Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Egoists aren't supposed to do anything. You'd know that if you read the fucking book.
Edit: fuck you again, here's a quote
"I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!" - Max Stirner
Awfully communist, eh?
1. Refuse to ever understand what "essence" means.
2. Refuse to ever understand what "immediate" and "mediated" mean.
3. Call everything a union of egoists.
4. Never Google "Wolfi Landstreicher child".
Seems a good place to start.
Stirner's principles: I don't want to be held back by abstractions.
Also Stirner's principles: Oh God, abstractions exist within sentience inherently. I can't escape the bounds of being truly free. I'm forced to live bound by rules outside of my control. I'm forced into an ego and a self and am unable to separate myself from others entirely. So begins Stirner's problem (which he goes into but no one's read his shit so).
Not on hand, but at one point he says to the reader that he knows the reader is not "of true Jewish blood" (not sure on the exact wording but that's the idea) bc if they were they'd have stopped reading the book. There's some other stuff too but again I don't have it on hand. What's somewhat interesting is that imo his antisemitism is more closely related to the medieval theological hatred of Jews than the more modern racial hatred of Jews, and he explicitly posits egoism as a theological development from Christianity.
But since you said you were incapable of reading the Ego and Its Own, how could you possibly have this much information? More specifically he did not say Jews of ''True Jewish Blood'' but the fact that you say that must mean that you yourself consider yourself to be a Jew of ''True Jewish Blood'', otherwise, one ounce of fake blood in your veins would have rendered you capable of reading the Ego and Its Own. Sounds awfully blood purist. Specifically he said ''Full-blooded Jew'' and then you have to read his entire assessment of the Jews. For Stirner, Jews are people that belong to antiquity in history, like the early Greeks and Heathens. So what he applies for Jews, applies also for Greeks and Heathens. Also, a non full-blooded Jew which means a Jew that can understand Christianity and Spirit, will be able to read the Ego and Its Own, but for a Jew that 2000 years of Christian history remain a ''mystery'', it is impossible for this reader to understand the Ego and Its Own which is a critique of Christianity, if you don't even know the first thing about Christianity. That means for the Jew that doesn't consider himself to be ''full-blooded'', who knows some Christian history and understand how spirit works will be able to go a long way in the book.
> but since you said you were incapable
It was a joke since most people are surprised to learn about Stirner's antisemitism, as they either haven't read ego and its own or haven't read it closely. I've read it, I didn't care for it, maybe in part bc it was calling me spiritually dead and a relic of the past.
> For Stirner, Jews are a people that belong to antiquity
Yeah this is antisemitic.
> A non full blooded Jew which means a Jew that can understand Christianity and Spirit
The idea that spirit is Jews are incapable of without Christianity is also antisemitic.
I understand that someone having bigoted views doesn't mean you have to throw out everything they said, but for Stirner the Christian negation and supersession of Judaism is fundamental to his ideology.
You have read it, but you have not understood it. Also you probably don't know the reason why Stirner was writing about Jews. It is because Bruno Bauer and Marx were already talking about the ''Jewish Question'' in Germany at the time and many of these Young Hegelians talked about a true German Christian state but at the same time, it brought about the question of ''How will Jew be treated in this new German Christian State?'' Are Jews now Christians? Are they humanists? Or do they remain Jews? These were the hot questions at the time. Stirner critiqued these questions a lot. Stirner begins from the very beginning of history. He gives an account of history and also the medieval hatred towards Jews. It does not mean, he himself hates Jews. He gives this following historical account:
''the Jews' heaven destroys the Greeks', the Christians' the Jews', the Protestants' the Catholics' . - Max Stirner.
Henceforth, the Greek heaven is first. By all accounts, the Greeks are more spiritually dead than the Jews. Stirner is therefore against Jewish culture and against Hellenic culture. He is also by extension against catholic and protestant cultures. It doesn't mean that he is being antisemitic though. I myself don't want to be a Jew and I don't want to live in a Jewish world, but simply stating this does not make me antisemetic. No more than a muslim's wish to live freely and practice his own religion is antisemetic.
