/lit/ - Literature

Is it true that Stirner disproved evolution by recognizing that there are no species, only the Unique? Did Jesus himself teach egoism? Is God an egoist? Is Saint Max’s subjectivist mysticism a call to reject Catholic dogmatism and embrace oneself as the arbitrator between the Unique and God?

>>7994898
Is it even possible to be a "Stirnerfag"?

On one hand the idea of following someone else's philosophy is against everything he stood for, but on the other hand it seems like his philosophy is the absence of philosophy in a way.

That just leads me back to the original question. It's like other philosophy are illnesses and he is the cure, but the cure is something you only take once and you don't "have a cure" in the same way you "have an illness."

>>6363095

Not considering oneself an egoist and not giving a shit what women have to say.

What do think would happen in a "war against all" as Striner advocated?

>>6349283

>should

"Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it. If your weal lay at my heart, I should act as the church did in withholding the Bible from the laity, or Christian governments, which make it a sacred duty for themselves to “protect the common people from bad books.”

But not only not for your sake, not even for truth’s sake either do I speak out what I think. No —

I sing as the bird sings

That on the bough alights;

The song that from me springs

Is pay that well requites.

I sing because — I am a singer. But I use you for it because I — need ears."

Is it possible to deconstruct stirner's egoism? Is it even possible to argue against it? I know Marx tried his hand at it, though his "critism" is pitiful.

>other stirnerests still don't realize spooks are absolutely fine as long as you are utilizing them and not them utilizing you

I hate niggers, I'm a trap and I believe in acetism. But this is what I'm comfortable with, all else is alien to me. Therefore, I make a spook to force others into doing my bidding.

There is nothing wrong with spooks as long as they remain tools and not Man.

I don't believe women can't be philosophers. I believe women aren't philosophers because they're spoilt and don't have to harded their heart to the world. Men live in a world of pain, and that makes them strong. Women live a life of pleasure and it makes them weak. Niggers can philosophize, but only about nature. They cannot create spooks, they're animals.

I'm a lot less cynical than most and genuinely believe these "trendy white kid pop-orientalist pseudo-religious hipsters", who likely live in a very materialistic society, honestly just want escape from it, to think about something higher and more meaningful than circular metal discs and paper notes for a few hours.

Of course, they fail spectacularly because they still hold the metal disc as *sacred*. Buddhism is the temporary exorcism of the ghost of money that possesses them. Money has no real value; it can only makes itself *real* by consuming the mortal mind for nourishment, by making itself corporeal through you. But the middle-class materialistic folk cannot break free of this etherial binding, they cannot destroy the concept of money and consume it, utilize it, as they see fit. They can only be haunted by it. Except the few nights a week they meet up with their "girlfriends" at the local Buddhist Temple.

>>6298731

I don't think so. When I see Stirner's forehead and glasses, a sense of kinship, recognition and understanding washes over me.

>>6285496
The "concept" of things that "should" or "should not" be done is just a spook m8

> part of the whole intellectual vocation is creating a niche for yourself, and if everybody can understand what you're talking about, you've sort of lost, because then what makes you special?

Yeah, tell that to Stirner who wrote of the most revolutionary and quintessential books on individualism and died forgotten and destitute because his books gave normies bad feels.

The Ego and his Own by Max Stirner.

>>6215781

Don't then. Regarding the law and property as sacred is for dumb fucks. Take Saint Stirner's example and simply don't recognize the right of your debters to take what they're owed.

To love something is to make it yours, to take it up into your own.

Asking to cancel all personal debt is like asking your master to spare you the whip. That isn't freedom. That's something you are *given* and can be taken away any time.

The answer is to reject the debt-holders right to repayment. But of course, the modern would never do something so "extreme", because they're pussies who beg the government to do everyhting for them, even give them their own freedom! Be like Stirner, just ignore your creditors. That takes real balls.

The only "right" is that which I entitle myself to. If I grant myself the right to believe in the "unreasonable", then there's nothing the scientist can do about it.

>>6184114

>freedom is "good"

Psshhhh, real fucking spooky kiddo.

>before the supreme proprietor we all become equal - ragamuffins. For the present, one is still in another's estimation "ragamuffin," a "have nothing"; but then this estimation ceases. We are all ragamuffins together, and as the aggregate of Communistic society we might as well call ourselves a "ragamuffin crew"

>That the communist see's in you the man, the brother, is only the Sunday-side of Communism. According to the work day side he does not by any means take you as man simply, but as a human laborer or laboring man. The first view in it has the Liberal principle; in the second, illiberality is concealed. If you were a "lazybones", he would not indeed fail to recognize the man in you, but would endeavor to cleanse him as a "lazy man" from laziness and to convert you to the faith that lobor is man's "destiny and calling"

Why do people think that Communism is some kind of post-scarcity utopia where they can lie in bed and eat doritos all day, when obviously in Communism a man is only worth his labor and the complete opposite? It seems to me these lazybones college students would be in for a shock if real Communism actually came to fruition.

>tfw its almost impossible to argue with plebs because explaining why they're wrong would require completely re-educating them on philosophy, history and literature for them to even understand what you're saying
>they never win the arguement, but dismiss you as "wierd" or "fucked up" because you're on a different mental plane than them

Just a gay version of Stirner. Stirner said in 1 book what Nietzche could only hope to in 10 books.

>>6073428

>le good and evil

kek

Nietzche was just a shit version of Stirner.