Egoism and Individualism and Sankt Max

Maybe you don't, but many do hold the idea Egoism as higher than their egoism. And every belief is made in blind faith as it connotes that it is something you are unwilling to criticize. To me, they are one of the same. To have faith in something is to believe in it. That is my definition of the word and the common definition of the word. you state that belief is not to have faith in an idea, but has no basis in faith. To believe in something is to make it a fixed idea. The flag thing was a proposition, I am not even defending my stance on a flag, but this faggot's>>2540404.
Maybe take it up with that guy rather than a bored out of his skull OP that made a shitpost thread because he is avoiding doing any work.

narcissistic asshole

OK, now I'm 80 percent sure you didn't read the whole book. Let me quote Stirner for you.

Criticism is the possessed man’s fight against possession as such, against all possession: a fight which is founded in the consciousness that everywhere possession, or, as the critic calls it, a religious and theological attitude, is extant. He knows that people stand in a religious or believing attitude not only toward God, but toward other ideas as well, like right, the State, law; i.e. he recognizes possession in all places. So he wants to break up thoughts by thinking; but I say, only thoughtlessness really saves me from thoughts. It is not thinking, but my thoughtlessness, or I the unthinkable, incomprehensible, that frees me from possession.

In essence, what I'm trying to get at here is that because being a possessed man is not pleasant state is self-evident to me, it doesn't require much thought on the matter. "Belief/faith" don't even factor in at this point.

That I am. It feels warm inside. Like a nice spiced latte on an autumn day ~siiiip~
I am not following a dogma, if anything this is exactly what I am saying. Be critical of yourself and accept external criticisms and avoid grinding yourself into your own rut/dogma founded on fighting a dogma, be free of dogmas and the idea entirely, of any thou shalt. I was saying that you could draw the flag to be exactly what you are accusing me of being and the dogma of anti dogma.

Perhaps my use of the word belief is different, but I do not disagree with this statement and I don't see where conflict is arising here.
I'm honestly lost at where the disagreement here is. I'm just saying belief connotes possession by an idea, and I tend to use it in that sense so I avoid using it. I don't believe in going against belief.

I think it's gr8.
No. Great shitposting value though.

Attached: 21.jpg (753x786, 334.27K)

Because his points are literally irrefutable. Bullet-proof argumentation, very well thought out.
The only thing assblasted people like Marx could do was strawman him.

I accept external criticism plenty. The problem is most of it is bad, or attempts to create problems where there is none, like my predilection to discard sacred objects. The point of criticism for me is to reach a point where the ideas no longer need to be turned over in the head and ruminated on. I am at that point. I don't believe in criticism for its own sake. Although I think Marx may have attacked Stirner for things that were outside the scope of the original text of "The Ego and its Own", I still think he brought up some interesting points.

You were saying the flag could be made sacred, but that doesn't mean it will. If a flag is used by an egoist, it's most likely only as a tool, if he understands the philosophy properly.

It can, but that's not the way I'm using it. There's a difference between sacred belief, and belief that as owner of thought I've been lead to.

Attached: max stirner picasso.png (495x573, 16.53K)

praise jesus

Attached: squidbillies6.jpg (300x385, 26.28K)

This is true. Ultimately, all of us want to do things but belief requires us a justification, Stirner's point was that this justification AND the belief was a spook, and so people can just do what they want without either. The egoist anarchist can reject anything. Even if someone tells you they're going to reject Stirner's point, they'll either need a justification which proves they're spooked, or they'll reject him outright without a justification, which only proves Stirner is correct. Stirner makes a point about there being a distinction about the voluntary and involuntary egoists.

Attached: 1524736899.png (720x717, 446.72K)

hownew.ru
stirnerposting is almost fucking non-existent these days
which is a shame because we used to be able to call a spook a spook and be done with it now idpol gets a free pass to a 200+ post 'discussion'

I think it remains popular because, at heart, it is a fun book. Stirner is very playful throughout. And beyond that, the biggest critique of the whole book is for the biggest spook: when he terms everything his property, the joke is ultimately - on property. The liberal conception of property as a right, this fiction that grants one absolute authority over something. When he falls into the almost maniacal "everything is my property, you are my property", it creates this neat tension between what it would mean for everything to be your absolute private property, as understood in a liberal bourgeois legal order, and the more matter of fact meaning that Stirner defines later when talking about ones abilities to etc.

