If we say Nietzsche used a scalpel to carefully pick apart morality, then by comparison Stirner blew it apart using dynamite.
True or false? There seem to be a ton of similarities between Stirner's Der Einzige and Nietzsche's treatises on morality and religion, though I'm not sure if I know of any connection. Any works that expand on this?
Or by all means provide your own retarded theories. Retarded is the lifeblood of the modern man.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
How could there be a union of egoists?
In order for there to be a union there needs to be a hierarchy.
Even if the union is democratic somebody needs to be the facilitator that brings forth the agenda and tallies the votes.
The concept of union of egoists is a vaguely defined one, and it's part of Stirner's philosophy that I have the most gripe with; politics. My interpretation is that it's not a contractual or a legal union as the current notions of a union, these would be for lack of better a better descriptor, 'spooks in the mind'.
Rather, a 'union of egoists', is no more than a descriptor of a group of people that act out of their own will, but share an interest. The moment a notion of 'ought' or 'must' is attempted asserted by someone that individual falls out of it.
I don't think Stirner is to be read as opposed to hierarchy. If the hierarchy is motivated by conscious egoistic action it's a legitimate one. If I were to want a hierarchy, and another person wanted to join that hierarchy, both to our own benefit, eg. in a kind of symbiotic relationship then the hierarchy would be a legitimate union of egoists. As soon as one of us regards the hierarchy as an entity unto itself, though, and not just a descriptor of our conscious egoistic relationship, it's no longer a union of egoists.
Though from what I've layed out, it's also seemingly completely legitimate for someone to consciously want a hierarchy as a 'spook'. In a renewed action of willful spookity self-spooking one could imagine how the notion of a modern 'state' might be wanted by someone. And as it's motivated by an individual act of will it'd be legitimate.
I have yet to come to work out this conundrum, so I'll leave it hanging in the air here if anyone wants to discuss it or correct me if I've got something about Stirner's political philosophy wrong.
I just don't see it happening.
Let's say egoist wanted to start a labor union.
Well then they'd be taking a risk of losing their job with no guarantee of success by going on strike.
Then if they succeed then the leader of the union would get more pay so the egoist would claim that's not fair and want to undermine it.
An egoisnt cannot organize, they can only try to undermine.
It would be like a community of friends working together rather than an involuntary nationhood.
Trying to fit Stirner's notion of egoism into modern society won't work. As Stirner upends most of the modern contractual and societal concepts you have to consider his 'world' as an 'ideal' rather than a 'practical reality'.
Insofar as an egoist is a consciously self-centered motivated agent it's not hard to imagine, then, that in a situation where cooperation would be beneficial he and others would see that possibility and act 'together'.
You raise concerns of betrayal, but do you not think this would be something on the egoist's mind as well? It's always a gamble whether or not a person will follow through on things, no matter if there's rules that say he cannot not follow through. Thus as well as it being a possibility that cooperation would be in a conscious egoist's best interest, having great personal power would also be, so one would be secure in interactions with others. And if this is on everyone's mind, most would go to some length to secure some ability of threat or power. Some distribution of power would be necessary and unavoidable.
But what if every friend was an egoist and placed their self interest before the interest of their friends?
Well I guess its possible like those rich people that have fake friends that want are only friends with them because they hope to gain something out of it.
But that implies that the rich friend shares with the egoist fake friend.
Or for example the mob or gangs.
They're immoral towards others but they have to have a code of conduct amongst themselves.
So called spooks is what makes it possible for people to organize in one way or the other.
How is it that people always misunderstand what "putting self-interest before the interest of others" mean? It doesn't mean you don't give a shit about others, it merely means that you recognise your desire to care about them as your own, egoistic desire. You care about them not because you want anything in return, but not because of any duty, either. You just want to. Nietzsche wrote about this, too.
This. Stirner's conscious egoist's interest is not limited to that of 'inhumane' action or the colloquial egoism.
"selfishness" has a connotation of seeking self-interest in an unwise manner. Good people are just as selfish as the bad, they just accomplish their goals in a wiser fashion
So Stirners great idea is that which every edgy midwit makes at the age of 14?
is that supposed to be an argument?
