Genuine Opinions of Max Stirner?

Spook.

No, i haven’t read him and I don’t care to. He’s a faggot and I hate him

>The Origins of Modern Science"

who wrote that?

He's an Amoralist (moral nihilist), meaning 'rejection of all moral norms'. The root for that was already laid out by the Greek Sophists and strangely enough by Lao-Tse. Later Machiavelli and the Marquis de Sade eloborated on that idea (virtues lead to unhappiness, vices lead to happiness --> also see hedonism). Then came Stirner, whose idea was that internal impulse regulation via what Freud later called the Über-Ich (super-ego) and which society dictates to the individual via traditional social norms is the root of all evil). Then came Nietzsche who described traditional judeo-Christian- but also humanistic- morality as slave-morality for the weak (those people who are mainly concerned about what OTHER people think about them), out of which the Über-Mensch has to grow out and create his own morality/values in order to embody a master-morality. They are against guilt, shame, sin, honor, duty, solidarity, karma, conscience,... and see they goals as be all and end all.
An interesting figure in today's context is the Saudi neuroscientist and philosopher Nayef Al-Rodhan, who describes human nature as a state of amoral egoism.
Again, the most important point is that these people, like Stirner, reject the idea of what Freud later called the Super-ego (the traditional values that tell you what to do and what not to do via societal norms).

R.M. Hare's non-cognitive Meta-ethics is also interesting in that context because he credits amoralist absolute logical consistency.

Herbert Butterfield.

>The root for that was already laid out by the Greek Sophists and strangely enough by Lao-Tse. Later Machiavelli and the Marquis de Sade eloborated on that idea (virtues lead to unhappiness, vices lead to happiness --> also see hedonism). Then came Stirner, whose idea was that internal impulse regulation via what Freud later

good rundown kraut, but I woldnt put nietzsche on the list, he had qualties and wasnt just a post-pubertal fag like the others. pic rel

also add sartre on the list, all had commie sympathies btw. leftypol basically.

Attached: noir1533219912428.png (1188x1188, 1.18M)

>Herbert Butterfield

was origins of science a good read? I recommend Feyerabends Against Method. A trully underestimated ourguy that exposed the memery of fck love science years ago.

Attached: science1525368596444.jpg (2048x1334, 381K)

It was a good read, a bit dry at times but overall good. I'll consider your suggestion but, as I have said before, my reading backlog is already massive.

Any person who managed to cause massive anal haemorrhaging in Karl Marx is OK in my book.

Well, Nietzsche was more about creating one's own values, which makes him more sophisticated (pun indented) tan Stirner for example, Marquis de Sade was the most perverted but also the most consistent amoralist.
What they had all in common was their rejection of traditional social norms that society (generations of OTHER people) created and most people blindly followed, even if it is to their detriment.

A demonologist transcended mongolist professor and Geist activist was flying a plane, known CIA.

"Before the flight begins, you must get on your knees and worship the end of history and accept that Absolute Idealism is the most highly-evolved sophism to make us feel good about ourselves the continent has ever known, even greater than self-serving petit-bourgeois protestant theology right after I file this flight plan with the Agency!"

At this moment an uncaring if he was brave because being judged by illusionary social standards was of no importance to him, egoist, unique girl's school teacher who had smoked more than 15000 cigars in Hippel's winebar and understood the spookiness of all ideology and supported whatever he felt like stood up and held up "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum".

"You're a big guy."

The arrogant Bane smirked synthetically and smugly replied "Only in relation to you, I'm not big at all, decadent egoist, its the stern, reluctant working of reason towards the full realization of itself in perfect freedom which makes the fire rise!"

"It's been a few years (time is nothing) since I, Bane, created it. if it was not mine, and idealism, as you say, is not a spook...for if I pulled off the mask of reason and embraced insanity, you'd know that if I removed your mask it would be extremely painful."

CIA was visibly shaken, and dropped his copy of Plato's dialogues.

The mercenaries applauded and all started milk shops that day and accepted their Self-Enjoyment as the end of philosophy. An eagle named "Union of Egoists" flew into the room and perched atop the copy of "Stirner's Critics" and shed a beer on the hardcover. "Ich hab' Mein Sach' auf Nichts gestell" was said several times, and Renzo Novatore himself showed up and demonstrated how hand grenades are nothing but a means of killing police officers.

CIA lost his flight plan and the plane was crashed with no survivors that very day, his flight plan was disregarded for all eternity.

