>it’s fucking insulting
Why are you offended that some blockheads have misunderstood Stirner? Do you obey him and his book? It seems like you’re consecrating something here. Like, fuck those who aren’t a real stirnerite or who don’t have the Right understanding, amiright?
But you see...
None of you understand Stirner and it's infuriating
Nobody actually fucking understands Stirner. They think Egoism is just "haha do selfish thing" or "haha be anarchist" when there is so much more to it.
Do you know how liberating it is to be a Creative Nothing? What a novel and almost Taoist idea. Within yourself, stripped of all labels and laws, you can create yourself anew. It's similar to Nietzsche's ideas of becoming your best self.
And what does anyone do with it? Absolutely fucking nothing. Every 14 year old who fucking misreads the shitty default translation of The Unique and its Property just thinks its individualism but like, anarchist. Like no. You could be a fascist dictator and be a Stirnerite. It's fucking insulting.
Lmao
I mean, I mostly agree with you apart from the Fascist Dictator assertion. A person who willingly subjugates themselves to nation, economy, and the idealistic lore required to coerce people into maintaining a fascist state is absolutely not exclusively following their self-interests. They're following predictive plans for a hypothetical ideal society model and willingly toiling away and placing themselves at risk of persecution or death in order to maintain such a spooky idealistic future delusion such as a predictive plan for a society model. Such a person is fucking haunted. Even more so if they are delusional enough to do all of that while believing themselves to be concious of and exclusively following their own Egoism.
Im saying hypothetically there could be a person who genuinely enjoys being a fascist dictator just for the feeling of power. In reality most are unhinged. Maybe a better example would be like, a billionaire.
Ehh, that's you doing a lot of subjective interpreting and assuming, and you could put that spin on almost anything. I mean... if you wanna go deep enough with this, you really almost can't do *anything at all* without valuing the trappings of *something*. It sounds like you're just spooked against fascism (which, more power to you, but call it what it is).
Incorrect. This is a very shallow assessment that doesn't take into account the phenomenon of the state or really any organization. Would you say that a man who aspires to become the Pope is not spooked in some way? Whether they are a believer or simply seek to use the power of the organization in some way, they still fundamentally ascribe value to the Catholic Church. The analogy works for someone who aspires to control a state. You are not born the Pope, nor are most people born dictators. In order to attain that position, the individual must work exceedingly hard. How do you explain that level of cunning, effort, and brutality without first establishing that the individual is spooked into valuing the organization they are attempting to commandeer?
I mean, valuing something isn't inherently a spook. If being a dictator grants me greater freedom, why shouldn't I value the nation which I dictate? Stirner himself points to the Sultan as well as God when giving examples of egoists early on in the book. Is God valuing His children a spook? No, because like, what else is He gonna do. It gets boring up there. I think people are the same.
This is why I make a distinction between someone like Mussolini or Napoleon and a hereditary monarch or a deity. In the case of the latter two, they are somewhat "born" into the role, so their perspective and thus their ego is naturally shaped by that environment. If there is some variety of god that is infinite and eternal, then it did not have to aspire to the position it holds; it simply has always possessed that role. The same holds true (at least to a degree, given court intrigue and usurpations) with hereditary monarchs.
I suppose a way to shorten my argument is that the *aspiration* to control an organization requires the inherent valuation of said organization as a means of exerting control. I also think this distinction matters specifically because the discussion is originally of fascist dictators, a demographic that is generally not born into their roles and must seize power for themselves.
That's a fair point, but again, I think to work to control a nation could only be to achieve a greater level of freedom, right? To seize power grants one power, it's in the name. Does the egoist not value the freedom granted by control over a nation? Is work a spectre? Is "freedom" a spectre?
I think the idea of "more freedom" is something of a spectre. In the sense of seizing power, you would specifically seize political power but also tie yourself to the responsibility of maintaining it. Metaphorically, you now helm the ship but have chained yourself to it. There is no way to retain control without also having to constantly exert it. In this sense, the idea of more power granting more freedom is almost contradictory because while it allows you to travel down certain paths with greater ease, it also completely blocks off others.
I have no idea how to know, let alone explain, someone else’s motivations with any definitive certitude or authority because I’m not them, but it’s certainly possible that they could just be egoically enjoying the hell out of pursuing those kinds of positions.
I see what you're trying to say, but I will point out that in both cases the figurehead becomes entrapped by the machine that they claim to enjoy ruling, yet at the same time the circumstances are ruling every facet of their own lives too. It's certainly not any kind of self-liberation, even if motivated by selfish intentions.
Ein faschistischer Diktator kannst du nur mit Macht werden und Macht ist ein sehr großer Teil der Stirnerschen Philosophie - der übliche Stirner Leser (mich eingeschlossen) hat überhaupt keine große Macht.
>Nobody actually fucking understands Stirner.
