A huge thanks to Ridge for sending me this wallet and supporting my channel! Here’s the site if you'd be interested in simplifying your pocket game ;) >www.ridge.com/SISYPHUS
Could you give me a link to the exact quote where he says that even if his ideas caused a wars he'd still share them? That honestly sounds based as fuck and I wanna know what exactly he said in his own words.
Drop acid for artistic creativity, coke to power up, smoke dope to calm down during the 30 minute break, smoke some crack to wake back up and finish the paper 40 minutes before the deadline 😎
To everyone suggesting Mainlander, Cioran, Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein, please note that the adjectives "SPOOKIEST, SADDEST, SCARIEST, CREEPIEST, and SEXIEST" are still available for future videos ;)
If anyone's curious about why he abandoned morality and what "spook" means, Stirner lived in the post Enlightenment, when religion was no longer ruling over politics and society, instead it was rational ideals like Truth and Righteousness. Stirner argued that these ideals were just as intellectually rigid and suffocating as religion had been, even if they were created by people for their own freedom. Stirner uses the word _geist_ (meaning "essence" or "spirit") to mean any social construct that 'posseses' us like a ghost and controls our decisions. Imagine crusaders who fought and died on the Pope's orders, then compare that to people dying for their favorite political ideology. Stirner advocates that we see social constructs for the "spooks" that they are; use them as long as they help us, and discard them when they only hurt us. So it's not about selfishness and manipulating other people, but more about stopping ideas from manipulating you.
All ideas are rigidly intellectual to some degree, why? They must be adhered to to make them so. He wrote books about it so it must be rigid if it’s enough to write books
Stirner also believed in empathy and that people will help one another because it's in their self-interest because their empathy compels them to. Yes, he said morality is a spook but mutual aid is not. honestly Sisyphus I think you read a bad translation of his book. He even ironically said "shame to the egoist who thinks only of himself." in literally the first chapter. Another good quote by stirner is "I love men too-not merely individuals, but everyone. But I love them with the consciousness of my egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, it pleases me. I know no 'commandment of love'." Yes, it may sound harsh to some but it's reality. Stirner egoism is also somewhat altruistic if you think about it because he basically saw himself in others and that is why he advocated for mutual aid. I don't believe in altruism. I think people help each other because it's in their self-interest. And just because people are not moral-realist it does not mean they are gonna go out and steal, rape, and kill. Because it is ultimately not in a rational person's self-interest to do so because they don't want their loved ones or themselves to be robbed from, and raped, or killed. Those actions are not in the majority of people's self-interest unless they are a sociopath. I personally liked Stirner's book I found it liberating and I found it had many parallels to Taoism. So, just because morality is a spook that doesn't mean I am gonna fuck my sister or strangle my kids just because I am a moral anti-realist. I would see those actions as displeasing to my ego and I would not want others to do that because I have empathy and it would displease me and if I saw a mother doing that to their child I would want to stop her because I have empathy for every person because I see myself in them. I see myself in everybody so I would not want to hurt myself or my property. At least this is how I interpreted the book but then again that book is basically like a Rorschach painting you will either see a butterfly or a skull it inspired socialists, anarchists, communists, libertarians, and fascists. So depending on your personal unique one will see different things. But overall I think if your not a sociopath reading Stirner won't make you a hedonistic serial killer
Boom! You said it. This is exactly what I take from Stirner’s writings. You also have to consider that 1. A lot of The Unique and It’s Property is tongue-in-cheek and not be taken literally and 2. In his own “philosophy”, you should take the ideas from what he writes in his text and apply them to yourself. To me, it’s basically like a complete brainwash - not in a bad sense - of a text, a mirror to one’s self.
You're mostly correct, but the "shame to the egoist who thinks only of himself." part is obviously sarcastic. What is not supposed to be my affair! Above all, the good cause, then God’s cause, the cause of humanity, of truth, of freedom, of humaneness, of justice; furthermore, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally even the cause of mind and a thousand other causes. Only my own cause is never supposed to be my affair. “Down with the egoist who only thinks of himself!”
yeh dat me, whatcha want? like 3 yrs ago my ex cheated on me, I almost liked myself. a month ago my mom died from cancer, she was the reason why I didn't killed myself, now it's becoming increasingly harder to find reasons to live...
I love Stirner so much, one critique is that Stirner did strive to abolish competition, which is something that’s kind of needed to imagine Stirners union of egoists as Stirners real critique of Marxism wasn’t economic but rather one of the narrative of human nature and what defines the individual as well as their alienation.
Stirner never strived to “Abolish competition” even though he did criticize it “I cannot compete because I do not have the resources to compete”, however he also supported the pursuit of material resources AS LONG as you did not live only for that. Stirner implied that Capitalism, If it serves the Egoist’s gain is fully alright. If you weren’t one-sided, you would use the same thing for socialism, that Stirner strived to nullify socialism aswell, which is also not true. Stirner basically didn’t hate communists nor capitalists, he hated “Sacred” capitalists and communists, capitalists who think they can bear the right to property, but a capitalist strong enough to assert such right is fine, and he hates the sacred communists who believe everyone is by base equal.
why did you have to draw stirner with an angry face all the time? his fellows described him as a very laidback person that never got angry at anything. he didnt take things too seriously, especially not his own "philosophy"
Its because the drawing of him was made from memory by Engels 40 years later. And when we consider that Marx and Engels wrote more about how much they hated Stirners ideas, than Stirner himself actually wrote.
This is a pretty good look over his life! but you do miss a few key points 1. stirner, himself, was anything but a sad man. Sure, his life was incredibly sad, but the Ego and His Own is built off of wordplay, satire and parody, and takes itself as a joke. he was a critical, irreverent, but incredibly light hearted man in the way he does this. especially in his approach toward hegel 2. stirner been confirmed to interact with engels (considering engels' definite crush on him), almost as much so as Marx. marx's abandonment of humanism and approach to other young hegelian thinkers, and eventually the young hegelians in general, was entirely due to the cruelty that Stirner put them through in his work. marx was so embarrased by this fact, that he wrote more than stirner ever wrote into a single book criticising him, but it was so poorly conceived and put together it was never published. this same thing happened with historical materialism, his way of "stirner proofing" his ideology 3. stirners views of the self are heavily inspired by eastern Taoist philosophy. the lack of crystallisation and defintion of the self lines up almost perfectly with the views in the Tao Te Ching, and this wasnt a matter of nihilism, but definitive liberation and 4. the surprising amount of emphasis on love. while his love was selfish, it was mentioned, brought to the forefront and demonstrated frequently. stirner was an odd, strange as hell man. but he was a surprisingly happy one.
100% true, Stirner was a mix of a cynical yet happy loving man that despite all that happened in his life, he loved man and rejected the idea of Man, he loved not because of some otherwordly idea but just because it pleased him to do so
After reading his work, you definitely get a sense of satirical almost comic element that is ironic and in of itself very beautiful…..I can’t help but have a good laugh after finishing the book
As an egoist I ask why I should not condemn a mother who strangled her own child if my righteous condemnation makes me feel good? If rejecting you, the egoist, and embracing people that I feel are of better moral fiber makes me feel powerful and safe isn’t that the right course of action? According to an egoist anyway?
I feel like people think we're advocating for a new morality or code based on egoism...which would defeat the point. If one ego's own sense of right and wrong is enforced by his, or his affinity group's, own will...then it is consistent with egoism
Stirner's philosophy made me joyous. Empowered. I am my own property, as long as I hold my own power and let nobody and no IDEA control me. Even an idea of myself.
Egoism is one of those philosophies to me where context is everything, I can imagine it being a catalyst for someone already anti-social. I actually feel really bad for Stirner, I was also alone with a mentally unstable mother as a child. It does things to you, and Stirner's path of thought seems scarred by that 😢
Stirner seemed a lot happier with his life and self than most people do. I mean I've seen his philosophy help a lot of trans people, and also help some people get out of abusive situations and relationships. So that should probably be a tipoff that he might have been onto something with his whole radical self acceptance and rejection of arbitrary social constructs.