>virtues lead to unhappiness
Tell that to these old Boomers here in the US who burned through four marriages, four houses, and they are the most miserable, lonely, saddest fucks you've ever seen. "I got divorced when my kids were in grade school and I haven't left them anything. Not one successful marriage. Wahhh wahh why does no one call me or check up on me? Where's the family reunion? Waaahhhh"

Giving in to vice may provide immediate pleasures, but will prevent you from being fulfilled long term. Society has the moral order it has in place for a reason. De Sade's or Stirner's ethos does not provide for a functioning civilization. There have been many civilizations throughout history that have given in to vice and decadence, and they petered out, deteriorated, declined, collapsed, to be replaced by the stronger men with the stronger moral code.

>What they had all in common was their rejection of traditional social norms

those faggots when way beyond that that - words like satanism, crowley magic come in mind when you look at their narcissim and destructiveness which is very different than that of Nietzsche.

they often pose with ciggies in bw photos

Attached: kerouac_ciggies_le sophisticated existance much think.jpg (450x275, 13K)

I didn't say I was in favor of that way of thinking.
An amoralist for example wouldn't get divorced for example because he wouldn't get married in the first place. It's also interesting that a lot of these amoralists died rather young.

Might want to read this, there are a lot of 'Satanists' that like to use Nitzsche's philosophy.
Nitzsche is still one of the greatest philosophers of all time and was definitely not a Satanist, but you can't deny that you can use his philosophy to destroy judeo-christian morality, that's what he did.

won't let me post link, sorry

>but you can't deny that you can use his philosophy to destroy judeo-christian morality, that's what he did.

no doubt about it. But when leftists use him, the always use him selectivly, his critique of christiantiy is pleb tier and christiantiy did lead to strengh.

But he differs from previously mentioned since you can hear his unhappiness about where did his conclussions went. Rest were just kill kill kill, destroy, Nietzsche had a different spice. Still a nihilist doe.

No, just conversation. I didn't intent to imply those were your positions, I was simply attacking the positions.

It's just like with the post-structuralists and all that critical theory BS that started in the 60s. It's very easy to destroy, but not so easy to create. You can chip away at civilization, a moral order, it's easy to find chinks in the armor and contradiction, but what are you replacing it with? They never had any replacement for Western Civilization. But I'm sure chipping away at it made them feel super smart.

His notions of spooks was a heavy influence on Jung, who would later write (paraphrased):
>the history of a people is not written in ink, but in their blood
We are creatures built for survival and everything else, religion, politics, etc, is all just memes.
While Stirner was a bit of a pompous YOLO type nihilist, he was a brilliant thinker.

opinions are spooks

Max Stirner and Stirnerism is a spook

>Still a nihilist doe.
Not this again, NIETZSCHE WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF NIHILISM !!!!

>It's just like with the post-structuralists and all that critical theory BS that started in the 60s. It's very easy to destroy, but not so easy to create. You can chip away at civilization, a moral order, it's easy to find chinks in the armor and contradiction, but what are you replacing it with? They never had any replacement for Western Civilization. But I'm sure chipping away at it made them feel super smart.
This. 100%. There were lots of these kind of people in the 60s student movement, just look at that HIV-faggot Foucault.

>Catcher in the Rye
Im going to read that book per school orders

Foucault was quoted as saying if he won the lottery, he would set up sado-masochistic suicide orgies for willing participants.

This is the heart and spirit of a man so esteemed in late 20th century Western academia. Little wonder how everything went to such shit so quickly.

sauce for quote, need it for my folder.

A sick, sick man. Should have been snuffed by his mother in the crib.
ericlinuskaplan.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/michel-foucaults-suicide-orgies-how-much-sincerity-do-we-want-from-thinkers/

"Throughout his life, Foucault mutilated his body both actively through self inflicted violence and also passively through self neglect. His obsession with self mutilation eventually led to his brief hospitalization in a facility for the mentally ill which, in turn, led to his fascination with madness and his later work on the subject. Foucault, however, never wrote about self-mutilation. This omission is curious considering that Foucault wrote extensively about suicide and self-care. This paper uses a Foucauldian lens to examine the production of power at the intersections of pain and pleasure, the intersections of public and private, and the intersections of health and disease in the medical discourse about self-mutilation. Though Foucault was silent on the topic of his own self-mutilation and self-mutilation in general, his work provides a valuable vocabulary for an examination of the phenomenon. Following Foucault, this paper argues that the body stands in for the social system; therefore, the skin is invested with a special sign-value. Self-mutilation, the deliberate cutting or burning of ones own skin, poses a significant threat to the symbolic order and must be contained. This paper argues that in the case of self-mutilation, medicine deploys several strategies to contain it. An examination of the discourses surrounding self-mutilation reveals three pervasive strategies of medicalization: the act of naming, the ritual of confession, and the imposition of rationality."

based and redpilled

Attached: 1459300412964-4.jpg (1200x1080, 292K)