Where were you when this man destroyed all ☭TANKIE☭s and ML?
You can't refute him. I mean the way he presented his system of ethics literally brings any idea of a state into the dirt, because remember even Marx said we would have a stateless society.
This is somehow the worst post of the night, congrats.
nice spooks
Oh look it is the 4th international and the backstabbing division
Marx hated Stirner
Also Stirner came up with his ideology just to feel better about his cuckoldry with his wifey
I think that says enough about Stirner.
You can't refute him in the sam way you can't refute a guy who claims to _ 1 time always more than you
Wow, Sam Beckett was a real radical!
Gotta love that they didn't even bother to remove the text at the bottom of the photo.
What if someone wants to be spooked? It seems like the overwhelming majority of humanity prefers various spooks over egoism. Being anti-spooks is just another spook. We are all spooked in some way, like it or not.
Is that photo for real? No foolin?
...
Eh oh well
The problem I see with most people who shout "spook" is that they don't seem to understand Stirner. Stirner's whole point about spooks wasn't that you shouldn't have an ideology or ethics or morality that you personally hold. "Spooks" to Stirner were the empty ideas you used to justify your own self-interests and which obfuscated them from being your own. For example, you want to do a helpful deed for the community, but instead of saying or thinking you want to, you instead say and think something or someone else wants you to in order to justify it (A higher law, a higher being, etc.). Stirner is more about getting to the point if anything else. If you want to do something, then do it or don't on your own accord, don't attempt to justify your self-interest to something else. If someone hates or likes something, they shouldn't need to use some "spook" or specter to justify it. It is their own interests, not something else's. They have simply been using their "spooks" to justify what they really want. So a man who believes in a higher being that commands him to be disciplined and caring actually wants to be disciplined and caring himself but uses a higher being to justify it, and a man who uses the higher law as justification for his firm belief in meting out justice actually himself just wants to enforce his own sense of what justice is. Stirner wants people to abandon their "spooks" and realize that they are not separate from them, that they are in fact specters used by ourselves to separate what we want from ourselves. To say "I want these things" rather then "These things have to be done cause of or are wanted by X". In the case of purposely wanting to be spooked like you said, Stirner would say that you should continue to recognize that you are purposely making up their own spooks to justify what you want and accept that.
You can make arguments for or against it or state its idealistic in principle, but I find it funny how misused "spook" is sometimes
*making up your own spooks
t.christfag
I was gonna effort post but you beat me.
Cheers mate.
Funny how that works out huh :^)
Going to turn my flag off now for another half-year again though, don't like displaying what I am when I write effortposts all the time. Detracts a bit from how people view them.
No keep it on. I need to know which oists to ignore.
I can't tell if this a compliment and your saying this in the sense that you'll be able to filter out a certain other christcom, or a condemnation and that my analysis is garbage because I'm a christcom.
Either way, its probably best that I keep it off.
The third one
Ok
You believe in a zombie jew who was his own dad died for all of humanity's sins (whatever the fuck that means) and then came back to life and then immediately died again and that somehow any of this is relevant to your life or any thing for that matter.
Be a little ashamed at least.
Whatre you pretending to be sad?
Nah
My reading of the bible is quite allegorical and existential anyway. Its not like I don't practice exegesis.
Just meant it as a thinking image, guess she does look a bit sad though.
Why be ashamed? It’s not like the spirit of Christopher Hitchens is going to judge you. If atheism is true, then it literally doesn’t matter what we believe. Atheism is at best just another ideology made up to try to bring meaning to the universe.
*reads wikipedia page on Stirner once*
Feels like there's probably better books to obsessed with tbh. The bible is pretty inconsistent.
I should start worshiping my Physics Textbook or a Materialist Epistmology Philosophy Book.
How are you so sure about this? Seems just as likely to me that Chris is judging you from the afterlife instead of Jesus.
If not believing in bullshit is true then it doesn't matter if we believe in bullshit?
Yeah atheism is just as bad as religion. I forgot about about the wars we fought for that god we didn't believe in.
Telling the truth, believing in the truth only matters if there is a higher purpose to existence. If there is no higher purpose to existence, then you might as well believe whatever works best for you. If worshiping Christopher Hitchens as god incarnate makes your life better, then go for it brother! You’ve only got one life to live anyway, might as well stop caring about anything that gets in the way of your personal happiness. If we live in an atheistic universe, truth and morality can only important in so much as it can actually be useful to you. The standards by which atheists condemn the actions of the religious are nothing more than another artificial morality, as artificial as any religion. Morality is complete bullshit in an atheistic universe, though just as there is no obligation for anyone to be an atheist in an atheistic universe, there is also no obligation for atheists to be amoralists. Believe in all the bullshit you want in an atheistic universe. If it feels good, do it. Of course, none of this applies IF there is any sort of higher purpose.
That's a very cheap critique. Plenty of wars, most in fact, have been fought for nonreligious reasons. If everyone had always been atheist, we still would have had wars. That our general tendency to war as a species found an outlet in religion is hardly a strike against religion.
...
The most rational morality in an atheistic universe is probably some form of self-deluded selfishness, in which you think you’re being a good person but you’re really just helping yourself. Altruism is at best masturbation in a godless universe.
