That and Good and evil are just meaningless emotionally driven terms that very from culture to culture. would you agree or am I missing anything in this analysis just want to know your thoughts
The fuck do you wanna know my thoughts lol. I'm hardly a scholar. But yeah, as far as I see it you're right. Not only are the terms good an evil subjective, they are easily used by rulers to control a population. To Max it did not matter whether or not something was 'good' or 'evil' anyway. If you want to do it, then you do it. Unless you're doing it to further the goals of a formless thought. Then you're being haunted by a spook.
I completely agree. also You seemed well educated to know enough to philosophize So sorry I just wanted to here your perspective on the Concept of Moral good or evil and see if I can here a new or interesting view point on the subject. (in hindsight Ive realy got to stop over explaining my intentions it just sounds akward in retrospect Holly fuck!! Im doing it now! shit)
1. The most often misudnerstood aspect of Stirner - people think he's for ethical egoism; What he's for is more like amoralism - he doesn't advocate behaving in yourself's interest because that's the right thing to do, he advocates not doing anything because it's the right thing to do. 2. As for the part about people being good, etc - it's not so much that people are inherently "good" (I'm not sure Stirner would even use that word), it's that people ultimately have more common interests than conflicted ones and can come together to act in their sake ('union of egoists'). 3. As for whether Stirner is an anarchist or not - I concede that calling Stirner an Anarchist is anachronistic because he didn't belong in any of the anarchist tendencies that existed then. But if he lived today, sure, I'd call him an anarchist.
the conscious and unduped egoist is an anarchist insofar that, to the extent they have the power, they refuse to let anyone or anything dominate them. stirner refused to accept the power of any authority, any institution, any existing or would-be ruler, over himself
@@robertgiggie6366 Proudhon? (Actually stirner mentions him once , and attributes something to him that he said with sarcasm, so much so that proudhon was actually saying the exact opposite thing that was attributed to him). The cohesiveness and similarities between stirner and proudhon are actually quite striking.
Stirner has been one of my favorite thinkers ever since I read "Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum" for the first time (I've read it three times since and plan to read it again in the near future) so it's good to see a video about him here on TH-cam. Anyone who thinks Nietzsche was the greatest 'rebel' of 19th century philosophy would be shocked after knowing Stirner. When I first met him, I was also convinced Nietzsche was the truly greatest iconoclast of all time, but in fact he doesn't hold a candle to Stirner in this regard. Both were great thinkers, of course, but the fact that Stiner somehow got "forgotten" by official philosophy, whereas Nietzsche became the patron saint of millions of wanna-be philosophers, tells much about the level of independence, audacity and originality of his work. I cannot see how any group of people, especially the ruling classed of any country, would ever accept Stirner as their guide. In this sense, he's as isolated in the history of human thought as Epicurus- to whom he was somewhat akin in his ideas. Stirner was as unique a thinker as his magnus opum title might indicate, and his being 'ignored' as one of the most original and profound philosophers EVER just adds to his significance. If I had to choose only 5 books to have with me in a desert island, "Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum" would surely be one of them.
"They weren't sacrificing themselves for themselves, they were sacrificing themselves for a higher cause". This is kinda semantics, but Stirner was against sacrificng yourself for yourself too He talked about people who sacrifice all their goals for a single one of them and called them spooked as well because the denied part of their ego Correct me if I'm wrong
To put it in contemporary terms, Stirner advocates not sacrificing your agency (your real self) to your identity. There are things worth doing, but not things worth being.
We decide how to live this life, as we as subjects have a unique experience of this existence, and therefore also unique priorities. So I do what I want to do. But how can I know what I really want? Free will is limited. The way I am thinking today is just a function of numberless spooks/abstractions I have been exposed to in my life. It is impossible to free yourself from all of them, most we won't even recognize as abstractions. They are our reality, subconsciousness axioms we use for practical living. So all of those spooks from the outside do not stand above me, but are actually on the same level as I am. They are a part of me, they are what makes me myself. The ego only stands above everything in theory, as some kind of blank disc. But when growing up there is no more distinction between this pure ego and the way the environment has altered it. Obviously his philosophy helps to overcome the apparent importance of the biggest abstractions like religion, state, expectations of society etc. But after all there is no way out of the spook house called life. In the end I live my life the way my personal, deep settled spooks allow me to. Trying to overcome them would be a total destruction of the self, leaving nothing behind. Just some thoughts, happy for critique. Stirner's philosophy is one of the most interesting topics I ever stumbled across, having such a direct meaning to ones personal life. Looking forward to read his book. Great talk and thanks for the upload!
So far as I understand Stirner, the goal is not to destroy spooks, but realize they are spooks, have no inherent substance, and therefore become free to choose egotistically which spook to adhere to and which not.
Zizek talks about this as well, that the spooks or “symbolic fictions” that regulate your life are on and the same with your current conception of reality. The dissolution of those in-built spooks would completely disintegrate your current iteration of your reality, hopefully allowing you to reform a completely new reality from the shattered pieces. Zizek also says the goal rather, is not to disintegrate your reality but be able to distinguish the “spooks” that are layered over the actual base reality, like two hands on top of each other, being able to recognize the differences.
Curiously, the parallels which we can draw between Stirner and Epicurus ("Live ignored", "Do your own thing", "Search your personal pleasure first and foremost") shows that his thoughts, though entirely unique in his 19th century milieu, pervaded by Marx and his communist ideas) were not without resonance in the ancient past, where an independent thinker had also to struggle to get rid of the 'crowd' and its massive power over the individual. I can somewhat establish a liaison between them that both helps to give more substance to Epicurus' ideas (rather blurred thanks to our knowing only fragments of his thoughts) and to establish Stirner's philosophy as something that echoes the ancient Greek tradition of independent thinking. I see as no coincidence that Epicurus is as much an 'enfant terrible' of his own times as Stirner is the 'black sheep' amongst its contemporaries. Coming from sheer isolation, the pleasure principle will prevail and instead of becoming an angry loner you'll become 'social'- ie, you'll be 'lost in the crowd', using this uncomfortable position to your own advantage while maintaining that sane distance which will help you both not to go insane and not to lose touch with reality. There'll be no possibility of mistaking your 'social life' as blind acceptance of societal rules and dogmas (its 'spooks') because you see society as merely a tool for achieving your own selfish goals, your own need for pleasure. You do not believe society, you use it. No sacred word- future, love, neighbourhood, world peace, ecology, Christianity, Islam- guides your actions, and in this sense you goes back in time, to a time where the ideal of a simple life guided Epicurus to a dead end alley where, avoiding to accept as his ideas which would only make him a slave to another's will, he could only preach about a life when the only things to guide a man's life were his natural desires and instincts. In this sense, Stirner is also urging us to live a simpler, more honest life, a life where we stop lying to ourselves about our motivations and interests, since we simply cannot stop lying to others, all the time, anyway.
