheels in their heads, I'm pretty sure that rationality is a part of his critique, that spooked people are not thinking rationally, but he would also say that while rationality is a part of one's ego, it is not the only part. And a rational individual would give those non-rational parts their due as well.

Whilst I do agree that rationality cannot be used to a perfect/infinite degree ergo the irrational parts of the ego must fill in the blanks to come to a quick and effective solution for particular problems, I believe that the irrational can be changed. The irrational is fixed and based on sets of rules; for me, I see nothing beyond it taking on would I would call a "deontological" approach.

I would extend my ideas as follows: one can never be a true egoist; one can only be an egoist to an extent which is limited by multiple factors, such as their willpower and their dependence on others to survive and (obtain what they need to) do what they wish. My experience tells me that all of these come down to the material circumstances in addition to levels and uses of technology; I have never seen evidence to the contrary. I support egoism because I do not see any valid logic which stands in the way of self-determination bar the interdependence of individuals in society, which itself is neither ahistorical (i.e. "fixed") nor impossible to achieve. Furthermore, we just need to look to the markets to see stimulated and fabricated wants to see how people appear free when their autonomy is limited.

No mather how hard you people try, you will never understand Stirner.

Well, what about it?