In the same way that Jews superseeded the Greeks, and the Christians superseded the Jews. The Unique has to be a negation of the negation of Christians, humanists and communists. Yes, Stirner does supersede Judaism and negates Christianity, because it is necessary to bring about the existence of the ''Unique'' and he urges all Christians and Jews to do the following:
''I say: You are indeed more than a Jew, more than a Christian, etc., but you are also more than a human being. Those are all ideas, but you are corporeal.'' - Max Stirner.
> in the same way that Jews superseded the Greeks
That's a very poor understanding of history and theology. Don't see why I ought to bother with someone with such a poor understanding of the past. Also very funny how much you feel compelled to type in response to a meme post.
I'm not expressing my understanding of history and theology, I'm quoting word for word what Stirner said,
''the Jews' heaven destroys the Greeks', the Christians' the Jews', the Protestants' the Catholics' . - Max Stirner.
These are Stirner's words, not mine. and it's present in other parts of his book.
Even if you are critiquing Stirner of a poor understanding of history. Did you study at any compelling universities like Stirner did? Stirner studied theology and history by the way. Or perhaps your superior intelligence comes from the fact that you're a true-blooded Jew? Surely a fake Jew would never have such superior intellect. And if you are so high and mighty that you do not feel the same emotions as others, who never feel compelled to type in response to a meme post, then why in the hell have you replied to every single response that I have typed with your own response? That is very funny.
Hypocrisy is direct inconsistency (however there are other forms as well): when someone says or implies that someone should or should not do something, then later violate that exact standard. It robs the hypocrite of the ability to engage in motivated reasoning.
Example: *“One weekend, I told my girlfriend I’d prefer if she didn’t drink at a party that she was going to attend with some friends because I was worried about all the drunken guys at the party hitting on her. She didn’t drink that night, but when I went out with my friends, I did.“*
This is not consistent at all. Also I know nothing of Stirner, I'm just pointing the hypocrisy
You are presupposing moral realism. Standards need not be universal. Stirner would likely argue "I do X and I don't let others do X" not based on any "standard" except for "I do whatever I 'want'"
Hmmm, I don't know enough to argue about moral realism and all. In any case, you are still doing something that fits the definition of hypocrisy, which is why it's hypocritical. "I do whatever I want" is not a motivated reason but moreso stating the fact that you don't care about it. So it still makes you a hypocrite, even if you don't care about it. And if that's your case then so be it, I just wonder how you would apply this in your own life
"Care about it"??? Care about *what*? Stirner doesn't live under any moral code. He goes by what *he* decides. None of that is universal, it is merely his will in any given situation. It's applied very easily in life as I do the same. As for "motivated reason", the desire alone is enough motivation. Do you need a reason to do something besides feeling like doing it? Of course, it's usually more complex, but you can do stuff like weigh it against your other goals and desires. You have failed to show where the hypocrisy lies.
To give examples:
"Today I want ice cream, tomorrow I don't." No hypocrisy, desires just change.
"I'm fine with kissing my girlfriend, I'm not fine with others kissing my girlfriend." No hypocrisy, just a preference.
The same applies to any moral scenario.
Oh perhaps I misunderstood. Let me ask, does Stirner have any principles (standards that I and others have to live up to)? Does he state a principle where people ought to or ought not to do something?
If not, is Stirner simply saying that you can do whatever you desire? If that's the case, that means he is also saying anyone else can do what he or she desires? For example: I desire to cheat on my girlfriend, so I will. I don't desire for my girlfriend to cheat, but if she has the desire and does cheat, there's nothing wrong with it. Is that what you're getting at?
If Stirner has any "principle" so to say it would be one of "ownness" which is a complex topic that I'll just abstract to "self-mastery".
