Starting with him was my biggest mistake. How can I enjoy philosophy now after he demolished everything?

He dismisses all metaphysics and fails to acknowledge the fact of you being a product of the world thus you cannot do good for yourself without doing good for the world. Also he dismisses many basic things as social constructs without any real proof. And he fails to prove that they are social constructs since his life was lived quite unremarkably following the rules.
Of course philosophy isn't and shouldn't be an empirical science but his arguments are still incredibly weak.

He starts with the metaphysical assertion that all metaphysical assertions are spooks.
Book opened and closed. Not much to talk about beyond pretension.

He didn't demolish everything. Plenty of room for reading and thinking, even developing his lines as your own. I think you've misunderstood.

>being attached to your spooks to such a degree that you get spooked when someone calls them out for the spooks that they are
spooky

Attached: D1311F03-0116-45E9-9D69-687CD2E76D58.jpg (260x276, 24K)

Stirner never dismissed this fact. In fact he quite readily endorsed the idea that you may sacrifice innumerable pleasures to someone you love and that society was the natural state of man, that your self interest is aligned largely with the interests of others, etc. His only contention was with normative/prescriptive claims. Take Man for an example: it is true that you, user, are a human, but does this category fully exhaust and describe you? Are you not much more than a man? You are, Stirner argues, the Unique, the incomprehensible, and as the Unique you need not worry yourself with becoming "fully man" or "fully christian" but instead view yourself as the total moral authority over your life.
He does not assert that all metaphysical assertions are spooks. I don't think he was an anti-realist, for example. In fact he said near the end of the book that he indulges in the pursuit of truth, however the nuance is that he does it because it pleases him, not because he recognises truth as a sacred thing which he must serve. When truth is set up as this sacred "higher cause" then it becomes a spook. Same with reason, humanity, love, and everything else.

Your sureness about spooks existing I should quite spooky.

IDK what you guys were talking about, that critique is pretty good

that's a spooky post, user
better watch out

Attached: spooky.jpg (1024x1280, 109K)

Lifestylism

Quite the opposite.
A: all metaphisical propositions are spooks
B: A is a metaphisical proposition
C: A is a spook

If You refute yourself with such speed and precision Why should I take the time to refute you?
That said He's a cool guy and a meme-man. His book is entertaining.

Then He's just incoherent because he denounces epystemology.

based spookposter

have sex

Actually he doesn't need any refutation. Someone who sperges endlessly and don't make a real argument is just a retarded loser, not a philosopher. I have a challenge for all stirnerites, make a single syllogism arguing for egoism. Just a single one. When you have done that I'll explain why you are wrong and debunk you instantly.

Attached: 1555994061749.jpg (960x720, 120K)

Attached: stirner.jpg (500x499, 97K)

He's just a fetishist of the 'free' consciousness of the individual under capitalism.

>Enjoy philosophy after..
Why though? If you gained your answers from Stirner then there is no more need to search further right?
Might as well start your life now instead of second guessing your very existence at every step.

Wtf why are stirner threads so racist?

>demolished everything
the only reason people like stirner is because you can just read him and call everything a spook afterwards and you don't need any other philosophy, or to know what a spook really is. it's a neat little package. fuck, you dont even need to read stirner, you can start today! marx: spook. books: spook. university: spook. eating healthy: spook. debating: spook

That is the beauty of it yes.
Are you hoping to gain good boy points by arguing in intentional complicated terms?

>everything is a spook!
imagine being such a brainlet that you actually let this trash into your mind

>retarded loser, not a philosopher
These two are the same.

Denounces epistemology how?

Its like shouting everything is a social construct without the sjw vibe. Le spooks

Have you even read the book? Spooks, for Stirner, are ideals, higher essences or causes, which deny the individual his ownness and make prescriptive claims about how he ought to live his life. The humanist ideal is one he inveighs against extensively in his book, noting how the humanists of his time (chiefly Feuerbach) stripped the properties of God and set them up in the ideal of 'Man'. No longer is the individual called to live a 'godly life' but a 'humane' one. This, for Stirner, is nothing but a 'change of masters' over the individual.
Stirner distinguishes the spook 'Human' from the concept. He embraces readily the fact that he is a human, but notes the limitations of this category which cannot describe who he fully is. Instead, he posits the Unique, the indescribable, as his true essence. Reading, debating, eating healthy, etc. are not spooks.
To give an example of possession by spooks: when a man suppresses his desire for gay sex, because he sees Manliness as his true ideal, he is possessed by a spook. Now manliness is indeed a category of his, and he does many manly things, but by virtue of the fact that he is the Unique, it does not fully exhaust him. This spooked man must now sacrifice his ownness, his Unique, in favour of a foreign ideal.