I don't think Stirner was exactly an anarchist (I think of him as so anarchist that he transcends anarchism) but anarchists aren't against social systems and have always thought government is real and made of people doing things. Anarchists are opposed to being dominated by hierarchies, and also believe that humans in general naturally tend towards mutual aid/solidarity. Which is why many anarchists (and other socialists) have always found Stirners spookbusting critiques to be extremely useful for identifying hierarchies and dismantling them in their totality and it's why Stirner's "union of egoists" resembles the practice of consensus democracy so much.
A few years ago, I released my old religious beliefs, and although I'm neither bitter, nor do I hold contempt, eventually came to the conclusion that it's not merely the ritualism, and potentially harmful precepts that I disliked, but the concept of worship, and divinity that I can't accept. Stirner's thought process certainly has similarities to my own.
Wes, thank you so much for posting your lectures. You have been an inspiration. I have learned a lot about how to give a lecture from you. Needless to say, I am a lecturer myself. You exhibit great generosity by sharing your knowledge with us. Thank you and keep up the good work.
A social institution is bad because people will always do what is best for themselves or their "holy" society and in a collective that will be to oppress you, use you or backstab you. Why put your trust in strangers? They don't respect you, they have no reason to. The best "institution" is a group of good friends. Trusting in a large collective of people who don't value you but value the "the collective" itself as if it is a living entity is just asking to be screwed not to mention the fact such a group could easily be manipulated into believing certain things or doing certain things by culture, state, secret societies or just the toxic nature of hiveminds. Never trust someone who wouldn't trust you.
and then... when Stirner says that human being is not good nor evil he has much in common with Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, the first humanist philosopher of western tradition, at least, in XV century. I'm proud of this, because I'm from Mirandola town too!
@@adamqadmon Hi. Pico talks of his Man in terms of abstract idealism, Stirner says THIS man. From the perspective of modernity, of us contemporaries, it is evident that the circle of speculative philosophy has narrowed the field to the focus of the individual and in fact it is the clarification that Pico lacked that we were missing. Not Man as a teleology of the ego, as an equivalent cause of God, and therefore still as an object, but the subject as an arbitrary ego, as God/Man directly, auto-self-creating (“i am creator and creature at a one time all” Stirner, the Unique and his ownership , generally english translated with The Ego and his own. You obviuously know this) placed at the center of the universe in a dominant ierarchy in opposition to superior and abstract causes. The trouble is that we don't like the omnipotence of every uniqueness, because it makes the God’s/Man’s established order, the sacred, the moral law, tremble.
You just won yourself a subscriber I wish you could talk or clarify more on the fact that Stirner doesn't think ethically of spooks, rather, he says that you should be concious of them and take those that serve a purpose for yourself while dismissing the others. At least that's what I understood.
When you think one way and go on for years without riding anyone alike, you start to doubt urself. A weakness I personally have, at least I didn't let go before finding stirner
Hold up, at 33:12 speaker says stirner was an advocate of private property. isnt this misleading because he didnt believe in private property in the capitalist sense, but only in ones own property.
It is extremely misleading, in one part of the Ego and its Own/Unique and its Property he talks about how the state tries to control and regulate what he owns. Then he talks about not just owning what the state says, but owning worlds, in an inter-subjective way. He also talked bout laborers rising up and "freeing labor" because as he says, the state rests on the slavery of labor. He has a lot more in common with people like Bakunin and Marx (and some of the other people he ruthlessly critiqued), than he does with a piece of shit like Ayn Rand.
Pretty stupid to think Stirner had any kind of reverence for private property. “If men reach the point of losing respect for property, every one will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master. Unions will then, in this matter too, multiply the individual’s means and secure his assailed property.”
@ Derek Jeffries He literally opposed the concept of private property and advocated something similar to communism. Read his follow up work Stirner’s Critics.
I've been reading Noam Chomsky's book "On Anarchism". It's quite a quick little read and I do like what he says about hierarchy having the burden of proof to be satisfied to the people beneath it. This, I feel, offers a solid definition of anarchist philosophy: the opposition to innate rulers. It ties in quite well with egoist philosophy which says that individuals ought to prioritise themselves above abstractions and judge ideas according to the benefit they bring to them. If we view hierarchy as a dominion of ideas, as Max Stirner describes it, then hierarchy is justified according to it being of benefit to the individuals at the bottom of it because humans accept ideas according to their self interest involuntarily or not. To Stirner, "the labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would stop them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product as theirs and enjoy it", meaning that when people realise their actual power over abstract, they'd be able to do away with the ideas and hierarchies that do not benefit them. So it's more of a matter of fact, than a moralistic advocation, that holders of hierarchy and abstract power must justify their holdings to the people who are wondering why they ought to allow themselves to be controlled by them.
good introductory lecture overall but the trajectory of describing stirner's philosophy is a little off here because it tries to ease the listeners in with an ethical, benevolent case for stirner's egoism.
All kind of idealism is a spook for Johhan Kaspar Schmidt (aka Max Stirner) Humanism, God, Liberty, socialism, even rights... Only the ego exist. He was a radical philosopher that criticize both left Hegelians and right Hegelians.
Fukuyama has since reconsidered most of the positions he took in "The End of History" People really love to hate him for that book. He was a young political scientist making waves in the post-cold war geopolitical vacuum. Kind of like people expected longstanding peace after either of the world wars, he got excited and overly optimistic, and as a result overlooked a lot of longstanding issues. And then, alas, the war pigs picked up his book and ran with it. God Bless America, ladies and gentlemen
If we are consciousness itself (basically what I get he's implying) then everything we see from our objective viewpoint is just the construct of our own thoughts during the time we happen to be here, occupying the current avatar of ourselves, and that what we consider the "other" is just a possibility of who we could have become during that same time frame (but most likely failed). That's the literal definition of a spook (ghost) btw. While there may not be inherently good or bad, anything that causes instability or destruction of the construct (a spook), either immediately or in time, could be considered "bad" as it would ultimately contribute to the entropy of said system. I think everyone would agree this is not a good thing if survival of the avatar known as yourself is the ultimate goal right? Whereas "good" would be anything that "adds" to the stability of the construct. So it is ultimately up to us as the current avatar of ourselves to make the most of our time here to discover, then direct our consciousness toward those things that are good, which is to say more stabilizing/self-organizing, as in doing so, we are effectively adding even more time to our construct & thus creating more possibility of surviving as consciousness itself beyond the current experience. Effectively becoming the highest version of ourselves. I'm of the opinion, no experience unfulfilled is ever experienced as it's only the remembering of a fulfilled (survived) experience that allows it in the first place & we all experience ourselves through that particular one.
