Thread 24705402

After all this time, why has no one been able to debunk his arguments?
Whenever I see a Stirner thread, I see lots of knee-jerk replies and stupid insults aimed at OP.
Something along the lines of:
>I was an edgy brat too. Then I turned 14.
I really wonder why those reactions are so common.
Personally, I am deeply inspired by Stirner's thoughts on morality, liberalism, freedom, and the ego.
I just feel like some people here feel threatened by the strength of Stirner's arguments and are afraid of their beliefs/spooks collapsing. Am I wrong?
Im being dead serious, so Id appreciate serious answers to my question.

>>24705402 (OP)
very compelling, anon. Please tell me more about Stirner when I'm pointing a loaded rifle at you in your bedroom at 2AM.

Stirner is deboonk-proof, there is truly no arguing with it. However, it is not meant as an active worldview in and of itself, it is a framework for understanding what ideas are so that you can make real choices in how you approach them. You can, and should, make his framework the basis for adopting an active model.

>>24705433
agree. something like a meta-worldview.

>>24705402 (OP)
>After all this time, why has no one been able to debunk his arguments?
Because nobody can't "debunk" the truth. Philosophy it's a waste of time and a tool of control as any other. Altought, the problem with Stirner is that he ignored the metaphysical consideration of magic being real after all and got cucked by it's own atheism, so in the end, he couldn't get past the spook he was himself.

>>24705627
>Philosophy it's a waste of time
This implies a goal. If philosophy is fun or a high IQ larp and your goal is fun or to larp as high IQ, then philosophy isnt a waste of time, Stirner would argue.

>>24705641
The thing is, at the point of reasoning that Stirner reached, he would also have to consider that things outside the ordinary reality may be true after all, but if i have to take in mind what we know of the guy, he just simply decided to stop in doing nothing for nothing at all. Hell, once you get the qrd on this guy ideas, you don't even need to read his book in the first place, it's just common sense.

>>24705652
Niggas could always argue, "But what is the 'I' really?" What is the 'ego' that you're trying to serve?"
honestly, Ive always thought this debate was stupid. Everyone knows intuitively what "I" is, so this seems like pointless pedantry to me.
you get some analytic faggot saying “akschualy there is no real 'I'! define 'I' if you can hehe!” and then youre suddenly in a 600-page metaphysics seminar about identity and substance and gay space jews.
The I or the Ego is nothing but me, right now in the moment - the one who eats, sleeps and fucks (in theory) - and nothing more... simple as. Stop turning it into a concept. When you try to define the ego beyond that, youre already building a spook.

>>24705402 (OP)
I always felt like I needed to prove myself and work hard if I wanted to be allowed to have nice things, such as pussy. Subconsciously, I always felt that I needed friends, money or a career to get pussy, for example. I derived my self-worth from my (alleged) intelligence, even to it doesn't really matter at all.
I thought that I only deserved things if I could do this or that, or if I owned this or that.
Until then, I can't have it!
He takes away the spook of "deserving".
I want, therefore I take.
Even if you're a low-IQ retard, a manlet, a niggerkike, an uggo, or an AIDS-infected faggot, you are you, and thats justification enough to try to take whatever you want by any means possible.

>>24705402 (OP)
If you are inspired by Stirner's thoughts, which are external to yourself, then you have debunked Stirner's thoughts.

>>24705686
Yeah, when Aristotle defined the self evident truths (and the fact that truth is self evident by itself), philosophy died there. After all, what purpose philosophy serves *You*? You could just stick with the facts.

Because no one cares about Stirner. There are other writers who have articulated similar ideas Stirner talks about as welll. The difference between them and Stirner is that they are actually worth reading. Stirner is not. His book is fluff and literal filler.

Autistic tabula rasa garbage isn't worth acknowledging.

>>24705750
>The difference between them and Stirner is that they are actually worth reading
namedrop em then nigga

>>24705778
NTA, but here's my list
>John Paolucci
...And that's it. That's all.

