/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20942086]

>Reject authority faggot
What was his master plan?

[Anonymous No.20942098]

>>20942086
>right and wrong are spooks
>being spooked is wrong
No stirnerist has any rebuttal to this two line greentext

[Anonymous No.20942105]

>>20942086
Isn't Stirner like, an edgier Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.20942106]

>>20942086
To be free.

>>20942098
Try reading the book

[Anonymous No.20942108]

>>20942106
No

[Anonymous No.20942115]

>>20942105
kind of, he still has his moralistic moments (some rant against torture)

[Anonymous No.20942134]

>>20942105
No, Nietzsche does the cult of the "superior human". Stirner view of life is to be free of any living the way you want: he praise those living outside of any system like vagabond. For him, humanity as a whole should not be enchained, he doesn't want that out of virtues, but because it's for him the natural states of mankind.

[Anonymous No.20942422]

>>20942134
>the natural states of mankind
sounds like a SPOOKERINO to me, pal

[Anonymous No.20942445]

>>20942086
The removal of all mental conditioning and the embrace of psychopathic behavior.

[Anonymous No.20942454]

>>20942445
He wasn't as psychopatic as people think though. He embraced humans helping each others, even if it was for their own ego, because it benefited everyone.
In a way, he would not really push for someone to kill, because he knows that someone else would then kill you, continuing the cycle

[Anonymous No.20942465]

>>20942105
Stirner is a less edgy and more grounded Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.20943132]

>>20942086
egoist anarchy

[Anonymous No.20943133]

>>20942115
>some rant against torture
tell me them

[Anonymous No.20943143]

>>20942454
He argued that most people help each other because it benefits themselves, and that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.20943188]

Proto-fascist

[Anonymous No.20943221]

>>20942086
>What was his master plan?
To reject authority

[Anonymous No.20943291]

>>20942086
>What was his master plan?
Probably to bring about anarchy and dissolve the state out of some sentimental feeling toward nature. Stirner, like Rousseau, was too good-hearted for his philosophy and couldn’t fathom the vast majority of people being psychopathic without the whip of the law at their backs. As civilization started to break down, people would form collectives to defend themselves against other collectives, and these collectives would go on to become proto-states. There is no way to get rid of the state without getting rid of violence altogether, which is impossible. Now, an egoist can exist perfectly well within a state, but the union of egoists becoming a large-scale phenomenon is just wishful thinking on his part. The state is powerful. Instead of trying to topple it altogether, I think it is better to work within it and utilize it for our enjoyment. Nietzsche, Sade and the fascists seem like better options to me.

[Anonymous No.20943297]

>>20943291
seemed to work well enough that the americans, monarchists and communists all thought it as a big enough threat to gang up in unholy alliance against them

[Anonymous No.20943308]

>>20942086
Didn't read

[Anonymous No.20943320]

>>20942086

[Anonymous No.20943328]

>>20942086
Hegelians don't like Stirner because they can't cope with their 'absolute spirit' being a spook.

[Anonymous No.20943341]

>>20942098
The rebuttal is that Stirner's work is not prescriptive, it is descriptive. He gives you information, what you do with that information is your business.

[Anonymous No.20943343]

>>20943320
Philosophy is real, it's a real collection of people having opinions that ultimately don't matter.

[Anonymous No.20943376]

>>20943343
that's only a problem with the poorly written, fart sniffing writers like kierkegaard and schopenhauer.
otherwise, the thoughts of philosophers are held in high regard, so long as those philosophers have something useful to say. broaden your understanding of what a philosopher is and you'll understand how they play a pivotal role in people's lives.

[Anonymous No.20943414]

>>20943376
Just because some of their opinions lead to real world effects does not mean they're not just opinions. The goal of philosophy is to unveil to us the truth. However, every philosophy has at best given us an interpretation of the veil before the truth. Some of these interpretations may be more interesting to look at than those of others, but in the end they all reach the truth as much as the babbling of a young child.

Philosophy is just somewhat more fanciful poetry.

[Anonymous No.20943458]

>>20943414
That's true, but the fact that their thoughts are ultimately opinions doesn't make their ideas irrelevant, especially when we consider the impact those ideas have on societies.

If we go to the baseline understanding of fact being the phenomenon around us and opinion being our description of this phenomenon, then all ideas, whether factual or not, must start as opinion before it can be recognized as fact within our realm of understanding. Thus describing ideas as opinions says nothing about the validity of said opinions as it relates to our understanding of phenomenon or the usefulness of it in achieving one's goals.

basically, opinions can be useful even if they are just opinions. if i wanted to get laid and reading some pua book helped me do it, then the opinions of that author are useful.

