Max Stirner - Self and Nothing
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2024
- I am nothing and everything.
I am Patreon: / kanebaker91
0:00 - I am the introduction
0:56 - I am indefinable
4:40 - I am David Hume
9:22 - I am the creative nothing
12:33 - I am interdependence
18:43 - I am the construction of truth
23:44 - I am Indra's net
26:22 - I am self-deception
34:16 - I am without attachment
41:00 - I am perfect in all ways
For a more conventional account of Stirner's ideas, see my previous videos:
Ownness: czcams.com/video/BtDxBjfWoPc/video.html
Anarchy: czcams.com/video/_5qmDOf5SSk/video.html
My preferred translation of the book:
"The One and Only, and All of Its Stuff"
Greetings from Russia. thank you very much for the videos on philosophy. unfortunately, soon youtube will be blocked from us and we will not be able to watch you anymore. Thanks to you, a great interest in analytical philosophy has appeared in Russia. good luck.
I'm sorry to hear that; it's a shame that ordinary people get caught up in these things!
@@KaneB plot twist...he's not ordinary
Ok look I didn't say it was an earth-shattering plot twist a la Usual Suspects or anything.
Ну что, как блокировка? Ах, точно, впн же в Россию тоже заблокирован.
@@the-ancient-history че несешь
@@Ladomir37 это шутка о том, что Ютуб в России всё же не заблокировали.
Thank you so much for this. Stirners ideas have changed my life even after reading Nietzsche and Camus and diving deep into Buddhism. I love that Stirner confronts the concept of self so poignantly. Your communication of his ideas have made them more accessible.
Wake up babe , another video on Max Stirner by Kane B just dropped
My power is my property. My power gives me property. My power am I myself, and through it I am my property. (Max Stirner)
7:55 Stirner responds in “third person” because he is responding to a past version of Stirner and as an egoist Stirner is reconstituting his being at all moments. Therefore, he sees past Stirner as a distinct individual in time and space
Stirner says contracts for this reason can be broken by egoists. “But I in my will, I the creator, should be hindered in my flow and my dissolution. Because I was a fool yesterday I must remain such my life long. So in the state-life I am at best - I might just as well say, at worst - a bondman of myself. Because I was a willer yesterday, I am today without will: yesterday voluntary, today involuntary.
How change it? Only be recognizing no duty, not binding myself nor letting myself be bound. If I have no duty, then I know no law either.
“But they will bind me!” My will nobody can bind, and my disinclination remains free.”
That’s an amazing point. I hadn’t made that connection. I thought it strange that Stirner’s Critics was written in third person but had assumed that Stirner simply responded anonymously and later we discovered it was him. I think your suggestion is much more likely.
@@heffelumpphotoco thanks, Stirner is a fascinatingly misunderstood character in (anti-) philosophy. and I love to discuss him any opportunity I get. I'm not certain if Stirner's Critics was originally published anonymously or if it was attributed; but im certain those people whom the text was responding to were certain this was the "same individual."
@@bob321493 I discovered anarchism through Proudhon but when I started reading theory about a year and a half ago now, it was Stirner whose ideas resonated with me the most. His work fundamentally changed how I view the world and convinced me of the need for an egoistic communism, solely for the benefit of myself and my fellow Uniques, of course. No moral imperatives here. ;)
There is no self, so I have choosen to be nothing. All this endless strive and need seems so pointless. Reach the lowest grounds, descent to deepest depths, leave all behind and see your freedom.
If you take the nihilist route on personal identity, sure egoism isn't very appealing
You say there is no self, i say all you know is your self
Overcoming ego is a very egoistic thing to do, isn't it?
Yes
Yes!
2:57 A miserable little pile of secrets.
That was so good!
a great presentation, thank you
Beautiful work ,Kane B 👍👏 !!! Cheers
I am nothing as named or described or attributed or defined by others because I am unique. I can't be known by others. I am nothing you think I am but not empty as if nonexistant. I can't be categorized by or be made subject to your perceptions and ideas. I don't exist as anything metaphysical or a subject to it. We share nothing in terms of past or future experiences or properties. All things are nothing to me. I am the creative nothing.
took notes during the whole video
Thank you for your work good sir :)
Stirner does sound very Buddhist, in the same sense of no self, non-attachment, nothingness, and seeing things existing only in a relational way i.e. co-arising.