"He's wrong because edgy people agree with him"
Not really. Stirner is the logical conclusion of an edgy 13 year old's ideology, the teenager precedes him.
I honestly dont know whats been happening lately for somany Nietzsche and Stirner threads poping up that are largely filled with people that have no clue of their philosophy and try to shit on them.
But since this one isnt so bad and has actually a person giving good insight at Stirner's philosophy i will reply to it.
>There seem to be a ton of similarities between Stirner's Der Einzige and Nietzsche's treatises on morality and religion, though I'm not sure if I know of any connection. Any works that expand on this?
There arent many works that expand their similarities that i know of, there is a wiki article dedicated to it tho: en.wikipedia.org
It would be unreasonable to claim that Nietzsche didnt take any influence from Stirner as they in fact share the same enemies, from the attacks on morality, the state, religion and everything that is the "herd".
And also the similarity between the Nietzchean overman that favours the creation of new values for the individual through "evalution" which favours prespectivism and subjectivity and the Stirner's conscious egoist that also favours the same things. These theories also share a lot in common with Deleuze's "being as becoming" which is also a sort of idea that the individual is always changing and so are his values and rules. Tho i disagree with Deleuze in the claim that "Stirner's nihilism" had a negative impact on Nietzsche.
The diferences they have, on the other hand, are in the methods they use to attack their enemies, while Stirner denies religion and morality simply because its not in his desire to obey them, Nietzsche does a more psychological analysis on whats behind that religion and morality to uncover their life-negating aspects and unjoyness. Nietzsche also takes a more realistic approach to politics and the people designed for his philosophy knowing that its not for everyone and its impossible to appease to everyone, while Stirner is more naive on that point. Nietzsche knows that human nature makes it impossible to make a society of "conscious egoists" and in fact the people who are conscious egoists dont even want it to be that way, so he preaches it more for the higher ups and not for the "herd".
Thanks for the kind words and extensive reply fella, I appreciate that my effortposting is appreciated.
I didn't think Deleuze being a post-structuralist and all would have anything to do with Stirner at all, though. (Though post-structuralism and post-modern philosophy does seem to have some similarities with Stirner's thoughts.) Does he say anything specifically about him?
>Does he say anything specifically about him?
On Nietzsche? Yeah. On Stirner not so much that i know of.
Only found it in the wiki article that i linked above which has a comment by Deleuze.
The quote is from a book written by him with the title "Nietzsche and Philosophy".
shit, i replied to myself instead
I think that Fernando Pessoa gives it a good practical try in his Anarchist banker, all the ideologies of the anarchist/egoist in the "modern times" (1920).
Stirner is the only philosopher you need.
How do edgy midwits agree with the sentiment that they love mankind because loving comes naturally to them rather than because they are commanded to do so?
Can anybody explain more clearly the part on Negroidism, Mongolism, Caucasoidism? I understand its supposed to be the primal man, civilized man and the revolutionizing man. Its kind of a strange way of putting things.
Think Mongolism is Nietzsche's camel and Caucasoidism is Netzsche's lion. There are no much meanings in exact racial designations, it's just a fashion of the good old XIX century. Measuring skulls and all that.
Niggers are animals (enslaved to their primal instincts), Chicks are bug-people (enslaved to the demands of their local superego, they're "spooked" if you will) and Europeans are human beings (capable of pursuing their own egoistic goals and achieving self-actualization without having to rely on external dogma or primal instinct).
Having read that part of the book I'm still confused as to whether or not these former two races will move through the chain of "evolution" toward the latter or are they just meant as old-timey categories for comparison?
I might consider reading it then. I'm interested in seeing takes on Nietzsche that aren't just 'hurd dbur optimistic nihilism' even if that has some merit to it. It's overplayed and made pop and as a tried and true contrarian I have to hate what's popular.
Granted I'm not a big fan of Deleuze or any other kind of obscurantist author for that matter, so I might just read a summary online or something.