@@sock2828 That's very interesting as my interest in philosophy started from gender issues. Funnily enough I have a friend who told me she had major breakthroughs of self-confidence after finding Ayn Rand's work. She said that it really helped to have an affirmation of individualism written down as a physical object and not just her thoughts. I don't see how it would be any different for Stirner's work, I guess some people naturally gravitate to radical self acceptance and know how to get the most from this philosophy. thnx for the reply :)
My drunk self wants to add: pls read Stirner's Critics, it adds a lot to The Ego and Its Own. Also, at least in some part of the Spanish-speaking world, the phrase "Santa Claus doesn't exist, he's actually our parents" became a meme used to comically discredit anything. So that's more background to my previous comment
damnit same here ...I had so many ejaculations so far, that could result in a Richard, or Jozef, or Margaret ...but they are all put away in a trow away napkin, on the landfill by now :D
I agree with his ultimate idea of egoistic love and underlying premise that all virtues are, in fact, acts of selfishness. Selflessness is the evolution of selfishness, as we are social creatures that depend on the quality of our relationships. Seriously, our relationships determine our health and lifespan. Case in point, the dude died before his deteriorating mother, and she in turn died 3 days later with the loss of her son. Cooperation is in our mutual, collective self-interest. But I largely disagree with the treatment that fulfilling the needs of the self necessitates causing harm to others.
@@bens6559 1. What do you mean by saying that selfishness is the evolution of selfishness? 2. Why do you the idea that fulfilling the needs of self necessitates the harm of others call a treatment?
@@МиљанМирић-о4д selflessness and selfishness is different selflessness is concern more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own. And Selfishness is being concerned excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others. I think what he means is that in love were so selfish we will be selfless for the one that he/she love. We're selfless to the want that we love because we're selfish of her/he we will love the that we like because we like her/he so we're possessive of the one that we love
one of the most interesting philosophers since he maintains a thin line between nihilism and anti nihilism i'm surprised he doesn't have his own school of philosophy
Irregardless I find stirner to be the most logically consistent and perceptive philosopher BY FAR. Ideology, responsibility, and our past selves DO limit our freedom, and I think everyone does act exclusively in their own self interest, even if they are giving their lives
If with every action you ask yourself: does this benefit me? You will find that you will make conventionally moral choices anyway so whatever. Unless you are a total psychopath, but I don't even think Stirner was one himself. My point is: his 'ideology' isn't as destructive as it sounds.
@@el_goblino413 stirner was an anarchist who thought people would come together and freely associate because its the best option for them. Same with morality like you said. Dont fucking kill people cause its bad for everyone. Etc
Stirner's work is his smirk extended to 500 pages. He starts and ends his book saying he bases his affair on nothing, something that would be said between friends at a party. He plays on words, jokes a lot, the point is not to take him seriously.
Describing Stirner's philosophy with phrases like "good" and "should" misses entirely the point of his amoralism. I love your channel but you blew this one.
The question I leave to you is why would Stirner write a book that appears to favour autonomy? If he was truly amoral he would consider conformity to be of equal moral weight (as all values) and hence would find it nonsensical to justify or argue for one value over another. I understand that Stirner himself might consider his work amoral. However, even in a limited sense, Stirner offers normative claims. Here is an argument proposed bu the author of his Stanford Philosophy article: "Morality, on Stirner’s account, involves the positing of obligations to behave in certain fixed ways. As a result, he rejects morality as incompatible with egoism properly understood. However, this rejection of morality is not grounded in the rejection of values as such, but in the affirmation of what might be called non-moral goods. That is, Stirner allows that there are actions and desires which, although not moral in his sense (because they do not involve obligations to others), are nonetheless to be assessed positively. Stirner is clearly committed to the non-nihilistic view that certain kinds of character and modes of behaviour (namely autonomous individuals and actions) are to be valued above all others. His conception of morality is, in this respect, a narrow one, and his rejection of the legitimacy of moral claims is not to be confused with a denial of the propriety of all normative or ethical judgement. " However I do agree that, in hindsight, the terms "good" and "should" are too hyperbolized for what he was suggesting. It's a little difficult to convey that someone is 'hinting at' a certain moral preference.
@@Sisyphus55 I appreciate the response. In truth, I have hoped for you to talk about Stirner since I subscribed but thought it would never happen, and had been interested in your take on Stirner's "amoralism". My understanding of Stirner has always been that all humans behave egoistically and shows this by deconstructing moralistic notions like altruism, adherement to nation or religion as ultimately self-serving. These are "spooks", things humans serve "above" their own self-interests but with the ultimate idea that serving such things will benefit our self interest. The pious man is not pious for its own sake, but because he thinks it will get him into heaven. The altruistic man is not altruistic for its own sake, but because helping others makes him feel good. So it is with many other things, we sell ourselves and each other these lies that we serve these things, the "external egos", the "spooks", for their own sake but in the end it is all in service to our own self interest, our ego. Stirner reckons that rather than serve ourselves indirectly by serving these "external egoisms", we would better service ourselves by being conscious of our own ego and service ourselves directly. If we are all only self-serving egoists anyway in spite of what we normally tell ourselves, why not simply accept this and behave in a way that aligns with our egoistic desires without consideration for the "spooks"? There are transparently egoistic reasons to keep your promises and to help your fellow man. Painting Stirner's philosophy as bloodthirsty or sociopathic misses the point, egoism is humanistic, a self-consistent egoist would consider what impact an action would have on their feelings. Stirner said as much.
I did always find it funny that philosophers will present a view that, say, completely confuses and destroys our common sense world views or paints our existence as comepltely devoid of meaning, but then it always ends on some point of optimism. It's like they need the conclusion to be positive. It might be the case that the genuine truth of the world/human nature is a positive one. But it seems odd to me that almost every single philosopher's stance is ultimately optimistic, when it seems equally likely the truth is pessimistic. We'll just reject a conclusion if it's one that doesn't give personal comfort. Kinda shows how we don't value the truth as much as we think we do.
Honestly Stirner is the most misrepresented philosopher of that age, and isn’t that negative. He just knows bullshit when he sees it, and tells others they could too.
@@philipcollins90 lmao trying to be an edge lord sure, but he also said that love of human beings comes out of the human desire to love comes out of no morality or commandment
I remember first hearing about Stirner from a friend years ago and everyone seemed to hate on his philosophy, but after looking into it I ended up agreeing with most of it, give or take some extremes.
I'm really happy that he got a sponsor. Someone like sisyphus 55 deserved all the support on his content, especially with the persistence and consistency that he have. Proud of the progress!
@@haise12 Yeah. Cioran was much closer to existentialism than anything else. Stirner is the sort of thing psychopaths would subscribe to (as interesting as his philosophy is, mind you).
Wouldn't be hard. Stirner's still pretty obscure in the realm of philosophy, and the only times I've seen his name mentioned by more well known philosophers they spent the entire time dunking on him. He's not really taken seriously
Miserable is probably one of the last adjectives I would choose to describe Stirner. I actually find his philosophy very optimistic, in a way. It gives you a feeling of power sort of like cocaine does. The most miserable philosopher in history would probably be Schopenhauer or someone like that.
It would have been interesting if you mentioned the basis upon which his philosophy is built, as I understand it: an extreme form of nominalism. His use of the word “spook” to describe and dismiss any abstraction would have been nice to include. Otherwise, great video. It’s good that you’re bringing this lesser known philosopher to light.
That is in a way missrepresenting his writing. It is not the abstract quality of an abstraction that makes it a spook. It is that it is an abstract that does not serve one's own interest but is instead planted into one externally. In a way one becomes slave to a construct, instead of that construct being a tool of egoistic self-interest. This does not mean that all that is socially constructed or is abstract is a spook. That's a pretty common missunderstanding of Stirner.
@@FrozenRat161 note the difference between abstract and abstraction. Stirner was a nominalist in the sense that he rejected universals and abstract *objects* as artificial, and as you say, externally imposed. It is this property which makes them “spooks”, imagined, superstition, non-existent.
@@FrozenRat161 Stirner’s critique of Feuerbach for instance, is that the latter takes an *idea* of what humanity is, turns into an ideal of what humanity should aspire to, and thinks that it is any less religious than Christianity. Abstractions are artificial.
