No.59823
>>59821
No, not really. I don't ever like it when people state things without proof or reasoning why. It's a waste of anyone's time reading it.
No.59830
>>59821
He hasn't aged well, many of the controversies he mentions are not even remotely relevant anymore and besides them, he doesn't have much to offer of his own. He's not very remarkable compared to the dozens of other physicalist and nihilist philosophers out there.
No.59925
>>59830
I wonder how he compared to Nietzsche.
No.59926
>>59925
Nietzsche stole everything from Stirner and then made it gay
No.59928
>>59926
Doubtful as there is little evidence to suggest any influence whatsoever. Where Stirner stops short Nietzsche roars past. Stirner may have had some ideas but Nietzsche had an entire vision.
No.59968
>>59821
based
>>59925
Nietzsche thought there is good and bad subordination to ideal and didn't figure out how to make things his own.
No.59981
yes but i hate 99% of stirnerfags
No.59995
>>59928
Nietzsche spends a lot of time speaking stupid bullshit nobody cares of.
No.59996
>>59830
If you are too stupid to generalize the methods he used to destroy those spooks maybe
But that means you are a brainlet
No.60001
>>59995
I don't like him very much either.
>>59996
What part of
>He's not very remarkable compared to the dozens of other physicalist and nihilist philosophers out there
did you not understand? Feel free to educate me on what I got wrong, if I got anything wrong, of course. I never see Stirner-fags do that, while any Rothbardian, Thomist or even Utilitarian will be able to tell you what exactly you didn't understand about their respective philosophy.
No.60122
>>59830
>nihilist philosophers
????
No.60123
>>59995
>>60001
NIetzsche spent his time telling people that you've got a reason to live for, what the fuck did he do to you?
No.60136
>>60123
That's whst every philosopher does. Some are good at it, others, not so much.
No.60143
>>59821
Stirner is a goddamned Commie loving faggot that pretends he's not.
No.60210
No.60214
>>60210
I didn't get that from his work either.
No.60221
>>60214
Me neither. In fact, I was wondering what commies like about a guy who was more cutthroat than Ayn Rand.
No.60255
>>60214
>>60221
the union of egoists is defined as a mutually beneficial, voluntary, horizontal structure
No.60259
>>60254
I know comments like that from Stirner, but they don't change the fact that he was fine with any form of exploitation or slavery. When you deny the existence of objective values, you cannot be morally opposed to anything. That's why I don't see him as a socialist in any way.
No.60261
>>60259
he did not at all agree with exploitation. he thought it was in the egoists best interest to instead engage in deals that were mutually beneficial, he called it "intercourse". He was definitely an "exploitation apologist" but I don't recall him ever actively approving of it.
No.60274
>>60261
>engage in deals that were mutually beneficial
So basically capitalism.
No.60278
>>60254
That's not communism. It's definitely socialism, of which communism is a variety. I mean, you have a mutualism flag, so you should know that.
No.60336
this bullshit has no place here if you ask me, there is a reason philosophy is utterly useless and non existent in the free market private sector: it solves non-problems, it deals with 100% trivial and irrelevant bullshit
to all the 'philosophers' out there, if you think you are 'smart', how about you cure a disease or two, increase gdp, open up a business, do something measurably useful for once, eh??
No.60373
>>60336
Philosophy influences ideology. Ideology influences the world. That alone can make it worthwhile. But even when it fails at that, it isn't worthless. Personally, I would rather die at thirty from tetanus than live in a world without philosophy. If you're too vapid and shallow to care about anything but material pleasures, then I'm sorry for you.
>increase gdp
Bluepill detected.
No.60535
>>60255
It is an ephemeral coincidence of interests. What happens today tells us nothing about what will happen tomorrow.
No.60571
did stirner believe in free will?
No.60582
>>60571
Never lost a word on it, from what I remember. His physicalist philosophy implies otherwise, but his rhetoric implies he did believe on it.
No.60584
>>60406
>crapitalism
>mutually beneficial
oh boi here we go again
No.60596
>>60584
The only reason why Marx himself didn't draw that conclusion was because he followed the LTV. He admitted somewhere that exchange brings greater utility to both parties but then implied that it doesn't matter because of the LTV. Which brings us to this old, tired discussion again, one that even I see as less valuable than mud pies.
No.60600
>>60596
>some XIX century guy nearly falls for the same bourgeois ideological trap that lolbertarians are stuck in since decades despite him claiming to be a "socialist"
wtf boi i'm capitalist now
No.60601
>>60600
Thank you for your input, Johnny. You are special!
No.60603
>>60601
Did Rothbard make you so delusional that you cannot see my flag and from this premise deduce that adhering to Marx and other authoritarians has little if any significant impact on me?
No.60605
>>60603
I wish I could infer that from your flag, but from what I've seen, ancoms and ansocs are fans of Marx. It's ridiculous, but more often than not, I found it to be true. If you're an exception, congrats. This doesn't give your "argument" any more substance, though.
No.60743
No.60758
>>60743
Shut up you dirty gay
No.60762
Stirnerism can be used to disprove any point stirner made besides the assertion of what spooks are.
He himself states that you should not simply discard spooks for being spooks, but analyze them and see if they benefit you personally or not.
The Ego and His Own is a guidebook to high functioning sociopathy much more than it is a communist manifesto or any other ideological creation.
No.60776
>>60603
Does that mean you don't follow Marx's definition of LTV nor surplus value theory?
No.60811
>>60254
>regard the product of their labor as their own
>if labor becomes free, the state is lost
sounds like ancap talk to me
>>60373
>mutually beneficial exchange
confirmed for ancap
>>60762
>whether it benefits you or not
I like this guy more then when I opened the thread, I just got the impression he was the patron saint of nihilistic shitposting until now but I can see there is more thanks to this
No.61043
>>60811
>he uses buzzwords that is associated with my ideology and I identify by those buzzwords
Are ancapistanis becoming idpolers?
No.63388
>>60584
so why do ppl work in factories if not for their own benefit?
No.63416
>>63388
Why does the prisoner profess to their torturer if not for their own benefit?
No.63454
No.63458
No.63465
>>60596
That can't be since for Marx utility is not quantitative.
No.63717
>>63416
stockholm syndrome