/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4907629]

Max Stirner is the end of philosophy.

It is literally perfect. There is NO criticism capable of defeating it.

I'll start with this:
>The moral man is necessarily narrow in that he knows no other enemy than the 'immoral' man. 'He who is not moral is immoral!' and accordingly reprobate, despicable, etc. Therefore, the moral man can never comprehend the egoist.

Anyone who talks of morality has obviously never met someone who is autistically legalistic about everything despite falling inside the lines.

[Anonymous No.4907636]

>>4907629

Didn't Baudrillard already basically say that in The Spirit of Terrorism?

[Anonymous No.4907642]

>>4907636

I don't read french authors. French is a gay language, and therefore all french are faggots.

I am not a faggot.

As a drop of wine in sewage makes sewage, a drop of sewage in wine makes sewage.

I refuse to touch the stuff.

[Anonymous No.4907645]

>>4907629

>It is literally perfect. There is NO criticism capable of defeating it.

i really wish you myopic empty secularists would go and stay gone

[Anonymous No.4907652]

>>4907642
Well, you could have at least tried to make sense

[Anonymous No.4907654]

>>4907645

wow faggot you know a lot of us wear glasses don't fucking go there

[Anonymous No.4907655]

>>4907645

I'll respond to that quote, too, by asserting that the act of discourse is itself meaningless. I'll allow this assertion to stand as an affront to OP's quote.

[Anonymous No.4907659]

>>4907642

>so epic xD

Take it to another board, child.

[Anonymous No.4907664]

So i can't be a catholic and like Stirner's philosophy?

[Anonymous No.4907670]

>>4907664

You can.
Stirner's point is that rules are for fools. It's perfectly fine to be a hypocrite. There is literally nothing to stop you (unless someone is going to kick your ass if you tell them about it)

[Anonymous No.4907671]

I itch.

[Anonymous No.4907673]

>>4907629
Thought is preceded by language and health, which require a favorable environment. The Musselman and that girl who was locked in a closet since she was born (and so had no language, no thought, and behaved much like a timid rabbit) demonstrate that ego is not an inherent property to man, but a constructed luxury given to man by a beneficent society.

[Anonymous No.4907677]

>>4907642

you can always tell when a new wave of younger posters start to migrate to /lit/. bless their little hearts.

[Anonymous No.4907684]

>>4907677

are you mad?

[Anonymous No.4907686]

>>4907670

>rules are for fools

Bro I think I'm gonna make a t-shirt out of this it's just too real for all those sheep around me to deny. Stirner is the end of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4907696]

>>4907636
Not at all. What is reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.4907698]

>>4907670
So he's an anarchist?

[Anonymous No.4907701]

I've been reading Ego and His Own and I've been loving it. I've also come to the logical conclusion that Stirner is the end of philosophy as I know it. If the world truly followed Stirner's philosophy, then philosophy would be no more. I don't think you can say that for any other philosopher.

It's incredible. It's so simple yet so damn brilliant. I don't know what else to say. He goes all the way. It cures everything.

I think we should rewrite the Four Noble Truths:
>1. There is suffering
>2. Suffering has an origin
>3. Suffering can cease.
>4. The way to cease suffering is Stirner.

[Anonymous No.4907702]

>>4907684

>are you mad?

to see new kids on /lit/? it happens all the time

[Evola « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » K(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.4907706]

>>4907629
So he's basically Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.4907709]

>>4907706

nietzsche is an edgy faggot. Muh uberman.

>>4907701
everyone is an egoist, whether they like it or not. Reading Stirner is just helping one to become aware of it. Sort of like if you were a wizard's apprentice...you have the magical powers locked inside...you train with the old wizard to unlock your powers so you can harness them

[Anonymous No.4907716]

>>4907701
>It cures everything.

Oh, ok. No thank you.

[Anonymous No.4907717]

>>4907701
I haven't read any Stirner, but to imagine suffering will ever and even should cease to exist is just foolish. To think that suffering should and can end is a spook in and of itself.

[Anonymous No.4907721]

How would Stirner feel about stealing or murdering an opponent?

[Anonymous No.4907733]

>>4907721

You can feel good or bad, it's your choice.


I would posit that Stirner is the Shakespeare of philosophy, minus the writing skill. Stirner is a shitty writer. But the ideas are the distilled wisdom of reality.

[Anonymous No.4907734]

Dumb quote.
>autistically legalistic
Retarded.

OP, you trollin' bro

[Anonymous No.4907742]

Indeed, Stirner was a champion against the autistically legalistic! Thank you, Stirner! Damn that autism anyway.

[Anonymous No.4907750]

The Problem of Evil? Well, it's autism, anon.

[Anonymous No.4907810]

>>4907701
>>4907717

>/lit/ in charge of eastern spirituality/philosophy
Suffering is a common translation for "dukkha":

>Dukkha is commonly translated as “suffering”, “anxiety”, “unsatisfactoriness”, “unease”, etc., and it is said to have the following three aspects:[c]

>- The obvious physical and mental suffering associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying.
>- The anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto things that are constantly changing.
>- A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, due to the fact that all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards.

[Anonymous No.4907904]

>>4907706
>filename
>stirner y nietzsche
>y
> Evola « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Kid: The Usurper is /hisp/
Nunca creí que un hermano latino cayera tan bajo.

[Anonymous No.4907915]

Any good supplements to reading Stirner? Lectures, ect.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4907924]

[Anonymous No.4907944]

>>4907810

Hey, all of that sounds like ....suffering.

Eastern philosophy fags are so annoying. It's boring. You are like the 420 blazeit faggots of philosophy. It's simple minded.

The eastern tradition has nothing going for it outside of being the "other". It's bullshit animistic subhumanism.

[Anonymous No.4907947]

>>4907915

Read some renzo novatore, stirner's wiki page and related.

Reading The Ego and Its Own is actually difficult as fuck because Stirner is a shit writer and german translates poorly.

[Anonymous No.4907971]

>He thinks continental philosophy is perfect
>laughinggirls.jpg

[Anonymous No.4907976]

>>4907924
>That image

Yep that's exactly what call of duty online is like

[Anonymous No.4907994]

>>4907944
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little buddha-potentiate? I'll have you know I ascended top in my temple of Zen, and I've been involved in numerous chants and meditations, and I have over 300 confirmed koans. I am trained in open-eyed meditation and I'm the top circular breather in the entire Mahayanna school. You are nothing to me but just another seed waiting to be nurtured. I will ascend you the fuck up with precision the likes of which has never been seen before in samsara, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, friend. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of bodhisattvas across Japan and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the moksha, child. The storm that wipes out life is nothing but a rain drop upon the vast ocean of consciousness. You're fucking blessed, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can ascend you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare mantras. Not only am I extensively trained in koans and riddles, but I have access to the entire arsenal of Zen Buddhist scripts and I will use it to its full extent to lift your being out of the systemic cycle of rebirth, you little child-thinker. If only you could have known what incredible transcendence your little "clever" comment was about to bring up to you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're going to reach nirvana, child. I will cease your suffering and you will transcend and escape samsara. You're fucking blessed, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.4908002]

Just how is the egoist in such a lofty realm of existence, beyond the perception of the moral man?

[Anonymous No.4908053]

>>4907947
not him but thanks, just bought the two novatore books that were on amazon.

[Anonymous No.4908059]

>>4908002
I've never read Stirner and I'm not completely familiar with the egoism, but I assume that the egoist has morals but doesn't feel owned by them. Their morals are an expression of their will, not a set of otherworldly restrictions that they must answer to.

Any egoist want to clarify if I'm way off base?

[Anonymous No.4908113]

How does Stirner argue for the Ego somehow being free of the moral and social constraints placed upon it? Is there some sort of essence of ego that is somehow able to tap into a realm distanced from society and morality in which it can decide its authentic will? It seems to me that to say that you can be an egoist as a human, a distinctly social being who is always being-with-others, is an illusion, a spook if you will.

Stirner and Nietzsche both get authenticity wrong. At least Heidegger was aware that authenticity could only exist in relation to the vast inauthentic nature of our predominant being.

[Anonymous No.4908136]

>>4907994
9.2/10 best new pasta

[Anonymous No.4908147]

>>4907629
this is just ethics though. ethics is just one topic among many (arguably more important) topics in philosophy. your personal liberation isnt the end of philosophy, neither are catchy meme mspaint pics

[Anonymous No.4908228]

>>4907947
I can confirm Ego being pretty slow reading, but every few pages I come across an idea that makes me put it down and find someone to discuss it with.

[Anonymous No.4908237]

>>4908002
All morals now stem from you

Is stealing moral? Well if you think it is, then why should it be any other way?

[Anonymous No.4908251]

>>4908113
To quote

Sacred, then, is the highest essence and everything in which this highest essence reveals or will reveal itself; but hallowed are they who recognize this highest essence together with its own, together with its revelations. The sacred hallows in turn its reverer, who by his worship becomes himself a saint, as Likewise what he does is saintly, a saintly walk, saintly thoughts and actions, imaginations and aspirations.

It is easily understood that the conflict over what is revered as the highest essence can be significant only so long as even the most embittered opponents concede to each other the main point - that there is a highest essence to which worship or service is due. If one should smile compassionately at the whole struggle over a highest essence, as a Christian might at the war of words between a Shiite and a Sunnite or between a Brahman and a Buddhist, then the hypothesis of a highest essence would be null in his eyes, and the conflict on this basis an idle play. Whether then the one God or the three in one. whether the Lutheran God or the être suprême or not God at all, but "Man," may represent the highest essence, that makes no difference at all for him who denies the highest essence itself, for in his eyes those servants of a highest essence are one and all - pious people, the most raging atheist not less than the most faith-filled Christian.