[Anonymous No.20943549]

>>20943458
I do not call philosophies "opinions" to imply there is anything a human can say that is above opinion. Of course there are useful and less useful opinions, there are interesting and less interesting opinions, there are pretty and less pretty opinions.
The point is that all philosophy is incapable of reaching "truth" that it set out to find.

[Anonymous No.20943559]

>>20943376
that's cool but why are you posting a fucking kike who didn't work a day in his life

[Anonymous No.20943608]

>>20943549
philosophy isn't made in a vacuum though. it's a collective process with each philosopher working off ideas that were already present by another. even if it doesn't reach any grand truth, it pushes philosophy closer towards some sort of truth.
imo a philosopher doesn't need to reach a grand truth so long as its useful towards improving the lives of people.

>>20943559
because his ideas sparked revolutions and wars

[Anonymous No.20943650]

>>20943608
>it pushes philosophy closer towards some sort of truth.
Here I disagree. It pushes philosophy around the truth, like the ecretion disc of a black hole. At best it keeps circling around. Again, there can be usefulness in this analysis of the veil, as we humans ultimately only act upon the veil ourselves, and are part of the veil around truth. Philosophy can be a useful tool to look at the veil and make sense of it, but it cannot pierce through the veil. But I would not call a useful tool "truth". Hammer is just a word we use for a piece of metal on a piece of wood.

[Anonymous No.20943718]

>>20943650
to make sure i understand you, what is it that you think makes philosophy incapable of piercing the veil or discovering the "truth"? if anything, i would think the biggest factor is our mental capacities and the amount of the veil or whatever that we're exposed to.

[Anonymous No.20943741]

>>20943188
>want to be away from the states and let people live the way they want
>facist
a-are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.20943747]

>>20942105
In conclusion, they both rely on nihilism to the extent, but where they diverge is that in Stirner’s view, Nietzsche’s Overman would be just another spook (a ghost born in the mind, a made-up thing). The main aim for Stirner was the battle against such spooks, the sacred ideas, or any creations. In other words, Stirner always stays deep down in the abyss, whereas Nietzche’s project is the affirmation of a man standing above it, looking down at its gates in disgust. Nietzsche, on the other hand, would just call Stirner a monster, a resident of the abyss; a person of complete nihilism, a cynical being.

[Anonymous No.20943748]

>>20943741
Stirner didn't want people "to live the way they want", he wanted himself to live the way he wants, and those concerning him to be happy insofar as they concern him.
If there is one big mistake people make when reading Stirner, it is that they interpret his philosophy to be some kind of sociopolitical project.

[Anonymous No.20943761]

>>20943718
I think the main reason is that philosophy is part of the veil around truth, or rather it substantiates this veil, and presupposes something to explain rather than something to portrait. The veil around truth is man-made, or rather mind-made, as is all that humanity dabbles in. When philosophy speaks of an "ought", it becomes empty and circular, and when it speaks of an "is", scientific materialism has it beat.

[Anonymous No.20943770]

>>20942115
That was not a moralistic moment, that was a thought experiment.

>I also love human beings, not just a few individuals,[358] but every one. But I love them with the awareness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because love is natural to me, it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments me, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill, not torture, them. In contrast, the high-minded, virtuous philistine prince Rudolph in The Mysteries of Paris[359] plots the torture of the wicked, because they “enrage” him. That fellow-feeling only proves that the feeling of those who feel is also mine, my property; in contrast to which the relentless practices of the “righteous” person (for example, against the notary Ferrand[360]) resembles the lack of feeling of that robber who cut off or stretched his prisoners’ legs to the measure of his bedstead[361]: Rudolph’s bedstead, to whose measure he cut human beings, is the concept of the “good.” The feeling for right, virtue, etc., makes one hard-hearted and intolerant. Rudolph doesn’t feel as the notary feels, but contrarily feels that “it serves the rascal right”; this is not fellow-feeling.

I am assuming you are referring to this section. He is totally fine with torture if you do not try to claim higher purpose for it.

[Anonymous No.20943837]

>>20942086
To get African Americans shot by the police.