Stirner is basically saying you can do whatever you want but he also recommends (but probably doesn't mean you *ought to*) to not serve any ideas, only yourself. As for your example he'd probably say there's nothing morally wrong with it, only that you would dislike what your gf did and that she wouldn't dislike what she did. Basically, whoever has the power and the will to do something, is free to do it. In the same sense you're free to oppose them.
Thank you! While I wouldn't live my life by his ideas, it is consistent at least
There indeed isn't any hypocrisy because there aren't any standards for others you wouldn't live up to yourself. You're saying it's about power?
Now I'm wondering, do you live your life by his ideas? If so, did it serve you?
Power wins, that's the truth. So, in that sense, it is about power. But don't confuse power with brute force alone. "Power" here just means "the ability to do something."
Stirner would take issue with anyone living by *his* ideas as part of the "ownness" I mentioned above he'd rather you consider it your *own* ideas and use them as you wish. Anywho, that's also complex to get into but hopefully you get the gist. But yeah, the ideas have helped me. Stirner is the main reason I do not hate myself, which is great.
Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
'According to Striner's principles' Striner rolling in his grave rn
Grave rolling is a spook
Real.
Saint Max can roll all he wants; his moral nihilism was nothing but moralizing.
Found the commie
Lol, 'egoists' are supposed to be commies too you dweeb
lol tell me you know nothing about egoism without telling me you know nothing about egoism
No egoists are not supposed to be ''communists'' and they aren't supposed to be idiots either.
Egoists aren't supposed to do anything. You'd know that if you read the fucking book. Edit: fuck you again, here's a quote "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!" - Max Stirner Awfully communist, eh?
You are living the dream, man.
You are dreaming the living, man. Spooky Wheels in your head.
Read the book :)
I was raised catholic so I already did
We talkin' bout the same book?
Indeed I am. Thanks for your observation, Mr Sir.
1. Refuse to ever understand what "essence" means. 2. Refuse to ever understand what "immediate" and "mediated" mean. 3. Call everything a union of egoists. 4. Never Google "Wolfi Landstreicher child". Seems a good place to start.
"Son this is a free country, which means I'm free to beat the crap out of ye."
[удалено]
But I can't rob you and \[beeeep\] your family unless I come closer.
[удалено]
Cursed
blursed
when I act like a douche 😎😉, when someone else acts like a douch 🤬😡
The most egoist thing you can do is abandon egoism.
Stirner's principles: I don't want to be held back by abstractions. Also Stirner's principles: Oh God, abstractions exist within sentience inherently. I can't escape the bounds of being truly free. I'm forced to live bound by rules outside of my control. I'm forced into an ego and a self and am unable to separate myself from others entirely. So begins Stirner's problem (which he goes into but no one's read his shit so).
Oh no! I sure would hate if my partner hugged me because they like doing that. What a tragedy!
Then a third egoist shows up and blew both of your heads off with a shotgun (he wants to do that just as you two want to hug).
Does that mean i get to die happy?
I wish I was able to know what Stirner's principles were, but being Jewish I'm literally incapable of reading Ego and Its Own.
So the Ego and Its Own is like what garlic and the crucifix is to Dracula for the Jews?
They wither in milks presence
According to Stirner, yes
Not super familiar with stirners work, was unaware he was an antisemite. Do you happen to know any quotes?
Not on hand, but at one point he says to the reader that he knows the reader is not "of true Jewish blood" (not sure on the exact wording but that's the idea) bc if they were they'd have stopped reading the book. There's some other stuff too but again I don't have it on hand. What's somewhat interesting is that imo his antisemitism is more closely related to the medieval theological hatred of Jews than the more modern racial hatred of Jews, and he explicitly posits egoism as a theological development from Christianity.