In the foremost place of the sacred, then, stands the highest essence and the faith in this essence, our "holy faith."

(A later quote cites "the mysterious spook that we call highest essence".)

[Anonymous No.4908262]

>>4908059
Pretty accurate. Egoists feel no need to "correct" their behavior to meet some outside stimulus (emotion, value, moral, what have you). Its like hedonism, only for people that don't like sex or alcohol.

[Anonymous No.4908270]

Stirner is love, Stirner is life

[Anonymous No.4908279]

>>4908262
>I've been turned off sex
>I only drink socially

Here
We
GO

[Anonymous No.4908298]

>>4907636
>Didn't Baudrillard already basically say that in The Spirit of Terrorism?

I really like this phenomenon. That people even think Stirner could have written this after Baudrilly only shows how relevant his work still is.

[Anonymous No.4908301]

>>4907698
sometimes considered one of the founders of Anarchism, although incompatible with many variants of Anarchism.

[Anonymous No.4908332]

>>4907706
He is superior to Nietzsche in every way, he doesn't need to create Gods out of nowhere to replace the old ones

[Anonymous No.4908339]

>>4908332
That nicely relates to Stirner's points about 'storming heaven'.

[Anonymous No.4908343]

>>4908332
Don't you mean spooks?

[Anonymous No.4908364]

>>4908343
yes I do

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4908370]

>>4907706
Nietzsche (arguably, he's subject to interpretation) embraces a self-created moral system, whereas Stirner thinks all morality is spooky.

>>4907721
He wouldn't have a problem with it unless he liked your opponent.

>>4907733
He does wax poetic when he actually speaking of his passions. Mostly he's elaborating on not being ustled, though

[Anonymous No.4908380]

>>4908370
>He wouldn't have a problem with it unless he liked your opponent.

He might have a problem with it, but only insofar as he finds it personally repulsive, out of an internal instinct, not a learned moral reflex. Stirner says that he loves all people, so he probably wasn't into murder. He just says that the reasons not to commit murder should be because you don't want to kill someone, not because you think there exists a set of moral rules independently of your belief in them that prevents you from doing it.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4908498]

>>4908380
Stirner is not personally repulsed by theft.

>Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the board of equity will—bestow on you in the name of the collectivity (for such bestowal took place in "States" from the most ancient times, each receiving "according to his desert," and therefore according to the measure in which each was able to deserve it, to acquire it by service), but: Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have.

As for murder, he doesn't find it inherently repulsive either.

>But I am entitled by myself to murder if I myself do not forbid it to myself, if I myself do not fear murder as a "wrong."
Of course, he is a moral nihilist: even things he dislikes aren't "wrong". But he also says--actually where is talking about his love of humanity--that he doesn't have an issue with killing people.

>I love men too,—not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no "commandment of love." I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them.
Maybe he means strictly in self-defense? Probably not, and either way it is not important to his philosophy; what you say is of course correct. He thinks that whether or not we approve of a murder should depend on whether or not it upsets us, not some sort of metaphysical logic the demonstrates it is Wrong. To Stirner, all appeals to one's fellows are more effective when based on self-interest.
>If, instead of "sacred duty," "man's destiny," the "calling to full manhood," and similar commandments, it were held up to people that their self-interest was infringed on when they let everything in the State go as it goes, then, without declamations, they would be addressed as one will have to address them at the decisive moment if he wants to attain his end.

[Anonymous No.4908522]

>>4907947
Difficult?
I came upon no difficulty while reading Stirner. He repeats himself often, perhaps when you are first hundred pages in, where's everything new and unexplored, maybe then you can come upon some difficulty, like being and the the unpronounceable. If you continue, you can rip 100, or skip them, it won't matter since everything will be written again in some way as a response to the naysayers. You might as well count the book as read and take a break, and continue to read next week or month, what will be a reminded and rereading of his ideas.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4908524]

>>4908522
Yeah, he's actually one of the clearest philosophers I've read.

[Anonymous No.4908543]

>>4907629
> 2014
> Hasn't read Saint Max

[Anonymous No.4908549]

>>4908522
Stirner is pleb level

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4908557]

>>4908549
How so?

[Anonymous No.4908589]

>>4908557
He was the first (and maybe last) readable German philosopher. To most 'contintental philosophers', obscurity is king, clarity is anathema.

[Anonymous No.4908608]

>>4908543
Have YOU read Sain Max? Marx's criticism is ridiculous, he purposefully misunderstands him.

[Anonymous No.4908609]

>>4907698
Yes, but the term anarchism is used to talk about many things.

He is an individualist anarchist. To give you a clear picture, he translated Jean Baptiste Say in German.

[Anonymous No.4908611]

>>4908557
Typical continental issues of definition.

Leaves the ego undefined. This means spooks are too. You can only be ignorant when you fail to define things, as then you can say anything and your words become trivial. If he was rational he would of stayed quiet in the absence of neuroscience defining the ego.

[Anonymous No.4908619]

>>4907994
10/10

[Anonymous No.4908624]

>>4907706
Nietzsche is the dumb down variety of Stirner.
I mean it : Nietzsche is obsessed by the negation of rationality, what Stirner never does. If anything, Stirner is "rationalist".
Also Nietzsche being a proto-fedora doesn't helps his case.
An last, Stiner was not a daydreamer with übermensch and all that, he also wrote valuable works in politics.

[Anonymous No.4908632]

So Stirner is now the Rand of /lit/ or what

[Anonymous No.4908633]

>>4908113
Robinson Crusoe.
It's not because you are unable to go beyond your social circle that man is locked into society.

[Anonymous No.4908641]

>>4908611
>Everything needs to be defined
>Not possible
>Then logic is dumb even tough we circlejerk about it

"Analytic" philosophy, ladies and gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.4908655]

>>4908611
>Leaves the ego undefined. This means spooks are too. You can only be ignorant when you fail to define things, as then you can say anything and your words become trivial. If he was rational he would of stayed quiet in the absence of neuroscience defining the ego.
eat shit and die, wiki-scholar.

[Anonymous No.4908659]

>>4908624
jesus christ

[Anonymous No.4908660]

>>4908332
What do you think the ego of the gaps is?

[Anonymous No.4908661]

>>4907709
So Stirner is a inferior Ayn Rand?

[Anonymous No.4908663]

ITT: idiot children discussing philosophy

[Anonymous No.4908693]

>>4908655
>implying this is bad

Why would I bother to read continentals? What a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.4908711]

>>4908693
>Why would I bother to read continentals? What a waste of time.

Stirner isn't 'continental' because that wasn't a thing yet when Stirner wrote. You don't have to read Stirner, but if you don't please stfu about him instead of spouting inane bullshit. Stirner not defining the ego is part of a radical critique of language akin to Korzybski's work in some ways. You just need to go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.4908728]

>>4908693
>why would i bother to read? What a waste of time.

please never change /lit/

[Anonymous No.4908738]

>>4908711
So you admit it's not science.

It's like you guys disprove yourselves.

[Anonymous No.4908739]

/lit/ falls for cheap trolls so, so easily

[Anonymous No.4908760]

>>4908739
"I have never debated with a knowledgeable person, except that I won the debate, and I have never debated with an ignorant person, except that I lost."

[Anonymous No.4908764]

>>4908738
>So you admit it's not science.
Sam Harris/10

[Anonymous No.4908824]

>>4908738
>>4908764

[Anonymous No.4908846]

>>4907642
>essentialist notion of frenchness

Union of Egoists card revoked, kid. You can reapply after you despook yourself.

[Anonymous No.4908852]

I enjoy drawing parallels between Stirner and Nietzsche. For instance, in acting Egoistically in the Stirnerian sense, one necessarily is acting in a fashion describable as Master Morality. The Übermesch is essentially an elevated, abstracted, spookified Egoist. Whilst this speaks against Nietzsche's "project", I think he was aware of that implication. The reason is his style: over-dramatic, poetic, ironic, obscurist, whatever you want to call it, the fact is Nietzsche often left his feelings unsaid ("Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings - always darker, emptier and simpler.") and as a result, he expressed a lot that should not, considering the context of his philosophy, be taken literally at face value.

Also, Anarchism is necessarily essentially a desire to not be ruled, thus needs a ruler, thus is slave morality, and does not originate in Ego. "Anarchism" is a reductivist insult to individualists, even when not talking about "lifestyle anarchism".

[Anonymous No.4908856]

>>4908852
>Anarchism is necessarily essentially a desire to not be ruled, thus needs a ruler, thus is slave morality, and does not originate in Ego. "Anarchism" is a reductivist insult to individualists, even when not talking about "lifestyle anarchism".

Can you try to translate this into non-bullshit? Both of the 'thus' are gibberish to me.

[Anonymous No.4908866]

>>4908856
I understand him perfectly m8, it's not bullshit. It's your fault.

[Anonymous No.4908873]

>>4908856
An-archism = apart from power. Anarchism is to not want anyone to have power over them. So, they must accept that someone does have power over them, else they would not seek to be apart from it.

Slave Morality = a morality derived from existing conditions, wherein someone has power over you is determined to be that which you do not want to be. The typical example is a ruler who uses slave labour: the slaves would decide keeping slaves is morally bad. Slave morality, by the way, is not inherently flawed or undesireable, even in Nietzche's view.