Stirner also sounds a little Wittgensteinian in terms of our concepts and descriptions being merely language games based on conventions (forms of life) and not some objective truth about the world. Our categorizations are mere family resemblances, and not a reflection of some intrinsic essence.
I'm not sure if Stirner was explicitly influenced by Buddhist thought, though he probably would have encountered it. I only realized the connection recently, after reading a bit about Buddhist metaphysics. It's interesting that Stirner, who is often interpreted as defending extreme self-interest, actually has much in common with a view based on non-self and maximum compassion.
@@KaneB think about it
Only someone who is self concious, self reliant and without attachment or assumptions can be truthful and with true love in the heart.
It goes full circle
@@KaneB Max Stirner shares some resonances with Taoist thought as well, actually! In the introduction to The Unique and Its Property, Wolfi Landstreicher talks about this for a paragraph or so (see Stirner, the Wise Guy). Hegel gave lectures on Eastern Philosophy, so the texts were available in German at the time and Stirner likely read some of them. Stirner was compared to early Taoists like Yang-Chou as early as 1906.
@@KaneB Non-self in Buddhism could be interpreted as non-persona which in turn can perhaps be viewed in the same vein as Stirner’s spooks.
The key here is the term ego. In Buddhism, ego can be referred to as social persona, whereas Stirner’s ego is akin to the Buddhist true self or ego shorn of social constructs.
Really dont know how you come to the buddhism conclusion. Stirner was strictly against the work towards nothingness and against the ego, in the contrary everything comes out of the egos.
I'm not an anarchist or anything like that, but I feel a lot of sympathy to Stirner. I read his book out of curiosity after watching your vids on him and I really enjoyed it. It changed my life for the better I think. So thanks for that and keep up the good content :)
It's a really interesting book. His ideas are a lot richer than most people give him credit for, I think.
Like Nietzsche, anarchism is a label that's been posthumously added to Stirner. Reading him, it's quite clear he wasn't an anarchist and would've rejected the label as a conceptual imperative.
@@sylaq1151 I imagine he almost certainly would've had a strong affinity with anarchism regardless of whether he identified with it as a fixed concept.
@@sylaq1151 why would he speak on liberation and social organization without government if he were not an anarchists?
@@StirneriteGoblin As if to say... "why would a dynamic and unique person dare to speak about such things without using my preferred label and higher ideal."
Yikes.
Not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but the creative nothing from which I create myself
Great content!
This was really interesting!
love max
Others forced on me an identity. So who the hell told them to go ahead and do that to me without my consent, eh? No one. How dare they. How dare they. Why didn't they just mind their own damn business, right? What an incredible existential rage it is that has its basis in the unconscious. Oh my God. Oh my God.
Suffice it to say, I would _never_ have wanted to know myself (my "self") under these conditions.
Oh stop being such an edgelord about Stirner.
I'm a misanthrope. That is to say, I would only spite your contempt. 😜
And interesting complement to Stirner's view of the radical underdetermination of self is Amartya Sen's "Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny". Here the idea is that people assume they must embody a singular or hegemonic social identity; and because they assume that, rather than acknowledging embrace any of many available identities, they act violently in a sociocultural context to defend those singular or hegemonic identities.
Nice video
This is one of the best videos that I have ever watched on youtube, so sad that very few people are interested on this topic.
Oi another video on Stirner? This is why i started watching your videoes!
I was a idealistic rationalist before i met stirner. I followed a master because i didn't know that you could be a master yourself. Every idea wants to be served, yet they in turn don't want to serve, why can't i do the same? Gods cause, the nations cause, all causes are nothing to me :^)
Those earlier videos are by far the most popular ones I've made in the last two years. Clearly, Max Stirner videos are my ticket onto the gravy train. Maybe I'll even get a few groupies from this one.
@@KaneB can’t wait to watch it later today!
As a person from a Buddhist country I must say he sounds like a very learned Buddhist thinker. Very interesting. Thanks for the introduction!