Miserable are our tiny lifes, we are. Max Stirner was the first to upstand over moral misery, demolishing the sacre, without any support by concepts or believes: god, Man, Humankind, Good, etc..., but only by courage and personal will. In just a word he has been unique.
stirner rejected morality because he tried to remain as close to materialism as possible. the idea that the world would devolve further into chaos than it currently does is based on the presumption that egoists wouldn’t enact revenge on those who harmed them. so by murdering whoever you want, you risk in turn being murdered in vengeance, which ultimately does not serve your ego. “shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself” is even stated in the first chapter.
@@senpaixd1346 i mean you can say that, but i think it's more accurate to say he was being poetic. stirner is both a rational and psychological egoist, which means he doesn't think it's possible to not think of ourselves. with that in mind, i think that more makes the line read as saying that not all of our immediate desires alienate us.
I've read close to 50 hardcore freud, jung, Schopenhauer, kant, hegel, goethe cos of your little animated videos. Thankyou for the motivation. Even though psychology is depressing, reading depressing stuff makes you feel not alone in this world. Thankyou ❤
I think he has valuable insight on the ego... that is people should understand they do things because it makes them feel good. Having a sacred goal or higher power doesn't make you better than those who don't share your preoccupation
Cody Goble You misunderstand; nobody needs an excuse to act selfishly, they’re already doing so at all times. All actions are taken ultimately to serve the self, as if you did not desire to take an action either you would not take it or it is beyond your control and not a real choice. We simply reject the notion of pretending to do it for any other reason. And plenty of egoists act with empathy: it is a drive and a desire like any other. We however reject morality, which is a just a societal formalization of our natural empathy.
@Maintenance Renegade Guilt needs rationalization. People feel guilty when they are responsible for suffering. That's very zen of u but many people actually do need to rationalize their own suffering, which oftentimes includes guilt.
@Maintenance Renegade nothing you said was incorrect the universe is fundamentally uncaring and arbitrary, but that's still a way to rationalize suffering. Rationalization is an attempt to explain, account for, and provide a rationale for something. Explain to me how your nihilistic thesis is any less of a rationalization of suffering.
That “sketch” by Engel of Sterner is perhaps a masterpiece of art and expression. From this video, that sketch really captured the complicated melancholy of Sterner.
The psychological egoist position isn’t really a moral position at all, it’s a descriptive position. If Stirner believes what he claims to, then everyone else and him are already adhering to this system, and thusly the world he imagines is simply the world we already live. Even in normative egoism, you don’t escape this. The normative egoist under stirner’s ideas is simply the same as any other man. Following his own desires but deluding himself into believing he understands those desires. It’s all the same expressions of selfishness with no distinction. Egoism is honestly just applied hedonism, granted you might miscalculate in your quest to optimize self fulfillment. It seems like stirner doesn’t quite factor in time into his equations out of some sick desire to reject bondage. He doesn’t want himself constrained to even his own promises, but at the end of the day deciding to constrain yourself to things is also an ego decision. If you choose to keep your promise but feel bad, that just means your brain believed breaking it would be even worse. Stirner doesn’t seem to even think out his own ideas fully.
The "dark side" of Stirner's philosophy wouldn't really come to pass. Nobody in their right mind wants to have sex with their sister. This is not something enforced on us by rules, morality, religion, upbringing ,etc. -- the thought of the act itself is displeasing on a fundamental level. Like how it is absolutely not immoral to pick up a piece of dog shit from the ground and eat it, but nobody does it. A fully autonomous person, one who owns themselves, still has the same fundamental natural likes and dislikes as one brought up under a strict moral code, and as such both should agree on fundamental morality, which arises not as a social construct, but from fundamental traits of human cognition. Farther, humans are rational beings who can plan for the future, so an immoral person would still not senselessly hurt others and will fulfill obligations to people whom he can trust to fulfill theirs in turn. In some sense the entirety of human civilisation rests on the fact that nobody goes to Olive Garden, orders a glass of water, and then eats a dozen baskets of free bread. I know you will do what you said, because you know I will do what I said, because I know that you know that I know that you know... that if I don't, you will never trust me again. Religion will still exist, of course. Because people like religion. If I own myself, well I'm free to believe in sky daddy if it lets me sleep at night. And if others like believing in him, well we can form a society. In essence, I feel Stirner is not really saying anything new about human nature and nothing bad will arise from following his philosophy. E.g. I can't tell you not to judge me for killing your brother, because you're free to seek justice which will make you feel better. And a system for enforcing that justice will exist because we all want it. So on and so forth.
You think far too highly of everyday people. You'd be surprised at the number of people who'd fuck their sister if they could, eat their babies if they could. A person raised under a strict moral code more likely suppresses his natural lies and dislikes rather than augment them on any level. In Stirner's world, there is no justice. Only revenge/payback. Nobody is dispensing justice because no wrong has been done; people would just be acting out of anger as they want to.
@baldrobe_dwane for stirner, if you think your sister is hot, do as you please with her, as long as it doesn´t hurt her ego too, because it´s supposed to be a voluntary action. Egoism is consistent in its values, I don´t just want to express my ego as I want, I want me and my fellow individuals to do so
The importance of Stirner's thinking will not be found in 'his philosophy', but in his devastating critique of other philosophies. This opens a window of perception. Where you go from there is up to you.
One of the most fascinating philosophers. Besides the fact he makes Nietzsche look cheerful, there are no portraits of him; only sketches that is now a meme.
I actually really enjoy reading philosophy, and don't find it miserable at all. Actually, I get a pleasure out of the writing-style/structure/word-use of Kant and the German Idealists similar to when I read a poet.
But why should killing give me pleasure? Why should harming another give me pleasure, or justice? Humans are beings with a hunger for justice; this brings about both good and bad on its own, but you cannot erase the history of our species as one who had judged the world; who had assigned value in their own right. Even in myself; the higher my ego, the greater my will, the stronger my sense of honour, justice and dignity, as well as a deep sense of joy and satisfaction with myself because I stay true, I do not muddy myself with others filth any more. My ego is more than me, and yet I become me, every instant is a new beginning; nothingness sparks creativity.
I beg to differ. What I found quite striking when reading Mainländer, "the most radical pessimist of all" (according to Th. Lessing), is that, in spite of his obvious fascination with death, he does not come across as a melancholic, depressed, or "pessimistic" (in the conventional sense, that is) character at all. He has so much enthusiasm for his idea and for philosophy in general, lots of sympathy for the world, and is full of confidence in the development that he predicts. Truly fascinating and inspiring!
@@NoSoulNoToll Ah, yes, Jean Améry (among others, including Cioran and Ligotti) describes Weininger's fate in detail in his wonderful 1978 book. He seemed like a legitimately miserable fellow. Gotta check out his work!
Wow. Nice cherry picking. Max Stirner: I love people because it pleases me. I am happy when others are happy. Trans women are women regardless even without gender confirmation surgeries of the future. Some dude on UA-cam: Stirner was a miserable antisocial shite. Me and other commenters: uh did you actually read Stirner?
He´s got point. I used to think you can not do anything really selfless. I still kind of think that, because it makes you feel good when you are emphatic to help someone and even when no one knows, you can feel good about it, also if it is not a problem to help someone to you it is not even a sacrifice. If you really think about the last "good" thing you did and think about your true motives, you will propably find out it was not purely out of selflesness. Even if it sounds nihilistic and hard to accept, in the end you are nothing but a byproduct of immeasurably complex set of neurons, that may be hard to understand, but still just there because it randomly evolved and there is literaly no meaning to your existence. You are just smart enough to be able to think about it . It is kind of cruel. I wonder how the first humans felt like.
it just boils down to: Helping myself helps others, and helping others helps me. I can’t help but feel that Sterner’s assertion that selflessness serves selfishness is just a pessimistic oversimplification of the complexities of reciprocal behaviors.
