I love this guy
>>25007282Why's he smokin' a BBC, pops?
>>25007291Spooked
I love stirnerfags. No matter what terrible shit you do to them you dont feel bad about it because feeling bad is a spook.
>>25007821You haven’t done anything terrible to an egoist.
>>25007821Terrible is a spook
How can you love him if you think love is a spook
>>25010164
>>25010177"I love men" - Max Stirner
>>25010252Homosexuality is a spook.
Saint Max (pbuh) was objectively correct about everything
>>25010252lol
>"spook"More bullshit thoughts.
Tranny thread btw
>>25010396the real stirner killer that goes one step beyond stirner's faggy ass new hegelian tabula rasa idealism garbage.
>>25010626>stirner's faggy ass new hegelian tabula rasa idealism garbageExplain your argument for labeling Stirner's work as such.
>>25007282ITT we draw Stirner
>>25010630Explaining is a spook
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_presentism
>>25007282you lil niggas are still stirnerposting? brings a spook to my eye
>>25007282A spectre is haunting humanity.
>>25010630>doesn't realize that stirner was one of the young hegelians>doesn't recognize that stirner's system is strictly idealistic, except with a theory that begins and ends at the individual human level>creative nothing = tabula rasa
>>25011511His philosophy is a rejection of Hegel. It’s called a spook because it is mocking the Hegelian concept of spirit. Most of his work is mocking Hegel, actually.Stirner was very clearly a materialist.Tabula Rasa is a phrase that means something else
>>25011558>His philosophy is a rejection of Hegel. It’s called a spook because it is mocking the Hegelian concept of spirit. Most of his work is mocking Hegel, actually.stirner was verifiably a young hegelian, and part of the goals of the young hegelians was to minimize the role of geist (hence why stirner calls things "spooks" as a tongue-in-cheek reference).>Stirner was very clearly a materialist.stirner's philosophy can be either solipsistic or dialectical materialist depending on who you ask, but his philosophy is definitely idealist in the sense it deals entirely in the realm of abstractions and overly concerns itself with social discourse rather than innate human qualities.>Tabula Rasa is a phrase that means something elseright, he just borrowed the idea and used it to describe his creative nothing then.stirner is still steeped in the same western tradition that crafts dualities between object and subject through discursive reasoning, whereas UG says its all bullshit.
>>25007282Is he worth reading
>>25010396>>25012063>OOOO THE SELF DON'T EXISTTT!!! YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING!!!! THOUGHTS ARE A LE PRISON (for a self which does not exist), SO YOU (who doesn't exist) SHOULD STOP THINKING OR DOING PHILOSOPHY (which you (who doesn't exist) can't do)>here are some books I published on my ideas btw. I hope you (who doesn''t exist) doesn't follow them because thinking is badTotal hack. A conman with schizophrenic delusions of grandeur. Philosophical tsundere.He wants to appear as some enlightened anti-guru while actually taking the position of a public figure and guru. It is exceedingly easy to be obscure if that is what you actually want. But he doesn't want that. He wants to be seen by the public as a wise guru, and his method of achieving that is vehemently denying that he is teaching you anything while handing you his books and ideas. I mean, really. Does anyone actually believe that this guy traveled around the world looking for people to not speak with? It's nonsensical.The shit he slops out said has been said better a million times by the same people he decries. Except if he acknowledged that, it would destroy his position as an enlightened guru that he supposedly rejects. The only way to maintain the cult of personality is rabid insistence that he is different from people who said the same things as him. Except this obnoxious, disingenuous insistence that he is not the same is the only "new" thing he has to say.He has nothing to do with Stirner in particular except that Stirner engages in thinking and U.G. (supposedly) denies thinking and everyone who does.
>>25007908To a Stirner maybe.
>>25012063>is definitely idealist in the sense it deals entirely in the realm of abstractionswrong“I am no opponent of criticism. I am no dogmatist, and do not feelmyself touched by the critic's tooth with which he tears the dogmatistto pieces. If I were a 'dogmatist', I should place at the head a dogma,a thought, an idea, a principle, and should complete this as a 'systematist', spinning it out to a system, a structure of thought. Conversely,if I were a critic, an opponent of the dogmatist, I should carry on thefight of free thinking against the enthralling thought, I should defendthinking against what was thought. But I am neither the championof a thought nor the champion of thinking; for 'I', from whom I start,am not a thought, nor do I consist in thinking. Against me, theunnameable, the realm of thoughts, thinking, and mind is shattered.” -- Stirner, The Ego and Its Own
bodied that freak
>>25012115Yeah
>>25007282Read Metzinger
>>25012212>>OOOO THE SELF DON'T EXISTTT!!!where is it?>YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING!!!! who is doing anything?>THOUGHTS ARE A LE PRISON (for a self which does not exist)*for a body that eats and fucks>SO YOU (who doesn't exist)-are talking bullshit.>SHOULD STOP THINKING OR DOING PHILOSOPHY (which you (who doesn't exist) can't do)>(which you (who doesn't exist) can't do)false. every time you eat, every time you cum, and every time you sleep, you disengage from thought.>Total hack. A conman with schizophrenic delusions of grandeur. Philosophical tsundere.>conmanyes.png>He wants to appear as some enlightened anti-guru while actually taking the position of a public figure and guru. It is exceedingly easy to be obscure if that is what you actually want. But he doesn't want that. He wants to be seen by the public as a wise guru, and his method of achieving that is vehemently denying that he is teaching you anything while handing you his books and ideas.I mean, really. Does anyone actually believe that this guy traveled around the world looking for people to not speak with? It's nonsensical.cuck obsessed with discursive reasoning sees a man sitting on a couch--getting PAID to do so, and later uses said money to exchange for services like food and lounging. then you ask, "Why is he doing this thing? Doesn't he realize he is a hypocrite?"funnily enough he's not even a hypocrite, since he never wrote a single thing in his whole entire life.>The shit he slops out said has been said better a million times by the same people he decries. Except if he acknowledged that, it would destroy his position as an enlightened guru that he supposedly rejects. The only way to maintain the cult of personality is rabid insistence that he is different from people who said the same things as him. Except this obnoxious, disingenuous insistence that he is not the same is the only "new" thing he has to say.he literally didn't care.>He has nothing to do with Stirner in particular except that Stirner engages in thinking and U.G. (supposedly) denies thinking and everyone who does.thought itself is quite literally the "spook", going beyond mere concepts and ideas that all fall under the realm of thought.>>25012276>I am stopped reading there.
>>25012474>where is it?Here
>>25012483that's a lump of meat.
>>25012485…and?
>>25012486you didn't point to a self.