Very late in response but yes actually! Stirner, as well as most of the young hegelians (and anti-hegelians like Schopenhauer to a very large degree) were influenced by eastern thought as well as their German tradition. This is why people influenced by stirner (Nietzsche, even if he’d never admit it) and other members of that philosophical sphere at the time make many references to eastern thought or adapt ideas therefrom
@@depressionincorporated6064 I'm honestly not really surprised! Even in Ancient Greece there seems to have been some influence going from either side, and Hegel himself (rather popular among Buddhist leaning philosophers at least historically) was interested in eastern thought as well. But I'm also somewhat cautious about making hasty conclusions (not saying you are making one) as to the extent to which these schools of thought were instrumental in their philosophical development even though the apparent similarities are pretty compelling.
The Tao of Stirner.
Un pote tao ..... Doit éviter de se marier avec une cruche .
Lang spitch french
It would be interesting to relate him with Camu and the development of absurdity. This was one of my favorite videos so far this year.
If I ever get around to reading more on existentialism, I'll bear that in mind.
>> This was one of my favorite videos so far this year
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed the video!
Yeah definitely, the way Camus talks about how constructing one's own "meaning" is really just oppressing oneself even further, his critique of metaphysical freedom, his critique of revolution, etc. are all very Stirner-like.
@@marioksoresalhillick299 he's also been influential to anarchist thought (and especially post left, I believe), much like Stirner. Apparently he even worked with and supported anarchists and syndicalists, from what I can tell.
The "creative nothing" really resonates with me but I have to admit it's hard for me to follow what Stirner says about property and appropriation, especially because these two words tend to have very anthropomorphic connotations.
In contrast, there are plenty of Stirner quotes where he points to animal and plant life as exemplifying ownness. I tend to refer back to these examples as they're a little easier for me to think about. Lacking language and cultural concepts, there's nothing spooky restricting non-human life from exercising its power/will as far as it can except for the raw power/will of other entities. Will is just appearing in the nothingness of consciousness doing what it can to realize itself without regard to concepts.
In the example of a wild dog trying to get a bone, you could imagine a big dog might appropriate its strength as property to take the bone as its own. Or a small dog could try to endear itself to the big dog guarding the bone to swipe it when the opportunity arises. In neither case does the dog see itself as a dog which must adhere to doggish norms.
Your Buddhist jewel-net example is interesting to think about here because I wonder whether a dog even sees itself dualistically as a separate "self" from other dogs/all the contents of its consciousness. Obviously a dog probably sees other dogs as distinct objects or obstacles, but it may not see itself as a distinct self (if anything at all).
On the other hand, maybe dogs are more susceptible to being ruled by their emotions/impulses. In our case, engaging in meditation demonstrably can reduce the sway emotions/impulses have on us. Of course, then you can run into issues of meditation becoming a spooky routine, or of becoming attached to detachment as others have said.
Anyway, props to anyone who read this wall of dog-text ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Stirner is my fuckin guy. I would owe him my life. But I dont owe nobody shit!!
hippy nonsense: We are all one. We are all part of the world.
Stirner: We are all one. We are all my property.
am learning a thing
SPOOKS
SPOOKS EVERYWHERE
REEEEEE
I AM GOD
I wonder if not being attached to anything means one does not value anything? It seems value implies some level of attachment or importance.
I suppose it depends on what we mean by "value". Stirner seems to grant that the egoist will have preferences and desires, even to the extent that she will put effort into acquiring and defending particular things. I'm not sure whether this requires attachment. One point that might work in Stirner's favour here is that it seems that I can take pleasure in experiences, but not be concerned about whether those experiences change. For example, sometimes when I listen to a piece of music, I have no preference about whether it ends after one second or after ten minutes, and I have no preference about whether I ever hear it again. I just take pleasure in what it is, for however long it lasts. Perhaps this is a kind of valuing without attachment.
@@KaneB Yes, one can take pleasure in moments of passive enjoyment without attachment. Mostly however, our lives revolve around putting a lot of effort into modes of survival trying to make our lives more convenient, if not pleasurable. We then tend to then defend our comforts and conveniences. I guess I'm not clear on where Stirner feels putting effort into acquiring comforts and pleasures ends, and attachment to those things begin.