I see similarities with eastern ways of thought.

What a joke.
>Hurr dur morality is a meme
>You should prioritise your owness
Yikes!

Attached: 1555937775378.jpg (3120x2718, 1.89M)

>reads one philosopher once
>at last I truly see...
We call this the Nietzsche effect, you see it a lot in first year students. Keep reading user...

based yeah after reading saint max i started reading philo for self enjoyment

Attached: 5464786980.png (678x671, 8K)

Lurk more cunt

He was Chad as fuck, pic related

Attached: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1553637732599.jpg (189x250, 6K)

>OP posting the literal autist who thought himself to be the most clever of all and whose penis was left untouched by all other hands than his own.
Stirner has been refuted so easily and by so many now that it is no longer even worth posting an example.

>Chad
>Those ears
LEL, if you look like this I know a circus who would employ you under the name Dumbo.

read the foundation for exploration

He married two times, so he certainly wasn't an incel unlike you ;)

so just a more faggy version of humes guillotine gotchya

have sex

I'm not sure, I'm still trying to figure out how I can enjoy human relationships after he put the war of all against all in my head. I no longer trust anyone. They are all egoists using and manipulating me. How can I love ever again?

Are you retarded? Stirner praised love and empathy

thats beckett retard

Peirce refuted egoism

>implying empathy and charity are antithetical to egoism
>implying you can't feel good about yourself after helping a friend going through some difficult task
Not all of us are psychopaths, user.

Atlast a decent reply to these iliterate faggots that are too mad that someone said that the things they like and strive for arent sacred or hold any objective imperatives behind them.

>t. never read or understood Stirner

Attached: 1478956978036.jpg (900x675, 82K)

>everything I don't like isn't real therefore be a selfish prick

exactly that's the point. by his definition of spook basically nobody i've seen has ever used the work "spook" properly. all you need is stirner, it's a religion in that respect based around hume's guillotine

It isnt egoism in the narrow sense of being an absolute asshole. Helping someone because you care and have feelings for them is also egoistic since it pleases you for helping them. It has your self interest in there.
You please your lover not as a act of altruism but because you also gain happiness by seeing that person with pleasure, if you didnt you probably wouldnt do it.

Unironically, is Stirner a huge meme or is he actually worth reading? I've only heard of him through memes, which is never a good sign

Attached: 1554804852530.jpg (288x420, 28K)

Read him if you have interest. There is nothing worse than not reading something because of some 4channel memes that are often badly used. You dont require any previous reading to get him.
Ideas themselves are not spooks by default. You can have two people with the same desires and objectives but one being spooked and the other not. It really depends on the context the person applies the idea and how he sees it.

fucking demolished

But if you know it is a red rose, then you do know it exists. You know about a lot of things from that.

>How can I enjoy philosophy now after he demolished everything
That isn't Nietzsche.

lel neetsche plagiarized stirner
>Nietzsche's closest friends and other people near to him were perplexed. No one could remember ever having heard the name of Stirner from Nietzsche's mouth. There are dozens of letters in the archives that bear witness to the confusion of his friends. They understood well enough why Nietzsche had been publicly silent about Stirner, but why did he, given his "habitual communicativeness" (Overbeck), never mention him even in the most familiar circles? Only Overbeck's wife Ida remembered in 1899 a discussion she had with Nietzsche about twenty years earlier, during which he unintentionally let escape the remark that he felt a mental kinship to Stirner. "This was accompanied by a solemn facial expression. While I attentively observed his features, these changed again, and he made something like a dispelling, dismissive movement with his hand, and spoke under breath: 'Well, now I have told you, even though I did not want to speak of it. Forget about it. They would talk about a plagiarism, but you will not do that, I'm sure.'"

Doesn't make sense. Schopenhauer wasn't widely known at the time, slightly less obscure than Stirner. He could have plagiarized minor parts of his philosophy just as easily. More likely he wanted to keep the Stirner references as little inside jokes, like the donkey thing.