Summary: Anarchism recognizes Power, and rejects it, because they do not have it. As such, the conditions that determine the emergence of anarchism is "archism": is the power anarchism rejects. It cannot, therefore, be anarchism, cannot be individualism, because it needs what it suggests is reprehensible in order to exist. Anarchism is a hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.4908876]

>>4907673
>no thought
>no ego
Yeah id like to see you prove that popsci retard

[Anonymous No.4908881]

>>4908873
Okay, I understand what you mean. It's wrong, but I understand it.

[Anonymous No.4908886]

>>4908881
If you think it's wrong, I'd be happy for you to correct me. I don't like being wrong.

[Anonymous No.4908898]

All read and understood, did anyone's life differ from what was before reading Stirner? The question is for our dependency on others, in Ego described as church, morality, state, man.. For example I see myself just be fully conscious about the everyday spooks, more often reading or watching news I entertain thought in order to view it as good or bad. Now i think of myself wrong only when I am perceived to be one by others, no more any bad feelings, rather just keeping yourself in discipline in what you ought to do, but that's again a mare self entertainment, and keeping with widely accepted morals is just our inability to construct new ones. That we can see in people who search for a religion to follow, even if they won't truly believe it.

[Anonymous No.4908911]

>>4908886
Anarchism (let us for the moment assume this is one coherent doctrine) does not reject power, just state power. Anarchists reject the accepted ideology of the masses and exert their own power to demolish these idols and make room for expressing their nature. I'm not very good at this but I think it would be equally possible to phrase anarchism in Nietzschean terminology so that it sounds like master morality. I think Nietzsche specifically speaks out against anarchism, but it's possible that he means something specific and/or misunderstands it.

[Anonymous No.4908942]

>>4908873
>So, they must accept that someone does have power over them
... or seeks to, or pretends to, //

>because they do not have it
That came out of nowhere, and is wrong - not necessarily,

>As such, the conditions that determine the emergence of anarchism is "archism"
One could make the exact same flawed case that the conditions that determine the emergence of archism is "anarchism".

>because it needs what it suggests is reprehensible in order to exist.
The fact that an idea doesn't *need* to exist as an explicit ideology or doctrine in the absence of anything it finds reprehensible (or of a situation evolving towards what it finds reprehensible) really isn't any surprise, and isn't particularly relevant to "anarchism" either.

[Anonymous No.4908952]

Except it's people like Stirner who made us realize that this is shit and we need to climb out of the hole we dug.

[Anonymous No.4908962]

>>4907810
Sounds like Camus's absurd in a different wording

[Anonymous No.4908965]

>>4908962
That would because Camus a thievin' cant

[Anonymous No.4908970]

>>4908911
Not the guy you replying to.
Anarchism doesn't simply reject, it fights, therefore it has something to exalt over the other. The state of independence gets an essence, becomes a spook.

[Anonymous No.4908999]

You guys need to stop thinking about the Ubermench in Nietzsche's philosophy without taking into account his works about art

As the Modernity drags on (if we say that Hegel is the zero hour of Modernity, Nietzsche would be something like 9 p.m. and Benjamin 12 a.m.), the world that was desenchanted needed to be "enchanted" again by Romantism: that was the promise that the modernity had inside and never could realize. Nietzsche, seeing the failure of Modernity's project, rejects the rationality it has and goes to the art to see if he can find the truth, meeting Romantism again. It's clear when you take into account his view of Dionysus: a god that was born out of a god and a mortal women, cast out of Olympus by Hera, but with a promise that he would come back and put everything in order. After this, then you can see about Nietzsche wants with his philosophy: a way to "enchant" again the world, rejecting the rationality that Modernity created and the promise of future it had, bringing the need for action to the present. The ubermench is someone who takes for himself the task of doing something to change the world, rejecting the old rationality, the old morality, the old promise of future, the Ubermench is someone who rejects modernity as a whole.

This is also fundamental to understand Benjamin, on a side note.

[Anonymous No.4909007]

>>4908999
So is Hitler and Ubermench?

[Anonymous No.4909025]

>>4909007
No, because his project of state is the conclusion of the Modernity as a whole. I won't delve into details here because i don't have enough time, but the Nazi state is what the biopolitical state wants to be. My opinon, ofc. There are authors that disagree, but i think that our current type of state, with is also an offshoot of a biopolitical state, just went throught some changes so it had a good appearance. I'm from a third world country, so we have different problems.

[Anonymous No.4909029]

>>4908624
I haven't laughed this hard at a serious post in ages

[Anonymous No.4909032]

>>4909025
Maybe someone else can answer if you're leaving then, but what would the state look like that rejects Modernity as a whole then?

[Anonymous No.4909042]

>>4908760
Holy shit, this quote is amazing. Top kek.

I, too, am sick of people blindly dismissing things and then thinking themselves superior for it. It's no different from plugging your ears.

[Anonymous No.4909045]

>>4909032
Well, that's what we've been trying to think for the last 20 years. Hardt, Negri, Miroslav say something about it, but the hole that Foucault, Agamben and Schmitt dug is hard to get out of.

[Anonymous No.4909053]

>>4908641
that's a gross oversimplification of wittgensteinian analytic philosophy

[Anonymous No.4909054]

>>4907629
>>The moral man is necessarily narrow in that he knows no other enemy than the 'immoral' man. 'He who is not moral is immoral!' and accordingly reprobate, despicable, etc. Therefore, the moral man can never comprehend the egoist

>Who is Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.4909059]

>>4908624
Stirner is prot-fedora, which is why he is loved by trolls here. Nietzsche's philosophy is far more nuanced. Nietzsche actually understood culture and humanity, Stirner was just an edgy faglord who created a philosophy around why everyone should leave him alone and let him play with his toys.

[Anonymous No.4909061]

>>4908611
>neuroscience defining the ego.

Ya blew it.

[Anonymous No.4909065]

>>4908852
The superman isn't "spookified". He sits on top of the mountain and makes his own table of values, guided by the whims of his own tender and powerful desires.

[Anonymous No.4909082]

>>4909007
Hitler is just a brute, Nietzsche would have found him repulsive and ugly, one of the horrific mutated babies that in being born, helped kill christianity. But still a child of christianity.
>>4909032
Well, there are two possible versions. One is the world of the last men, and one is the world of the super men. Nietzsche would keenly perceive that we are in the former, and hate us even more than he'd hate Hitler. Essentially we live in the world of post-modernism, where everything has lost all meaning, and we continue onwards unconcerned. The present day is the hell that Nietzsche's philosophy was meant to avoid, or at least move past.

Its hard to imagine what the world that Nietzsche wanted would look like, he knew as well as anyone that it was beyond what mankind after "2000 years of self-vivisection" would be capable of. He bet everything on culture being the golden egg, but what do you think? Is culture really enough to reawaken the world to meaning?

[Anonymous No.4909120]

>>4909065
All values are spooks.

[Anonymous No.4909161]

I agree with what I've read of Stirner so far, but it feels too edgy to call myself an anarchist.

I remain spooked.

[Anonymous No.4909173]

>>4908962
Yes! Exactly! What's even more fantastic is instead of wallowing about and trying to create a personal meaning, the Eastern thinker decides to renounce the self in order to "transcend" existence, thereby dodging the existentialist's plight altogether! By releasing the self, there is no one left to complain. It's almost like a mix of stoicism, epicureanism, and existentialism: forsaking both the physical AND the (Stirnerian) spiritual!

But this is uncomfortable too. Now one is using their ego to fight their ego, they are swallowing doctrine and denying reality. They made the right choice in not trying to combat the ego, but instead of embracing it they decided to shut it out completely. Not even that the ego does not matter, but they go so far as to say that the ego does not even exist! This solves dukkha, perhaps, but only if they continue to deny the ego. If the ego ever resurfaces, dukkha reappears.

[Anonymous No.4909189]

>>4909120
Nice catchphrase. It was a bit much to ask a Stirnerfag to try and engage in any sort of debate. Anything that isn't a belief explicitly stated by Stirner is a "spook". The ones he arbitrarily holds himself are fine though, because that is what the prophet Stirner decided on, and thinking for yourself is hard.

[Anonymous No.4909193]

>>4909189
Not that anon, but Stirner's ideas are also spooks.

[Anonymous No.4909196]

>>4907629
Pretend everyone lived Stirner approved lives. What would society look like? The answer is why Stirner is stupid.

[Anonymous No.4909198]

>>4908611
>Leaves the ego undefined.
Maybe you should actually read his book and realize there's a point on leaving it undefined.

[Anonymous No.4909199]

>>4909193
The notion of "spooks" is the ultimate spook. It's just petty, childish skepticism.

[Anonymous No.4909201]

>>4909198
Oh, and it's not "ego", he talks about something he refers to as "the unique".

[Anonymous No.4909203]

>>4909199
Why childish?

[Anonymous No.4909206]

>>4909193
>>4909199
You use the term "spook" too seriously. It's a metaphor for ideas that enslave you instead of you using them. You should read beyond wikipedia, then you wouldn't say such stupid shit.

[Anonymous No.4909217]

>>4907994

>Mahayana school
>good

No.

[Anonymous No.4909219]

>>4909196
>appeal to the majority
Yeah okay buddy. The kind of idiots like you were exactly what Stirner was talking about when he discussed individuals who were possessed by spooks.

[Anonymous No.4909227]

>>4909206
That's what I meant when I said Stirner's ideas are spooks. That's also why I find stupid when people call themselves "stirnerites", as they're defining themselves based on someone else's terms instead of theirs.

[Anonymous No.4909233]

>>4909196
It would probably be a far better place where most people don't behave like cattle and live under a corrupt system where usurers and worthless politicians get rich at everyone's expense. It would probably be a place where mediocrity doesn't rule and moral hypocrisy isn't the most common thing to see. Yeah, such stupid philosophy, thank God we live in a much better world.