So with this knowledge, what will you do? Just flounder meaninglessly like electric pudding piloting a primate skeleton? Seems like a pretty intellectually lazy cop-out, to justify any action whatsoever purely because you possess the knowledge that random collisions eventually lead to the generation of your consciousness and your own self-awareness. If all is determined randomly, is that not the new baseline? If we define everything by the random numbers that generated it, then can we not call what comes after: 'choice'? A good action born purely as rebellion against atheistic futility is nonetheless good. The hungry man eats when you feed him, regardless of whether your motivation was truly righteous or not. Whether he was placed on the street corner you found him on by God or a particle storm, is ultimately irrelevant. Whether neuro-chemicals compel you to feed him, or compel you to ignore him, whether you choose to obey that compulsion or rebel against it, doesn't matter. If all action is defined after the established context of chemicals, then that choice remains a real choice. To say "Morality doesn't truly exist and is nothing but a byproduct of electro-chemical interactions in your brain" is the same as saying "Well, the Sun doesn't truly shine because it's nothing but a byproduct of colliding atoms". If the context of extant chemicals is an ultimate unifying context that precedes all things that exist, then everything that occurs as a result of them also exists and is just as valuable and meaningful.
he's not the most miserable philosopher, he's the only philosopher who can see the world in it's true image, a dark world that is filled with hatred and individualistic monsters. The only way to "succeed" in this world is to become a monster who only cares for himself and his freedom
hey, i just had an idea that you could maybe do a video on some notable black or female philosophers? i have little to no knowledge on philosophy but i love your videos, and i think a lot of people would love to see a video highlighting someone other than a white dude? idk i hope this doesn't come across as preachy
Just like you called Cioran creepy, I don't think Stirner was miserable. He was an extremely cynical egoistical anarchist, but what is wrong with that? He openly said what I think most people would say if they only weren't such total cowards and hypocrites as they are.
One of my favorite fake quotes from Stirner is "you say this is your wallet? Then what is it doing in my hand?" So it seems fitting this video is sponsored by a wallet, to me.
I feel like the most miserable philosopher of all time was Phillip Mainländer, hanging yourself off a pile of your own books seems pretty miserable to me
A huge thanks to Ridge for sending me this wallet and supporting my channel! Here’s the site if you'd be interested in simplifying your pocket game ;) >www.ridge.com/SISYPHUS
now you got a lotta monetization ca$h to put in yer wallet
Not gonna lie I bought one of these when he started advertising and I love it
Congrats on getting sponsored! You deserve it, you’ve made such insightful philosophy videos over the years. Thanks for sharing them with all of us.
Could you give me a link to the exact quote where he says that even if his ideas caused a wars he'd still share them? That honestly sounds based as fuck and I wanna know what exactly he said in his own words.
max stirner wasn't miserable at all lmao, this video is just badly researched at all
The most miserable philosopher is my roommate at 2am hopped up on so many sedatives and stimulants, with a paper due in 4 hours.
lmfao
When the adderal kicks in after a weekend of binge drinking and the papers due monday
Drop acid for artistic creativity, coke to power up, smoke dope to calm down during the 30 minute break, smoke some crack to wake back up and finish the paper 40 minutes before the deadline 😎
@@V.o.i.d.v and then do heroin as a reward
FeelsOkayMan it turns out to be fent and everyone in the class gets a b
To everyone suggesting Mainlander, Cioran, Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein, please note that the adjectives "SPOOKIEST, SADDEST, SCARIEST, CREEPIEST, and SEXIEST" are still available for future videos ;)
What about the ugliest?
@Tipic :'(
@@codguy12
I'm still working on a few texts, don't @me yet
the sexiest philosopher would be @Sisyphus 55
@@Oscar4u69 Kropotkin was obviously the sexiest philosopher
Spooked. Max Stirner could devour my firstborn and if it pleased his ego I'd thank him for it.
Didn't expect you see you here.
Oh man I would love to get vored by max stirner
Thought I'd find jreg much quicker.
notice me senpai
I’m pretty happy my UA-cam algorithm lines up with Jregs
If anyone's curious about why he abandoned morality and what "spook" means,
Stirner lived in the post Enlightenment, when religion was no longer ruling over politics and society, instead it was rational ideals like Truth and Righteousness.
Stirner argued that these ideals were just as intellectually rigid and suffocating as religion had been, even if they were created by people for their own freedom.
Stirner uses the word _geist_ (meaning "essence" or "spirit") to mean any social construct that 'posseses' us like a ghost and controls our decisions. Imagine crusaders who fought and died on the Pope's orders, then compare that to people dying for their favorite political ideology.
Stirner advocates that we see social constructs for the "spooks" that they are; use them as long as they help us, and discard them when they only hurt us.
So it's not about selfishness and manipulating other people, but more about stopping ideas from manipulating you.
All ideas are rigidly intellectual to some degree, why? They must be adhered to to make them so. He wrote books about it so it must be rigid if it’s enough to write books
He was gravely mistaken in that sense
@@whinda4702 ideas are spooks
Thanks, was curious about this
Stirner all he wanted is us questioning philosophy itself.
Stirner also believed in empathy and that people will help one another because it's in their self-interest because their empathy compels them to. Yes, he said morality is a spook but mutual aid is not. honestly Sisyphus I think you read a bad translation of his book. He even ironically said "shame to the egoist who thinks only of himself." in literally the first chapter. Another good quote by stirner is "I love men too-not merely individuals, but everyone. But I love them with the consciousness of my egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, it pleases me. I know no 'commandment of love'."
Yes, it may sound harsh to some but it's reality. Stirner egoism is also somewhat altruistic if you think about it because he basically saw himself in others and that is why he advocated for mutual aid. I don't believe in altruism. I think people help each other because it's in their self-interest. And just because people are not moral-realist it does not mean they are gonna go out and steal, rape, and kill. Because it is ultimately not in a rational person's self-interest to do so because they don't want their loved ones or themselves to be robbed from, and raped, or killed. Those actions are not in the majority of people's self-interest unless they are a sociopath.
I personally liked Stirner's book I found it liberating and I found it had many parallels to Taoism. So, just because morality is a spook that doesn't mean I am gonna fuck my sister or strangle my kids just because I am a moral anti-realist. I would see those actions as displeasing to my ego and I would not want others to do that because I have empathy and it would displease me and if I saw a mother doing that to their child I would want to stop her because I have empathy for every person because I see myself in them. I see myself in everybody so I would not want to hurt myself or my property.
At least this is how I interpreted the book but then again that book is basically like a Rorschach painting you will either see a butterfly or a skull it inspired socialists, anarchists, communists, libertarians, and fascists. So depending on your personal unique one will see different things. But overall I think if your not a sociopath reading Stirner won't make you a hedonistic serial killer
Madverick..
Very well said, and agreeable.
Boom! You said it. This is exactly what I take from Stirner’s writings. You also have to consider that 1. A lot of The Unique and It’s Property is tongue-in-cheek and not be taken literally and 2. In his own “philosophy”, you should take the ideas from what he writes in his text and apply them to yourself. To me, it’s basically like a complete brainwash - not in a bad sense - of a text, a mirror to one’s self.
PIN THIS PLSSS
You're mostly correct, but the "shame to the egoist who thinks only of himself." part is obviously sarcastic.
What is not supposed to be my affair! Above all, the good cause, then God’s cause, the cause of humanity, of truth, of freedom, of humaneness, of justice; furthermore, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally even the cause of mind and a thousand other causes. Only my own cause is never supposed to be my affair. “Down with the egoist who only thinks of himself!”
this dudes whole channel is just vile propaganda, his whole video on NIETZSCHE shows his lack of understanding of the two ideologies
wait so max stirner literally means largest forehead? wow
Stirn size: *M A X*
Literally Max Headroom.
Literal 5head
I just can't get past that he married a woman named Butz. The Forehead-Butz wedding?
You already did Diogenes and Stirner. You just have to do one about the Marquis de Sade to complete the Holy Trinity of Edgelordness.
Ah yes the father of Sadism, definitely would fit.
"ownness"
@chubbyurma The daddy of sadism. Better?
cant really call sade a philosopher moreso a criminal
@@burritowyrm6530 Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive? Lol
Ah yes, unpaid latin teacher, the profession of champions.
Pays as much as real estate for the first year or so.
Quod est sui ipsius exspiravit.
Don't make fun of latin speakers; they know how to cast curses.
@@shodan658 your very nice :)
Et tu Modern Hermeticist?