>>24705402 (OP)
>Personally, I am deeply inspired by Stirner's thoughts on morality, liberalism, freedom, and the ego.
Which are? He had no thoughts about them. He literally just says they are bullshit and that he doesn't care about it

>>24706727
ChatGPT got it mostly right. If youn want a better explanations read his fucking book you tard:

### **Morality**

* All morality is a spook.
* “Thou shalt” is always some abstract, external law telling *you* how to live.
* Whether it’s Christian commandments, Kant’s categorical imperative, or utilitarian “maximize happiness”—all of it is just the same trick in new clothes.
* Stirner: **“I am not bound by Good or Evil. I do what I will. Morality is just another master.”**

---

### **Liberalism**

* He lived in the early 1800s, so liberalism meant freedom of speech, rights, equality before the law, etc.
* Stirner saw it as just **Christianity secularized**. You got rid of “God” but smuggled in “Man,” “Humanity,” “Reason,” “Rights.”
* For him, “rights” are just paper spooks. If you have the power to use them, they’re real. If not, they’re empty.
* Quote-level summary: **“Right is a ghost; force is reality.”**

---

### **Freedom**

* He thought “freedom” was bullshit as usually sold. Negative freedom (freedom from constraints) is never enough, because you’re still defined by what you lack.
* Real Stirnerian move: stop chasing “freedom” and instead affirm **ownness** (Eigenheit).
* Ownness = living as your own, appropriating what you can, without needing some abstract standard of liberty.
* Freedom = spook. Ownness = reality.

---

### **The Ego**

* This is the centerpiece: *Der Einzige* (The Unique One).
* Not the “ego” as in psychology or Freud. Not a concept at all. Just **me, irreducible, unclassifiable, unbound.**
* “I am not Man, not Citizen, not Subject, not Rational Agent. I am I.”
* Even “the Ego” as a philosophical concept is a spook if you start worshipping it. It’s just a word pointing to your lived self, here and now.
* All abstractions—God, Truth, State, Humanity, Justice—are nothing before the Unique.

---

### TL;DR Stirner’s stance

* **Morality**: chains drop it.
* **Liberalism**: Christianity 2.0 laugh at it.
* **Freedom**: spook replace with Ownness.
* **Ego**: the Unique the only reality that matters, beyond definition.

---

So if Kant is “be rational,” and Nietzsche is “become who you are,” Stirner is:
**“Stop being a bitch. There’s no God, no Man, no Law, no Right. There’s only you—and what you can take.”**

>>24707801

His liberalism critique in more detail:
he distinguishes between 3 forms of liberalism:
* **Political liberalism (state-liberalism)**

* Makes you a *citizen* first. Freedom = state-granted permissions (press, assembly, property) under law.
* Priest is swapped for policeman/judge: you’re “free” only as long as you fit the constitution.
* Rights remain revocable and conditional; the state stays the sovereign. You serve the *public order*.

* **Social liberalism (society-liberalism)**

* Replaces the state’s halo with “Society,” “the common good,” “public opinion,” “equality.”
* Your person is measured by usefulness; labor and conformity become moral duties.
* In its socialist/communist variants: property is “ours,” i.e., you belong to the collective. The *free society* is just a new church.

* **Humanitarian (humane) liberalism**

* Crowns the abstraction **“Man” (der *Mensch*)** as the highest authority: Humaneness, Humanity, the “truly human.”
* Demands self-sacrifice to an ideal essence: be “Human” first, *then* yourself. Moralizes with universal love, education, cosmopolitanism.
* For Stirner this is the last and most subtle tyranny—the sacred idol that outlived God, a new form of christianity.

aka He says we kicked god out of the sky and moved him within ourselves - "man" is now the god to worship. Christianity 2.0
.
* **His critique of *Mensch* (Man)**

* “Man” is an abstraction that turns you into a specimen of a species and judges you by a fixed essence.
* It’s the final spook: a secular God that claims you in the name of Humanity and denounces what is merely *yours* as “selfish.”

* **His critique of *Menschenrechte* (human rights)**

* Rights aren’t *yours*—they’re titles recognized and rationed by state/society, always conditional on you qualifying as “a man,” “a citizen,” “a rights-holder.”
* They bind you to the very authorities that guarantee them. Without that guarantor they’re paper; with it they’re leashes.
* What you *truly* have is what you can appropriate and keep—**ownness** (Eigenheit), not sacred claims.

* **Stirner’s alternative**

* Drop “freedom” and “rights” as idols; live as the **Unique** and treat norms as tools.

>>24705402 (OP)
Did you read M&E?

>>24707815
>M&E
que?

>>24707957
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03d.htm

It is the major appreciation of Stirner's work.

>>24707961
i read the commie manifesto. these niggas are loons and marx was a deranged jew. idc what he said about stirner

>>24707965
Guess who drew the cartoon of Stirner mate.

>>24707969
Engels

>>24707801
Ah, this makes it much funnier that he was a slave by his own definition, and never got to act on his criminal desires for fear of punishment.

Total vindication of Fascism desu. That people like this exist means that beating the teeth out of degeneates and dissidents is ethcical.

>>24705402 (OP)
the school shooter of """"philosophers"""" (i don't think he's one, his book was just a lengthy rant about the world)

>>24708043
Most philosophy books can be considered some form of rants about this or that, to be honest