[Anonymous No.4909235]

>>4909199
People keep saying this and it doesn't mean what they think it means. It's certainly not a valid rebuttal to Stirner's spookiness.

>spooks are any external bodies that take your autonomy in order to further their own cause. you should get rid of them and gain sovereignty
>if Stirner is a spook, what external cause is he trying to further?

He is unique. He does not instruct, he only liberates.

[Anonymous No.4909237]

>>4909227
You mean Stirner's ideas enslaved him? How an idea that's basically "don't get used by ideas" enslave you? I think your argument is bullshit, m8.

[Anonymous No.4909246]

>>4909196
>implying you're not just spooked by the concept of human progress

Like OP said, moralists need not apply.

[Anonymous No.4909249]

>>4909203
Because every child has the exact same compulsion that drives Stirner's thought. Except most of us grow out of it.
>>4909206
I'm fully aware of that, as I've had the misfortune of actually reading some of Stirner's works. The problem is that definition itself relies on an (autistic child's) definition of "enslaving", though thankfully at least he doesn't use it as a handy catchphrase to shut down all debate like the /lit/ trolls do. It's still an intellectually vacuous idea.

[Anonymous No.4909253]

>>4909249
>Because every child has the exact same compulsion that drives Stirner's thought.

What compulsion is that? Honestly curious.

[Anonymous No.4909254]

>>4908911
Leaving aside the meaning of the word, which admittedly has been sullied...

If Anarchism did not extend beyond "I am free to be and do what I consider right, proper etc whatever" (ie, Egoism), then an individual could logically claim anarchistic will. However, anarchism presents itself as a societal order (the core being no state power, as you say), which means the acceptance of Anarchism must be done through an ideological sphere: thus Anarchism must be abstracted, must be made into something like a religion or belief, in order to be adhered to, excepting the rare case of "rational anarchism", people would need to be convinced or forced into accepting the lack of state power, because such would mean no law, no police, no education system, save maybe private institutions as replacements. That is, power must be exerted, that such power is removed. To be clear, this is not a problem on an individual level, it's a problem with the conceptualisation of anarchism, which fails at it's goal by being what it fights.

>>4908942
>>So, they must accept that someone does have power over them
>... or seeks to, or pretends to, //
It amounts to the same thing: the exertion of power. The one holding power does not care if their followers are willing, so long as they follow.

>>because they do not have it
>That came out of nowhere, and is wrong - not necessarily,
Show me an anarchist with power, and I will show you a hypocrite.

>>As such, the conditions that determine the emergence of anarchism is "archism"
>One could make the exact same flawed case that the conditions that determine the emergence of archism is "anarchism".
You can't be apart from power if there is no power. "Power" carries logical primacy.

>>because it needs what it suggests is reprehensible in order to exist.
>The fact that an idea doesn't *need* to exist etc
I'm saying that it cannot exist in absence of all that, because it's existence is a direct reaction to it. It's not a unique feature of anarchism at all.

[Anonymous No.4909259]

>>4909235
Or we could stop pretending that european thought ended at Stirner, and actually move on to analyse the real role his theory takes in his own life, the intellectual background of Germany at the time, and what function it plays today. Stirner had some good ideas but lacked sophistication.

[Anonymous No.4909263]

>>4909253
The one that makes them sulk when their parents tell them to go to bed early.

[Anonymous No.4909275]

I wish Stirner was my dad.

[Anonymous No.4909280]

>>4909193
>>4909199
Confirmed for not having read Stirner. Get to reading, cunts.

[Anonymous No.4909290]

How could you publicly identify with Stirner's ideas without being labeled as immoral by all?

[Anonymous No.4909297]

>>4907701
>dat pic
it's perfect

[Anonymous No.4909302]

>>4909290
You can't. But other people's opinions shouldn't have any tangible bearing on your on Uniqueness.

[Anonymous No.4909316]

>>4909290
Most people would just think you are a moron.

[Anonymous No.4909318]

>>4909259
i don't think anyone's saying that European thought ends with Stirner.

the thing is that if you believe what Stirner has to say and truly recognize and remove all spooks, european thought becomes a thought experiment that's tantamount to "given spook C and spook D, things are spook E."

[Anonymous No.4909323]

>>4908663
This post sure makes you very mature.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4909635]

>>4908611
He leaves the ego (unique one) undefined because he doesn't know what it is apart from the creator and owner of individual thoughts and feelings that also recreates itself. He says we can only surmise it exists because of the evidence of the thoughts it creates.

>>4908632
>>4908661
Ayn Rand is an ethical egoist, Stirner is a psychological egoist. Ayn Rand subscribes to objective morality (Objectivism), Stirner is a moral nihilist.

>>4908873
Stirner seems to favor anarchism that's created by every participant in it (a union of egoists), he just seems to think it's not a state of things, but rather an exercise. He also likes individuals rejecting their overlords, he just doesn't respect people who go along with the overlords and complain on the basis of it being unjust.

>>4909120
Not entirely true. Stirner doesn't say that valuing something (he values love, for instance) is a spook, provided it is a conscious preference and not a deification of the idea. Wit that and mind, values of Right and Wrong don't work, but you can obviously value as you would your property.

>>4909193
Spooks are essences. Right and Wrong are cause/effect essentialism. Stirner calls essences spooks because they "haunt" things.

>>4909263
Stirner's personal sulk was heavy state censorship.

>>4909290
Moral nihilism is not immorality in the same was that atheism is not Devil Worship.

[Anonymous No.4909654]

>>4909318
>i don't think anyone's saying that European thought ends with Stirner.
>>4907629

[Anonymous No.4909659]

>>4909635
>Moral nihilism is not immorality in the same was that atheism is not Devil Worship.

If you take a deflationary approach to moral facts, then yeah. Except why would you do that?

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4909668]

>>4909654
Depends on how broad your definition of philosophy is. A lot of the best philosophy after Stirner was arguably social theory. Then there's artistic philosophy, like Sun and Steel, and Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.4909670]

>>4909654
europe can think after philosophy scumfuck reactionary

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4909674]

>>4909659
Because you don't believe that Right and Wrong are facts. Morality exists like religion exists, but what it worship does not necessarily.

[Anonymous No.4909749]

>>4907629

What does he mean by " Therefore, the moral man can never comprehend the egoist"?

I think it's missing something before or after that greentext for full understanding.

[Anonymous No.4909773]

I know this isn't contributing to the discussion, but how much do I lose from reading philosophy translated?

I ask because I'm currently reading On the Genealogy of Morals(Zur Genealogie der Moral) translated(in my primary language, Italian) and he often uses words themselves as a basis for his reasoning, and I wonder how much do I lose from not reading it in German.

[Anonymous No.4909784]

>>4909749
Moral man can only comprehend in the limits of the created essence of morality, and as egoist doesn't have any essence by which he acts the man can't sough the essence by which he acts, thus the egoist becomes unreasonable.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4909794]

>>4909749
It's missing quite a bit, too much to post, but one thing to keep in mind is that Stirner's egoist is a moral nihilist, which many egoists, as we understand the word today, are not. Even the most egoistic of criminals tend to have some at least warped belief in Right and Wrong. Ayn Rand believed there was an Objective morality. At the most basic level, most will at least say, "might makes right!"

[Anonymous No.4909800]

>>4909784
I put it badly.

The egoist has no morality or essence by which he could be viewed as reasonable.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4909801]

>>4909773
You have to learn and use a language for a looooooooooong fucking time before you can catch the nuance in expertly crafted writing.

Most worthwhile translations of Nietzsche have plenty of footnotes, those should help.

[Anonymous No.4909829]

>>4909801

Thanks.
Yeah the books I'm reading have lots of footnotes about his phrases, so I guess I'm not missing as much as if I were reading poetry.

[Anonymous No.4909971]

>>4909829
you actually will though because it is the understanding underlying his interpretation that matters much more than how many perspectives the interpreter can come up with. The person who reads the language in the way its meant to be written will understand far more than the master reader.

Anyway guys I kind of think you're missing the point of philosophy and idolizing sterner a bit too much. I mean most of the quality posts about him were interpretations of his work, not quotes with explanations behind the context the work was written in itself. It is the meaning of the work itself that is far more important than the measly interpretations of it.

[Anonymous No.4909985]

>>4909971
>meant to be written
>the point of philosopy
>meaning of the work itself

oh boy

[Anonymous No.4910006]

>>4909985
well from a tl;dr perspective, language is meant to convey things with clarity when the linguist wants to, not obscure everything so that they can jack off to everyone's confusion.

I refuse to read a work just because it has the words yabba dabba doo on it and everyone praises it due to its obscurity of clarity and its lack of depth and sophistication.

[Anonymous No.4910019]

>>4910006
My point is that your claims about intended meaning and a notion of a singular point of philosophy are highly problematic.

[Anonymous No.4910021]

>>4910019
How so?

[Anonymous No.4910024]

>>4907642
EBIN :D
B
I
N
:
D

[Anonymous No.4910028]

>>4910019
wait are you claiming that truth is subjective just like reality and all that nonsense that comes from misunderstanding science and quality thought?

[Anonymous No.4910032]

>>4910021
Because you have no clue what the intended meaning is and to claim a singular point of philosophy, which is a descriptive term encompassing a wide scope of millennia of thought, is horribly reductionist and short sighted.

[Anonymous No.4910036]

>>4910006
Then know that, however unlikely, you might be missing out.

