Max Stirner - How Far Should Individualism Go?

  • There is a bug with the post editor. Images pasted from other websites from your clipboard will automatically use the [img] tag instead of uploading a copy as an attachment. Please manually save the image, upload it to the site, and then insert it as a thumbnail instead if you experience this.

    The [img] should essentially never be used outside of chat. It does not save disk space on the server because we use an image proxy to protect your IP address and to ensure people do not rely on bad third party services like Imgur for image hosting. I hope to have a fix from XF soon.

Eldritch

Cry To Me
kiwifarms.net
I was contemplating whether this thread belongs on deep thoughts or a more shitposting oriented subforum, but I suppose we can try to have a reasoned discussion on the man, the myth, the living meme himself: Max Stirner.
Stirner.gif

Anarchist Max Stirner developed egoism, the edgiest philosophy ever conceived. He rolled with the young hegelians, a group of 19th century philosophers in berlin that included Karl Marx. He was good friends with Friedrich Engels. His philosophy expounded the virtues of self interest, much more so than objectivism, which really put him at odds with Marx. Marx was prompted to write a glorious 500 page cavalcade of sodium-infused ravings about just how awful Stirner was, in his book The German Ideology.
do-you-really-want-to-spend-so-many-pages-of-2706109.png

Stirner believed that things like governments, economic systems, religions, and morality were spooks. By "spook" he meant that they were abstract and religion-like concepts, that they weren't "real". His views on property can be summarized as "might is right", he didn't recognize property rights (he found them spooky) and regarded everything in the world as his for the taking.
399.png

The Most important part of his thought is the belief that the only path to self-realization is through self-interest. He believed that if you realize the manipulative force that spooks play in your life, you can truly satisfy your own ego. If you shed the spooks of ethics, law, and so forth, what will stop you?

As far as society went, he thought that you should band together with fellow egoists devoted to pursuing individual interest. The government as we know it would be unable to function with nobody recognizing its power, and these unions of egoists would be free to do as they please.
He discerned unions of egoists as different from organizations like governments under the notion that governments are unions of men that serve collective interests, whereas a union of egos could pursue individual interests at a collective gain. He warned that these unions would cease to be what he intended if they became principled, dogmatic, or pressured others into towing the line involuntarily. This would make the unions too spooky.

So, where do you draw the line of of individualism. what do you think of Stirner, Ayn Rand, the people who's individualism is carried to what some people percieve as extreme? Do we owe society anything at all? Do we live life to please ourselves or please others, is there really a difference at all?
 

buffaloWildWings

She rides astride the Beast
kiwifarms.net
I was contemplating whether this thread belongs on deep thoughts or a more shitposting oriented subforum, but I suppose we can try to have a reasoned discussion on the man, the myth, the living meme himself: Max Stirner.
View attachment 150412
Anarchist Max Stirner developed egoism, the edgiest philosophy ever conceived. He rolled with the young hegelians, a group of 19th century philosophers in berlin that included Karl Marx. He was good friends with Friedrich Engels. His philosophy expounded the virtues of self interest, much more so than objectivism, which really put him at odds with Marx. Marx was prompted to write a glorious 500 page cavalcade of sodium-infused ravings about just how awful Stirner was, in his book The German Ideology.
View attachment 150411
Stirner believed that things like governments, economic systems, religions, and morality were spooks. By "spook" he meant that they were abstract and religion-like concepts, that they weren't "real". His views on property can be summarized as "might is right", he didn't recognize property rights (he found them spooky) and regarded everything in the world as his for the taking.
View attachment 150410
The Most important part of his thought is the belief that the only path to self-realization is through self-interest. He believed that if you realize the manipulative force that spooks play in your life, you can truly satisfy your own ego. If you shed the spooks of ethics, law, and so forth, what will stop you?

As far as society went, he thought that you should band together with fellow egoists devoted to pursuing individual interest. The government as we know it would be unable to function with nobody recognizing its power, and these unions of egoists would be free to do as they please.
He discerned unions of egoists as different from organizations like governments under the notion that governments are unions of men that serve collective interests, whereas a union of egos could pursue individual interests at a collective gain. He warned that these unions would cease to be what he intended if they became principled, dogmatic, or pressured others into towing the line involuntarily. This would make the unions too spooky.

So, where do you draw the line of of individualism. what do you think of Stirner, Ayn Rand, the people who's individualism is carried to what some people percieve as extreme? Do we owe society anything at all? Do we live life to please ourselves or please others, is there really a difference at all?

The reason societies made up of selfish backstabbing traitors don't last is because they'll all race to betray their society to the highest bidder.
 

Bassomatic

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I never feel I can put my feelings into words on a subject like this so please don't take my brevity as a lack of care on this but, I think in many ways people like Striner Rand, even Nietzsche look at a very biological and primal aspect of what we are is very important if we agree or not is welcome to debate and a good thing. But The people who opened the door to these concepts really should be respected and thanked for their work even if you disagree with it.
 

polonium

By your genders combined, I am Captain Tumblr
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Collectivism has done far, far more harm than individualism, and that's really an undisputable historical fact. I wouldn't go as far as Max Stirner, because I think if we cooperate through mutual free exchange (free as in free from constraint) then structures that look like government will emerge, and you need to have some rule of mutually-agreed upon morality which will basically form a kind of contract law and property law that governs people's interactions. Think a board of directors that run a company, or a home owners association (although I know that one has a lot of negative connotations). The major advantage these have over the types of governmental structure we have now is that it's completely voluntary. If I don't like the homeowners association, I don't have to live there. If I hate the company, I can change jobs. If I hate the government I really have little recourse to change it other than voting, which I think is pretty pointless because you are only ever shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic - nothing ever changes other than the names of the people sitting at the top table. You have a certain freedom to move from one country to another but since every place is governened in some way by a non-voluntary organisation, it's a bit of a hobson's choice.

That's really my main beef with governments: that you can't opt out of dealing with them, and they reserve for themselves the right to extract money from you with violence and threads of violence, which most sane people would agree is pretty immoral and illegal for everyone else to do.
 

Male Idiot

Das rite!
kiwifarms.net
I think that without some individualism, individuals are not happy. But without collectivism, society cannont function. Balancing them is best but the latter is more important. Society is more important than one person, as Spock put it, the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
 
Top