This is definitely NOT the most miserable philosopher, he didn't kill himself over his own philosophy like Mainländer
was Mainlander miserable or just living in genuin accord with his ideas?
Yeah lol i thought it was gonna be cioran or mainlander
Seems like Mainlander would have went out with peace and understanding, not misery
out with the breeze! Both. Moreso his misery that was already present before creating his philosophy.
Mainländer never struck me as miserable, he struck me as someone who was in tune and in great understanding with the misery of the world.
Stirner was just Engels messing with Marx.
Very true.
What?
Миљан Мирић there is a funny theory that stirner never existed and was a character made by Engels just to piss off Marx
@@Bilboswaggins2077 Wow. Very interesting. I'll think about it
@@Bilboswaggins2077 There's also a theory that Socrates never existed and was a character made by Plato but idk the reason
the most miserable philosopher is some angsty teen whose ex dumped him.
yeah that would suck to be dumped by someone you’re not dating anymore
I thought it was a God fearing man who wouldn't marry the love of his life.
Damn right
yeh dat me, whatcha want?
like 3 yrs ago my ex cheated on me, I almost liked myself. a month ago my mom died from cancer, she was the reason why I didn't killed myself, now it's becoming increasingly harder to find reasons to live...
No its a 40yo virgin subscribed to Black pill
I love Stirner so much, one critique is that Stirner did strive to abolish competition, which is something that’s kind of needed to imagine Stirners union of egoists as Stirners real critique of Marxism wasn’t economic but rather one of the narrative of human nature and what defines the individual as well as their alienation.
Stirner never strived to “Abolish competition” even though he did criticize it “I cannot compete because I do not have the resources to compete”, however he also supported the pursuit of material resources AS LONG as you did not live only for that. Stirner implied that Capitalism, If it serves the Egoist’s gain is fully alright. If you weren’t one-sided, you would use the same thing for socialism, that Stirner strived to nullify socialism aswell, which is also not true. Stirner basically didn’t hate communists nor capitalists, he hated “Sacred” capitalists and communists, capitalists who think they can bear the right to property, but a capitalist strong enough to assert such right is fine, and he hates the sacred communists who believe everyone is by base equal.
Not one mention of spooks. I'm spooked
Clearly Sisyphus is just a spook
A quick high five for the Jreg gang
why did you have to draw stirner with an angry face all the time? his fellows described him as a very laidback person that never got angry at anything. he didnt take things too seriously, especially not his own "philosophy"
Half of the book is satire and dry humor lol
exactly if anyone was angry all the time, it was MARX. he was notoriously bad tempered.
stirner was chill all the time
drawing a philosopher famous for only being depicted as a drawing. Wonder why he did that.
Its because the drawing of him was made from memory by Engels 40 years later. And when we consider that Marx and Engels wrote more about how much they hated Stirners ideas, than Stirner himself actually wrote.
This is a pretty good look over his life! but you do miss a few key points
1. stirner, himself, was anything but a sad man. Sure, his life was incredibly sad, but the Ego and His Own is built off of wordplay, satire and parody, and takes itself as a joke. he was a critical, irreverent, but incredibly light hearted man in the way he does this. especially in his approach toward hegel
2. stirner been confirmed to interact with engels (considering engels' definite crush on him), almost as much so as Marx. marx's abandonment of humanism and approach to other young hegelian thinkers, and eventually the young hegelians in general, was entirely due to the cruelty that Stirner put them through in his work. marx was so embarrased by this fact, that he wrote more than stirner ever wrote into a single book criticising him, but it was so poorly conceived and put together it was never published. this same thing happened with historical materialism, his way of "stirner proofing" his ideology
3. stirners views of the self are heavily inspired by eastern Taoist philosophy. the lack of crystallisation and defintion of the self lines up almost perfectly with the views in the Tao Te Ching, and this wasnt a matter of nihilism, but definitive liberation
and 4. the surprising amount of emphasis on love. while his love was selfish, it was mentioned, brought to the forefront and demonstrated frequently. stirner was an odd, strange as hell man. but he was a surprisingly happy one.
100% true, Stirner was a mix of a cynical yet happy loving man that despite all that happened in his life, he loved man and rejected the idea of Man, he loved not because of some otherwordly idea but just because it pleased him to do so
After reading his work, you definitely get a sense of satirical almost comic element that is ironic and in of itself very beautiful…..I can’t help but have a good laugh after finishing the book
The Young Hegelians seems like the greatest group ever
Mixtape out when
Interesting thought that Marx was part of a fan club for Hegel, and now there are countless groups dedicated to Marx or people he inspired
I love their nu metal album. It's the third one
Would probably make an awesome sitcom
@@Remington-wl7jp cringe: the youtube comment
As an egoist I ask why I should not condemn a mother who strangled her own child if my righteous condemnation makes me feel good?
If rejecting you, the egoist, and embracing people that I feel are of better moral fiber makes me feel powerful and safe isn’t that the right course of action? According to an egoist anyway?
I feel like people think we're advocating for a new morality or code based on egoism...which would defeat the point. If one ego's own sense of right and wrong is enforced by his, or his affinity group's, own will...then it is consistent with egoism
Stirner's philosophy made me joyous. Empowered. I am my own property, as long as I hold my own power and let nobody and no IDEA control me. Even an idea of myself.
@Azure 96 inteligence is for nerds
Same
Based.
When I read this comment I felt euphoric
me too
Egoism is one of those philosophies to me where context is everything, I can imagine it being a catalyst for someone already anti-social. I actually feel really bad for Stirner, I was also alone with a mentally unstable mother as a child. It does things to you, and Stirner's path of thought seems scarred by that 😢
Fucking read the book moron
Stirner seemed a lot happier with his life and self than most people do.
I mean I've seen his philosophy help a lot of trans people, and also help some people get out of abusive situations and relationships. So that should probably be a tipoff that he might have been onto something with his whole radical self acceptance and rejection of arbitrary social constructs.
@@sock2828 That's very interesting as my interest in philosophy started from gender issues. Funnily enough I have a friend who told me she had major breakthroughs of self-confidence after finding Ayn Rand's work. She said that it really helped to have an affirmation of individualism written down as a physical object and not just her thoughts.
I don't see how it would be any different for Stirner's work, I guess some people naturally gravitate to radical self acceptance and know how to get the most from this philosophy. thnx for the reply :)
Parents are spooks
My drunk self wants to add: pls read Stirner's Critics, it adds a lot to The Ego and Its Own.
Also, at least in some part of the Spanish-speaking world, the phrase "Santa Claus doesn't exist, he's actually our parents" became a meme used to comically discredit anything. So that's more background to my previous comment
“But please don’t kill any babies”
Bruh u shoulda said this earlier the deeds already done :o
damnit same here ...I had so many ejaculations so far, that could result in a Richard, or Jozef, or Margaret ...but they are all put away in a trow away napkin, on the landfill by now :D
Too bad, there go my plans for... next evening.
@@wanderingneone take your meds
@@siryizzur ooh yeah, many thanks for reminding me, ...and meanwhile ...pfffrrtt there goes Lisa ...
@@wanderingneone no problem
That view (egoism) is just an acknowledgement of people as they always have been.
It's a reminder
how is he miserable? did you read the book? he seemed extremely happy with himself for the large amount of trolling he was doing
yeah this video is total garbage. Definitely hasn't read him.
@Scott Alleman you clearly haven't read him either.
Missed opportunity to call Stirner the spookiest philosopher of all time.
underrated comment
Stirner's the sort of philosopher whom I hated reading, yet miserably have to agree with.
Why?
Cus it's true
I agree with his ultimate idea of egoistic love and underlying premise that all virtues are, in fact, acts of selfishness. Selflessness is the evolution of selfishness, as we are social creatures that depend on the quality of our relationships. Seriously, our relationships determine our health and lifespan. Case in point, the dude died before his deteriorating mother, and she in turn died 3 days later with the loss of her son. Cooperation is in our mutual, collective self-interest. But I largely disagree with the treatment that fulfilling the needs of the self necessitates causing harm to others.
@@bens6559 1. What do you mean by saying that selfishness is the evolution of selfishness?