And that's a little out of hand for you to dismiss any conversation that isn't solely quotes and references to the original work as philistine.

Also what the fuck are you talking about. Do you presume Stirner to be purposefully ambiguous? He's one of the clearer philosophers I've read. If you can't understand the terms don't think no one else can too.

[Anonymous No.4910057]

>>4909674
>S/he(?) doesn't believe in moral facts

[Anonymous No.4910085]

>>4910036
>Also what the fuck are you talking about. Do you presume Stirner to be purposefully ambiguous? He's one of the clearer philosophers I've read. If you can't understand the terms don't think no one else can too.

No, I presume that some of his work is intentionally ambiguous like Nietzsche only unlike nietzsche, stirner isn't deliberately trying to be ambigous rather those ambigious parts are his crap holes or the parts in his work that are missing vital pieces to them.

>>4910032
How is that in and of itself quality thought? Why should we use a millennia as a reference point to a progression in thought? Philosophical literature isn't linear or at least the ideas don't unfold in a linear fashion. While certain things build upon itself not everything does. And sometimes when you are reading a work like satre or heidegger, you are actually looking at what they're saying from their perspective and not from the person they're interpreting or the work they're trying to explain away. Anyway thats beside the point, the point I'm trying to make now is that philosophy isn't based off of the progress of other thinkers so much as the understanding that underlies their thoughts specifically the readers understanding. Your philosophy could be very elaborate and be extremely pragmatic but it doesn't really matter how good your work is if your students are incapable of understanding your thought. So merely deriding my thoughts as myopic fantasies of a greedy reductionist is quite asinine don't you agree?

[Anonymous No.4910090]

>>4910085
I mean to clarify in first part of post, some of stirners work is intentionally ambigious and other parts are not intentionally ambigious but simply are ambigious because he doesn't undersand how to clarify it further because he doesn't know what he's talking about fully.

[Anonymous No.4910095]

>>4909794
The problem is that this position is as untenable as solipsism and universal skepticism. It's a lovely thought experiment for a 19th century european gentleman but really not much use past that.

[Anonymous No.4910100]

>>4910085
All that doesn't allow you to describe a singular 'point of philosophy' in general.

[Anonymous No.4910107]

>>4910100
*prescribe

[Anonymous No.4910110]

>>4910095
how so?

[Anonymous No.4910113]

>>4910100
ah be more specific in your meaning though or your intent as thus far your argument to me seems to be that you're just saying I'm a greedy myopic reductionist and that the phrase 'point of philosophy' merely confirms your belief.

Outside of the context of what i meant the phrase is gibberish. Now what I meant was that philosophy was about understanding the world around you, not making everything obscure and hiding under your bed in fear of the cookie monster.

[Anonymous No.4910128]

>>4910110
Sorry, my post was a bit vague. I was referring to moral nihilism. Nihilism isn't a position you can take up. It's more a symptom of some deeper ideological illness, in the case of Stirner the lionising of an invisible metaphysical self, a peculiar gnostic reaction to a will trapped in the shackles of a late christian authoritarian state. Stirner has barely even deconstructed his christianity, he's just swapped some of the terms around. "Moral nihilism" is just posturing. Bring me a moral nihilist and I'll show you a liar.

[Anonymous No.4910140]

>>4910128
how is nihilism an illness? Nihilism just refers to a void of something. Just because someone lacks some value or something doesn't mean they have an ideological void that has to consummate into a psychological void. Crap I can't even explain what nihilism is outside of to be devoid of something.

[Anonymous No.4910148]

>>4910140
Because morality is integral to the universe we inhabit. A person without morality is either mentally ill or fooling themselves. It's like denying through argument that you have a sense of smell.

[Anonymous No.4910164]

>>4910148
lol this is what happens when a group of unfocused tards get into a philosophical debate. lol I being one of them.

idk, I didn't read your last post until I was writing this comment up. Anyways, morality is a set of principles that people believe should guide their actions and perhaps other's actions as well.

I have no clue where you are going with this but you see monkeys don't have a moral code yet they don't go around denying they have a sense of smell due to not having an intelligible morality.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4910191]

>>4910148
>Right and Wrong are integral to the universe we inhabit
How is this any different from saying "God is integral to the universe we inhabit"? Al-Rodhan's work indicates that morality is not something we are born with, but something that is cultural.

[Anonymous No.4910198]

>>4910164
Actually monkeys do show altruism and have an idea of community and sharing with their fellow monkeys. They even understand trade. That is a trite point though, I think a more important point is that moral codes =! morality, or even the existence of moral facts. You don't need to define it in a set of principles (in fact doing this will always lead to some sort of problem and need tinkering ala Rawls), but some things are obviously better than others. It is better to feed a starving child rather than kick it in the teeth, etc etc. Stirner isn't arguing for real moral nihilism nor is he an actual moral nihilist. He's just striking a moral nihilist looking pose to impress everyone that he totally has shrugged off christianity, honestly guys.

[Anonymous No.4910200]

>>4910148
>moral universality
lmao!

[Anonymous No.4910231]

>>4910148
>because morality is integral to the universe we inhabit.
are you fucking joking around. how could it be integral to the universe? where does "morality" come into play about anything else except for life? how are you saying that except for "i think it's true so it must be true"?

fuck me what a waste of time

>Therefore, the moral man can never comprehend the egoist.

[Anonymous No.4910233]

>>4909198
I'm aware. Neuroscience didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.4910236]

>>4910191
This isn't the 60s anymore, drop the lame Nature Vs Nurture act. The fact is that we are born social animals, we live as social animals and are happiest as social animals, which is all quite beside the point that it is also BETTER to have traits such as altruism and empathy. How we want to appropriate that into our lives is up to us. We've tried all sorts of things, from the roman notion of dignitas to an external judging god character. I don't think we need anything that fancy (the question what is best for humanity going forward is the central problem for modernity and postmodernity). My only issue with Stirner, or more, Stirnerists, is when they label themselves as moral nihilists. It conjures up a fedora wearing, trenchcoated teenage boy calling himself a dark and fearsome demon.

[Anonymous No.4910251]

>>4910200
>>4910231
>He thinks that "the universe" exists external to people living in it!

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4910260]

>>4910198
Caring about other people and taking pleasure in their well being does not require morals anymore than schadenfreude requires anti-morals.

>>4910236
Al-Rodhan is hardly from the 1960's

Being a moral nihilist does not preclude empathy. It's absolutely retarded to say that empathy comes from a set of rules

[Anonymous No.4910279]

>>4909198
Because if you can't define the ego, you can't define what it isn't, or what opposes it either.

It's skepticism without rational grounding. It's same thing religious people do when they leave god badly defined, and then call everything bad Satan. It's trivial and unscientific.

[Anonymous No.4910285]

>>4910231
>>4910128
>>4910140
>>4910148
>>4910191
>>4910200

you know, this just made me realize something. it's very obvious to anyone interested in philosophy that good and evil don't exist, that morality is a human construct and so on and so forth. but to a layman, even in this day and age, sometimes we'd sound like absolute psycopaths arguing semantics.

really makes me understand why they'd want to kill Socrates, even if it wasn't just the people who got rekt being asspanged. if i never got into philosophy we'd look like a bunch of senseless morons.

"obviously morality exists!" cries the layman, for obviously it does. how else would he and others think the same things good or bad?

[Anonymous No.4910299]

>>4910260
Empathy as in the thing that makes you understand people's feelings and relate, or empathy that magic leftist thing that turns you morally upright somehow?

[Anonymous No.4910313]

>>4910260
But some tumblrites actually feel schadenfreude is anti-morals

[Anonymous No.4910324]

>>4910285
The punchline at the end of (almost every) philosophical discourse, is taht the man on the street had it right to begin with. You learn to roll with it. When your thought ends up back precisely where you started (probably before adolescence), there grows a sort of satisfying 'clunk'. I think Descartes has the metaphor of the argument being a ship lost at sea, and the end being the terra firma on the other side?

[Anonymous No.4910340]

>>4910313
what the fuck are anti-morals?
isn't that like saying you have an anti-opinion, or an anti-thought?

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4910346]

>>4910285
Like Stirner said, spooks keep the proletariat in line. Paul Piff's research indicates that the proletariat tend to be far less egoist than the ruling class is.

>>4910299
That would be Theory of Mind, and it is is not contingent upon morals.

>>4910313
They are the ones Stirner is talking about in the quote in the OP.

[Anonymous No.4910347]

>>4910324
uhh if that's what you're getting out of philosophy i've got some bad news for you...

[Anonymous No.4910349]

>>4910260
>It's absolutely retarded to say that empathy comes from a set of rules

No-one said that. You do know what moral nihilism is, right?

>Caring about other people and taking pleasure in their well being does not require morals anymore than schadenfreude requires anti-morals.

And why not?

Your thinking is topsy-turvy here, you are like a 17th century foundationalist flapping around for something firm to stand on. The idea is not that there is a magic set of rules in the sky that gives us morality, but that morality (generally) does work in a certain way, and out of this you can draw moral facts, Moore-style. Happiness is better than suffering, altruism and empathy are generally good, etc etc.

[Anonymous No.4910355]

>>4910198
>Rawls), but some things are obviously better than others. It is better to feed a starving child rather than kick it in the teeth, etc etc. Stirner isn't arguing for real moral nihilism nor is he an actual moral

idk, i kind of think dude that man is a lot more socially advanced than apes are and that while you can train apes to empathize to a certain degree they will never be at our level of empathy and will never have the same mental capacity to understand the notion of value judgements or right and wrong specifically. They will understand right and wrong but more from a childish perspective.

