Whatever politics another attempts to subjegate me, No matter If its left or right, can easily be dismissed using the very arguments by stirner, so all attempts at Reading him in ones one way, will obviously work for oneself, but fail misreably when attempting to use it upon others. Making stirner a Great tool against the very people who use him
I mean, yeah but Haag's reading of stirner comes through a far right lens. I read him in a more neutral sense "he's merely describing what he noted about people's psychologies + describes his own stance". I think that any system can be a valid choice as long as your support for it is merely instrumental
@@BurnigLegionsBlade No joke, Stirner even if you met him because of Leftist internet communities (as I did) he wasnt either a leftist or a right winger not even in his time, he never made that clear, he knew the left Young Hegelians thats it, but he clearly didn't agree with them on a lot. If Stirner was alive today this is assumption but I think he would be a Rightwinger as almost every old time philosopher would likely be lol. Stirner never openly told us what Economy type he would like, he never told us what his views on culture are (although we can assume an average of his era so conservative by today's standards). Anyway, he is right. Might makes right, that really is the core of politics & property. It's really good Chad read him from the right, not the left because leftist takes on Stirner are already plentyful & none of them comprehends him either, Stirner is actually simple to understand Chad got what matters out of the lecture.
@@ElDrHouse2010 Yeah I enjoy reading from multiple viewpoints as well, and I'm glad Haag posted it but what I was saying is that if someone's first impression of Stirner comes from Haag and they don't look up other persepctives, or don't read the book, they will end up reducing Stirner to being Hoppe and Nick Land's biggest simp
@@BurnigLegionsBlade I definitely agree that people ought to read the primary text and would encourage looking into other perspectives in likeness and differing from Haag's (Jacob Blumenfeld, Daniel J. Castellano, Kane B, Gustav Landauer, Gilles Deleuze, Sir Josephine Deathscythe, etc.) because they all seem extremely polarizing in the way they consume the Unique and Its Own which is effectively a carcass of a long dead left for anyone to consume while only his ghost remaining in the form of memes on internet forums. Although I had hoped for some mention of Hegel in Haag's lecture (considering Stirner along with Ludwig Fauerbach were the only of the Young Hegelian's who actually attended Hegel's lectures) I'm extremely pleased to see yet another vocal perspective given on TH-cam that could lead to new discussions in the comments.
At around 21 minutes, you mix up "Wissenschaft" for "Gesellschaft" ('science' for 'society'). The latter is derived from from "Sal" or 'hall'. Otherwise a great analysis of what Stirner was doing.
Interesting seeing a right leaning reading of Stirner. Most of Stirners fans I would say lean left. Stirner would call these political affiliations spooks.
There is some truth to it in the beginning. He is correct about rights, and it's been talked about by La Boétie and it was the original definition of natural rights that stems from the scholastics. The distinction between worker and consumers is also something I thought about, but it's not just for reprobates, everybody is destined to be consumers as technology advances, so while some people might be under the illusion that they have some sort of merit and value by being part of the system, it's only temporary and because the State allows it, and it allows if for less and less people overall. He veers into idiocy towards the end. He's actually the one that wants to get back to medieval age, where there were independent peasants, a few intellectuals and artisans, so they can all have "property" and do more or less as they please inside their limited economic means. It's just that in that system, it's the economy and the markets that limited people, so it could be freer, but in an abundance economy, it has to be the State that does it. The workers produce as much they can, and the State redistribute to consumers so the workers can work more and get more value. Otherwise, the whole system would crash down upon itself and then people would be equal, which is the opposite of what people like Stirner wants. You can have a genius, if he does not have the tools to work with, he will be nothing and equal to the incompetent. Also the idea that only free people can care about others, is a common sophistry that was demonstrated false time and time again because it was the case in the medieval ages. Like the king had to be forced by the Church to give back to the poor. The Churches themselves used charity to promote their own faith and would give only to that faith, which included hospitals and all services because they were basically the "socialist" part of the system, while the king was the productive part. And of course, people were forced by the Church, or strongly encouraged to give because otherwise, they would not do it, and that was on top of "voluntary" givings each mass enforced by social reprobation. But it did not start like that, at first the idea was that those that had too much would simply give the extra, and those that had not enough would take, but it never worked and never will. People never give freely, they always ask something in return, otherwise they think it's not fair and what they ask for is usually a lot more than what they gave. Most of the time, they ask for the other person's soul for eternity. Basically the main problem is he believes delusionally that he is not part of the system, but desperately wants to to give himself some value, and wants to destroy the people that are not part of the system in reality and may not want to be part of it either. It's important for his own ego, because it has to be a competition, and he thinks he either has won already, so wants others to envy him, or he delusionally think he is there already. Takes everything social that is given to him, privatize it and then claim to be successful, and wants to stop others to do the same. It's an old trick quite clearly.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[2/2] ประสบการณ์ขนหัวลุกจากตำนานวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T_kFecQw7Ds/mqdefault.jpg)
Whatever politics another attempts to subjegate me, No matter If its left or right, can easily be dismissed using the very arguments by stirner, so all attempts at Reading him in ones one way, will obviously work for oneself, but fail misreably when attempting to use it upon others. Making stirner a Great tool against the very people who use him
Max Stirner = Just reminding us that Might Makes Right & how to free yourself from softpower psyops if they do not really benefit you
Read Stirner Critics as well it's super short anyway.