[Anonymous No.20943838]

>>20943761
you dont think it's possible to get close or at least a sufficient understanding of things to sate our simple, human desires? after all, what would be the purpose in piercing the veil except to quell curiosity? so long as we can function in happiness, peace, and prosperity, I see no reason to dig too deep into the "truth". i dont think we'll be neo destroying the matrix even if we do figure things out.

[Anonymous No.20943866]

>>20943747
>any creations
The creation being a spook depends on the individual’s orientation towards it, not on the creation itself. Spooks only occur when the individual ceases to see themselves as the content of the creation. In other words, there is no spook-in-itself but only the spook-for-me. If I find Nietzsche’s philosophical vision enjoyable, I will implement and use it in my life. It would only be a spook if I didn’t find Nietzsche enjoyable and saw him as an authority figure on how I ought to be.

[Anonymous No.20943915]

>>20943559
sub-psued post

[Anonymous No.20943962]

>>20943838
It is probably possible to look behind the veil, but every glance we have gotten of "how the world actually is" (rather than "how people in the world behave" or "what humans imagine themselves to be") has come from materialistic science, and thus it seems just as empty - as there is no value system attached to it. Humans are not an important aspect of the world they inhabit, and every actual truth can only ever be inhuman. Thus truth has very little use for humanity outside of pure pragmatism.

Philosophy is a very much human thing, and so it can be useful for humans and humans only. But as such, it is also prone to biase, inconsistency and being opinionated. Following, any philosophy can be regarded and disregarded as seems fit for any particular individual. Any philosophy that exists had at one point an individual that believes in it, but just like that the individual can change their mind and believe in something else with barely any consequence.

[Anonymous No.20944170]

>>20943559
That which contributes to the sum of human knowledge is productive labor, marx's complete works extend to over 50 volumes

[Anonymous No.20944313]

Just live and don't give a shit about what others think of you if that's make you happy. that's it, it's not complicated.
People hated him, because Stirner philosophy is the anti-community.
Be a criminal, be a hero, just be the person you want to be and always stay true to your believes.
He is the Lupin the Third of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20944358]

>>20943962
I've never considered it from that perspective, but i think i agree with you almost wholeheartedly, especially with science being more useful than philosophy, though i gotta say this is a lot for me to process all at once.

Considering everything you've said individually, I think the main thing I dont understand is
>Humans are not an important aspect of the world they inhabit, and every actual truth can only ever be inhuman.
Could you go more in depth to explain this to me? I really do want to understand your perspective.

[Anonymous No.20944382]

I HATE SPOOKERS

[Anonymous No.20944430]

>>20942105
He's just a Hegelian who builds on Hegel's theory of self actualization. He and Nietzsche are quite similar because they borrow that from Hegel since they use his arguments of how cultural development of society, and the individual, happens.
>>20942086
Szeligia on Stirner
>"He was -- and I speak here from the year 1841 onward -- simply an amiable and unobtrusive person, never offensive nor striving after brilliant effects either in phrase, conduct, or appearance. He was never drunk, was temperate in eating, cool, chaste, not a gambler, never angry, uninclined to philosophizing, being offhanded and joking during discussions. The general impression was of an intelligent, unimpressive good person. He was agreeable to be with, as he had no power to resist any request, and I know of no occasion where he made an accusation against anyone or spoke badly about someone behind their back. His basic attitude was one of easy indifference."
This demeanor isn't difficult to get from his book either. Mackay noted his life was essentially stoic, and you could see how his book matches up with that that type of attitude. You control what your capabilities allow, and you don't let idealism get into your way.

[Anonymous No.20944441]

>>20944430
His ex wife did say however he was a very "sly" person and their relation was more of "cohabitation" than love.
I think Stirner just wanted a quiet life, neither an "evil" or "good" person.

[Anonymous No.20944445]

>>20943291
Stirner was not against statism on principle. His argument against it was Machiavellian. He only opposed to states against his interests. He was never interested in a collective human project. He describes the world as essentially an endless war against war against all. There is no final goal or end state for humanity for him.

[Anonymous No.20944463]

>>20942086
You tell me.

[Anonymous No.20944465]

>>20944441
Yeah, essentially yes. He was a superfluous man. He wasn't trying to be some revolutionary. He wanted to be a business man with a successful milk co-operative, and have children, but I believe his pessimism those failures and his early life (losing his mother to mental illness, his father to death, being without siblings) pushed him towards a self interested direction, hermetic direction sorta like Zarathustra.

[Anonymous No.20944470]

>>20942098
>being spooked is wrong
I don't think this was ever asserted.

