/lit/ - Literature

>The Union is understood as a relation between egoists which is continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will. The Union requires that all parties participate out of a conscious egoism. If one party silently finds themselves to be suffering, but puts up and keeps the appearance, the Union has degenerated into something else. This Union is not seen as an authority above a person's own will.

Isn't this just what normal people call having friends?

Should I write in English and capitalize on having a potentially larger buying audience, or my native language (French) and if I become a selling author capitalize on my de facto literature Nobel prize?

> pic unrelated

>>10269820
Working itself is not a spook you ignoramus. The idea that capitalist wage slavery is "noble" or "necessary" is the spook. Express yourself clearly, for fuck's sake

>>10069525
>I'm irresistibly drawn to good critics. Taste doesn't even matter; If they've got rigid criteria and stick to it unfailingly, that's the best.
I wonder if you understand fruitful criticism:

>As long as you believe in the truth, you do not believe in yourself, and you are a — servant, a — religious man. You alone are the truth, or rather, you are more than the truth, which is nothing at all before you. You too do assuredly ask about the truth, you too do assuredly “criticize,” but you do not ask about a “higher truth” — to wit, one that should be higher than you — nor criticize according to the criterion of such a truth. You address yourself to thoughts and notions, as you do to the appearances of things, only for the purpose of making them palatable to you, enjoyable to you, and your own: you want only to subdue them and become their owner, you want to orient yourself and feel at home in them, and you find them true, or see them in their true light, when they can no longer slip away from you, no longer have any unseized or uncomprehended place, or when they are right for you, when they are your property. If afterward they become heavier again, if they wriggle themselves out of your power again, then that is just their untruth — to wit, your impotence. Your impotence is their power, your humility their exaltation. Their truth, therefore, is you, or is the nothing which you are for them and in which they dissolve: their truth is their nothingness.

>>9525781
>What did he mean by this?

Fuck intellectual property and any other property for that matter.

>>9523652
Not even close. Nice try, though.

>>9510081
They're both spooks. Start with what an instinctive impression, not a notion.

>>9510330
You "should" do neither.

>>9424337
>We are all 'nationalists' to our own personal beliefs.
Maybe if you're FUCKING SPOOKED

>>9374601
Only to resurrect them as p(roperty)-zombies.

>>9354013
Not really. After reading The Unique One and Its Property you should read Stirner's Critics (essay Stirner wrote to reply to his detractors) and then you might want to read Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity or Marx' German Ideology or something.

If you think you're roughly familiar with Stirner's ideas and you have heard a bunch of arguments against him, you can even read Stirner's Critics first because it contains some things which are clearer than in the book and it destroys 90 % of the arguments which are brought forth against Stirner even today.