Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Max Stirner
#11
[Image: https://pics.onsizzle.com/but-werent-nie...857054.png]
Nietzche critiqued Christianity; Stirner complemented it.

Nietzsche described perfectly the condition of the [Jewish] common man: altruism/selflessness/superego. Marx described the essence of the [Jewish] mercantile class: greed/self-interest/egoism.
Reply
#12
(Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:17:14 +0000, 09:17 AM)KyXen Wrote: I think the chapter on Stirner in the German Ideology is just as much a statement on the egoism of St Paul and the corruption of the teachings of "Jesus" as the theory of St Max; and for that reason alone I love it.

I'm sorry, you seem to have confused me with someone who actually cares what you think.
Reply
#13
(Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:42:14 +0000, 03:42 PM)Matt Wrote: What is it about egoism that you find so objectionable?
I'm not interested in any normative position. Stirner writes that the egoist does this and that, and avoids this and that—I'm not interested. And I don't know why someone who so obviously understands the problem with the normative function of ideas so blithely engages with them. At least when Hume was spouting nonsense, he usually kept it in the descriptive realm.

For this, Stirner would probably balk and call me an "involuntary egoist". Stirnerites—amusingly—tend to assume, as leftists do, that everyone who disagrees, are just too thick to understand. (I am not accusing you of being this kind of Stirnerite, but it is a tendency I have noted with some amusement.) But I have yet to read anything that makes me interested in egoism any more than any other -ism.
Reply
#14
(Mon, 27 Nov 2017 14:51:25 +0000, 02:51 PM)alexander Wrote:
(Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:42:14 +0000, 03:42 PM)Matt Wrote: What is it about egoism that you find so objectionable?
I'm not interested in any normative position. Stirner writes that the egoist does this and that, and avoids this and that—I'm not interested. And I don't know why someone who so obviously understands the problem with the normative function of ideas so blithely engages with them. At least when Hume was spouting nonsense, he usually kept it in the descriptive realm.

For this, Stirner would probably balk and call me an "involuntary egoist". Stirnerites—amusingly—tend to assume, as leftists do, that everyone who disagrees, are just too thick to understand. (I am not accusing you of being this kind of Stirnerite, but it is a tendency I have noted with some amusement.) But I have yet to read anything that makes me interested in egoism any more than any other -ism.

Then I guess you could call me a non-normative Stirnerite. I agree that there are lots of egoists out there who have a sloppy understanding of what Stirner was getting at when he spoke of "Ego." I also tend to think that Stirner was often his own worst enemy in those times when he himself falls into the trap of treating "Ego" as yet another spook. However, I also think that the concept of the "creative nothing," when tweaked a little bit with the aid of folks like Deleuze and Simondon, opens the possibility of an alternate reading of Stirner that doesn't fall into this trap.
Reply
#15
Matt:

Quote:I'm sorry, you seem to have confused me with someone who actually cares what you think.

I wasn't addressing you with my comment. Your ego deludes you.
Reply
#16
KyXen Wrote:I wasn't addressing you with my comment. Your ego deludes you.

I said:

"Like most people who don't understand Stirner, he [Marx] makes the fatal mistake of assuming that the 'Ego' is just a more narcissistic version of the Cartesian Cogito."

To which you replied:

"Marx's 'fatal mistake'. In what sense was his 'misinterpretation' fatal? Fatal to whom or what?"

So, yes, you were addressing me.
Reply
#17
(Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:45:30 +0000, 03:45 PM)Matt Wrote:
KyXen Wrote:I wasn't addressing you with my comment. Your ego deludes you.

I said:

"Like most people who don't understand Stirner, he [Marx] makes the fatal mistake of assuming that the 'Ego' is just a more narcissistic version of the Cartesian Cogito."

To which you replied:

"Marx's 'fatal mistake'. In what sense was his 'misinterpretation' fatal? Fatal to whom or what?"

So, yes, you were addressing me.

Mine was a rhetorical question, which I answered myself:

"Fatal to whom or what? It has not been fatal to the theorists of Stirner who live even after his death..."
Reply
#18
KyXen Wrote:Mine was a rhetorical question, which I answered myself...

Oh. Okay then. I guess the rhetoricalness of your question wasn't adequately conveyed by the pixels on my computer screen. Silly me.
Reply
#19
Ho ho ho
Reply
#20
(Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:03:05 +0000, 10:03 PM)Zhachev Wrote: Alex is right about -isms.

Oh, for sure. I'm not disputing that. As much as a lot of what Stirner had to say resonates with me and I think his ideas are needlessly demonized within the anarchist milieu, I don't feel the need to cling to the label of "egoism" like some sort of life raft.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)