With his starting assumption or premise of "nothing", Stirner seems to be evoking some sort of blank slate, devoid of instincts, reflexes, predispositions, etc. It's a difficult position to defend.
@@squatch545 >> I guess I'm not clear on where Stirner feels putting effort into acquiring comforts and pleasures ends, and attachment to those things begin.
Yeah, I don't think he is clear about that. It also seems like attempting to draw a strict line between those things would not really be in the spirit of his position.
The solution is to be an artist; to love in full liberty.
Ou un pirate ............autre forme d 'expression artistique ............. l'état vole ma vie .....passent notre vie à voler l'état .
AMOR FATI
I SPITCH LANGAGE FRENCH
You should do one on Benjamin Tucker's market socialism. That is an odd concept. It seems to be similar to a sort of mixed-market economics.
Based. Stirner is underrated
What do you think of the relation between Hegel, the ultimate sophist, to Stirner?
Also, just a suggestion, giving a title in each slide helps focus us on the topic.
I know literally nothing about Hegel. I haven't read a word of his work, as far as I recall.
>> Also, just a suggestion, giving a title in each slide helps focus us on the topic.
I'll bear this in mind, thanks for the suggestion.
I only know Hegel insofar as Schopenhauer talking about his "Hegelei" 😂
@@justus4684 You know, it occurs to me that it's not entirely true that I know nothing about Hegel. I do know Bertrand Russell's Hegel joke in "On Denoting"
"Hegel, the ultimate sophist" - i like this title.
@Kane B Knowing nothing about Hegel should be regarded as an asset 😀
@@KaneB Hegel is worth your time for sure. Everyone who's not an ignorant anglo-Saxon will agree.
Would you ever consider doing a vid on Proudhon? Because I think that’d be quite interesting
Yes. I've been planning to do more videos on anarchism, and I want to cover Proudhon as part of that. However, this is something I've had in mind for about two years and I haven't gotten around to it yet. So I can't make any promises about when, if ever, this will be done!
What's said about essence of 'names' in this video remind me of arguments in Philosophical Investigations. Do you consider reading and making a video about Wittgenstein's late era? I think you will really like it.
I don't like Wittgenstein. I do like some of the secondary literature on his work and I have made some videos on that, e.g. Kripkenstein's meaning skepticism: czcams.com/video/vzF-zf4F5yM/video.html
@@KaneB Will check that out thanks.
I still think you may like his late philosophy, especially, after watching your videos on buddhism and philosophical arguments.
Cannot the mutual arising of the body and the internal concious agent which experiences be fit for defining selfhood?
This seems like a superficial concept of the self, in that it presumes there is no nuance to what makes a person herself. It attempts to identify the self with some simple ideas like "rationality" or "the soul" or "the body" and rightly notices problems with these attempts, but this is no reason to reject the entire project. The self is not nothing just because the self happens to be none of the things we've examined so far. If we were serious about defining a person's self, then surely it is not the work of a few words. We are unique not because we are undefinable, but because there is so much nuance to the definition of each of us that a full definition would take a vast number of pages to describe, at the very least starting with a record of our memories.
There are surely some things which we cannot lose without losing ourselves. Obviously we may jettison our hands, but it is not so obvious that our memories can be jettisoned. If we lose our memories then we lose something far more deeply personal than merely our hands, but still perhaps this is not the core of the self since we might accept that a person continues even without her memories, because she still has her desires and fears and the private inner life that no one sees. If we take all of that from her, scramble what she desires and what she fears, re-arrange her whole inner life, and erase all of her memories, then it is fair to say that her self is gone. The self cannot be nothing if the self can be destroyed.
I imagine Stirner would say much the same thing about the memory case. Is any particular memory essential to me? No: I could lose any specific memory, and I would still be me. Is some set of memories essential to me? No, for the same reason; if I lose one memory from a set of memories, then I no longer have the same set of memories. So we haven't identified my essence. Indeed, memory in fact appears to be fairly variable; I lose memories constantly but do not take this as a loss to myself.