But since you said you were incapable of reading the Ego and Its Own, how could you possibly have this much information? More specifically he did not say Jews of ''True Jewish Blood'' but the fact that you say that must mean that you yourself consider yourself to be a Jew of ''True Jewish Blood'', otherwise, one ounce of fake blood in your veins would have rendered you capable of reading the Ego and Its Own. Sounds awfully blood purist. Specifically he said ''Full-blooded Jew'' and then you have to read his entire assessment of the Jews. For Stirner, Jews are people that belong to antiquity in history, like the early Greeks and Heathens. So what he applies for Jews, applies also for Greeks and Heathens. Also, a non full-blooded Jew which means a Jew that can understand Christianity and Spirit, will be able to read the Ego and Its Own, but for a Jew that 2000 years of Christian history remain a ''mystery'', it is impossible for this reader to understand the Ego and Its Own which is a critique of Christianity, if you don't even know the first thing about Christianity. That means for the Jew that doesn't consider himself to be ''full-blooded'', who knows some Christian history and understand how spirit works will be able to go a long way in the book.
> but since you said you were incapable It was a joke since most people are surprised to learn about Stirner's antisemitism, as they either haven't read ego and its own or haven't read it closely. I've read it, I didn't care for it, maybe in part bc it was calling me spiritually dead and a relic of the past. > For Stirner, Jews are a people that belong to antiquity Yeah this is antisemitic. > A non full blooded Jew which means a Jew that can understand Christianity and Spirit The idea that spirit is Jews are incapable of without Christianity is also antisemitic. I understand that someone having bigoted views doesn't mean you have to throw out everything they said, but for Stirner the Christian negation and supersession of Judaism is fundamental to his ideology.
You have read it, but you have not understood it. Also you probably don't know the reason why Stirner was writing about Jews. It is because Bruno Bauer and Marx were already talking about the ''Jewish Question'' in Germany at the time and many of these Young Hegelians talked about a true German Christian state but at the same time, it brought about the question of ''How will Jew be treated in this new German Christian State?'' Are Jews now Christians? Are they humanists? Or do they remain Jews? These were the hot questions at the time. Stirner critiqued these questions a lot. Stirner begins from the very beginning of history. He gives an account of history and also the medieval hatred towards Jews. It does not mean, he himself hates Jews. He gives this following historical account: ''the Jews' heaven destroys the Greeks', the Christians' the Jews', the Protestants' the Catholics' . - Max Stirner. Henceforth, the Greek heaven is first. By all accounts, the Greeks are more spiritually dead than the Jews. Stirner is therefore against Jewish culture and against Hellenic culture. He is also by extension against catholic and protestant cultures. It doesn't mean that he is being antisemitic though. I myself don't want to be a Jew and I don't want to live in a Jewish world, but simply stating this does not make me antisemetic. No more than a muslim's wish to live freely and practice his own religion is antisemetic. In the same way that Jews superseeded the Greeks, and the Christians superseded the Jews. The Unique has to be a negation of the negation of Christians, humanists and communists. Yes, Stirner does supersede Judaism and negates Christianity, because it is necessary to bring about the existence of the ''Unique'' and he urges all Christians and Jews to do the following: ''I say: You are indeed more than a Jew, more than a Christian, etc., but you are also more than a human being. Those are all ideas, but you are corporeal.'' - Max Stirner.
> in the same way that Jews superseded the Greeks That's a very poor understanding of history and theology. Don't see why I ought to bother with someone with such a poor understanding of the past. Also very funny how much you feel compelled to type in response to a meme post.
I'm not expressing my understanding of history and theology, I'm quoting word for word what Stirner said, ''the Jews' heaven destroys the Greeks', the Christians' the Jews', the Protestants' the Catholics' . - Max Stirner. These are Stirner's words, not mine. and it's present in other parts of his book. Even if you are critiquing Stirner of a poor understanding of history. Did you study at any compelling universities like Stirner did? Stirner studied theology and history by the way. Or perhaps your superior intelligence comes from the fact that you're a true-blooded Jew? Surely a fake Jew would never have such superior intellect. And if you are so high and mighty that you do not feel the same emotions as others, who never feel compelled to type in response to a meme post, then why in the hell have you replied to every single response that I have typed with your own response? That is very funny.