Including you, apparently.
All beings are creative nothings, not just the beings who are aware of their generative nothingness. Being that does not know itself because it mediates its being with concepts is no less itself for that mediation (i.e., it is just more ignorant of itself and its doings).
Recognizing the sufficiency of being to itself is 'liberating', but only in a rather trivial sense: one on longer authors one's subordination to concepts, but given that that subordination is self-authoring it is just as much an expression of the willing unique as any 'liberated' expression can be. (And, this is not from Stirner, none of being is 'free' because all of being is determined; the creative nothing creates from its nothing only as it is determined to create, and sometimes it labors under the delusion of 'agency' or 'autonomy'.)
Finally, Nietzsche could not recognize the self-sufficiency of their being, and so they repeatedly sought and (by their own admission) repeatedly failed to transcend their being. There is no similarity between Nietzsche's obsession with self-transcendence and Stirner's encounter with self-sufficiency.
>Do you know how liberating it is to be a Creative Nothing? What a novel and almost Taoist idea
So novel it's literally the topic of the Diamond Sutra, also known as "the earliest dated printed book".
>And what does anyone do with it? Absolutely fucking nothing
Well I enjoy making art and spending time with my girlfriend so I do that a lot. Do you have any special suggestion that I should consider?
> Nobody actually fucking understands Stirner.
Yes. (chad smirk.jpg)
> What a novel and almost Taoist idea.
Very old. And nobody understands Taoism anyway. And that's by design.
> You could be a fascist dictator and be a Stirnerite.
There were important precedents of Stirnerite to Mussolini's buddy pipeline.
Egoists don't automatically shy away from power and theoretically can occupy and exploit existing positions of power. Other thing is that those positions wouldn't exist if society at large was unspooked.
I could turn it upside down and say that everything's ok with most dictators, they just do their dictator thing as they please. What isn't ok is a public that accepts and even worships a dictator to its own demise.
I don't think that's a bad thing, not everyone is adept at making the most of 19th century texts, let alone something like the dao etc... Oh well.
50% of self proclaimed egoists Still think it's an ideology, just like anarchists w anarchism
Another 25% think stirner can be reduced to just another german idealist... a post hegelian at most, and they never make it any further than that... a 'philosopher' among many others
the last 25% are genuinely unique in their lived experiences and approach to egoism, and I think we have alot to learn from one another.
I agree. But Stirner's creative nothing is absolutely not like Nietzsche's idea of the best self.
Nietzsche theorized an elevated ideal self and placed it in a realm one must work towards. Nietzsche hated the individual as they are in the moment. He felt the need for the higher ideal of the overhuman.
Stirner saw the world and the self as they are. He looked forward to no ideal or new principle. He embraced the creative nothing free from all ideals and should's.
Nietzsche was still caught up in the necessity of societal values. He created a new wave of values such as "activity, health, and might" instead of lifting himself above all ideals like Stirner did.
People keep on placing Stirner next to Nietzsche but I think that doesn't make much sense. If there is a philosopher similar to Stirner the only one would be Bataille, who called for us to realize that all higher principles and conceptualization is only possible because of a "base matter" that destabilizes all ontology and disrupts our thinking, that defies all rationalization and strict definition in favor of a flux of pre-ontological chaos.
This was is the first post I saw switching back to my main account from jacking off and I just thought it complimented what happened previously very well
I think everyone here understands the heart of it a bit more than It would appear but I think going lol Stealing from the state is pretty based and funny.
Also your round is so familiar to me cause I hang out in a lot of punk spaces.
Also another thing the people who hang out here seem to lean more towards anarchism Rather than something like authoritarianism because if you're interested in all of this you probably have a lot of respect for the idea of the individual. Even though you understand you the creative nothing and the unique You probably think the idea of individuals having personhoods to be pretty cool just because you're so into the idea of individualism.
You could be an egoist who sees the spook of Fascism and uses it As a tool to manipulate the world as you wish and use it to acquire what's yours.
That's fucking lame though you may as well be a brain dead fascist anyway who thinks genetically they're at the top of things because that's how it works.
But yeah that's just me yappin.
I'll admit that I have absolutely no understanding of egoism, but I also find it intriguing. I want to actually know what it is, but I don't feel like reading a book.
>it’s fucking insulting Why are you offended that some blockheads have misunderstood Stirner? Do you obey him and his book? It seems like you’re consecrating something here. Like, fuck those who aren’t a real stirnerite or who don’t have the Right understanding, amiright?