I suspect it's true that if we were to completely alter a person's mental states, we would judge that she is a different person. But I think Stirner would see this as expressing a merely pragmatic use of the concepts of person and self. If I make the same changes gradually, over several years, then it's not that one person has been replaced by a new one; it's a single person undergoing what might be normal development. Where we draw the line between "development of one person" and "replacing one person with a new person" is arbitrary -- it's just a matter of what we find most convenient for organizing our social interactions.
@@KaneB : Concern over whether any one particular memory is necessary to the self is suggestive of the Ship of Theseus. Parts of the ship can be removed and replaced, yet the ships retains its identity, because no one part of it is critical to its identity. The same happens to a person as she forgets old memories and records new ones over her life. Of course there is far more to a person's self than just memories, but even if our memories were the entirety of ourselves, the fact that memories come and go while the self remains merely suggests that the concept of the self is more nuanced than a simple collection of memories. It is possible to define "Alice's memories" in a way that doesn't list any particular set of memories, but rather acknowledges that she will lose and gain memories over time. It is not as if Alice is gaining unpredictable random memories over time; we have a clear idea of what things Alice should remember and what she should not, since her memories are limited to what she experiences with her own body.
"If I make the same changes gradually, over several years, then it's not that one person has been replaced by a new one; it's a single person undergoing what might be normal development."
That depends upon how dramatic the changes are. If a person forgets her whole life and has those memories replaced by some entirely different life, even if this happens over the course of years, it would raise questions of whether the person has been replaced. Imagine a barber gradually forgets her life of cutting hair and her family and gradually begins to remember being an astronaut and an astronaut's family, and during the same time her personality gradually changes from being gentle and sociable to being bold and disciplined, and her taste in food and clothing all change. Even if this happened over the span of a decade, it is not clear this can be fairly called normal development. By most people's measures this is bound to look like one person being slowly replaced by another.
"Where we draw the line between 'development of one person' and 'replacing one person with a new person' is arbitrary."
Just because that line is fuzzy, that doesn't mean that the line does not exist. It is like the line between a pile and a hill. There's no clear precise place to draw the line, but that doesn't mean that there is no difference between a pile and a hill. These words are not meaningless, because we can easily have clear examples of each; their definitions just have fuzzy edges, much like how the definition of a person's self should have fuzzy edges. We don't need to abandon the project of defining a concept just because the concept is fuzzy in places.
@@Ansatz66 Im sympathetic to the attempt at finding the «right definition»,
And im sure it has some use to attempt something like that. But the assumption that there has to be a set of symbols corrisponding to «the self» as to encompass the corporeal (as one of stirners english translations puts it) self seems mistaken.
I always read Stirners point as one about «the map is not the territory». Just as "the territory" is a symbol that differenciates itself from the map by being a represtitionb of something «corporeal». The map is merely usefull in its simplicity in relation to the territory, and one could imagine a map encompassing «all macro and micro details» simply being as big as the territory itself, and Therfor one would be traverseing a representation as big as the territory itself inorder to find out any detail. But then one simply buildt a representation of the same thing one attempted to represent.
So if one truely wants a definition of all things that manifests as self, then one simply buildts a copy, with all the same elements within.
«Maybe» the holographic pricnciple in physics can be a solution, i dont know anything about it.
«Maybe» the act of building a copy can give you the knowlage about the self (watch the movie synechdoce new York for a good representation of this, and why such a task must be futile)
But as a pragmatist what i find to be most interesting, is the fact that Even if we give such a list that incompasses the self, the self could reject aspects and turn into a diffrent being at a whim.
Its illusory in that we dont have to follow «all» ouer definitions, we can reject abstractions, but not the corporeal facts about ouerselves.
So there are two aspects : rejecting ouer corporeal components
Thats what i take stirner to be saying.
We can reject ouerselves as being a being with two arms (by losing one) if we so choose, but at any given time we are ouerselves nevertheless.
But not all elements can be lost without losing ouerselves as being themsleves. We can kill ouerselves, but that would constitute ouer last act. This is why being 'corporeal' is diffrent then a 'spook' an abstraction.
Rejecting abstractions about ouerselves is Alot easier, we can change all ouer inner ideas about ourself if we have power over them.
These can be equally hard/impossible for some people as the ones above, but that doesnt mean that one isnt in peinciple able to remove certian definitions about oneself.