"Not being true to yourself if you become such an egoist you can't have friends," Part of being a "Human Being,"... Damn, this guy is either seriously spooked, intentionally deceiving his audience, or seriously mistaken about what Stirner clearly wrote. Stirner said something *similar* in that, pleasing those he cares about gives *him* pleasure, which is why he does it. That is very different than having friends for the sake of having friends or of living up to being a "Human Being." The "Human Being" isn't a *thing* that has a separate existence from the actual individual one. If "Human Being" is merely a property of *mine* then I am already more than a "Human Being," and also more than "God," in the Christian sense of a god-man. Stirner wasn't an atheist, in the sense that he believed individuals created everything, but Stirner *was* an atheist in the sense that he rejected the term "god" as being definitional, or that I should put this "god" above myself, who am myself more the *actual creator* than it ever was. I see what you're trying to do here making Stirner more accessible, but it's not the most accurate treatment of his work and thought.
Actually, the poem is not from Neftalí, but from José Emilio Pacheco "Alta Traición": No amo mi patría... pero daría mi vida por... cierta gente,... montañas... y tres o cuatro ríos.
Your caricature of anarchists as being "against social systems" is horribly uninformed for someone speaking to Stirner's work. Anarchists do not believe in top-down, coerced social organization. If you assume that's the only kind that can exist, you are more narrow minded than this lecture lets on otherwise.
+Wesley Mullen If you actually listened to what he said, he didn't say that at all though. He paraphrased Stirner by saying that anarchism is a cause, and thus a fixed idea as much as anything else, and therefore suffers the same pitfalls from Stirner's point of view.
Cipher Veri "If it's a fixed idea, then you may as well throw away everything stirner said as fixed too" Yes, and the irony with Stirner's thought is that if you agree with it completely, and take it to heart, you are committing the exact act that he is warning everyone of, i.e just another fixed idea.
Cipher Veri That's absolutely true, and I agree with you. What I personally conclude from Stirner is the reality that all ideas can be criticized and shown to be at some level based on false premises, given enough scrutiny. And I think that can be both a valuable thing, but also slightly depressing.
+Hooga Are you familiar with Karl Hess's essay, "Anarchism Without Hyphens". "[An anarchist] is a person in opposition to authority imposed through the hierarchical power of the state. The only expansion of this that seems to me to be reasonable is to say that an anarchist stands in opposition to any imposed authority. Now, beyond that, anarchists also are people and, as such, contain the billion-faceted varieties of human reference. Some are anarchists who march, voluntarily, to the Cross of Christ. Some are anarchists who flock, voluntarily, to the communities of beloved, inspirational father figures. Some are anarchists who seek to establish the syndics of voluntary industrial production. Some are anarchists who voluntarily seek to establish the rural production of the kibbutzim. Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, seek to disestablish everything including their own association with other people, the hermits. Some are anarchists who deal, voluntarily, only in gold, will never co-operate, and swirl their capes. Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, worship the sun and its energy, build domes, eat only vegetables, and play the dulcimer. Some are anarchists who worship the power of algorithms, play strange games, and infiltrate strange temples. Some are anarchists who only see the stars. Some are anarchists who only see the mud. They spring from a single seed, no matter the flowering of their ideas. The seed is liberty. And that is all it is. It is not a socialist seed. It is not a capitalist seed. It is not a mystical seed. It is not a determinist seed. It is simply a statement. We can be free. After that it’s all choice and chance."
I thought that because Stirner is so unknown that I wouldn't find anything on TH-cam about him. Well how wrong was I ? This guy Stirner is definitely on my wavelength it's uncanny!! I think that Stirner says get rid of idealism and things should be OK. I make reference to "The Spanish Inquisition" say for example.
HerrHolz Paul That’s Max Stirner and it was drawn by Friedrich Engels forty-years after stirner’s death because Stirners biographer wanted a drawing of him.
+Max Stirner Focus on the self as the greatest good. No self-sacrifice. Acknowledging that people generally like to be around each other. Reception is that he's a weird radical dude.
What an awful reading of Stirner, but unsurprising coming from an academic. The self or the I in this case should be thought of more in the phenomenological sense, e.g. without anything to perceive I would not exist therefore everything I perceive is my self. Cecil seems to confuse egoist with egotist. This is especially evident due to his total denouncement of Stirner-as-anarchist. Certainly Stirner did not call himself an anarchist, but this is unsurprising as the first use of the term occurred only 13 years before his birth and anarchism remained yet another spook (as mentioned in the lecture), until well after his death. To totally denounce affiliation however is to ignore the wide range of modern anarchist and egoist thinking which draw very heavily on Stirner. I have little doubt he would have been involved with this thinking if he were alive today. It's also rather amusing to see Cecil totally go back on his argument when speaking of race. Race of course is another spook (as is racism), but for just a moment Cecil twists Stirner in suggesting a broad abstract category can somehow apply to an individual, or as he mentions a small group of individuals. The censors of the past have become the filters in academia today. They still have no idea what to do about Stirner.
can someone please tell me their thoughts on stirner's central idea that individuals truly just want to serve their own interests and that all of their actions are a reflection of this universal truth, even when they appear to be altruistic? i cant quite make up my mind on the matter.
First of all, I've only recently been introduced into this line of thinking, and I'm merely a philosophy admirer rather than some academic/scholar. To me, Stirner does not ever advocate for one's selfish actions to appear to be altruistic, he throws that notion out of the window. The idea of selfishness here is to be open and honest that one is serving their own self & self-interests, free of any dogma or system that is external to them. The "desire to do good" is just as much a folly as the "desire to do bad". There should be no desire, just self-serving action by measuring the needs of oneself to everything around them. If your actions are for some altruism, you have to be VERY careful/aware of ties to some kind of external belief system/moral values out of your control. Hope this helps a bit
I am aware this video is 8 years old but it came across my recommended feed and gave it a watch. I did enjoy it but in my opinion the speaker is incorrect to assert Max Stirner was not an Anarchist. Though he never claimed to be he very much was. He was against all states as he viewed all as illegitimate ( a priori Anarchism). He just didn't care for a revolution as he just didn't see it as anything other than an abstraction (weak Anarchism). He was for voluntary associations (union of egoists) and through those the state would be irrelevant (Insurrectionary anarchism). Anyway just my thoughts.