[Anonymous No.20944479]

>>20944465
He also lost his first wife and his baby in a stilborn incident.

[Anonymous No.20944524]

>>20943747
To put it better, I would say Nietzsche was actively looking for creating a new political project for humanity Nietzsche was a political thinker. If you have time, I would read "Nietzsche's Great Politics" by Hugo Drochon. Essentially Nietzche was looking for alternative the ideologies of modernism (socialism, liberalism, anarchism) because he saw them moving humanity towards a negative direction. Stirner, on the other hand, wasn't trying to do that. He was of the mindset of Zhuangzi - don't even bother, and be suspicious of any totalist ideology.

[Anonymous No.20944617]

>>20944358
>>Humans are not an important aspect of the world they inhabit, and every actual truth can only ever be inhuman.
By that I mean that humanity are not as central to the world at large as they consider themselves. They are essentially one of many chemical reactions bubbling up on the surface of some planet around some star.
From a human perspective, this may not matter as the human can just consider himself central to the world. This works in the context of human action, and in philosophy. But if we are trying to see truth, this point of view completely falls apart rather quickly, as we need to consider the world at large. The more we are thinking about how the world works, the smaller the fraction becomes in which a human position is any relevant.

[Anonymous No.20944998]

>>20942086
for some reasons this drawing keep making me laugh, he just look too smug

[Anonymous No.20945104]

>>20944465
>>20944479
Stirner... had a hard life.

[Anonymous No.20945128]

One key thing about Stirner is that he was not supportive of the revolutions of 1848, the French Revolution, or revolutions in general, because he saw them as simply replacing one master with another. He thought it was stupid his friends were throwing their lives away on the barricades for "liberties" that were going to limited to particular classes. Revolutions are self interested, and ultimately always serve the interests of few people at the expense of others. You're essentially throwing your life away so the soil is usable by some schmuck. To Stirner, freedom is a function of individual capability, and is not tied to any moral or legal restrictions. You don't need to be a revolutionary to be iconoclastic, autonomous enough to live life on your own terms. He praises the classical, greek sophistic understanding of individualism - the willingness to use your strength, your courage and natural abilities to achieve your purpose in life.

[Anonymous No.20945167]

>>20945128
which donald comic is this

[Anonymous No.20945174]

>>20944998
I believe it is one of the main reasons why he is so popular on this board.

[Anonymous No.20945179]

>>20944470
Okay then I will continue being spooked

[Anonymous No.20945239]

>>20945128
>He praises the classical, greek sophistic understanding of individualism - the willingness to use your strength, your courage and natural abilities to achieve your purpose in life.
Where can I read more about this concept?

[Anonymous No.20945291]

>>20945167
Kingdom Hearts manga

[Anonymous No.20945293]

>>20944998
It's such a great fucking drawing, yeah.

[Anonymous No.20945299]

The suppression of Stirner in academia is all the proof you need. No one wants you to think for yourself.

[Anonymous No.20945312]

>>20944470
>>20945179
Spoiler: The sppoks are the friends we made along the way

[Anonymous No.20945324]

>>20945299
Me neither BTW I want you to agree with me. All the more proof how pervasive spooks are.

[Anonymous No.20945452]

>>20945299
I actually wonder why his writing are almost ignored by everyone now while nietzsche is very popular and even praised by people young and old.

[Anonymous No.20945910]

>>20945299
Stirner had to get a job because his parents could not provide for him. Stirner dropped out of college to care for his mother. Marx never worked a day in his life, and was supported by his aristocratic wife and his own family of wealthy Rabbis. Marx did not even attend his father or his mother's funeral. He also cheated on his wife. Stirner never cheated on his wife, and worked as a translator to support his wife. One is considered the founders of sociology. The other is a forgotten nobody. You can draw conclusions from there.
>>20945239
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/callicles-thrasymachus/
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%202%20GREEKS/Sophists.htm
https://iep.utm.edu/sophists
Plato's Republic and the Gorgias Dialogue. Specific the parts about Callicles' Speech (Gorgias) and Thrasymachus arguments in Plato's Republic with Socrates. You should be very similar with them and Protagoras. But in all, every Greek sophist taught a form of individualism, and the importance of rhetoric as a skill for survival. Not related, but Nietzsche also held the Greek Sophists, in high regard, praising them as people who drove every advance of philosophy forward in "The Will To Power." Being familiar with the relationship between Hegel, Nietzsche, Stirner and the Sophists do help tremendously with understanding each of their points.