Thats what i take to be the case if someone where to define all my abstract parts, i could atleast choose to embrace counter examples just to fuck with the rationalists project. That is within my power.
And then the rationalist project to define me, would be as a fisherman attempting to catch a fish.
Stirner if anything, is the ultimate troll, and probably the best anti-ocd philosopher imo
How would the tree example work with something liveless like a stone? Does a stone have essence?
l've tried to read Stirner's book, but never understood. Which is kind of sad. But alas, (l believe) it was an example of writing style of 1700s and 1800s thinkers.
Yeah, he's not an easy writer to interpret. Part of it is just the style of the writing, where he often expresses his ideas in oblique, metaphorical, or intentionally humorous ways, and this isn't helped by reading a translation. Another problem is that the book is structured in a strange way. He organizes it around a theory of human development -- something that was typical of philosophy of that period, and that he was probably using to mock other philosophers -- but the result of this is that the interesting arguments are scattered somewhat randomly throughout the book. He'll raise an interesting point, drop it, then elaborate on it 50 pages later.
There's also the fact that some of Stirner's ideas are genuinely radical, and there's a tendency to try to box him into views that are more familiar to us. I didn't realize the similarity between Stirner and the Buddhist non-self view on my first reading of him -- which is why that didn't come up at all in my first two videos. It was only after reading more about Buddhism that I saw the connection to some of what Stirner was saying.
Try Wolfi’s new translation. The old translation from 1907 is terrible.
@@ASH-cn7qs I also prefer that translation, but to be honest, I don't find it much easier to interpret than the earlier translation. It's probably more accurate to Stirner's intended meaning though.
Here's Landstreicher's translation, for anyone interested: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-unique-and-its-property
@@KaneB well, I actually think to be able to understand Stirner one needs to be an ”egoist” already.
At last someone who pronouns the name "Stirner" correctly.
he's literally me fr
I am Ashen one.
Hello!, not sure if you will read this, but i was recently reading some texts from Widukind De Ridder (Max stirner: the end of philosophy and political subjectivity), jason mcquinn (critical self theory) and wolfi landstreicher (stirner the wise guy and some other texts) and they seem to believe that stirner "destroys" philosophy, by attacking concepts such as truth, reason, eternity and the use of concepts itself.
I really enjoy philosophy and was thinking about becoming a philosopher after high school, but im afraid that with those writers are right my "profession" will be uselles and illusory.
Not only that but stirners tought has been making me very unhappy, it just doesnt get out of my head and every decision i do i have to think "is this permissible by egoism?", taking my focus away and making me doubt the validity of my daily actions (such as being kind to my mother for example).
I just wanted to know if you have any advice for me on how to live happyly and getting egoism out of my head.
P.S: sry for bad english, its not my first language :)
It's worth keeping in mind that Stirner was just one guy -- a guy who had a lot of interesting ideas, but these ideas are open to challenge just like any other ideas. It would be quite surprising if he were right about everything, and if this entailed the complete demolition of philosophy as a discipline. I enjoy what I've read of McQuinn and Landstreicher, but I feel that their defenses of Stirner are somewhat overstated. Don't treat Stirner as an idol. For one thing, that's hardly in the spirit of Stirner's own attitude!
>> it just doesnt get out of my head and every decision i do i have to think "is this permissible by egoism?"
Well, Stirner's view is that there are no moral obligations whatsoever. Nothing is permissible or impermissible by Stirner's egoism.
>> I just wanted to know if you have any advice for me on how to live happyly and getting egoism out of my head.
Unfortunately, I can't give any advice about how to live happily. I don't know how to do that. As for getting egoism out of your head, there are a couple of things you might do. One option is to stop reading philosophy related to this and instead focus on more practical activities. Go out, meet people, do sports, join a chess club, play music... there are lots of activities which do not lend themselves to philosophical reflection. When I'm focusing on how to checkmate an opponent, I'm not thinking about concepts of truth, reason, morality, etc. David Hume famously said that whenever he had philosophical doubts, going out and playing billiards with his friends would immediately make the doubts disappear. A second option is to read more philosophy, particularly ethics and philosophy of mind. As you learn more about different approaches to morality and the self, you might see problems with Stirnerite egoism, and perhaps you'll decide that it should be rejected.