Interesting how Niche and Rand are fairly well known but rarely hear about Stirner. All 3 seem to have different basis for starting their ideals but end up in roughly the same place due to accepting selfishness in a core ideal of human nature. I think part of his obscurity is due to people loving to denounce religion but not wanting to acknowledge other collectivist entities are just as prone to the same problems. Be it governments, corporations, the climate crisis movement or even Unions. An acknowledgement that you should matter most to yourself is seen and presented as evil. But what of when you expect others to have their same mind set and knowing that the other person need not agree to do things with you if it does not serve their interest.
33:10 I'm not sure if I would agree that Stirner would have been a proponent of private property. But this may be a semantics issue, as the way you describe it as being opposed to collective property is more of a liberal/libertatian interpretation. Whereas socialists & anarchists tend to view private property as the absentee ownership of productive or speculative assets, disconnected from the using or occupation of that property. I would imagine Stirner being opposed to this interpretation since private property (in the majority of instances) exists through being imposed on workers/communities by the state. What you described as private property I would generally consider personal property. Semantics, I guess.
great explication of stirner albeit quite a few of the current event or example tie-ins are totally upside down-stirner wants you to fight for a river you like, and is against having health insurance? stirner is against averages or economic metrics, because they are inherently “abstract”? overall a good lecture that does a great job conveying stirner philosophically.
26:00 I’m confused as to how we can talk about “people by nature” under his philosophy because not everyone is the same. For example, is it not possible that some people *are* chaotic? And if so, if we say people by nature, we are referring to a group or on average, which is an abstraction, so doesn’t human nature not apply to Stirner’s philosophy? The only way I can see this section working out is if Stirner is asserting that every single person is not chaotic. That alone is quite a genuinely interesting claim. Unless I’m misunderstanding and what he means is that we just shouldn’t talk about people by nature for moral or similar reasons?
People stopped believing in monarchs not because they just woke up one day, but for material reasons. For instance, in England, the whole concept of a monarch crumbled when one was killed and the thrown was violently seized. This is because the concept was based upon being anointed by God. This basis fell away.
All I know is that it´s still important that the word "god" exists, as long as "out there" exists....and in the end (of the black hole) it´s just as cheap as: Do you think that you´re believing or believe that you´re thinking?
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D2 | Fall | เครื่องร้อน พร้อมลุย](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JO2_bLow_1Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Just one thing:
Max Stirner did not think that people were inherently good. He thought people were inherently just nothing. Not good, not bad.
^
Out of self interest though not altruism or whatever
LSDO yes finally someone gets max Steiner.
That and Good and evil are just meaningless emotionally driven terms that very from culture to culture. would you agree or am I missing anything in this analysis just want to know your thoughts
The fuck do you wanna know my thoughts lol. I'm hardly a scholar. But yeah, as far as I see it you're right. Not only are the terms good an evil subjective, they are easily used by rulers to control a population. To Max it did not matter whether or not something was 'good' or 'evil' anyway. If you want to do it, then you do it. Unless you're doing it to further the goals of a formless thought. Then you're being haunted by a spook.
I completely agree. also You seemed well educated to know enough to philosophize So sorry I just wanted to here your perspective on the Concept of Moral good or evil and see if I can here a new or interesting view point on the subject. (in hindsight Ive realy got to stop over explaining my intentions it just sounds akward in retrospect Holly fuck!! Im doing it now! shit)
This is really good.
For me.
*BANE?!?*
Yes.
Na, it's good for me too.
Can't stop the Mad Max.
Smug Animu Girl how fuck up would it be if mad max is loosely base on stirner.
well he his .
1. The most often misudnerstood aspect of Stirner - people think he's for ethical egoism; What he's for is more like amoralism - he doesn't advocate behaving in yourself's interest because that's the right thing to do, he advocates not doing anything because it's the right thing to do.
2. As for the part about people being good, etc - it's not so much that people are inherently "good" (I'm not sure Stirner would even use that word), it's that people ultimately have more common interests than conflicted ones and can come together to act in their sake ('union of egoists').
3. As for whether Stirner is an anarchist or not - I concede that calling Stirner an Anarchist is anachronistic because he didn't belong in any of the anarchist tendencies that existed then. But if he lived today, sure, I'd call him an anarchist.
This is, for me, how ideology functions today. What if the opposite were true?
the conscious and unduped egoist is an anarchist insofar that, to the extent they have the power, they refuse to let anyone or anything dominate them. stirner refused to accept the power of any authority, any institution, any existing or would-be ruler, over himself
That’s because the “anarchist tendencies” that existed then were simply communism. They were not AN-archist, as in no rulers.
@@robertgiggie6366 Proudhon? (Actually stirner mentions him once , and attributes something to him that he said with sarcasm, so much so that proudhon was actually saying the exact opposite thing that was attributed to him). The cohesiveness and similarities between stirner and proudhon are actually quite striking.
Well spoken
To whoever helps Wes record and post these, I am endlessly grateful.
+zulubeatz817 I was just about to say that. Cheers!
+zulubeatz817
A spook helps him
:D
@@Donxster If you go to his websites, find "lectures", each lecture has a download link to his few slides.
Stirner has been one of my favorite thinkers ever since I read "Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum" for the first time (I've read it three times since and plan to read it again in the near future) so it's good to see a video about him here on TH-cam.
Anyone who thinks Nietzsche was the greatest 'rebel' of 19th century philosophy would be shocked after knowing Stirner. When I first met him, I was also convinced Nietzsche was the truly greatest iconoclast of all time, but in fact he doesn't hold a candle to Stirner in this regard. Both were great thinkers, of course, but the fact that Stiner somehow got "forgotten" by official philosophy, whereas Nietzsche became the patron saint of millions of wanna-be philosophers, tells much about the level of independence, audacity and originality of his work. I cannot see how any group of people, especially the ruling classed of any country, would ever accept Stirner as their guide. In this sense, he's as isolated in the history of human thought as Epicurus- to whom he was somewhat akin in his ideas.