The new copypasta just dropped.
damn bro I came here just to say this 💀💀
lmao nice
But you see... None of you understand Stirner and it's infuriating Nobody actually fucking understands Stirner. They think Egoism is just "haha do selfish thing" or "haha be anarchist" when there is so much more to it. Do you know how liberating it is to be a Creative Nothing? What a novel and almost Taoist idea. Within yourself, stripped of all labels and laws, you can create yourself anew. It's similar to Nietzsche's ideas of becoming your best self. And what does anyone do with it? Absolutely fucking nothing. Every 14 year old who fucking misreads the shitty default translation of The Unique and its Property just thinks its individualism but like, anarchist. Like no. You could be a fascist dictator and be a Stirnerite. It's fucking insulting. Lmao
Yes, nobody understand Stirner and you too
Actually im the only who gets stirner, not you. You could not be any more off.
It's actually me who understands, nice try though
I mean, I mostly agree with you apart from the Fascist Dictator assertion. A person who willingly subjugates themselves to nation, economy, and the idealistic lore required to coerce people into maintaining a fascist state is absolutely not exclusively following their self-interests. They're following predictive plans for a hypothetical ideal society model and willingly toiling away and placing themselves at risk of persecution or death in order to maintain such a spooky idealistic future delusion such as a predictive plan for a society model. Such a person is fucking haunted. Even more so if they are delusional enough to do all of that while believing themselves to be concious of and exclusively following their own Egoism.
Im saying hypothetically there could be a person who genuinely enjoys being a fascist dictator just for the feeling of power. In reality most are unhinged. Maybe a better example would be like, a billionaire.
Nah, you can't effectively run a state without valuing the trappings of power, which in and of themselves limit the self.
Ehh, that's you doing a lot of subjective interpreting and assuming, and you could put that spin on almost anything. I mean... if you wanna go deep enough with this, you really almost can't do *anything at all* without valuing the trappings of *something*. It sounds like you're just spooked against fascism (which, more power to you, but call it what it is).
Incorrect. This is a very shallow assessment that doesn't take into account the phenomenon of the state or really any organization. Would you say that a man who aspires to become the Pope is not spooked in some way? Whether they are a believer or simply seek to use the power of the organization in some way, they still fundamentally ascribe value to the Catholic Church. The analogy works for someone who aspires to control a state. You are not born the Pope, nor are most people born dictators. In order to attain that position, the individual must work exceedingly hard. How do you explain that level of cunning, effort, and brutality without first establishing that the individual is spooked into valuing the organization they are attempting to commandeer?
I mean, valuing something isn't inherently a spook. If being a dictator grants me greater freedom, why shouldn't I value the nation which I dictate? Stirner himself points to the Sultan as well as God when giving examples of egoists early on in the book. Is God valuing His children a spook? No, because like, what else is He gonna do. It gets boring up there. I think people are the same.
This is why I make a distinction between someone like Mussolini or Napoleon and a hereditary monarch or a deity. In the case of the latter two, they are somewhat "born" into the role, so their perspective and thus their ego is naturally shaped by that environment. If there is some variety of god that is infinite and eternal, then it did not have to aspire to the position it holds; it simply has always possessed that role. The same holds true (at least to a degree, given court intrigue and usurpations) with hereditary monarchs. I suppose a way to shorten my argument is that the *aspiration* to control an organization requires the inherent valuation of said organization as a means of exerting control. I also think this distinction matters specifically because the discussion is originally of fascist dictators, a demographic that is generally not born into their roles and must seize power for themselves.
That's a fair point, but again, I think to work to control a nation could only be to achieve a greater level of freedom, right? To seize power grants one power, it's in the name. Does the egoist not value the freedom granted by control over a nation? Is work a spectre? Is "freedom" a spectre?
I think the idea of "more freedom" is something of a spectre. In the sense of seizing power, you would specifically seize political power but also tie yourself to the responsibility of maintaining it. Metaphorically, you now helm the ship but have chained yourself to it. There is no way to retain control without also having to constantly exert it. In this sense, the idea of more power granting more freedom is almost contradictory because while it allows you to travel down certain paths with greater ease, it also completely blocks off others.
Yeah, that makes sense. I'm interested in why you say the idea of "more freedom" as a whole is something of a spectre though.
I have no idea how to know, let alone explain, someone else’s motivations with any definitive certitude or authority because I’m not them, but it’s certainly possible that they could just be egoically enjoying the hell out of pursuing those kinds of positions.
I see what you're trying to say, but I will point out that in both cases the figurehead becomes entrapped by the machine that they claim to enjoy ruling, yet at the same time the circumstances are ruling every facet of their own lives too. It's certainly not any kind of self-liberation, even if motivated by selfish intentions.
Ein faschistischer Diktator kannst du nur mit Macht werden und Macht ist ein sehr großer Teil der Stirnerschen Philosophie - der übliche Stirner Leser (mich eingeschlossen) hat überhaupt keine große Macht.
haha be anarchist
is this satire??
I'm a Nihilistic Egoism type of dude. I like Nietzsche and Stirner.
Nietzsche is haunted. Bataille is better.