Well, thank you! I plan to study more psychology and neuroscience to answer the question of how to live a happy life.
Just wanted to say that i think i finally came to terms with stirner, and i realised that his ideas were not the cause of my unhapinnes, it just happened that i became re-interested in his ideas during this period of unhappines and that they might have aggravated it a bit.
I would say i have always been a pretty happy person, so this out of nowhere unhappines came as a surprise to me, im considering seeing a therapist to figure out what's wrong.
Anyway, thank you for the advice and have a good night!
I recommend reading sartre and camus idk honestly philosophy is a brain worm so just try to move on
“I am the introduction”💀
Speaking in the third person was common in Germany at the time.
Basically, he is saying that the self is not answerable to anything external, to any normative standards. Whether empirical norms or moral norms.
Such norms are freedom-curtailing "spooks".
This may be a liberating doctrine. But it is also the mental modus operandi of the psychopath. It's all about me, I have no duties, and "truth" and "morality" only have pragmatic value.
Whether you're aware of it or not, it doesn't change the fact that you're not answerable to any norms. A psychopath is someone who's aware but also finds no joy in being concerned about others, while you can be an egoist (like myself) that is full of love for others because it is through their happiness and well-being that I am made happy as well
I have a similar take on the unique but little bit different. I think the unique is a phrase that means nothing or means more than it must have. I think the unique is just a place holder for Johann Schmidt, or for john smith or you (the guy who made the video). It is just a name, but since it is not a name in the language but it seems like an abstract it makes us read too much in it. The unique is the wrong word, or it just reveals a shortcoming of our language.
NORMAL QUE TA COMPRÉHENSION SOIT DIFFÉRENTE PUISQUE CHACUN EST UNIQUE .
AMOR FATI
I SPITCH LANGAGE FRENCH
I have to disagree. The self is a partial mapping from an independent variable that I will call time (although time* works just as well) to the 'set' of instantaneous kinds (kinds that exist for a vanishingly small time). Notice that in calling the self a partial mapping or partial function I declare that the self is univalent, aka there is only ever one instantaneous kind indicated by the self at any given time. Furthermore I can say that this partial function is continuos the self does not cease to exist and then exist again and the self remains the same from one instant to the next that is to say as the temporal distance between kinds vanishes the instantaneous kinds become equal
All of this is to say that I have no reason to say that only instantaneous kinds exist. There exist persistent kinds that exist within an interval of time. What's more the self may have other properties for instance p_self can be a function that describes the position of all the fiscal constituent parts of the self. New constituent parts may be lost or gained but all the same p_self would still be a persistent kind. Another function could be the mentalState_self that is persisten kind that returns the consist of the mental states of the self. Etc.
This means we can have a pretty clear idea of what a self and it's properties are. About time* I am unwilling to assume that time is 'real' or if it is that I know what it is. But using meta-skeptical definition of time we may obtain that independent variable that a persistent kind exist between.
By “essence” does he mean consciousness or what?
I can’t grasp this idea since he is refusing both mind and body ,so what is it?
It is a very interesting concept, but it seems to me that our biology makes impossível for us to really not have any attachments.
Besides, if you try to stop having attachments aren't you attached to the goal of stoping having attachments?
I have actually spoken to people who claim to have no attachments. See the conversation I had on Zen with Unknown Knowns Philosophy.
>> Besides, if you try to stop having attachments aren't you attached to the goal of stoping having attachments?
Yes, I think. The key here is, somewhat paradoxically, you can only achieve the total loss of attachment by not trying to give up all attachment. It's perhaps similar to the "paradox of happiness" -- if you strive for happiness directly, you probably won't achieve it; the way to achieve happiness is to forget about happiness and focus on other goals.
I know that the attachments thing comes from the Buddhist connection in Stirner’s work, but I don’t think Stirner is actually against having connections. He talks at length about the joy of cooperation and loving others. What he’s against is allowing these connections to escape our grasp and take hold over us, rather than be used by us.
Il veut signifier '' attachements toxique ou imposés .''. Qui attachent ........quoi .....qui font tâche .
