Who is the opposite of Max Stirner Ideological wise?

This

definitely not this

Clearly it is.

>Aquinas
How and why?

Attached: Natural Law.jpg (700x6826, 798K)

Many layers to this post

Kant is a really good answer.

Believed in spooks. Spent his whole life trying to validate them.
Not an actual philosopher
Would faint at the idea of such a man as Max existing.

Stirners reflection in a mirror

le buddha

BELL HOOKS

this lol

Have you even study and understood Natural law? It's not a belief, is a Science.

Attached: vibration.jpg (952x707, 109K)

Have you read Stirner?
Have you read the OP?

>answer is another question

I guess you didn't, ignorant trash. If anything they are opposites becomes Aquinas is Right and Stirner Wrong.

Attached: Knowledge dunning-kruger_effect.jpg (1300x728, 45K)

Here’s the OP
>Who is the opposite of Max Stirner Ideological wise?
Okay?
Answer is Spooked guy.
Your answer to that is
“Buh spooked guy wuz naturral sciencist! “
You’re derailing the thread. Have fun I guess.

Ignorant moron.

>namecalling
I hate trips as much as the next guy, but you literally said nothing of value.

Suck the tranny cock lmao

Max Stirner thinks raping babies is morally justifiable

Attached: B9E33903-4404-41AE-BE9F-015E79F6B22A.png (718x507, 24K)

Truly an intellectual remark. I hope you live to be 800.
No my friend. There is no need to morally justify raping the baby. The need to "justify" anything means that you are subservient to a concept implanted in you. Just put your cock in it if you wish.

kino post

Yeah but he wouldn't do it because it pains him to see others in pain

Hegel?

Okay, I’ll reword it for you:
Max Stirner would rape a baby if it was in his self-interest.

Attached: 21CC7501-E746-4DE7-9474-0A06037D6DE8.png (500x716, 61K)

Sure that is indeed a better way of saying it.

I honestly hate this image. Even by its own standards, anything which is potential, is actually-potential, and thus actual. This is outright confessed in the 11th pannel, with the arrows that just magically go from potential down to actual. Or rather, they don't go down at all, because there wasn't a difference in the first place: the stairsteps are just products of his mind's low bitrate, on what would otherwise be a smooth y=x. But instead of understanding this, he tries to derive truths from what are essentially his own human rounding errors.

Attached: Screenshot_20190908-185417.png (1080x2160, 177K)

It's incredibly unlikely to be in one's self interest to rape a baby.

The point of theological argument is not really to explain the world in any way. But to convince themselves that they are already right.

ITS AWWWWRIGHT user.

>pedophile reads Stirner
>pedophile thinks pleasure is in his self-interest
>pedophile rapes a baby
If you’re going to say “b-but that isn’t true self-interest!” you are, indeed, spooked.

Probably Deleuze or Whitehead

It would only be in his rational self-interest if the amount of pleasure he received from the rape was greater than the amount of displeasure. It's highly unlikely that the displeasure that would result from raping a child (being killed, physically harmed, imprisoned, ostracized, etc.) would be less than the pleasure. It's just like how it's not often in one's rational self-interest to eat a sandwich if it is mildly enjoyable, but results in you dying five minutes later.

If you can't defend it you don't deserve it! XD

>It would only be in his rational self-interest if the amount of pleasure he received from the rape was greater than the amount of displeasure. It's highly unlikely that the displeasure that would result from raping a child (being killed, physically harmed, imprisoned, ostracized, etc.)
There are thousands of pedophiles in prison right now that weighed the reward over the risk.

>It would only be in his rational self-interest if the amount of pleasure he received from the rape was greater than the amount of displeasure.
Utilitarianism is a spook.

Acting in self-interest doesn't mean people are perfect and won't miscalculate their own risk/reward ratio.

>miscalculating a subjective value system

>>I think I can fuck a kid and get away with it
>Oops I'm in jail now
Does that clarify what I mean?

Staying on the ought-side of the is/ought barrier doesn't prevent you from evaluating the validity of certain operations as you would with objective matters. What you're changing are the arguments, not the functions you're placing them in.

Are you faggots just misunderstanding Stirner? You all make him sound like some autistic edgelord who goes on about how societal obligations are "spooks" and everyone's an individual who is not connected to the society he lives in. He can't be this silly right?

You would think but Stirner kind of completes Hegel. What else is there to do at the end of history but individuals taking things into their own

You are on a board dedicated to literature, read the book and you can make up your own mind.