Nah don't worry about it mang, no biggie. We seem to disagree only on our definitions of belief. Sorry if I wasn't clear then, I was up for 20 hours then
and still haven't slept.

Someone has to give me loli pussy. Egoists don't seem to think they're obligated to provide me with loli pussy. Egoists are not leftists.

I feel about it the same way as about the writings of the Frankfurt School of Wizardy&Witchcraft. The ideas are interesting and inspiring from a personal viewpoint, but I don't think they should directly be included in political praxis or in an outline for future socialist societies. I doubt many people take Stirner's "Union of Egoists" seriously in the sense of a real societal organ.

I really, really don't understand how communists can dig Stirner. The dude is wholly opposed to the very thesis statement of communism.

Nigger, your needs are a fucking spook. I can be as porky as I fucking want because I want to.

you're fucking retarded.

Excellent rebuttal.

Didn't Stirner call communism an incurable mind virus?

can't speak on egoist/individualist writers in general but the ones I've spoken to online are p dumb tbh. usually don't have a good idea of what their own terms mean ("self-interest" being the most obvious example). You're just better off being a marxist generally.

Yeah, he hated socialism because it forces all to be collectivist, when the Union of Egoists should be voluntary.

Unless someone is able to and desires to force them of course. You're not going to make a moral objection now are you?

This. You can justify the most despotic, statist shit imaginable with Stirner's philosophy. Zig Forums is already doing it.

I've also noticed fascists using Stirner to argue against communism and other leftist ideologies. There is nothing left about Stirner.

Then they are idiots. States create more spooks and are inherently anti-Stirner. If you want a world full of unique individuals to interact with, you can only have complete anarchism.

Egoists help people because it pleases them. Destruction of people is destruction of your own property.
No

No, he was complaining about the marxist-leninists at the time. A global union of egoists comrpised of people freely associating with eachother seems pretty communist to me.
Read the damn Ego book; even the kings and higher ups are ultimately subservient to their subjects they lord over. Not just because they could get an assassin in the night, but also slaves require upkeep. A master is no master ruling over a pile of corpses. Even kings chain themselves to their subjects because they have to take care of them, even minimally.

Attached: cat_looking_at_mouse.jpg (500x520, 41.23K)

I adhere to Maoist Individualism.

who said I was a communist? I am not a communist nor capitalist. I support what suits myself and those I care about.

This explains it.

To be fair, to be on top and advocate totalitarian ideas is Stirnerite if it will make you happy

We can be anarchic, but to not have any hierarchy is impossible. We aren't equal other than the fact we are individuals. Hierarchy is ingrained in human instinct. There's a difference between natural hierarchy (as what one would see in any social relationship or in a food chain) versus an artificial and imposed hierarchy (IE nobility, the state, the nation, the church, etc.)

Attached: nietzsche.png (159x173, 16.87K)

Egoism is actually the edgy trash that people accuse Nietzsche of being.

Great stuff.

I agree with it.

I worship nothing and no one.

I think the flags are dumb but it's just a means to identify things/each other.

Attached: f758d03770d598b915650900cc9b584d5299e11bbae0b8eb5371c8d0525ef79b.png (400x400, 26.03K)

I want to hear your stance. I am interested. I have only talked to a handful of mutualists and I want to hear something that wasn't from a book.

wut
no

Read Stirner's critics.
He wasn't opposed to socialist, but "sacred socialist".

polyps are retarded. Every single one I've ever talked to either has to bastardize the philosophy to death, or in the process admits they are a sociopaths These are the same people that think they are socialist, as well, but everyone rightly avoids laying the blame at its doorstep. A week ago, one came in here claiming Marx was for their "blood and soil" meme because he called Lasalle a Jewish nigger once. Quit taking them seriously and acting like they are coherent. Also, every despot in the last hundred years has been some form of moralist. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a dictator could be an egoist, but acting as if this would be a causal relationship is pure idealism.

Fascism, as it has existed previously, requires belief in some form of the National Body. How does anyone maintain owness under those conditions? Fascism itself is just capitalism on steroids and littered with social fixations, as if capitalism wasn't enough that way. Without them, it's not fascism.

Sadly, true. That term get bandied about, but it's commonly misunderstood.

It's not even that edgy by modern standards, tbh. He doesn't even skewer religion the same way your modern edgelord would, despite being critical of Christians at that time. Most fedoras would probably see him as a fence sitter because he saw religion as a state of being bound, and to some extent unavoidable.

Attached: DeJGliyW4AAui78.jpg (944x702, 123.52K)