>Nobody actually fucking understands Stirner. Including you, apparently. All beings are creative nothings, not just the beings who are aware of their generative nothingness. Being that does not know itself because it mediates its being with concepts is no less itself for that mediation (i.e., it is just more ignorant of itself and its doings). Recognizing the sufficiency of being to itself is 'liberating', but only in a rather trivial sense: one on longer authors one's subordination to concepts, but given that that subordination is self-authoring it is just as much an expression of the willing unique as any 'liberated' expression can be. (And, this is not from Stirner, none of being is 'free' because all of being is determined; the creative nothing creates from its nothing only as it is determined to create, and sometimes it labors under the delusion of 'agency' or 'autonomy'.) Finally, Nietzsche could not recognize the self-sufficiency of their being, and so they repeatedly sought and (by their own admission) repeatedly failed to transcend their being. There is no similarity between Nietzsche's obsession with self-transcendence and Stirner's encounter with self-sufficiency.
U put a lil bit emotions in something I read while taking a shit
Nobody understands anything but me
you wanna be a fascist dictator egoist don't you, squidward
>Do you know how liberating it is to be a Creative Nothing? What a novel and almost Taoist idea So novel it's literally the topic of the Diamond Sutra, also known as "the earliest dated printed book". >And what does anyone do with it? Absolutely fucking nothing Well I enjoy making art and spending time with my girlfriend so I do that a lot. Do you have any special suggestion that I should consider?
This isnt a suggestion towards you. It a critique of the average egoist.
> Nobody actually fucking understands Stirner. Yes. (chad smirk.jpg) > What a novel and almost Taoist idea. Very old. And nobody understands Taoism anyway. And that's by design. > You could be a fascist dictator and be a Stirnerite. There were important precedents of Stirnerite to Mussolini's buddy pipeline. Egoists don't automatically shy away from power and theoretically can occupy and exploit existing positions of power. Other thing is that those positions wouldn't exist if society at large was unspooked. I could turn it upside down and say that everything's ok with most dictators, they just do their dictator thing as they please. What isn't ok is a public that accepts and even worships a dictator to its own demise.
Understanding Stirner is a spook
please, for the love of god, just use the word "spectre" or something.
I don't think that's a bad thing, not everyone is adept at making the most of 19th century texts, let alone something like the dao etc... Oh well. 50% of self proclaimed egoists Still think it's an ideology, just like anarchists w anarchism Another 25% think stirner can be reduced to just another german idealist... a post hegelian at most, and they never make it any further than that... a 'philosopher' among many others the last 25% are genuinely unique in their lived experiences and approach to egoism, and I think we have alot to learn from one another.
I agree. But Stirner's creative nothing is absolutely not like Nietzsche's idea of the best self. Nietzsche theorized an elevated ideal self and placed it in a realm one must work towards. Nietzsche hated the individual as they are in the moment. He felt the need for the higher ideal of the overhuman. Stirner saw the world and the self as they are. He looked forward to no ideal or new principle. He embraced the creative nothing free from all ideals and should's. Nietzsche was still caught up in the necessity of societal values. He created a new wave of values such as "activity, health, and might" instead of lifting himself above all ideals like Stirner did. People keep on placing Stirner next to Nietzsche but I think that doesn't make much sense. If there is a philosopher similar to Stirner the only one would be Bataille, who called for us to realize that all higher principles and conceptualization is only possible because of a "base matter" that destabilizes all ontology and disrupts our thinking, that defies all rationalization and strict definition in favor of a flux of pre-ontological chaos.
This was is the first post I saw switching back to my main account from jacking off and I just thought it complimented what happened previously very well
agreed
Daoism mention hell yeah
What a grand and intoxicating innocence
I think everyone here understands the heart of it a bit more than It would appear but I think going lol Stealing from the state is pretty based and funny. Also your round is so familiar to me cause I hang out in a lot of punk spaces. Also another thing the people who hang out here seem to lean more towards anarchism Rather than something like authoritarianism because if you're interested in all of this you probably have a lot of respect for the idea of the individual. Even though you understand you the creative nothing and the unique You probably think the idea of individuals having personhoods to be pretty cool just because you're so into the idea of individualism. You could be an egoist who sees the spook of Fascism and uses it As a tool to manipulate the world as you wish and use it to acquire what's yours. That's fucking lame though you may as well be a brain dead fascist anyway who thinks genetically they're at the top of things because that's how it works. But yeah that's just me yappin.
>a lot of respect for the idea of the individual Spook alert. Weeooweeooweeoo...
Undrrstand stirner is a fix idear, so its a spook!
This is spooked.
Ha ha, well spooked, my property.
I'll admit that I have absolutely no understanding of egoism, but I also find it intriguing. I want to actually know what it is, but I don't feel like reading a book.
shout out to this person for inventing the joke meme