I mean, yeah but Haag's reading of stirner comes through a far right lens. I read him in a more neutral sense "he's merely describing what he noted about people's psychologies + describes his own stance". I think that any system can be a valid choice as long as your support for it is merely instrumental
@@BurnigLegionsBlade No joke, Stirner even if you met him because of Leftist internet communities (as I did) he wasnt either a leftist or a right winger not even in his time, he never made that clear, he knew the left Young Hegelians thats it, but he clearly didn't agree with them on a lot. If Stirner was alive today this is assumption but I think he would be a Rightwinger as almost every old time philosopher would likely be lol. Stirner never openly told us what Economy type he would like, he never told us what his views on culture are (although we can assume an average of his era so conservative by today's standards).
Anyway, he is right. Might makes right, that really is the core of politics & property.
It's really good Chad read him from the right, not the left because leftist takes on Stirner are already plentyful & none of them comprehends him either, Stirner is actually simple to understand Chad got what matters out of the lecture.
@@ElDrHouse2010 Yeah I enjoy reading from multiple viewpoints as well, and I'm glad Haag posted it but what I was saying is that if someone's first impression of Stirner comes from Haag and they don't look up other persepctives, or don't read the book, they will end up reducing Stirner to being Hoppe and Nick Land's biggest simp
@@BurnigLegionsBlade I definitely agree that people ought to read the primary text and would encourage looking into other perspectives in likeness and differing from Haag's (Jacob Blumenfeld, Daniel J. Castellano, Kane B, Gustav Landauer, Gilles Deleuze, Sir Josephine Deathscythe, etc.) because they all seem extremely polarizing in the way they consume the Unique and Its Own which is effectively a carcass of a long dead left for anyone to consume while only his ghost remaining in the form of memes on internet forums. Although I had hoped for some mention of Hegel in Haag's lecture (considering Stirner along with Ludwig Fauerbach were the only of the Young Hegelian's who actually attended Hegel's lectures) I'm extremely pleased to see yet another vocal perspective given on TH-cam that could lead to new discussions in the comments.
At around 21 minutes, you mix up "Wissenschaft" for "Gesellschaft" ('science' for 'society'). The latter is derived from from "Sal" or 'hall'. Otherwise a great analysis of what Stirner was doing.
I apologize for the mistake; thanks for notifying me of it. Thanks also for watching and commenting on the video
Interesting seeing a right leaning reading of Stirner. Most of Stirners fans I would say lean left. Stirner would call these political affiliations spooks.
There is some truth to it in the beginning.
He is correct about rights, and it's been talked about by La Boétie and it was the original definition of natural rights that stems from the scholastics.
The distinction between worker and consumers is also something I thought about, but it's not just for reprobates, everybody is destined to be consumers as technology advances, so while some people might be under the illusion that they have some sort of merit and value by being part of the system, it's only temporary and because the State allows it, and it allows if for less and less people overall.
He veers into idiocy towards the end. He's actually the one that wants to get back to medieval age, where there were independent peasants, a few intellectuals and artisans, so they can all have "property" and do more or less as they please inside their limited economic means. It's just that in that system, it's the economy and the markets that limited people, so it could be freer, but in an abundance economy, it has to be the State that does it. The workers produce as much they can, and the State redistribute to consumers so the workers can work more and get more value. Otherwise, the whole system would crash down upon itself and then people would be equal, which is the opposite of what people like Stirner wants. You can have a genius, if he does not have the tools to work with, he will be nothing and equal to the incompetent.
Also the idea that only free people can care about others, is a common sophistry that was demonstrated false time and time again because it was the case in the medieval ages. Like the king had to be forced by the Church to give back to the poor. The Churches themselves used charity to promote their own faith and would give only to that faith, which included hospitals and all services because they were basically the "socialist" part of the system, while the king was the productive part. And of course, people were forced by the Church, or strongly encouraged to give because otherwise, they would not do it, and that was on top of "voluntary" givings each mass enforced by social reprobation. But it did not start like that, at first the idea was that those that had too much would simply give the extra, and those that had not enough would take, but it never worked and never will. People never give freely, they always ask something in return, otherwise they think it's not fair and what they ask for is usually a lot more than what they gave. Most of the time, they ask for the other person's soul for eternity.
Basically the main problem is he believes delusionally that he is not part of the system, but desperately wants to to give himself some value, and wants to destroy the people that are not part of the system in reality and may not want to be part of it either. It's important for his own ego, because it has to be a competition, and he thinks he either has won already, so wants others to envy him, or he delusionally think he is there already. Takes everything social that is given to him, privatize it and then claim to be successful, and wants to stop others to do the same. It's an old trick quite clearly.