2. Why do you the idea that fulfilling the needs of self necessitates the harm of others call a treatment?
@@МиљанМирић-о4д selflessness and selfishness is different selflessness is concern more with the needs and wishes of others than with one's own. And Selfishness is being concerned excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others. I think what he means is that in love were so selfish we will be selfless for the one that he/she love. We're selfless to the want that we love because we're selfish of her/he we will love the that we like because we like her/he so we're possessive of the one that we love
one of the most interesting philosophers since he maintains a thin line between nihilism and anti nihilism i'm surprised he doesn't have his own school of philosophy
I am surprised few can cradle that line. To realize everything is nothing and to still find purpose is cognitive bliss. It's just too perfect.
@@fishsticks8198 isn't what you just described known as absurdism?
@@graemedempster2984 No. I don't know how to further describe it but I know it is not absurdism.
@@fishsticks8198 It's Tao.
It's called Egoism, and it's an off-compass political ideology/philosophy
Irregardless I find stirner to be the most logically consistent and perceptive philosopher BY FAR. Ideology, responsibility, and our past selves DO limit our freedom, and I think everyone does act exclusively in their own self interest, even if they are giving their lives
If with every action you ask yourself: does this benefit me? You will find that you will make conventionally moral choices anyway so whatever. Unless you are a total psychopath, but I don't even think Stirner was one himself. My point is: his 'ideology' isn't as destructive as it sounds.
From what I understand, moral choices give more long term benefits, which might be the reason we developed morality at all.
@@el_goblino413 stirner was an anarchist who thought people would come together and freely associate because its the best option for them.
Same with morality like you said. Dont fucking kill people cause its bad for everyone. Etc
@@markbaker4425 unless you want to replace them.
Stirner wasn’t miserable he was enlightened.
Correction: The most *based* philosopher of all time
The original RedPill base god
@Gum Yun-fat spook spotted
Nani?
Ernst junger is better than this loser imo
based, on what? What is he based on?
Stirner's work is his smirk extended to 500 pages. He starts and ends his book saying he bases his affair on nothing, something that would be said between friends at a party. He plays on words, jokes a lot, the point is not to take him seriously.
Did Stirner answer the question: "Based? Based on what?"
Yeah like, in his works there's a fine line in which he is joking and telling something he really thinks
Yes!🤘 my man got himself sponsored, you've been noticed brother. Keep up the amazing work sisyphus. You get me through with these videos.
When you havent read Stirner.
Describing Stirner's philosophy with phrases like "good" and "should" misses entirely the point of his amoralism. I love your channel but you blew this one.
The question I leave to you is why would Stirner write a book that appears to favour autonomy? If he was truly amoral he would consider conformity to be of equal moral weight (as all values) and hence would find it nonsensical to justify or argue for one value over another. I understand that Stirner himself might consider his work amoral. However, even in a limited sense, Stirner offers normative claims. Here is an argument proposed bu the author of his Stanford Philosophy article:
"Morality, on Stirner’s account, involves the positing of obligations to behave in certain fixed ways. As a result, he rejects morality as incompatible with egoism properly understood. However, this rejection of morality is not grounded in the rejection of values as such, but in the affirmation of what might be called non-moral goods. That is, Stirner allows that there are actions and desires which, although not moral in his sense (because they do not involve obligations to others), are nonetheless to be assessed positively. Stirner is clearly committed to the non-nihilistic view that certain kinds of character and modes of behaviour (namely autonomous individuals and actions) are to be valued above all others. His conception of morality is, in this respect, a narrow one, and his rejection of the legitimacy of moral claims is not to be confused with a denial of the propriety of all normative or ethical judgement. "
However I do agree that, in hindsight, the terms "good" and "should" are too hyperbolized for what he was suggesting. It's a little difficult to convey that someone is 'hinting at' a certain moral preference.
@@Sisyphus55 I appreciate the response. In truth, I have hoped for you to talk about Stirner since I subscribed but thought it would never happen, and had been interested in your take on Stirner's "amoralism".
My understanding of Stirner has always been that all humans behave egoistically and shows this by deconstructing moralistic notions like altruism, adherement to nation or religion as ultimately self-serving. These are "spooks", things humans serve "above" their own self-interests but with the ultimate idea that serving such things will benefit our self interest. The pious man is not pious for its own sake, but because he thinks it will get him into heaven. The altruistic man is not altruistic for its own sake, but because helping others makes him feel good. So it is with many other things, we sell ourselves and each other these lies that we serve these things, the "external egos", the "spooks", for their own sake but in the end it is all in service to our own self interest, our ego.
Stirner reckons that rather than serve ourselves indirectly by serving these "external egoisms", we would better service ourselves by being conscious of our own ego and service ourselves directly. If we are all only self-serving egoists anyway in spite of what we normally tell ourselves, why not simply accept this and behave in a way that aligns with our egoistic desires without consideration for the "spooks"?
There are transparently egoistic reasons to keep your promises and to help your fellow man. Painting Stirner's philosophy as bloodthirsty or sociopathic misses the point, egoism is humanistic, a self-consistent egoist would consider what impact an action would have on their feelings. Stirner said as much.
@@Sisyphus55 Because a world in which more people accept psychological egoism is a world which benefits him.
Funny forehead man
@@waterbird2686 I agree
Imagine living in a time or place where an infected bug bite is a death sentence.
Not that difficult for many
Well, that probably was pretty rare even then. I mean, when was the last time you had a bugbite that got infected?
I did always find it funny that philosophers will present a view that, say, completely confuses and destroys our common sense world views or paints our existence as comepltely devoid of meaning, but then it always ends on some point of optimism. It's like they need the conclusion to be positive. It might be the case that the genuine truth of the world/human nature is a positive one. But it seems odd to me that almost every single philosopher's stance is ultimately optimistic, when it seems equally likely the truth is pessimistic. We'll just reject a conclusion if it's one that doesn't give personal comfort. Kinda shows how we don't value the truth as much as we think we do.
Honestly Stirner is the most misrepresented philosopher of that age, and isn’t that negative. He just knows bullshit when he sees it, and tells others they could too.
Someone said it!!
I see where your coming from but you must admit a lot of his ideals are pretty extreme
@@philipcollins90he just honest and clear sighted
@@mEmory______ didn’t he also say there is no moral implications to killing babies
@@philipcollins90 lmao trying to be an edge lord sure, but he also said that love of human beings comes out of the human desire to love comes out of no morality or commandment
I remember first hearing about Stirner from a friend years ago and everyone seemed to hate on his philosophy, but after looking into it I ended up agreeing with most of it, give or take some extremes.
How the fuck one agrees with stirner?
@@melchid8448 Hint, selfish people.
@@landogarner2007 we all are imo
@@melchid8448 By looking deep inside
@@divelostmind I was expecting some paragraph from Ego and its own and this is somehow worse.
Sacrifical love is is not ruled out because that would be putting life (a spook) over one's own (not a spook).
I'm really happy that he got a sponsor. Someone like sisyphus 55 deserved all the support on his content, especially with the persistence and consistency that he have. Proud of the progress!
I came to this philosophy on my own without even knowing about stirner
Praise my god tier intellect
me too. I googled my theory and here was Stirner
@@bashdavid9223 what did you exactly google?
@@ruthless7879 oh gees that was so long ago I don't even remember anymore. Probably something along the lines of humans are inherently selfish
Same.
You're convincing me that you haven't heard of Emil Cioran yet.
cioran is miserable in a different kind of way
@@haise12 Yeah. Cioran was much closer to existentialism than anything else. Stirner is the sort of thing psychopaths would subscribe to (as interesting as his philosophy is, mind you).
look at video - the scariest philosopher of all time
@@lukeanderson4593 yep. saw that. the comment was before that video was out
@@edosrotogati figured
Title reminds me of anyone who took philosophy as a college course for reasons other than a Job
are the jobs? be honest
If I eventually become a philosopher, I will try to top Stirner.
I choose Diogenes
he might loosen up a bit
Watch this guy around babies
Wouldn't be hard. Stirner's still pretty obscure in the realm of philosophy, and the only times I've seen his name mentioned by more well known philosophers they spent the entire time dunking on him. He's not really taken seriously
These replies make me feel down. Now, I am pretty sure that I will be more miserable than Stirner in the years to come. Thanks guys.