>>4910236
but you see altruism and empathy are not discrete quanta or traits that we can simply count up and classify. Rather they are a combination of behaviors that lead to a favorable outcome for a group/individual other than self.

>>4910285
lol define good and evil. And how does that contribute to understanding how max stirner isnt a shit writer/poster? Also you jump in thought a lot, narrow down what you're saying if you're still here, don't be so jumpy. Jumpiness leads to juicy contradictions!

>>4910347
to my fedora piping fedorast jk lol idk why i tagged u.

[Anonymous No.4910356]

>>4910347
Just how long have you studied philosophy, out of interest? Seven years here.

[Anonymous No.4910359]

>>4910285
The real reason they killed Socrates is because he had a large following of young people. For pretty much most of human history young people all gathering together under charismatic leaders tended to end badly for the people in power. Why do you think they shot Lennon?

[Anonymous No.4910363]

>>4910285
The layman is right here. What you think is obvious is just one of the fun word games your professor gets paid to play on 1st years. You get over it.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4910365]

>>4910349
The idea is that actions or results have a Right or Wrong essence, and that is a form essentialism. I do not think there is anything factual about essentialism.

[Anonymous No.4910366]

>>4910359
>no no no

They killed him because he was dumb enough to argue with them, that and he was almost dead and wanted to prove a point to his students that the truth should take precedence over what others think.

[Anonymous No.4910367]

>>4910356
>seven years
>still pretends the search for truth ends up pandering to the pleb

[Anonymous No.4910368]

>>4910367
Stay edgy. I tip my fedora to you!

[Anonymous No.4910372]

>>4910365
I don't think anyone here is an essentialist. There are more than two games in town, you know that right? This is the problem with religiously following historical thinkers, you get stuck down in dogma and canned responses. For a lover of Stirner you seem really adverse to free thinking.

[Anonymous No.4910377]

>>4910366
Also he pissed off the jury so much that more people voted for him to be killed than had voted him guilty. Diogenes of Sinope had nothing on this cunt when it came to trolling.

[Anonymous No.4910380]

>>4907673
>and so had no language, no thought, and behaved much like a timid rabbit

interesting. do you have a source?

[Anonymous No.4910381]

>>4910368
but sir, I do think that you are trolling. Sure certain things a pleb knows but you can't teach a pleb everything that you learned over 7 years. Sure you don't need philosophy to live but then again you don't need a car or a house or many other things to live too right? Philosophy is more of an intellectual exercise in and of itself more than a pragmatic discipline like engineering

[Anonymous No.4910403]

>>4910381
I think you've got the answer right there in your post. The thing is that I learned almost nothing of any use. It's been amazing exercise for my brain and I've grown as a person, but almost all of the new axioms and practical pieces of philosophy I've gained where in the first year or so. Philosophy teaches you how to think, not what to think. It turns out that generally, most phenomena work pretty much as their are normally understood. Analytic philosophy today is like taking apart a clock piece by piece to see how it works, and then putting it back together again. I guess we learn some cool stuff, and I might be able to design something a bit like a clock now, but I'm no better at telling the time than the guy who just bought the fucking clock.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4910406]

>>4910372
I don't have any issues with free thinking. So far you have been unable to demonstrate that morality is anything more than a religion that demands service to essences. Empathy does not require morality; cooperation does not require morality; most of these things you think morality is required for, don't require morality to function any more than morality requires religion to function.

"Be more open-minded" is not an argument. You can think however you want, but I'm not going to think that way unless I have good reason.

[Anonymous No.4910433]

>>4910406
if i didn't know any better I would say you're trolling or something. Anyway be more close minded, morality gives benefits to people who follow it within the context its meant to be presented in.

[Anonymous No.4910435]

>>4910406
I did have an argument, but you didn't seem to read it. That post was just a petty insult, which you'll continue to receive until you get rid of your tripcode. People as ridiculous as you, who have the pomposity to try and craft a persona on an anonymous message board just serve as punching bags for the rest of us. It's great, we can keep insulting you and you will suck it all in and put it down to your rapturous online presence.You'll always reply because you crave attention.

My actual argument was in the bit where I called you topsy-turvy. There is one fine point here that I guess I should state a bit better, that natural facts about what people are like (we are empathetic, altruistic, etc) are only half of what I am talking about here. I'm also making the bolder claim that there are certain facts that we _should_ hold, and that normally we do, due to these faculties, most important of which being empathy.

Really, its not that important an argument, because I don't think Stirner really thought of himself as a moral nihilist; it's more a posture to display what he certainly IS NOT.

[Anonymous No.4910441]

ITT: do nothing losers.

[Anonymous No.4910442]

>>4910403
>he still buys into folk psychology as having any validity

[Anonymous No.4910452]

>>4910442
>Eliminative Materialists

Not even once.

[Anonymous No.4910453]

>>4910435
>most of the post is an insult
>i'm making the bolder claim that there are certain facts that we _should_ hold
> _should_

you're not getting canned responses, you're just not understanding the responses being given. what are we to do, give you alternate responses just because you can't understand the one you were presented?

i hate tripfags as much as the next guy (ban butterfly pls) but bringing it up when they're doing nothing trip-faggy comes off as desperate.

[Anonymous No.4910460]

>>4910453
You forgot to put your trip on that time.

[Anonymous No.4910467]

>>4910453
I'm not sure what your point is here? You don't like underscores being used in place of bold? I was actually the one who made a claim, and it was the tripfag who doesn't seem to understand it.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4910472]

>>4910433
When you are required to do something to your own determent because Right is more important than your self interest, then it is morality. I do not see how that benefits that person. If they are doing it strictly for long-term self-interest, then that is not morality, but long-term self-interest.

>>4910435
>natural facts about what people are like (we are empathetic, altruistic, etc)
Get a load of this Humanist.

>I'm also making the bolder claim that there are certain facts that we _should_ hold, and that normally we do, due to these faculties, most important of which being empathy
You can make an argument for what purpose that serves, but "should" of itself is not one of them. You might say, "It would be in yours, mine, and good deal of others' self-interest if empathy were a more common trait." But "should" does not stand on its own

>I don't think Stirner really thought of himself as a moral nihilist;
Since he explicitly says morality worships things that don't exist, I'd say you haven't read him or you're stretching the definition of morality to include any desire or dislike.

[Adolf Satan Hitler No.4910473]

>>4907629
I do believe that I ego I!

[Anonymous No.4910477]

>>4910472
aha now you are merely arguing semantics with people.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4910478]

>>4910477
No, rather the reverse. Saying, "Morality is objective or else you couldn't enjoy the taste of that wine!!!" is a fundamental corruption of the word in order the save it, the same way the God is corrupted to mean nothing more than love and thus show God exists.

[Anonymous No.4910490]

>>4910472
Finally we've got to the bottom of it and found the disease that has been causing al of the other nasty symptoms.
>"It would be in yours, mine, and good deal of others' self-interest if empathy were a more common trait.

No. The point I'm making is that it is entirely possible to have other people's interests in mind, and it is in fact _better_ for people to do this. It is better for an innocent child that you know nothing of to live a full and happy life than a life of slavery and abuse. People _should_ be kinder to others, not for their own interest, but in the interest of others. This is where my second, naturalistic claim comes in, that people are already like this anyway.
>>4910472
>Since he explicitly says morality worships things that don't exist, I'd say you haven't read him or you're stretching the definition of morality to include any desire or dislike.

I know what he stated, I just don't think someone that intelligent could have really believed it. It's a posture.
>>4910477
Actually it was the tripfag's best post yet and the first one from either of us to really cut at the core of the argument.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4910506]

>>4910490
You can say whatever you prefer about other people, but it doesn't make your opinion morally Right, or make it morally Right for everyone to put themselves last like ants

>This is where my second, naturalistic claim comes in, that people are already like this anyway.
Which allows them to be used for wars and mass labor.

People are not inherently like that, as per the work "emotional amoral egoism"

[Anonymous No.4910508]

>>4910452
Please get off /lit/ if you're incapable of rational discourse, or believe in fairy dust substances. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.4910516]

>>4910508
There is a way out of EM you know. You don't have to be this way forever. Read some Davidson, it'll do you good.

[Anonymous No.4910525]

>>4910490
>_should_
there's that word again.

so essentially you're making a personal judgment call about the world and then saying that everyone ought to follow your judgment because it would be better. better for what, exactly? and why should they listen to you instead of themselves?

[Anonymous No.4910528]

Feminist here:

If a desire was not my ego, but actually a spook, do I retroactively withdraw from the union of egoists?

Does Stirner allow me to claim I was raped no matter the circumstances?

[Anonymous No.4910529]

>>4910506
C'mon, don't be a tease, go out and say it. You DON'T think that it is better for an innocent child not to be abused and put into slavery? And no, I don't mean better for the child, I mean in your own opinion. Is there any moral incentive on you in stopping this happening, if you know an easy way to do it that would not disrupt your life in any way.

[Anonymous No.4910532]

>>4910516
what Davidson do you recommend you magical and wondrous child?

[Anonymous No.4910540]

>>4910528
No, because rape is also a spook.

So is your existance. But thinking you don't exists or that rape exists is also a spook.

Welcome to the land of Stirner, the philosophy of fuckall.

[Colonel Sanders No.4910542]

>>4910528
Colonel Sanders here:

Yeah I think you've beaten the snot out of this argument, come on and admit that you're just argueing SEMANTICS.

