Post irrefutable philosophers

Attached: Mao.jpg (360x450, 62K)

at least his summa theologiae

Attached: sta.jpg (225x225, 11K)

Why is Stirner irrefutable?

The only critique that can be levied at him is that he wasn't nuanced enough and that he didn't really lay out a system whereby we can achieve ownness and eschew spooks. His thought is basically an infantile version of postmodernism. I'm not saying this as a slight to Stirner, I'm just acknowledging the fact that the postmodernists have set out a much more sophisticated version of his philosophy, which is understandable given that they came later.

I've noticed a lot of his followers believe in "collective egoism" or something like that, that's quite infantile indeed. Nothing good will ever come out of egoism.

Based

Attached: e126d15c02a4cb1f2d32bd4025951549.jpg (422x600, 49K)

I think he intentionally leaves that up to to reader. The point was freedom.
Could we call his though Modern to this Post Modern?

It’s put into practice quite a lot actually. Nothing really infantile about it. Rather mature endeavor really. The highest form of egoism is when you learn to increase your will by banding together with others and/or bending your will slightly to fit a greater group.
>nothing good will ever come of cooperative individuals taking command of their own lives and leaving ruler-tyrants in the dustbin of history
Srsly?

No such thing, and if you think there is such a thing as "irrefutable philosophy" you're a total pseud.

It just means ‘Philosopher I agree with’
If people aren’t allowed their opinions, there’s no reason to read philosophy, is there?

Stirner, the embodiment of this gif

Attached: tumblr_inline_p4u8mzxCGi1rgrqpu_500.gif (455x245, 2.48M)

Isn't egoism a moral relativist belief. How can anyone cooperate under such belief besides the fact I make what's right and wrong?

just do what feels good lmao
>Thereby I, having just found myself as spirit, lose myself simultaneously as I bow to the perfect spirit, a self unowned by me - rather a transcendent self, and feel my emptiness.

Irrefutability is the hallmark meaninglessness.

Attached: maxresdefault (9).jpg (1280x720, 68K)

Lol he's the only one who refutes himself. I expect him to be unironic read Cath in like 5 years, he rides dead trends.

Attached: smug hamann.jpg (200x237, 36K)

anatman pilled

Hume.

>It’s put into practice quite a lot actually. Nothing really infantile about it. Rather mature endeavor really. The highest form of egoism is when you learn to increase your will by banding together with others and/or bending your will slightly to fit a greater group.

The end result of this is exactly the kind of neoliberal we are all an individual in the same prefabricated way mindset that cowtows to those who "know what is best for you". I don't think that was the intention of course, but it is the gravity well that this ideology circles in increasingly small rotations.

Yeah, well, thats because most people are dumb, though. Like, no matter what you believe in: if you dumb you dumb bro.

Through the process of finding ones inner/true-self, one loses their self since they tend to automaticly view their inner/true-self as some kind of hinhger entity within oneself. In doing so one developes a kind of ehrfurcht (veneration) towards their inner-self. This leads you to bow before this entity, leading the conscious mind to feel a inner void.

By this Stirner implies that one should aknowlegde the existence of this tendency and not to viev your innder-self or core-self as anything which isn´t yourself.
Not a stirnerfag or spookposter. I think my interpretation of this statement are correct, even though I´ve never read him.