Stirner was as unique a thinker as his magnus opum title might indicate, and his being 'ignored' as one of the most original and profound philosophers EVER just adds to his significance. If I had to choose only 5 books to have with me in a desert island, "Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum" would surely be one of them.
well said
“Wanna be philosophers”...? I hope you’re not talking about people like me buddy
@@actualideas8078 depends. Do you idolize Nietzsche?
Im a rebel..... I dont follow the crowd..... Im a rebellious philosopher.....
Max stirner was a little baby nerd who insecure kids like to idolize because he makes them feel better about themselves.
"They weren't sacrificing themselves for themselves, they were sacrificing themselves for a higher cause".
This is kinda semantics, but Stirner was against sacrificng yourself for yourself too
He talked about people who sacrifice all their goals for a single one of them and called them spooked as well because the denied part of their ego
Correct me if I'm wrong
To put it in contemporary terms, Stirner advocates not sacrificing your agency (your real self) to your identity. There are things worth doing, but not things worth being.
He’s not forgotten yet, many of us all around the world still live by his philosophy
Wasn't expecting Stirner to get a lecture. Excited for this one.
This is one of the few long lectures where I was completely intrigued the entire time. Thank you for this!
We decide how to live this life, as we as subjects have a unique experience of this existence, and therefore also unique priorities. So I do what I want to do. But how can I know what I really want? Free will is limited. The way I am thinking today is just a function of numberless spooks/abstractions I have been exposed to in my life. It is impossible to free yourself from all of them, most we won't even recognize as abstractions. They are our reality, subconsciousness axioms we use for practical living. So all of those spooks from the outside do not stand above me, but are actually on the same level as I am. They are a part of me, they are what makes me myself. The ego only stands above everything in theory, as some kind of blank disc. But when growing up there is no more distinction between this pure ego and the way the environment has altered it.
Obviously his philosophy helps to overcome the apparent importance of the biggest abstractions like religion, state, expectations of society etc. But after all there is no way out of the spook house called life. In the end I live my life the way my personal, deep settled spooks allow me to. Trying to overcome them would be a total destruction of the self, leaving nothing behind. Just some thoughts, happy for critique.
Stirner's philosophy is one of the most interesting topics I ever stumbled across, having such a direct meaning to ones personal life. Looking forward to read his book. Great talk and thanks for the upload!
So far as I understand Stirner, the goal is not to destroy spooks, but realize they are spooks, have no inherent substance, and therefore become free to choose egotistically which spook to adhere to and which not.
Zizek talks about this as well, that the spooks or “symbolic fictions” that regulate your life are on and the same with your current conception of reality. The dissolution of those in-built spooks would completely disintegrate your current iteration of your reality, hopefully allowing you to reform a completely new reality from the shattered pieces. Zizek also says the goal rather, is not to disintegrate your reality but be able to distinguish the “spooks” that are layered over the actual base reality, like two hands on top of each other, being able to recognize the differences.
Je ne suis pas un but , je suis un resultat compilatoire .
I'm here cause I keep seeing spook memes
Same here!
memes are spooks bud XD
Same
That's just spooky.
Same.
Curiously, the parallels which we can draw between Stirner and Epicurus ("Live ignored", "Do your own thing", "Search your personal pleasure first and foremost") shows that his thoughts, though entirely unique in his 19th century milieu, pervaded by Marx and his communist ideas) were not without resonance in the ancient past, where an independent thinker had also to struggle to get rid of the 'crowd' and its massive power over the individual. I can somewhat establish a liaison between them that both helps to give more substance to Epicurus' ideas (rather blurred thanks to our knowing only fragments of his thoughts) and to establish Stirner's philosophy as something that echoes the ancient Greek tradition of independent thinking.
I see as no coincidence that Epicurus is as much an 'enfant terrible' of his own times as Stirner is the 'black sheep' amongst its contemporaries. Coming from sheer isolation, the pleasure principle will prevail and instead of becoming an angry loner you'll become 'social'- ie, you'll be 'lost in the crowd', using this uncomfortable position to your own advantage while maintaining that sane distance which will help you both not to go insane and not to lose touch with reality. There'll be no possibility of mistaking your 'social life' as blind acceptance of societal rules and dogmas (its 'spooks') because you see society as merely a tool for achieving your own selfish goals, your own need for pleasure. You do not believe society, you use it. No sacred word- future, love, neighbourhood, world peace, ecology, Christianity, Islam- guides your actions, and in this sense you goes back in time, to a time where the ideal of a simple life guided Epicurus to a dead end alley where, avoiding to accept as his ideas which would only make him a slave to another's will, he could only preach about a life when the only things to guide a man's life were his natural desires and instincts.
In this sense, Stirner is also urging us to live a simpler, more honest life, a life where we stop lying to ourselves about our motivations and interests, since we simply cannot stop lying to others, all the time, anyway.
I can sit and listen to this but fail to do so for my actual classes.
Is Stirner really THAT obscure? I've seen him discussed fairly extensively online.
Good question,
+Mr. Button /leftypol/ and /lit/ don't count
André Pina what about r/nihilism? (•u• )
Did you just assume my gender?
oh shit i've been found out now im off to take my cyanide pill so the soviets don't find the secret to furriy profile pictures
I don't think Stirner was exactly an anarchist (I think of him as so anarchist that he transcends anarchism) but anarchists aren't against social systems and have always thought government is real and made of people doing things.
Anarchists are opposed to being dominated by hierarchies, and also believe that humans in general naturally tend towards mutual aid/solidarity. Which is why many anarchists (and other socialists) have always found Stirners spookbusting critiques to be extremely useful for identifying hierarchies and dismantling them in their totality and it's why Stirner's "union of egoists" resembles the practice of consensus democracy so much.
A few years ago, I released my old religious beliefs, and although I'm neither bitter, nor do I hold contempt, eventually came to the conclusion that it's not merely the ritualism, and potentially harmful precepts that I disliked, but the concept of worship, and divinity that I can't accept. Stirner's thought process certainly has similarities to my own.
Wes, thank you so much for posting your lectures. You have been an inspiration. I have learned a lot about how to give a lecture from you. Needless to say, I am a lecturer myself. You exhibit great generosity by sharing your knowledge with us. Thank you and keep up the good work.
Disappointing that Wes glosses over Stirner's extensive critique of socialist, labor, and communist movements.
Did you read Marx criticism on him?
Bunch of spooks tbh
❤ Great lecture!