Imagine writing a whole book that Nelson muntz summarized in one sentence... “I’m doing it because I want to not because you told me to!”
UMMM STIRNER REVIVAL MOMENT
Miserable is probably one of the last adjectives I would choose to describe Stirner. I actually find his philosophy very optimistic, in a way. It gives you a feeling of power sort of like cocaine does. The most miserable philosopher in history would probably be Schopenhauer or someone like that.
Well Alan Watts once said that the most important fundamental question is, who am I?
Hey, what a coincidence I came across this. Cos I did a short animation on the lecture How To Get Your Mind Back just a few days ago!
@@mrshumancar Cool video! I checked it out
Alan Watts sounds so much like Stirner sometimes. Mostly because Taoism sounds so much like Stirner sometimes.
alan watts was a fraud
"...in an involuntary egoist..." I would never be able to say that on the first try!
My guy got so pissed at gambling debt he wrote a book on why he doesn’t have to pay it lmfao.
It would have been interesting if you mentioned the basis upon which his philosophy is built, as I understand it: an extreme form of nominalism. His use of the word “spook” to describe and dismiss any abstraction would have been nice to include. Otherwise, great video. It’s good that you’re bringing this lesser known philosopher to light.
That is in a way missrepresenting his writing.
It is not the abstract quality of an abstraction that makes it a spook. It is that it is an abstract that does not serve one's own interest but is instead planted into one externally. In a way one becomes slave to a construct, instead of that construct being a tool of egoistic self-interest.
This does not mean that all that is socially constructed or is abstract is a spook. That's a pretty common missunderstanding of Stirner.
@@FrozenRat161 note the difference between abstract and abstraction. Stirner was a nominalist in the sense that he rejected universals and abstract *objects* as artificial, and as you say, externally imposed. It is this property which makes them “spooks”, imagined, superstition, non-existent.
@@FrozenRat161 Stirner’s critique of Feuerbach for instance, is that the latter takes an *idea* of what humanity is, turns into an ideal of what humanity should aspire to, and thinks that it is any less religious than Christianity. Abstractions are artificial.
@@mysigt_ I think it's characterization as religious had to do with an intersection of things but I am too tired to recall.
You are correct though.
Miserable are our tiny lifes, we are. Max Stirner was the first to upstand over moral misery, demolishing the sacre, without any support by concepts or believes: god, Man, Humankind, Good, etc..., but only by courage and personal will. In just a word he has been unique.
stirner rejected morality because he tried to remain as close to materialism as possible. the idea that the world would devolve further into chaos than it currently does is based on the presumption that egoists wouldn’t enact revenge on those who harmed them. so by murdering whoever you want, you risk in turn being murdered in vengeance, which ultimately does not serve your ego. “shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself” is even stated in the first chapter.
A eye for eye. I see
That line was ironic, it wasn't what he wanted to say.
@@senpaixd1346 i mean you can say that, but i think it's more accurate to say he was being poetic. stirner is both a rational and psychological egoist, which means he doesn't think it's possible to not think of ourselves. with that in mind, i think that more makes the line read as saying that not all of our immediate desires alienate us.
For some reason all of the best videos always come out in the middle of the night in Australia
This video is a gross misrepresentation of Stirner.
“your boos mean nothing I’ve seen what makes you cheer”
I've read close to 50 hardcore freud, jung, Schopenhauer, kant, hegel, goethe cos of your little animated videos. Thankyou for the motivation. Even though psychology is depressing, reading depressing stuff makes you feel not alone in this world. Thankyou ❤
As a german it sounds crazy to me to call anyone "Stirner" as a nickname tbh
Feels like a completely different cultural context to words
Funny forehead man
I do nice things for people all the time purely out of selfish reasons, it makes me happy to see others happy and to be the cause of it
this video is a spook. the ego and its own is a pretty good read
Please make a video on antinatalism and the morality of procreation.
+1
yesssssss
The antinatalism subreddit is so cancer
@@wediscoit1989 eh I like it
@@wediscoit1989 yes. r/trueantinatalists is better
I think he has valuable insight on the ego... that is people should understand they do things because it makes them feel good. Having a sacred goal or higher power doesn't make you better than those who don't share your preoccupation
YOOOO I DIDN’T EXPECT IT TO BE STIRNER HELL YEAH EGOISTS REPRESENT
My reaction was “oh he looks like Stirner lol” then I watch the first 20 seconds, “OH SHIT IT IS STIRNER”
Egoism is just an excuse to act selfishly.
Change my mind.
Cody Goble You misunderstand; nobody needs an excuse to act selfishly, they’re already doing so at all times. All actions are taken ultimately to serve the self, as if you did not desire to take an action either you would not take it or it is beyond your control and not a real choice. We simply reject the notion of pretending to do it for any other reason. And plenty of egoists act with empathy: it is a drive and a desire like any other. We however reject morality, which is a just a societal formalization of our natural empathy.
@@xXRickTrolledXx It's not an excuse. Egoists don't need to make excuses. Everyone acts selfishly. Egoists just admit it.
this video represents egoists badly and is mostly propaganda
The wallet salesman is branching out from music reviews
You must have a pretty limited variety of content Intake if you hadn't already noticed the other 50 branches.
It sounds like stirner took a lot of time to justify or at least rationalize the suffering that he may have been responsible for in others.
@Maintenance Renegade Guilt needs rationalization. People feel guilty when they are responsible for suffering.
That's very zen of u but many people actually do need to rationalize their own suffering, which oftentimes includes guilt.
@Maintenance Renegade that's well and good but it's literally also a rationalization of suffering.
@Maintenance RenegadeJust cause you made it sounds bleak doesn't change the fact that it's a way to rationalize suffering.
@Maintenance Renegade nothing you said was incorrect the universe is fundamentally uncaring and arbitrary, but that's still a way to rationalize suffering.
Rationalization is an attempt to explain, account for, and provide a rationale for something.
Explain to me how your nihilistic thesis is any less of a rationalization of suffering.
@Maintenance Renegade trying to use how? By the dictionary definition?
Stirner always seemed to me very joyful in his integrity, in his owness. I don't understand the idea of presenting him as "miserable".
That “sketch” by Engel of Sterner is perhaps a masterpiece of art and expression. From this video, that sketch really captured the complicated melancholy of Sterner.
Imagine being the sad soul who disliked this
perhaps it was their egoic desire to do so
because this video is badly researched propaganda against stirner
The guy is psuedo intellectual what did you expect? This isn't the only video I'm having issues with.
You were on point when you were referencing the philosopher's published book as a miserable text to get through and read. I felt that.
The psychological egoist position isn’t really a moral position at all, it’s a descriptive position. If Stirner believes what he claims to, then everyone else and him are already adhering to this system, and thusly the world he imagines is simply the world we already live.
Even in normative egoism, you don’t escape this. The normative egoist under stirner’s ideas is simply the same as any other man. Following his own desires but deluding himself into believing he understands those desires. It’s all the same expressions of selfishness with no distinction.
Egoism is honestly just applied hedonism, granted you might miscalculate in your quest to optimize self fulfillment. It seems like stirner doesn’t quite factor in time into his equations out of some sick desire to reject bondage. He doesn’t want himself constrained to even his own promises, but at the end of the day deciding to constrain yourself to things is also an ego decision. If you choose to keep your promise but feel bad, that just means your brain believed breaking it would be even worse. Stirner doesn’t seem to even think out his own ideas fully.
That seems to make sense.
Your videos are always so fun and informative, it makes me so happy when I see you've put out a new one. Thanks for making these
Not the most miserable philosopher of all time, but the most ''Unique'' - thank you Lord Stirner, Keep being ego pilled.
I have never been more proud of a channel getting a spon. You go Sisyphus.