They weighed the reward to be greater than the risk. It wasn’t miscalculated (you don’t know the numbers they’re working with since it’s subjective); they knew the risk and the reward beforehand. Your argument is that a pedophile isn’t good at a relative form of mathematics, and thus that makes it somehow makes it not likely to happen.

Yes they are, if they and you read the book you would see the tomfoolery.

He's not. Consider reading him. The "X is a spook" mentality is largely just an internetism: something can be a spook to one person and not another. Regarding the "what if I'm a pedophile" argument, the good answer would be "well, I'm not, so fuck you." Or at least, I'm not. Anyone who has to respond "yeah but what about the TRUE morality behind that? What if YOU were the pedophile?" is completely ignoring how Stirner works. There's no one morality for which you have some abstract-slot into which any person can be inserted, generally; it's nested the other way around.

He was a fucking retard and so are the people that like him

I will get to him eventually. I have a huge backlog of shit I want to get through (Schopenhauer is first on the list) and also things I have to read for Uni.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If I'm reading what you wrote correctly, he rejects the notion that there's an overarching moral framework that binds everyone. If so, then does he believe that there should not be an extra-legal set of rules that govern behavior in society?

To continue, because I feel like writing more, consider the phrase "what would Jesus do." Sounds nice, except, it's absurd in the exact same way the "What if you were a pedophile" objection is. I simply am not a pedophile, nor am I jesus. These questions, both, are of the form "What of you were someone else?" But I cannot be someone else: then I would not be me. Understanding this key pre-moral fact is how you should understand Stirner.

>he believe
Yes, but at times what he says is more of a suggestion. Otherwise he's talking about something above that, or about how certain so-called moral systems ignore the metamoral truths he presents. You cannot ask yourself, "what would jesus do," but you and all other individuals are all equally capable of asking your self, "what would an individual do?"

As I understand it, "what would Jesus do?" is not a literal question, but an invitation to be more virtuous in the Christian understanding of virtue. Christians don't believe that moral perfection is attainable to us normals, but that one should nevertheless strive to be a paragon of perfection, as epitomized by Jesus. We can't know what being Jesus is like, but we do have a pretty good idea of what constitutes moral perfection for Christians (or so Christians say) and Christians believe they should do their best to be like that. What's wrong with that?

As I understand it, "virtue" is just a way to mask the question "what would Jesus do?" rather than the self.

Stirner is a joke

I would recommend pic related to anyone who wants to learn how Christianity is actually what's edgy in all the ways Max is typically accused of being. Alternatively there's a documentary on Netflix.

Attached: 18464021._SX318_.jpg (318x473, 51K)

I'm not a Christfag but accusing all Christians of being like American protestants is just unfair. Corruption, cruelty, selfishness, greed, and pure unbridled malice towards humanity permeate every aspect of American life and their religion is no exception.

Well, Marx did murder him out of spite

>I'm not a Christfag but accusing all Christians of being like American protestants is just unfair
They aren't. Some are, and the rest are their appendages.

But that's just pedo bent low iq, whole trying to justify his urges by using Stirner.

This. End of thread.

Attached: Kant-deaf-fuhrer.png (1364x764, 1.95M)

Hobbes.

Obeying what society and its rulers tell you to do IS spooked. You are the one who obeys not the one who creates his own values.

Rawls
>extreme collectivist egalitarian
>justifies it with retarded fantasy too dumb to even be called a spook

holy shit imagine projecting your aesthetic judgments to reality itself

t. baby rapist

guenon

>science
>not a belief

You ever fucked a baby? One thing they got that grown women don't is you can feel their heartbeat on your cock throughout which is the basis of my sexuality. It makes me throb feeling it fade.

you killed the thread, babyfucker

bell sphooks

There is a kind of moral code which boils down to a kind of radical version of "your right to swing your arms ends at my nose" type of thing. The moment another feels oppressed (in a specific idea of feeling oppressed, it's a part of this fellow-feeling thing people.have already posted), egoist anarchism breaks apart. It's a very delicate state of being.

Take your time on reading, if you don't think about what you're taking in you'll end up like most of the people itt.

>you can feel their heartbeat on your cock

this isn't true at all. don't make fake posts

>feeling it fade
w-w-what... did you mean by th-this?

Attached: source.gif (435x245, 1.87M)

Press X to doubt

how do you know?

Yeah haha. See that cliff? You can jump from it and nothing will happen!

wish, I don't even know if that's a diss or an affirmation of Stirner. Props.

The person whose alter ego Max Stirner and name anagram is: Karl Marx

>utilitarianism
>rational self-interest
Actually read Stirner, then neck yourself

sooo... why did he write about these ideas if it was going to make people think of him like this? Was that really in his best rational interest?

/x/