How is altruism any better than masturbation in a skyfairy universe? If you're only doing something good for someone else because the magical skyfairy will give you good boy points can you even call that altruism?
It might be cheap. Point still stands that no one ever has been motivated to go to war because the god he doesn't believe in told him it was right.
I have this weird stupid thing I do it's called "empathy". Turns out I don't need a promise of reward in the afterlife to do the right thing.
>the way he presented his system of ethics literally brings any idea of a state into the dirt
No moral or ethical argument can change the fact that any kind of large scale, post-capitalist system will need a state of some sort in order to survive for longer than a few months.
Silly me I thought we were aiming for communism. I didn't know we were trying to sustain the state. Didn't Marx write something about the state withering away?
It could be argued that doing the right thing is never completely selfless if God rewards good behaviour. I don’t believe humans are ever truly selfless anyway. My masturbation comment was pointlessly vulgar, but indeed, if there is no inherent system of moral rules in the universe, the only rational reason to help other people is because it helps you in some way.
Empathy is completely arbitrary though. If I knew for a fact that no afterlife existed I’d still have empathy, but I’d also be aware that it’s no objective basis for morality.
There needs to be a state for the state to wither, famalam.
Oh wow you really owned me there. The State and Revolution by Lenin explains all this iirc. Read it.
Yes, it withers away, it's not abolished. Marx was 100% in favour of the working class seizing state power.
Even with an inherent system of moral rules in the universe the only rational reason to help other people is because it helps you in some way. I find your if statement entirely unnecessary. Believing in a religion and doing an action because you believe you'll get something out of it is entirely consistent with egoism.
OK if empathy is arbitrary then what is this?
Both instances are arbitrary as fuck. Religion being full of arbitrary bullshit doesn't make empathy any less arbitrary bullshit too.
Thb I guess there’s nothing for me to disagree with there. I mean not wanting to go to Hell is indeed 100% self-interest. Also something like Egoism makes more sense than most other ideologies if no gods exist. If there is no higher being you might as well worship yourself. Though I see no reason why egoists should even be honest about their motivations like Stirner was.
I do believe that God can be arbitrary in his judgements, and it is his right to do so. He’s all powerful and makes the rules. If he wants to kill Onan for pulling out he can do so. Might makes right and God is the mightiest. And yes, empathy is most certainly arbitrary. The idea that we are always rational and fair in who we feel empathy for is an absolute joke.
That's fine I thought the post I replied to was saying that religion is somehow an objective source of morality. Is there any source of morality that isn't somewhat arbitrary?
The absolute state of christ**coms**
Just a note so there isn't any confusion, the user your arguing with about belief isn't me, last I posted was here
Being honest or dishonest about motivations also comes down to what you can get out of either one. People will sometimes be honest about their flaws so that others will be more trusting of them. Politicians and salespeople use this tactic all the time and people will buy into it claiming "at least they're honest". This isn't an exclusive trait to atheists either. Why are so many religious people dishonest about their motivations claiming to be altruistic when their real motivation is the reward of an afterlife of some sort?
The Kierkegaard image is appropriate for the Stirner interpretation in .
That was actually defended by Stirner lmao
I believe I asked you this already but you were a prot right ?
Your thinking about the other user, I'm the one that was raised Catholic. While my beliefs have changed to be more existentialist, I dislike the term protestant because it implies a belief in Sola fide and that I want to take the church into a new direction of belief, while in actuality I want to take the church back to its roots to a more authentic and community based form of faith as the apostles practiced.
Why do you think this authentic Christian community is recoverable and also that this community is what you truly have in mind right now? That this idea you have isn't an inauthentic, postmodern pastiche which is more or less a farcical reiteration? I'm probably sounding more like I'm badgering you than I intend to.
I believe such a community is recoverable but necessitates the abolishment of capitalism first as such a community would require the re-engaging of universal brotherly ties and the formation of a community of love, things that I do not see possible with the alienation of capitalism. I would hope farcical reiteration would be prevented by each person's authentic encounter with Christ and their desire of "becoming", but I understand what you are saying in the danger of attempting to mimic such early Christian communities exactly, which is why I do not call for such mimicry. What I ask is a return to the very roots of the faith, not for it's bones but for it's spirit. I ask not for a copy of structure but for the re-engaging of ties and of communal love. I do not pretend that it will look or share the same exact make-up, but like how early primitive communism birthed from it the idea of property that would inevitably lead to capitalism and capitalism a communism which will differ in structure from the communism of before, so too do I see a similar the remergence of an authentic christianity from the church of now from which itself emerged from an early community of love.
But that's actually true.
Why would these ties lead to or necessitate a return to Christianity? Also, it could alternatively be that Christian groups form mystic hierarchies that roughly mime organized religion as it is currently, with priestly interpreters and laymen rather than each feeling an individual, authentic relation. Would the nonexistence of property create a decentralizing, individualizing effect on religion? Or something else, possibly in addition or separate from the property relations?
So USA and capitalist West are right?
Choose your words carefully.
In the sense that they have the capacity to dictate what is right and wrong due to their positions of power? Yes, they are.
This isn't a particularly new observation on society.
Wanna point out for the non-knowing there is no known photograph of Max Stirner.
If you refute him you're in denial. You could say something something "the ego is a spook" but the idea of anarchy without law is the objectively correct ideology.