AMOR FATI
I SPITCH LANGAGE FRENCH
Alot of this just sounds like the buddhist concept of emptiness
How do you think Stirner would respond to the impersonal total principle of Parfit?
Stirner rejects all moral systems and all concepts of duty and obligation. Beyond that, I doubt he would have much to say about it. See my previous video on his account of "ownness": czcams.com/video/BtDxBjfWoPc/video.html
But if I am nothing, and can be anything, how can I be my property? Maybe I am only the act of appropriation.
I personally relate concept of Stirner Self and Nothing and his Creative nothing to Dasein of Heidegger.
Also very simillar to Jung!
I once pick up "the unique and its property", after few pages I dismissed it as a sort of satire on continental philosophy. Was I completely wrong?
Yes
SI TU N'AIMES PAS LA LIBERTÉ ET QUE TU ES MASOCHISTE......... STIRNER N'EST PAS POUR TOI
AMOR FATI
I SPITCH LANGAGE FRENCH
Can someone translate this video to Arabic.
Long live Max Stirner
You can use the auto-translate feature. Click the gear wheel in the lower, right corner, then go to auto-translate and select Arabic.
Could you also include critique of the featured philosophers?
Well... the video's done now. So no. Anyway, with Stirner, I'm more interested in figuring out what the fuck he's talking about than in exploring criticisms. If you're interested in criticisms of this kind of view of the self, see my video on nihilism about personal identity: czcams.com/video/wKwVxI9F_Ig/video.html
@@KaneB I will gladly go see more of others thoughts on the subject, thank you.
source?
Our genetics and biological traits persist over time. What is this dismissal of corporeal realness?
I left no like, no subscribe, and no comment, to benefit no algorithm, for I am nothing.
Hhh
Also, it's not property: it's possession. Property is a normative concept that assumes social regulation of title. That is not what Stirner means!
So property is a spook then?
What the fuck
Lol, what prompted that response?
@@KaneB Stirner sounds like my stoner friend who talks about new-age bullshit. Like exactly.
@@Alex.G.Harper Haha. Is your friend a Buddhist?
@@KaneB he says he is
@@Alex.G.Harper That explains the similarity, then. This video is basically "Stirner as Buddhist". It's an idiosyncratic interpretation but one that I think is pretty well supported by the text.
It sounds so pretentious to me I can't take it seriously. Like the answer to any "who am i" question is a simple declaration of your own limitations, either natural or by choice. The whole discourse sounds like Stirner refuses to accept his own limitations and builds a giant philosophical-ish sand castle to support that decision. OR I'm not smart enough to understand what it's all about
How would you deal with the historicism which seems to be absolutely outdated in perception that Stirner presents? Such bad takes that made me have almost completely lose my sympathy for the man.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
@@KaneB When Stirner talks about the progression of the search to know what is beyond things, from the ancients to the christians to the moderns in a historicist way.
@@anothername5272 In his introduction to "The Unique and Its Property", Landstreicher argues, I think fairly persuasively, that Stirner's account of human development wasn't a serious expression of his own views, but was instead intended to mock the progressivist views of philosophers like Hegel and Feuerbach.
@@KaneB I heard this argument, yet never found a basis for it. Where exactly does Landstreicher argue it?
@@anothername5272 I just said -- in his introduction to "The Unique and Its Property". Specifically, the section "Stirner, the Wise Guy".
I don't understand, why would you try to describe yourself as one thing? When you say you're of a property, how is it not automatically assumed that property is but one aspect of YOU? We are humans, comprised of orders of living organisms which all together fight the current of entropy while rapidly approaching it. We posess duality. It would be nonsensical to expect a singular idea which is all encompassing of a character, but that doesn't then logically follow that people are nothing. Perhaps it's meant as saying we are blank canvasses? But no one lives very long without scoring some different paints. It should be obvious instead that we're all many somethings.
Really useless info
I am nothing as named or described or attributed or defined by others because I am unique. I can't be known or named by others. I am nothing you think I am but not empty as if nonexistant. I can't be categorized by or be made subject to your perceptions and ideas. I don't exist as anything metaphysical or a subject to it. We share nothing in terms of past or future experiences or properties. All things are nothing to me. I am the creative nothing.