The "dark side" of Stirner's philosophy wouldn't really come to pass. Nobody in their right mind wants to have sex with their sister. This is not something enforced on us by rules, morality, religion, upbringing ,etc. -- the thought of the act itself is displeasing on a fundamental level. Like how it is absolutely not immoral to pick up a piece of dog shit from the ground and eat it, but nobody does it. A fully autonomous person, one who owns themselves, still has the same fundamental natural likes and dislikes as one brought up under a strict moral code, and as such both should agree on fundamental morality, which arises not as a social construct, but from fundamental traits of human cognition. Farther, humans are rational beings who can plan for the future, so an immoral person would still not senselessly hurt others and will fulfill obligations to people whom he can trust to fulfill theirs in turn. In some sense the entirety of human civilisation rests on the fact that nobody goes to Olive Garden, orders a glass of water, and then eats a dozen baskets of free bread. I know you will do what you said, because you know I will do what I said, because I know that you know that I know that you know... that if I don't, you will never trust me again. Religion will still exist, of course. Because people like religion. If I own myself, well I'm free to believe in sky daddy if it lets me sleep at night. And if others like believing in him, well we can form a society. In essence, I feel Stirner is not really saying anything new about human nature and nothing bad will arise from following his philosophy. E.g. I can't tell you not to judge me for killing your brother, because you're free to seek justice which will make you feel better. And a system for enforcing that justice will exist because we all want it. So on and so forth.
You think far too highly of everyday people. You'd be surprised at the number of people who'd fuck their sister if they could, eat their babies if they could. A person raised under a strict moral code more likely suppresses his natural lies and dislikes rather than augment them on any level.
In Stirner's world, there is no justice. Only revenge/payback. Nobody is dispensing justice because no wrong has been done; people would just be acting out of anger as they want to.
bro dont know what it means to he human. ma son gots a anime profile picture talkin bout how people work Lmaoo HAHAahaHa bro u funny
The strict moral code had to be imposed for the person to believe in it, so an autonomous person may or may not get to the same point, I think
@baldrobe_dwane for stirner, if you think your sister is hot, do as you please with her, as long as it doesn´t hurt her ego too, because it´s supposed to be a voluntary action. Egoism is consistent in its values, I don´t just want to express my ego as I want, I want me and my fellow individuals to do so
All I see is one youtuber seething at GIGACHAD stirner
The importance of Stirner's thinking will not be found in 'his philosophy', but in his devastating critique of other philosophies. This opens a window of perception. Where you go from there is up to you.
*STIRNER WAS FAR AHEAD OF HIS TIME. THATS WHY HE DOES NOT GET FAME*
Bro this vid low key plagarized from the Stanford Page about Stirner but still a good vid
I've been looking for something on this topic. The ego and its own is a challenging read.
One of the most fascinating philosophers. Besides the fact he makes Nietzsche look cheerful, there are no portraits of him; only sketches that is now a meme.
"cogito ergo sum one pay me"
I had to pause the video just to laugh for like 10 minutes straight
I actually really enjoy reading philosophy, and don't find it miserable at all. Actually, I get a pleasure out of the writing-style/structure/word-use of Kant and the German Idealists similar to when I read a poet.
But why should killing give me pleasure? Why should harming another give me pleasure, or justice? Humans are beings with a hunger for justice; this brings about both good and bad on its own, but you cannot erase the history of our species as one who had judged the world; who had assigned value in their own right. Even in myself; the higher my ego, the greater my will, the stronger my sense of honour, justice and dignity, as well as a deep sense of joy and satisfaction with myself because I stay true, I do not muddy myself with others filth any more. My ego is more than me, and yet I become me, every instant is a new beginning; nothingness sparks creativity.
Max “hippity hoppity the world is my property” stirner.
Just wanna say that I watch all your videos and appreciate your work man. It's simple, interesting and educative. Hope that you can keep this up.
6:50
Top 10 Anime Plot-twists
The most miserable philosopher
Mainländer: hold my beer
I beg to differ. What I found quite striking when reading Mainländer, "the most radical pessimist of all" (according to Th. Lessing), is that, in spite of his obvious fascination with death, he does not come across as a melancholic, depressed, or "pessimistic" (in the conventional sense, that is) character at all. He has so much enthusiasm for his idea and for philosophy in general, lots of sympathy for the world, and is full of confidence in the development that he predicts. Truly fascinating and inspiring!
@@LennyKing21 as an alternative, there is Otto Weininger, a jewish anti-semite who shot himself in the heart at the age of 23
@@NoSoulNoToll Ah, yes, Jean Améry (among others, including Cioran and Ligotti) describes Weininger's fate in detail in his wonderful 1978 book. He seemed like a legitimately miserable fellow. Gotta check out his work!
@@LennyKing21 there is even a study about him "Hitlers favorite jew"
Fricking love Stirner
Wow. Nice cherry picking.
Max Stirner: I love people because it pleases me. I am happy when others are happy. Trans women are women regardless even without gender confirmation surgeries of the future.
Some dude on UA-cam: Stirner was a miserable antisocial shite.
Me and other commenters: uh did you actually read Stirner?
Someone didn't actually read very much Stirner before making this video. Or much Taoism, for that matter.
I really don't see why people think philosophy is depressing. Literally nothing depressing about it.
He´s got point. I used to think you can not do anything really selfless. I still kind of think that, because it makes you feel good when you are emphatic to help someone and even when no one knows, you can feel good about it, also if it is not a problem to help someone to you it is not even a sacrifice. If you really think about the last "good" thing you did and think about your true motives, you will propably find out it was not purely out of selflesness. Even if it sounds nihilistic and hard to accept, in the end you are nothing but a byproduct of immeasurably complex set of neurons, that may be hard to understand, but still just there because it randomly evolved and there is literaly no meaning to your existence. You are just smart enough to be able to think about it . It is kind of cruel. I wonder how the first humans felt like.
it just boils down to: Helping myself helps others, and helping others helps me.
I can’t help but feel that Sterner’s assertion that selflessness serves selfishness is just a pessimistic oversimplification of the complexities of reciprocal behaviors.
So with this knowledge, what will you do? Just flounder meaninglessly like electric pudding piloting a primate skeleton? Seems like a pretty intellectually lazy cop-out, to justify any action whatsoever purely because you possess the knowledge that random collisions eventually lead to the generation of your consciousness and your own self-awareness. If all is determined randomly, is that not the new baseline? If we define everything by the random numbers that generated it, then can we not call what comes after: 'choice'?
A good action born purely as rebellion against atheistic futility is nonetheless good. The hungry man eats when you feed him, regardless of whether your motivation was truly righteous or not. Whether he was placed on the street corner you found him on by God or a particle storm, is ultimately irrelevant. Whether neuro-chemicals compel you to feed him, or compel you to ignore him, whether you choose to obey that compulsion or rebel against it, doesn't matter. If all action is defined after the established context of chemicals, then that choice remains a real choice.
To say "Morality doesn't truly exist and is nothing but a byproduct of electro-chemical interactions in your brain" is the same as saying "Well, the Sun doesn't truly shine because it's nothing but a byproduct of colliding atoms". If the context of extant chemicals is an ultimate unifying context that precedes all things that exist, then everything that occurs as a result of them also exists and is just as valuable and meaningful.
he's not the most miserable philosopher, he's the only philosopher who can see the world in it's true image, a dark world that is filled with hatred and individualistic monsters. The only way to "succeed" in this world is to become a monster who only cares for himself and his freedom
Never forget the time my boy lent his Stirner book to his buddy who didn't give it back. Can't even be mad that that tbh. xD
hey, i just had an idea that you could maybe do a video on some notable black or female philosophers? i have little to no knowledge on philosophy but i love your videos, and i think a lot of people would love to see a video highlighting someone other than a white dude? idk i hope this doesn't come across as preachy
U know how happy I become when I see a new upload from u ?
Just like you called Cioran creepy, I don't think Stirner was miserable. He was an extremely cynical egoistical anarchist, but what is wrong with that? He openly said what I think most people would say if they only weren't such total cowards and hypocrites as they are.
One of my favorite fake quotes from Stirner is "you say this is your wallet? Then what is it doing in my hand?"
So it seems fitting this video is sponsored by a wallet, to me.
I feel like the most miserable philosopher of all time was Phillip Mainländer, hanging yourself off a pile of your own books seems pretty miserable to me
he kinda went peacefully though
stirner suffered his entire life and died alone a miserable death
this was a really nice video thanks again Sisyphus