- Joined
- Dec 8, 2014
I was contemplating whether this thread belongs on deep thoughts or a more shitposting oriented subforum, but I suppose we can try to have a reasoned discussion on the man, the myth, the living meme himself: Max Stirner.
Anarchist Max Stirner developed egoism, the edgiest philosophy ever conceived. He rolled with the young hegelians, a group of 19th century philosophers in berlin that included Karl Marx. He was good friends with Friedrich Engels. His philosophy expounded the virtues of self interest, much more so than objectivism, which really put him at odds with Marx. Marx was prompted to write a glorious 500 page cavalcade of sodium-infused ravings about just how awful Stirner was, in his book The German Ideology.
Stirner believed that things like governments, economic systems, religions, and morality were spooks. By "spook" he meant that they were abstract and religion-like concepts, that they weren't "real". His views on property can be summarized as "might is right", he didn't recognize property rights (he found them spooky) and regarded everything in the world as his for the taking.
The Most important part of his thought is the belief that the only path to self-realization is through self-interest. He believed that if you realize the manipulative force that spooks play in your life, you can truly satisfy your own ego. If you shed the spooks of ethics, law, and so forth, what will stop you?
As far as society went, he thought that you should band together with fellow egoists devoted to pursuing individual interest. The government as we know it would be unable to function with nobody recognizing its power, and these unions of egoists would be free to do as they please.
He discerned unions of egoists as different from organizations like governments under the notion that governments are unions of men that serve collective interests, whereas a union of egos could pursue individual interests at a collective gain. He warned that these unions would cease to be what he intended if they became principled, dogmatic, or pressured others into towing the line involuntarily. This would make the unions too spooky.
So, where do you draw the line of of individualism. what do you think of Stirner, Ayn Rand, the people who's individualism is carried to what some people percieve as extreme? Do we owe society anything at all? Do we live life to please ourselves or please others, is there really a difference at all?
Anarchist Max Stirner developed egoism, the edgiest philosophy ever conceived. He rolled with the young hegelians, a group of 19th century philosophers in berlin that included Karl Marx. He was good friends with Friedrich Engels. His philosophy expounded the virtues of self interest, much more so than objectivism, which really put him at odds with Marx. Marx was prompted to write a glorious 500 page cavalcade of sodium-infused ravings about just how awful Stirner was, in his book The German Ideology.
Stirner believed that things like governments, economic systems, religions, and morality were spooks. By "spook" he meant that they were abstract and religion-like concepts, that they weren't "real". His views on property can be summarized as "might is right", he didn't recognize property rights (he found them spooky) and regarded everything in the world as his for the taking.
The Most important part of his thought is the belief that the only path to self-realization is through self-interest. He believed that if you realize the manipulative force that spooks play in your life, you can truly satisfy your own ego. If you shed the spooks of ethics, law, and so forth, what will stop you?
As far as society went, he thought that you should band together with fellow egoists devoted to pursuing individual interest. The government as we know it would be unable to function with nobody recognizing its power, and these unions of egoists would be free to do as they please.
He discerned unions of egoists as different from organizations like governments under the notion that governments are unions of men that serve collective interests, whereas a union of egos could pursue individual interests at a collective gain. He warned that these unions would cease to be what he intended if they became principled, dogmatic, or pressured others into towing the line involuntarily. This would make the unions too spooky.
So, where do you draw the line of of individualism. what do you think of Stirner, Ayn Rand, the people who's individualism is carried to what some people percieve as extreme? Do we owe society anything at all? Do we live life to please ourselves or please others, is there really a difference at all?