It's a shame, that there's not to find a german reception like this.
I can listen to this all day.
Anarchists are not and has never been against social institutions. Rather we advocate the construction of such. Most of us are not primitivists.
What about the inflated maggots with their Guy Fawkes masks?
Fridaey13txhOktober because there unoriginal as fuck.
A social institution is bad because people will always do what is best for themselves or their "holy" society and in a collective that will be to oppress you, use you or backstab you. Why put your trust in strangers? They don't respect you, they have no reason to.
The best "institution" is a group of good friends. Trusting in a large collective of people who don't value you but value the "the collective" itself as if it is a living entity is just asking to be screwed not to mention the fact such a group could easily be manipulated into believing certain things or doing certain things by culture, state, secret societies or just the toxic nature of hiveminds. Never trust someone who wouldn't trust you.
the problem of any institution is that they're created to fulfill a purpose, but end up being their own purpose
lol agreed. Fuck Anonymous.
As always, I loved this so much! Dr. Cecil, I am undone every time you share a lecture. Thank you so much for everything you do!
Thank you for this upload. I was looking for some entry level stuff by Stirner, and this is perfect.
and then... when Stirner says that human being is not good nor evil he has much in common with Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, the first humanist philosopher of western tradition, at least, in XV century. I'm proud of this, because I'm from Mirandola town too!
Oh really? In what way?
@@adamqadmon Hi. Pico talks of his Man in terms of abstract idealism, Stirner says THIS man. From the perspective of modernity, of us contemporaries, it is evident that the circle of speculative philosophy has narrowed the field to the focus of the individual and in fact it is the clarification that Pico lacked that we were missing. Not Man as a teleology of the ego, as an equivalent cause of God, and therefore still as an object, but the subject as an arbitrary ego, as God/Man directly, auto-self-creating (“i am creator and creature at a one time all” Stirner, the Unique and his ownership , generally english translated with The Ego and his own. You obviuously know this) placed at the center of the universe in a dominant ierarchy in opposition to superior and abstract causes. The trouble is that we don't like the omnipotence of every uniqueness, because it makes the God’s/Man’s established order, the sacred, the moral law, tremble.
You just won yourself a subscriber
I wish you could talk or clarify more on the fact that Stirner doesn't think ethically of spooks, rather, he says that you should be concious of them and take those that serve a purpose for yourself while dismissing the others. At least that's what I understood.
When you think one way and go on for years without riding anyone alike, you start to doubt urself. A weakness I personally have, at least I didn't let go before finding stirner
Thank you for these talks. Really enjoying them.
Hold up, at 33:12 speaker says stirner was an advocate of private property. isnt this misleading because he didnt believe in private property in the capitalist sense, but only in ones own property.
shasjas Indeed. Private property and personal property.
It is extremely misleading, in one part of the Ego and its Own/Unique and its Property he talks about how the state tries to control and regulate what he owns. Then he talks about not just owning what the state says, but owning worlds, in an inter-subjective way. He also talked bout laborers rising up and "freeing labor" because as he says, the state rests on the slavery of labor. He has a lot more in common with people like Bakunin and Marx (and some of the other people he ruthlessly critiqued), than he does with a piece of shit like Ayn Rand.
Pretty stupid to think Stirner had any kind of reverence for private property.
“If men reach the point of losing respect for property, every one will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master. Unions will then, in this matter too, multiply the individual’s means and secure his assailed property.”
He didn't believe in YOUR private property. He was a big fan of HIS private property. That's why it's stupid to classify him with either Marx or Rand.
@ Derek Jeffries
He literally opposed the concept of private property and advocated something similar to communism. Read his follow up work Stirner’s Critics.
I've been reading Noam Chomsky's book "On Anarchism". It's quite a quick little read and I do like what he says about hierarchy having the burden of proof to be satisfied to the people beneath it.
This, I feel, offers a solid definition of anarchist philosophy: the opposition to innate rulers. It ties in quite well with egoist philosophy which says that individuals ought to prioritise themselves above abstractions and judge ideas according to the benefit they bring to them.
If we view hierarchy as a dominion of ideas, as Max Stirner describes it, then hierarchy is justified according to it being of benefit to the individuals at the bottom of it because humans accept ideas according to their self interest involuntarily or not.
To Stirner, "the labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would stop them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product as theirs and enjoy it", meaning that when people realise their actual power over abstract, they'd be able to do away with the ideas and hierarchies that do not benefit them. So it's more of a matter of fact, than a moralistic advocation, that holders of hierarchy and abstract power must justify their holdings to the people who are wondering why they ought to allow themselves to be controlled by them.
more stirner content please! this is the best!
Wow, thank you so very much for putting this lecture online for free!
It was truelly fascinating!
I love it. Max Stirner, great. Thanks Cecil!
"Thinking that spooks are bad is itself a spook." mind fuck
good introductory lecture overall but the trajectory of describing stirner's philosophy is a little off here because it tries to ease the listeners in with an ethical, benevolent case for stirner's egoism.
Thank you so much for all this great content.. All these lectures fit perfect for my 1 hour walk everyday!
At last, time to get rid of the spooks in my head.
This strange spook in my head said it needs to get rid of spooks in its head.
i read all of stirners books and you did a good job sir. exceptional teacher.
it would be very useful nowadays translations with no censured parts of the Unique into chinese and arabic
very good upload. thank you
Steven Wight you just called yourself a spook then...
All kind of idealism is a spook for Johhan Kaspar Schmidt (aka Max Stirner) Humanism, God, Liberty, socialism, even rights... Only the ego exist. He was a radical philosopher that criticize both left Hegelians and right Hegelians.
Steven Wight Calling people spooks is a spook you spook. coughm'propertycough
Steven Wight 🎃🎃indeed🎃🎃
Easily my favorite thinker to read.
As an anarchist I'd say our relationship to the Stirnerites is that they're our Greek Chorus
I made a bet with God that this video will explode in popularity....
Just found your channel, you’re pretty good! Would love more dives into other philosophers and their central ideas like this!!