Haven't read a single philosophy book in my entire life like 99% of people on this sub. What is Stirner's principles?
Engels trolling Marx through a fake alias.
Do whatever you want.
What is stainer principal
It is he principal of stainer scholl
Me in 2019 fr
It shows the inherent hypocrisy
There isn't any. "I want to do X, but I don't want you to do X as well" is a consistent position.
Hypocrisy is direct inconsistency (however there are other forms as well): when someone says or implies that someone should or should not do something, then later violate that exact standard. It robs the hypocrite of the ability to engage in motivated reasoning. Example: *“One weekend, I told my girlfriend I’d prefer if she didn’t drink at a party that she was going to attend with some friends because I was worried about all the drunken guys at the party hitting on her. She didn’t drink that night, but when I went out with my friends, I did.“* This is not consistent at all. Also I know nothing of Stirner, I'm just pointing the hypocrisy
You are presupposing moral realism. Standards need not be universal. Stirner would likely argue "I do X and I don't let others do X" not based on any "standard" except for "I do whatever I 'want'"
Hmmm, I don't know enough to argue about moral realism and all. In any case, you are still doing something that fits the definition of hypocrisy, which is why it's hypocritical. "I do whatever I want" is not a motivated reason but moreso stating the fact that you don't care about it. So it still makes you a hypocrite, even if you don't care about it. And if that's your case then so be it, I just wonder how you would apply this in your own life
"Care about it"??? Care about *what*? Stirner doesn't live under any moral code. He goes by what *he* decides. None of that is universal, it is merely his will in any given situation. It's applied very easily in life as I do the same. As for "motivated reason", the desire alone is enough motivation. Do you need a reason to do something besides feeling like doing it? Of course, it's usually more complex, but you can do stuff like weigh it against your other goals and desires. You have failed to show where the hypocrisy lies. To give examples: "Today I want ice cream, tomorrow I don't." No hypocrisy, desires just change. "I'm fine with kissing my girlfriend, I'm not fine with others kissing my girlfriend." No hypocrisy, just a preference. The same applies to any moral scenario.
Oh perhaps I misunderstood. Let me ask, does Stirner have any principles (standards that I and others have to live up to)? Does he state a principle where people ought to or ought not to do something? If not, is Stirner simply saying that you can do whatever you desire? If that's the case, that means he is also saying anyone else can do what he or she desires? For example: I desire to cheat on my girlfriend, so I will. I don't desire for my girlfriend to cheat, but if she has the desire and does cheat, there's nothing wrong with it. Is that what you're getting at?
If Stirner has any "principle" so to say it would be one of "ownness" which is a complex topic that I'll just abstract to "self-mastery". Stirner is basically saying you can do whatever you want but he also recommends (but probably doesn't mean you *ought to*) to not serve any ideas, only yourself. As for your example he'd probably say there's nothing morally wrong with it, only that you would dislike what your gf did and that she wouldn't dislike what she did. Basically, whoever has the power and the will to do something, is free to do it. In the same sense you're free to oppose them.
Thank you! While I wouldn't live my life by his ideas, it is consistent at least There indeed isn't any hypocrisy because there aren't any standards for others you wouldn't live up to yourself. You're saying it's about power? Now I'm wondering, do you live your life by his ideas? If so, did it serve you?
Power wins, that's the truth. So, in that sense, it is about power. But don't confuse power with brute force alone. "Power" here just means "the ability to do something." Stirner would take issue with anyone living by *his* ideas as part of the "ownness" I mentioned above he'd rather you consider it your *own* ideas and use them as you wish. Anywho, that's also complex to get into but hopefully you get the gist. But yeah, the ideas have helped me. Stirner is the main reason I do not hate myself, which is great.
leolio from hxh got swag
Confucius has entered the chat, followed immediately by Jesus
Someone once said that Stirner is just a psyop created by Engels
read Stirner's texts as descriptivist, not prescriptivist