[Anonymous No.20945975]

>>20945910
>One is considered the founders of sociology. The other is a forgotten nobody. You can draw conclusions from there.
Because one was widely read and very influential at his time and beyond, and the other barely wrote three books and a half that barely anyone read while the writer was still alive.
Listen, I am very much on Stirner's side in the Stirner vs Marx debate, but calm it with the antisemitic remarks. The fact that people care more about Marx in academia is that Marx is more relevant, not because da jews want to stop capitalism.

[Anonymous No.20946094]

>spooks are spooks
how do you refute this?

[Anonymous No.20946103]

>>20946094
refutation is a spook

[Anonymous No.20946106]

>>20945128
this image makes me want to play kingdom hearts

[Anonymous No.20946330]

>>20946094
If a spook is beneficial to you, then it's good. But don't ever put it above yourself.

[Anonymous No.20946333]

>writer was """lazy"""" therefore bad
spook

[Anonymous No.20946341]

>>20945910
Marx's family were converts to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.20946347]

>>20945975
These people just think Jews shouldn't exist and anything they do is malicious, you're talking to genocidal schizophrenics dude

[Anonymous No.20946367]

>>20946330
>But don't ever put it above yourself
if christianity is beneficial to me (i feel better, have a will to live etc.) how can i not put it above myself? at least if i'm such a person that being a fake christian doesn't give me the beneficial effects (feeling better and so on)

[Anonymous No.20946378]

>>20946367
That's not my problem dude, I'm not your therapist

[Anonymous No.20946387]

>>20946378
>I'm not your therapist bro!
this isn't a therapy session, imbecile
i posed a dilemma related to your answer
you should either give a proper response or concede that your refutation sucks

[Anonymous No.20946520]

>>20945910
>Marx never worked a day in his life
Why do projecting niggers always say this? He had numerous jobs before he was exiled. If anything, Stirner never paid back his debts.

[Anonymous No.20946604]

>>20946387
The thing is that I don't really care to change your mind and I'm not obligated to
There's a lot of problems with putting your religion above yourself but you don't wanna hear them or think they're issues in the first place

[Anonymous No.20946613]

>>20946520
It's part of the "you say workers rights but you le lazy" meme
It's not a point to be taken seriously, they don't care if it's even wrong or not

[Anonymous No.20946940]

>>20945179

[Anonymous No.20946955]

>>20943376
>talks about fart sniffing philosophers
>posts Karl Marx

[Anonymous No.20946969]

>>20945910
*one of the founders of sociology

[Anonymous No.20947117]

>>20946955
what's wrong with marx?

[Anonymous No.20947851]

I have read the entirety of Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, and at no point does Stirner use the term "Spuk". He says "Es spukt." (Aka "It is haunted.") though. How did the "spook" meme start?

[Anonymous No.20948336]

>>20947851
Mit den Gespenstern gelangen Wir ins Geisterreich, ins Reich der Wesen.

Was in dem Weltall spukt und sein mysteriöses, »unbegreifliches« Wesen treibt, das ist eben der geheimnisvolle Spuk, den Wir höchstes Wesen nennen. Und diesem Spuk auf den Grund zu kommen, ihn zu begreifen, in ihm die Wirklichkeit zu entdecken (das »Dasein Gottes« zu beweisen), – diese Aufgabe setzten sich Jahrtausende die Menschen; mit der gräßlichen Unmöglichkeit, der endlosen Danaidenarbeit, den Spuk in einen Nicht-Spuk, das Unwirkliche in ein Wirkliches, den Geist in eine ganze und leibhaftige Person zu verwandeln, – damit quälten sie sich ab. Hinter der daseienden Welt suchten sie das »Ding an sich«, das Wesen, sie suchten hinter dem Ding das Unding.

[Anonymous No.20948498]

>>20947851
translations, in english it's spook, in spanish the translator uses fantasma and espectro

[Anonymous No.20948520]