Wish I caught this on its upload date, could have really used it back then
Fukuyama has since reconsidered most of the positions he took in "The End of History"
People really love to hate him for that book. He was a young political scientist making waves in the post-cold war geopolitical vacuum. Kind of like people expected longstanding peace after either of the world wars, he got excited and overly optimistic, and as a result overlooked a lot of longstanding issues. And then, alas, the war pigs picked up his book and ran with it. God Bless America, ladies and gentlemen
🙏❤️🌏🕊
If we are consciousness itself (basically what I get he's implying) then everything we see from our objective viewpoint is just the construct of our own thoughts during the time we happen to be here, occupying the current avatar of ourselves, and that what we consider the "other" is just a possibility of who we could have become during that same time frame (but most likely failed). That's the literal definition of a spook (ghost) btw. While there may not be inherently good or bad, anything that causes instability or destruction of the construct (a spook), either immediately or in time, could be considered "bad" as it would ultimately contribute to the entropy of said system. I think everyone would agree this is not a good thing if survival of the avatar known as yourself is the ultimate goal right? Whereas "good" would be anything that "adds" to the stability of the construct. So it is ultimately up to us as the current avatar of ourselves to make the most of our time here to discover, then direct our consciousness toward those things that are good, which is to say more stabilizing/self-organizing, as in doing so, we are effectively adding even more time to our construct & thus creating more possibility of surviving as consciousness itself beyond the current experience. Effectively becoming the highest version of ourselves. I'm of the opinion, no experience unfulfilled is ever experienced as it's only the remembering of a fulfilled (survived) experience that allows it in the first place & we all experience ourselves through that particular one.
"Not being true to yourself if you become such an egoist you can't have friends,"
Part of being a "Human Being,"... Damn, this guy is either seriously spooked, intentionally deceiving his audience, or seriously mistaken about what Stirner clearly wrote. Stirner said something *similar* in that, pleasing those he cares about gives *him* pleasure, which is why he does it. That is very different than having friends for the sake of having friends or of living up to being a "Human Being."
The "Human Being" isn't a *thing* that has a separate existence from the actual individual one. If "Human Being" is merely a property of *mine* then I am already more than a "Human Being," and also more than "God," in the Christian sense of a god-man.
Stirner wasn't an atheist, in the sense that he believed individuals created everything, but Stirner *was* an atheist in the sense that he rejected the term "god" as being definitional, or that I should put this "god" above myself, who am myself more the *actual creator* than it ever was. I see what you're trying to do here making Stirner more accessible, but it's not the most accurate treatment of his work and thought.
It was pretty much accurate, not that different from what stirner said. He said that humans are cooperative because they want to be, no spooks there.
Actually, the poem is not from Neftalí, but from José Emilio Pacheco "Alta Traición": No amo mi patría... pero daría mi vida por... cierta gente,... montañas... y tres o cuatro ríos.
Thank you! I was so confused about who he was quoting. He said it was Pablo Neruda?? I looked it up and no way.
Man, your head is haunted!
Although this video is a spook I myself still enjoyed it, great exposition! 👏🏼
I learned a lot.
Master thyself.
2 for 6 gyros at arby's.
Your caricature of anarchists as being "against social systems" is horribly uninformed for someone speaking to Stirner's work. Anarchists do not believe in top-down, coerced social organization. If you assume that's the only kind that can exist, you are more narrow minded than this lecture lets on otherwise.
+Wesley Mullen If you actually listened to what he said, he didn't say that at all though. He paraphrased Stirner by saying that anarchism is a cause, and thus a fixed idea as much as anything else, and therefore suffers the same pitfalls from Stirner's point of view.
Cipher Veri "If it's a fixed idea, then you may as well throw away everything stirner said as fixed too"
Yes, and the irony with Stirner's thought is that if you agree with it completely, and take it to heart, you are committing the exact act that he is warning everyone of, i.e just another fixed idea.
Cipher Veri
That's absolutely true, and I agree with you. What I personally conclude from Stirner is the reality that all ideas can be criticized and shown to be at some level based on false premises, given enough scrutiny.
And I think that can be both a valuable thing, but also slightly depressing.
+Hooga
Are you familiar with Karl Hess's essay, "Anarchism Without Hyphens".
"[An anarchist] is a person in opposition to authority imposed through the hierarchical power of the state. The only expansion of this that seems to me to be reasonable is to say that an anarchist stands in opposition to any imposed authority.
Now, beyond that, anarchists also are people and, as such, contain the billion-faceted varieties of human reference. Some are anarchists who march, voluntarily, to the Cross of Christ. Some are anarchists who flock, voluntarily, to the communities of beloved, inspirational father figures. Some are anarchists who seek to establish the syndics of voluntary industrial production. Some are anarchists who voluntarily seek to establish the rural production of the kibbutzim. Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, seek to disestablish everything including their own association with other people, the hermits. Some are anarchists who deal, voluntarily, only in gold, will never co-operate, and swirl their capes. Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, worship the sun and its energy, build domes, eat only vegetables, and play the dulcimer. Some are anarchists who worship the power of algorithms, play strange games, and infiltrate strange temples. Some are anarchists who only see the stars. Some are anarchists who only see the mud.
They spring from a single seed, no matter the flowering of their ideas. The seed is liberty. And that is all it is. It is not a socialist seed. It is not a capitalist seed. It is not a mystical seed. It is not a determinist seed. It is simply a statement. We can be free. After that it’s all choice and chance."
+Hooga I said he miss characterized anarchism, not Stirners motivation for not joining anarchists of his time.
I thought that because Stirner is so unknown that I wouldn't find anything on TH-cam about him. Well how wrong was I ? This guy Stirner is definitely on my wavelength it's uncanny!! I think that Stirner says get rid of idealism and things should be OK. I make reference to "The Spanish Inquisition" say for example.
Is the guy in the picture having a bad hair day or is that a hat? I love Wes Cecil!!!
HerrHolz Paul That’s Max Stirner and it was drawn by Friedrich Engels forty-years after stirner’s death because Stirners biographer wanted a drawing of him.
Caricature .
Is morality a spook?
stcr9768 yeah
Biggest spook there is
i say yes
o.b.v.i.o.u.s.l.y.
Max Stirner ; the humanoid typhoon
The correct German pronunciation is "Mux Shtyrner". Something like that because I think that certain German "i" sound doesn´t exist in English.
Nice video, I think I'll make it mine.
The audio in the last 20 mins is fucked. Someone keeps touching the mic or making other noises nearby.
Max stirner is my daddy
Glad I found this!
Stirner reminds me of Epicurus
How so?
+Max Stirner Focus on the self as the greatest good. No self-sacrifice. Acknowledging that people generally like to be around each other. Reception is that he's a weird radical dude.
+John Barnes
They do kinda touch on some of the same concepts,
+John Barnes Libertarian.