[Anonymous No.4910545]

>>4910525
Two reasons: One, they intuit (this is 99.99% percent of the population) that I am right on this. People are guided by their intuitions on everything. And two, they can reason it, and it just comes out axiomatic that unnecessary suffering for innocences is bad.

[Anonymous No.4910551]

>>4910532
Eh I dunno, any of this stuff on rationality and mind I guess. Though I guess it'd be better to link you to a paper that rubbishes the Churchlands directly. I could give you a potted argument but it probably deserves another thread, could be a fun discussion.

[Feminister No.4910552]

>>4910545
FEMINISTER HERE

You're all wrong and I am right. Hah.

[Feminister No.4910558]

>>4910551
feminister here, Uh ah uh. Hey start new thread this got old after the SEMANTRIC BATTWOL

[Anonymous No.4910561]

>everything you do should be for yourself and yourself alone

Wow, he sounds like Anne Rand

But in all seriousness, just because you're aware that there's no such thing as altruism, doesn't change the way you live your life. And just because society isn't a real entity doesn't mean it doesn't make life more pleasurable.

I mean the guy's so deep in the rabbit hole that his suggested lifestyle isn't even remotely practical.

[Anonymous No.4910562]

>>4910532
Actions, Reasons and Causes I think. Though maybe Mental Events instead. They are both just papers, pretty short and easy to read. Basically
>muh supervenience

[Anonymous No.4910565]

>>4908873
Anarchism (as a whole) denies pyramidal, organized power (i.e.: the state, the church), but assumes some sort of power relationship, be it by authority (you're a engineer, you're better suited to build a bridge than a botanist, who's better suited to cultivate a garden), by knowledge (think the shaman / sage on pagan tribes) shall arise.

The thing is, this power is temporary and based more on the situation than in some otherwordly set of rules. Also, when thinking about "external" communities (anarchism being mostly based around small comunes) , there can be delegation of power in exchange matters / conflict resolution, but the people should be able to take that power if the chosen deputy abuses it, goes against the interest of people or no longer needs it

[Feminister No.4910571]

>>4910562
out of curiosity who is this Davidson you speak of?

[Anonymous No.4910574]

>>4910545
>One, they intuit (this is 99.99% percent of the population) that I am right on this
oh is that right? have you asked everyone in the human race and 99.9% of them agreed? you're a fucking joke dude.

>People are guided by their intuitions on everything.
even if this were true, how would everyone's intuition be the same. have you ever met someone who was different than you? there ya go

>And two, they can reason it, and it just comes out axiomatic that unnecessary suffering for innocences is bad.
this is so stupid and simple-minded it makes me give up. this has to be a troll, no one can be this stupid. i'm outtie.

[Anonymous No.4910576]

>>4910561
But there is such a thing as altruism, which is the sticky problem for all individualists. Being an individualist is a choice. And fair enough, if you can live a life outside of any responsibilities and be happy, power to you. But a normal life in society isn't going to be like that, you'll rely on other people and they'll rely on you, as long as you encounter other humans a thing called "morality" will be hanging above you. It's just how peeps do.

[existential crisis No.4910583]

>>4910576
hey guys I'm having a midlife existential crisis from max stirner can u help me? He told me that fairy tales aren't real. I NEED A SHREK!

[Anonymous No.4910587]

>>4909161
I'm an anarchist, a lot of my friends are and most of them think Stirner too edgy. I call them spooked, still, but you don't have to agree with Stirner to fly the black flag, brother.

[Anonymous No.4910601]

>>4910576
From what I read about Max Stirner 10 minutes skimming his wikipedia page his message seems to be that anything you do is inevitably because you feel it somehow benefits you. People don't do things for other people for no reason whatsoever. People who help each-other do so because not helping each-other would make them feel badly about themselves.

[Anonymous No.4910602]

>>4910571
Donald Davidson. Hugely influential american analytic philosopher of the second half of the 20th century. Has some influential but pretty awful epistemology, and field-defining stuff in the philosophy of mind and action, and in the philosophy of language. You won't find that many defenders of his actual positions nowadays, but you'll find Davidsonians teaching in every major analytic philosophy department university in the world. He's a darling of a lot of contemporary thinkers because of his juicy non-reductionist materialism. He thought that reasons were the causes of actions, for instance, and that mental events "supervene" on some physical events or other.

[Anonymous No.4910603]

>>4909249
>I've had the misfortune of actually reading some of Stirner's works

He only had two, you buttmud fucker

[Anonymous No.4910607]

>>4910601
If only people (or Stirner for that matter) were so simple.

[POTATO power No.4910609]

>>4910602
o god i would rather be in an EM than deal with DRIVEL!

[Anonymous No.4910613]

>>4910603
Lel I didn't know that. It was in a 19th Century German Philosophy class. Feuerbach 4 life.

[Anonymous No.4910625]

>>4910587
The main problem with anarchists are that 90% of them are just arseholes who have found an excuse to be an arsehole and not feel guilty about it. Something pretty close to Stirnerfags, actually.

[Anarchist susypatoosie No.4910636]

>>4910625
>The main problem with anarchists are that 90% of them are just arseholes who have found an excuse to be an arsehole and not feel guilty about it. Something pretty close to Stirnerfags, actually.

actually anarchists have very valid points to make for instance, when you use the bathroom you aren't pissing into some natural order of the universe rather your urine is creating heat which is creating ENTROPY which is chaos and ANARCHY! Who is going to rule the piss guys?

[Anarchist KENJONGJING No.4910639]

>>4910636
what you talking about susy, we are anarcists? amirite?

[Anonymous No.4910643]

>>4910562
Supervenience doesn't solve the issue of folk psychology. It could add a new dimension to eliminate it with as well as prove it.

Eliminative materialism implies folk psychology, but it doesn't work the other way around.

[Anarchist susypatoosie No.4910647]

>>4910639

Yes KenJONGJING, u is. get it guys u is, amirite?

[Anonymous No.4910654]

>>4910643
out of curiosity why is this section of philosophy so dry? Its little wonder that dude doesn't understand how 7 years of philosophy helps him out in his real life.

[Anonymous No.4910656]

>>4910643
Well, it provides a new paradigm to work with once you have moved past EM. EM is such a self-defeating argument anyway, It's hard to know where to start. I guess the way to put it best is that there is no strict delineation between normal language of desires and wants, and folk psychology (actually strictly speaking pretty much all ordinary language falls under "folk psychology". With that in mind, EM is clearly a completely mad position. The question is, what else?

[Anonymous No.4910666]

>>4910654
Actually Eliminative Materialism Vs the world is not dry at all. Out of any philosophy I've ever studied, it has impacted me the most. Learning that EM is untenable and an alternative is possible was actually a life changing experience. Once you beat the lazy paradigm that modernity tries to slump on us that the human problem can be solved in an mathematical formula, that eventually all culture will be eaten by computers, Brave New World style, it opens up a whole new world of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4910681]

>>4910666
>6
NO NOT THE EM, SAVE ME! lol jk, let me read. lol you guys are silly especially that guy who was using black out text for a second I thought he was saying the ER but now I know he meant the EM which is far worse. lol

[Anonymous No.4910689]

>>4910666
since when did anyone say though that they believed that you can quantify the world itself? Maybe I did I just can't remember but anyway, I am pretty sure that math is a language and that languages are supposed to explain the world around us and not be kept in a box called continental philosophy or analytical philosophy for that matter.

It sounds like in order to become a continental philosopher you must first loathe math second renounce the importance math has in our modern world and third have a great disdain for math. rofl

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4910825]

>>4910529
My own desire has nothing to do with morality. I would stop it, but my action is not Right. It is simply my pleasure, similar to the person who would abuse the child. I could try to deify my current pleasure, but that would enslave my future self to past preferences, and I have no need to codify it anymore than a sadist needs to codify a desire to harm people.

[Feminister No.4910840]

>>4910825

HAHA jk guys

[Anonymous No.4910843]

>>4910825
We are way past morality now. The game is diagnosing the illness so that we can prescribe the right cure. Let's go a bit further, as you are still wriggling. Let's imagine two people in the above situation, one chooses to save the child, the other does not. Would you agree that one has acted better than the other, regardless or not if anyone else ever found out? Or do both actions, one of saving someone else, and one of causing unnecessary agony and pain, have the same moral value?

[Feminister F9QVQ82MjmE No.4910848]

>>4910840
NO i'm perfectlyCEREAL GUYZ

I am cereal! CERAL! CEARAL! RAWR!

[FeministerF9QVQ82MjmE No.4910852]

>>4910843

No we're not. We are not past morality now we are in the midst of being supa fems! WEOWEOWEOWEOWEOWEOWEO WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MOMMY!

[Feminister F9QVQ82MjmE No.4910857]

>>4910848

I like potatoes! hehehe

but dont blame me cuz i triforce like mad!

[Anonymous No.4910886]

>>4910857
>>4910852
>>4910848
>>4910825

>Making a tripfag look this good

[Anonymous No.4910889]

>>4910602
>He thought that reasons were the causes of actions

[Anonymous No.4910922]

>>4909773
Most of the hate for Stirner and Nietzche comes from german words being translated into english words with very negative connotations.

[Anonymous No.4910945]

>>4910380
Not him but probably this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)

Feral chilluns, mang

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4911031]

>>4910843
I would say that one has acted in accordance with what pleases me, and the other has not.

>do both actions, one of saving someone else, and one of causing unnecessary agony and pain, have the same moral value?
Yes, which is to say, no moral value.

[Anonymous No.4911032]

>>4910922
That's actually true. A lot of Anglos kneejerk away from the Stirn because they're culturally heavy into some Freudian shit and associate the term ego with it.