>be me
>be german
>want to read stirner
>decide to order Der Einzige und sein Eigentum online through a local bookstore
>go to pick it up
>store is only open for picking up orders because of corona
>wearing mask
>the day i ordered it i came up with what i thought was a sick piece of small talk
>decide to use it on the person processing my order, no matter who it's gonna be
>rehearsing the bit in my head
>hoping for a cute girl
>go up to the register and it's a middle aged woman
>tell her i ordered a book
>she says "name?"
>i thought she asked for the author's name and say "Max Stirner"
>she's typing it in and says no one by that name ordered anything
>i explain and give her my name
>already cringing
>she gets the book
>as she hands it to me i prepare for my badass small talk bit
>start by saying "you know-" right as she gives me the total
>off we go again
>mumbling under my mask "you know if I adhered to the philosophy that this book is talking about i would steal this book hehe"
>"I'm sorry come again?"
>keep mumbling "well this book talks about egoism... it's about, you know, being your own creative nothing"
>she doesn't seem to understand
>"it's not that important"
>asks me to pay again
>struggle to get the money out of my wallet with the book in my hand
>leave
>as i exit i shake my head and realize i did not act like an egoist

[Anonymous No.20948568]

>>20945910
Should I read Gorgias or the Republic first?

[Anonymous No.20948624]

>>20945975
>>20946347
Lol retards, what did he say that was “antisemitic”?

[Anonymous No.20948634]

>>20948520
did you read the book in a park later? And have a couple walk past and the guy ask if you where reading Shakespeare

[Anonymous No.20948648]

>>20948624
The idea that Marx is only relevant due to his nepotistic connections with "wealthy rabbis".

[Anonymous No.20948683]

>>20948634
I often sit reading books near the campus of my local university (i do not attend university) and look out for people who look in my general vicinity. I usually smile at them. I've been engaged in conversation twice (by men unfortunately). The books I was reading were the following
1. In the heart of the heart of the country by william gass
2. The chants of maldoror by lautreamont
on the first occasion I was asked what the book was about. I replied "it is a collection of short stories" I was again asked what they were about. I admit i made something up on the fly that was not necessarily accurate as the writing of gass went mostly over my head.
on the second occasion I was not asked about the book (thank heavens, as that one I did understand in large part and it would have been quite awkward to explain the contents). i was asked what I studied as I'm often seem near campus but apparently the two persons (both male) never saw me in any class, nor did their peers (at least I'm getting known). I replied that I do not study at the university but like to be in the vicinity because I enjoy the company of those who are hungry for knowledge as I am. this is not a lie but I did not memtion that I'm also trying to meet cute girls. they then asked why I don't enroll in university if I enjoy being there anyway. I replied that I'm an autodidact. they understood and went on their way. later today I'll go sit on my usual bench again though I've not yet decided which book to bring.

[Anonymous No.20949076]

>>20948683
Just stealthfully join a few university clubs with some artsy fartsy shit (full of women), they usually don't have barriers to filter out randoms joining. Otherwise consider moving to a library since women in uni just go clubbing and taking dick instead of learning or asking what some random dude is reading (they're not there to learn).

[Anonymous No.20949093]

>>20949076
I am unsure if I can join said clubs without being enrolled but I will ask around. I might even ask a cute girl. Who knows where it will lead.
I have been banned from my local library

[Anonymous No.20949094]

>>20947851
Tu es hanté!

[Anonymous No.20949132]

>>20942086
>>20942098
>>20942105
Stirner was a shitposter

[Anonymous No.20949326]

>>20948520
I know this is a copypasta shit post, but I don't understand why people are shy and why it's associated with book readers. I chat with librarians, cashiers at book stores, and others quite a lot. Many people are obviously starved for conversation, even self-assigned shy people. I've dated 5 people through a library and made 4 close friends directly through books (1 philosophy, the rest fiction but all like Stirner now).

[Anonymous No.20949465]

>>20949326
it has turned into a copypasta but I was the originator of it. pic related is the copy of der Einzige und sein Eigentum that i bought in early 2021. i think it was February or March

[Anonymous No.20949855]

>>20949465
I wish you more confidence in your speech, my property. There's nothing more pleasurable than taking someone's attention as they take yours.

[Anonymous No.20949898]

>>20946604
it's not about putting religion about yourself, it's about that claim contradicting your "if a spook is beneficial to you, then it's good, but don't ever put it above yourself" claim - you can't not put religion above yourself, at least if you aren't a hypocrite when it comes to religion
i can't explain it in a simpler way than this, if you still don't understand my question then you're a brainlet

[Anonymous No.20949951]

>>20942086
To get spammed on 4chans /lit/ board by autistic teenagers

[Anonymous No.20950047]

>>20942098
>right and wrong are spooks
literally is about bee yourself (the unique). that is the "right" thing to do. he explicitly say it.

[Anonymous No.20950103]

>>20944617
>They are essentially one of many chemical reactions bubbling up on the surface of some planet around some star.
>he thinks this is not a human conception of things.