+John Barnes Yes I thought the same! Can we get Wes Cecil to comment on this?
Awesome lecture as usual
What an awful reading of Stirner, but unsurprising coming from an academic. The self or the I in this case should be thought of more in the phenomenological sense, e.g. without anything to perceive I would not exist therefore everything I perceive is my self. Cecil seems to confuse egoist with egotist. This is especially evident due to his total denouncement of Stirner-as-anarchist. Certainly Stirner did not call himself an anarchist, but this is unsurprising as the first use of the term occurred only 13 years before his birth and anarchism remained yet another spook (as mentioned in the lecture), until well after his death. To totally denounce affiliation however is to ignore the wide range of modern anarchist and egoist thinking which draw very heavily on Stirner. I have little doubt he would have been involved with this thinking if he were alive today. It's also rather amusing to see Cecil totally go back on his argument when speaking of race. Race of course is another spook (as is racism), but for just a moment Cecil twists Stirner in suggesting a broad abstract category can somehow apply to an individual, or as he mentions a small group of individuals. The censors of the past have become the filters in academia today. They still have no idea what to do about Stirner.
Thank you for these criticisms, a few of these wemt over my head
pure ideology
+Phil Fish Lol. Okay Zizek.. We get it. Trashcans.
Part of the dialectic.
and so on and so on...
*sniff*
Oh look it's the Lobster slayer
can someone please tell me their thoughts on stirner's central idea that individuals truly just want to serve their own interests and that all of their actions are a reflection of this universal truth, even when they appear to be altruistic? i cant quite make up my mind on the matter.
First of all, I've only recently been introduced into this line of thinking, and I'm merely a philosophy admirer rather than some academic/scholar. To me, Stirner does not ever advocate for one's selfish actions to appear to be altruistic, he throws that notion out of the window. The idea of selfishness here is to be open and honest that one is serving their own self & self-interests, free of any dogma or system that is external to them. The "desire to do good" is just as much a folly as the "desire to do bad". There should be no desire, just self-serving action by measuring the needs of oneself to everything around them. If your actions are for some altruism, you have to be VERY careful/aware of ties to some kind of external belief system/moral values out of your control. Hope this helps a bit
I am aware this video is 8 years old but it came across my recommended feed and gave it a watch. I did enjoy it but in my opinion the speaker is incorrect to assert Max Stirner was not an Anarchist. Though he never claimed to be he very much was. He was against all states as he viewed all as illegitimate ( a priori Anarchism). He just didn't care for a revolution as he just didn't see it as anything other than an abstraction (weak Anarchism). He was for voluntary associations (union of egoists) and through those the state would be irrelevant (Insurrectionary anarchism). Anyway just my thoughts.
Ideological anarchy = functional order
That Welllll always reminds me of punishment time in impractical jokers
Interesting how Niche and Rand are fairly well known but rarely hear about Stirner. All 3 seem to have different basis for starting their ideals but end up in roughly the same place due to accepting selfishness in a core ideal of human nature.
I think part of his obscurity is due to people loving to denounce religion but not wanting to acknowledge other collectivist entities are just as prone to the same problems. Be it governments, corporations, the climate crisis movement or even Unions.
An acknowledgement that you should matter most to yourself is seen and presented as evil. But what of when you expect others to have their same mind set and knowing that the other person need not agree to do things with you if it does not serve their interest.
Niet-zsche, not niche ^^
So great
Are "Materialism" & "Physicalism" spooks?
I'm getting notes of Yang-fu & Krishnamurti! Also NLP's nominalizations or abstract nouns!
very interesting. thanks for that. i like the voice!
09:00 onwards,42:00
Something something spook
33:10 I'm not sure if I would agree that Stirner would have been a proponent of private property. But this may be a semantics issue, as the way you describe it as being opposed to collective property is more of a liberal/libertatian interpretation. Whereas socialists & anarchists tend to view private property as the absentee ownership of productive or speculative assets, disconnected from the using or occupation of that property. I would imagine Stirner being opposed to this interpretation since private property (in the majority of instances) exists through being imposed on workers/communities by the state.
What you described as private property I would generally consider personal property. Semantics, I guess.
great explication of stirner albeit quite a few of the current event or example tie-ins are totally upside down-stirner wants you to fight for a river you like, and is against having health insurance? stirner is against averages or economic metrics, because they are inherently “abstract”? overall a good lecture that does a great job conveying stirner philosophically.
History is a spook itself.
Excellent thank you
The presenter sounds just like Tim Heidecker lol
Thicket, Wes, thicket. Ever heard of Chloe Goodchild, "The Naked Voice" ? I recommend it for you! Great read.
Anekantavada in the Western tradition.
:-)
Reminds me of Charvaka.
Thrasymachus is another ancient progenitor to Stirner
26:00
I’m confused as to how we can talk about “people by nature” under his philosophy because not everyone is the same. For example, is it not possible that some people *are* chaotic? And if so, if we say people by nature, we are referring to a group or on average, which is an abstraction, so doesn’t human nature not apply to Stirner’s philosophy? The only way I can see this section working out is if Stirner is asserting that every single person is not chaotic. That alone is quite a genuinely interesting claim.
Unless I’m misunderstanding and what he means is that we just shouldn’t talk about people by nature for moral or similar reasons?
that in itself is an abstraction created from looking at things at the whole.
youre missing the point.
Thank you
People stopped believing in monarchs not because they just woke up one day, but for material reasons. For instance, in England, the whole concept of a monarch crumbled when one was killed and the thrown was violently seized. This is because the concept was based upon being anointed by God. This basis fell away.
brilliant.
thanks prof!
Does anyone know the name of the poem by Pablo Neruda that Cecil referenced?
Alta traición (High treason) by José Emilio Pacheco
I want to be in his class.
"Outside of us" is also a fixed idea. The Earth is the centre of OUR Solar system
well done! Colloquial but not inconsequential lecture. Henri Bergson?
All I know is that it´s still important that the word "god" exists, as long as "out there" exists....and in the end (of the black hole) it´s just as cheap as: Do you think that you´re believing or believe that you´re thinking?
His next video is on Nietzsche, so that's not a good sign for this lecture
Im wondering would you ever do a forgotten thinkers video on Benjimen.R.Tucker
Does anyone know the name of the poem by Pablo Neruda mentioned at 15:24?
Looking at the comments gives me a superiority complex
What is the poem by pablo neruda called?
good fucking shit
Can't find the Pablo Neruda poem. Anyone has a link?