[Anonymous No.4911055]

>>4910381
Dumbass
Whats he means is that, from a superficial perspective a person towards the end of a thought-journey seems much the same as where one started.
Or example: a philosopher understands the 'why' of something, whereas a layman may act the same way but only because he is expected to or its his instinct

[Anonymous No.4911093]

>>4910540
Yeah but the second my ego becomes a spook because of literally any reason I like, I can just say my consent disappears. What I want to know is if Stirner lets me do that after the fact or not.

[Anonymous No.4911114]

>>4910540
I mean, I already know he lets me withdraw consent without informing anyone. It just happens. So that's fine. With Stirner I can claim rape and not have anyone know about it.

[Anonymous No.4911460]

>>4909794
Doesn't stirner essentially say that might makes right, or at least power. Some line about how everything is your property, yet some things you have not obtained power over.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4911540]

>>4911460
For a little while; then he expressly says he was just using "might makes right" as a stepping stone to deconstruct our notion of Right. He finally says nothing is Right, not even might.

>Now, in conclusion, I have still to take back the half-way form of expression
"Might makes right."
>of which I was willing to make use only so long as I was still rooting among the entrails of right, and letting the word at least stand. But, in fact, with the concept the word too loses its meaning. What I called "my right" is no longer "right" at all, because right can be bestowed only by a spirit, be it the spirit of nature or that of the species, of mankind, the Spirit of God or that of His Holiness or His Highness, etc. What I have without an entitling spirit I have without right; I have it solely and alone through my power.

>I do not demand any right, therefore I need not recognize any either. What I can get by force I get by force, and what I do not get by force I have no right to, nor do I give myself airs, or consolation, with my imprescriptible right.

>With absolute right, right itself passes away; the dominion of the "concept of right" is canceled at the same time. For it is not to be forgotten that hitherto concepts, ideas, or principles ruled us, and that among these rulers the concept of right, or of justice, played one of the most important parts.

>Entitled or unentitled—that does not concern me; if I am only powerful, I am of myself empowered, and need no other empowering or entitling.

>Right—is a wheel in the head, put there by a spook; power—that am I myself, I am the powerful one and owner of power. Right is above me, is absolute, and exists in one higher, as whose grace it flows to me: right is a gift of grace from the judge; power and might exist only in me the powerful and mighty.

[Anonymous No.4911579]

>>4911540
ta, still haven't finished reading my copy.

[Anonymous No.4911609]

Is feminister a feminist?

How the fuck can you think morality being a religion yet being a feminist?

[Anonymous No.4911685]

>>4911460

[Anonymous No.4911693]

>>4911609
>implying proper feminism, not the tumblrcunt kind, isn't about doing away with the spook of generalised male superiority

[Anonymous No.4911702]

>>4911693


how can it be a spook when its reality?

checkmate atheists.

[Anonymous No.4911705]

>>4911693
Feminism itself is trying to correct natural order that is already balanced, men protect women but women hold the key for reproduction.

It's irrational and feeling-based, and it's close to a religion.

[Anonymous No.4911730]

>>4911702
Even if it were to be true as a broad tendency, that still doesn't allow for your odd inferior male to be held superior to women who are actually his superior.

>>4911705
>trying to apply bronze age social structures to our era
You realise that those gender relations aren't a fixed thing but merely a consequence of agricultural society, right? They were different before and can be different again. They already are.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4911745]

>>4911705
>Feminism itself is trying to correct natural order that is already balanced
>Balanced

...Stirner is about balance

[Anonymous No.4911765]

>>4911745
>you
>having read stirner

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4911814]

>>4911609
"Spook" is rather similar to "social construct", except it goes even further and includes deified personal constructs.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4911859]

>>4911765
I have read these threads. Is this wrong in some essential way?

Side question: You think Rand read some Stirner and misunderstood it?

[Anonymous No.4911867]

>>4911730
>that still doesn't allow for your odd inferior male to be held superior to women who are actually his superior.
But that doesn't happen, we call those guys fags and chuck shit at them and the girls laugh.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4911870]

>>4911859
I doubt she ever read Stirner, and I don't think it's possible to miss his moral nihilism since it is from there which his egoism proceeds. Rand was a moral Objectivist who glorified the wealthy, whereas Stirner almost cackles when he talks about how the poor would usurp and sack the rich if the poor weren't dominated by spooks.

[Anonymous No.4911872]

>>4910441

productivity is a spook

pic related, neet stirnerist master race.

[Anonymous No.4911877]

>>4910528

penis in vagina is ALWAYS rape

Even Stirner admits this is objectively true, on pg 387 of The Ego

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4911887]

>>4911872
Stirner's opposed to fetishizing work into something Right, but he certainly doesn't think being productive itself is stupid; he actually glorifies individuality in production (which Marx argued--against Stirner--was nonsense, since Mozart's Requiem was finished by someone else, and his work was there what any trained worker could accomplish).

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4911889]

>>4911870
Similar conclusions form past threads. She was just anti-communist contrarian.

[Anonymous No.4911897]

>>4911870

The really interesting thing is when you view Stirnerist philosophy from a biological standpoint...plebs have low IQ's and are less egoistic, you might consider them also non-human entities...like soulless sheeple

I would be worried to encounter a fully conscious and aware stirnerist in real life. They would be absorbing everything going on in their environment, what if they recognized you as a stirnerist?

Like, have you ever gone to the store and locked eyes with someone as they were walking out, and you could just tell this was a conscious human being and not a mouth breather? That they were really alive.

It's almost scary. People like that simply aren't predictable. It fills me with ecstasy to even imagine they are real.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4911918]

>>4911897
Stirnerist philosophy doesn't really have anything to do with biology.

[Anonymous No.4911921]

>>4911918

obviously, because when he wrote it there was no such thing as neuroscience.

But we can still fucking talk about it, jesus christ

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4911927]

>>4911897
>Pleb
>Soul
Ugkkgh
>what if they recognized you as a stirnerist?
"Yo!'
"Yo, bro!"

>It's almost scary.
Because you believe in "plebs" and souls?

>People like that simply aren't predictable.
Nobody is predictable.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4911932]

>>4911918
Epicurus has that covered, no?

[Anonymous No.4911933]

>>4911927
>nobody is predictable
Have you ever met a person?
Everybody's fucking predictable

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4911944]

>>4911921
Yeah, but it seems you're making assumptions about low IQ correlating with morality. I'm a moral nihilist, yes, I think morality is religion, yes, but most forms of life are moral nihilists. I think only a few creatures can be trained to feel guilt for violating rules--primates, perhaps, and even then I haven't read such so I wouldn't bet on it. Humans have very complex thinking that allows for cognitive dissonance (partially alleviated by moral nihilism), which can be painful when it is consciously realized.

People are in a sense "sheep", yes; being a lamb has been the paragon of morality since Christ. But there are more spooks than morality out there. When you buy something to validate your identity, for instance, you are chasing a spook.

Stirner's ideas are profound and take a long time to internalize, it's not easy to realize your full potential and free yourself. And most of us who got it from reading him, never would have without reading him.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4911947]

>>4911932
Epicurus' notion of happiness comes a lot from avoidance of unhappiness, so there is that. Pain and pleasure, one might come from the other, you might have to risk a lot of the latter to have the former, and so on.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.4911949]

>>4911933
Okay okay. You can follow around a guy in his humdrum routine filled life, but some of them snap and shoot everybody they can. Or they hide the weirder sides from the public. Stirnerist or not, you don't know what these people you walk among are going to do. All I meant.

[Anonymous No.4911954]

>>4911944
You tryin'a say fashion is spooks? Clothes look fucking cool on men and can be very hot on women.

[Anonymous No.4911961]

Come Home, Stirner-man

Ave Satanas!

[Anonymous No.4911965]

>>4911949
Kids who go for the high score actually have a common profile and law enforcement is taught to keep an eye on people who fit that profile. They also keep an eye on people who've been found to buy certain books for that reason. Sometimes somebody slips through the system but there was some goth kid caught at my school preparing for a school shooting and his shit was prevented thanks to law enforcers knowing their shit.

[Anonymous No.4911969]

>>4907629
That's leapt to quite the conclusion. A western man of good character can hate the guts of a Muslim man of good character. They both follow their moral codes to the letter but each other's culture is entirely incompatible.

[Anonymous No.4911992]

>>4910381
>Philosophy is more of an intellectual exercise in and of itself

Waaaw-haaaw!

[Anonymous No.4912049]

>>4911965

What do you think the profile of someone who buys/reads The Ego and Its Own is?

[Anonymous No.4912178]

>>4911730
>You realise that those gender relations aren't a fixed thing but merely a consequence of agricultural society, right? They were different before and can be different again. They already are.
It has been this way since before the agricultural society because women held the reproduction method ever since they appear.

By trying to upset this natural order, you basically want women to be treated like men and men treated like women, when it's impossible to do so because men still can't get pregnant.

[Anonymous No.4912190]

>>4912178
Also gender relations are based on sexual differences, that thing doesn't change unless humans themselves become truly equal, as in androgynous with both dicks and vaggos.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4912285]

>>4911954
Fashion as taste, changing in the search for something fresh, is not a spook. Fashion becomes a spook when it is deified as something you seek to appease.

[Anonymous No.4912854]

>>4912049
Jobless loner

[Anonymous No.4913853]

Simulate a world with 7 billion Stirners.

Hard mode: Simulate a world with 3.5 billion male and 3.5 billion female Stirners.

[Anonymous No.4914238]

>>4911705
>Feminism itself is trying to correct natural order that is already balanced