/lit/ - Literature

>>10140321

So, if I I am hopelessly in love, love is a spook. If another is hopelessly in love with me, love is my property.

This would seem to prevent one's legitimate investiture, present interest as a zero sum game, and otherwise create an antagonistic landscape. This seems like an argument not that all charitable people are actually selfish, but that if a person is performing charity for any reason other than their own gratification they are a fool.

It also feels self defeating.

>"I will not let any one, any thing dogmatically control me! With the sole exception of this dogma."

You're only trading investiture in the external with investiture in your self minus the focus on what that self is v. existentialism classic. You will die, and all your creativity with it. Stirner's property evaporates on the death bed, but reality does not.


>>10140332

That does change my perspective on what I'm talking about, but my angle stays the same. You may not value the system, because it is external, but that changes the fact of the system being not one iota. If you choose not to believe in God, religion does not cease to exist, much less does God Himself.

The infinitely subjective you as authority vs. others, and they as impotent seems patently false. If I say that I am beautiful and everyone in the room claims otherwise, my authority on the matter seems largely questionable.
Other degrees might include:
A mathematical fact, you say 1+1= 5, the rest of the room says 2, or vice versa.
An opinion, that government should be dissolved and NAP Anarchy should begin immediately, room says otherwise.

It runs headlong into Plato's Cave, without realizing that the other people have the right to be informed, or at least persuaded. I also don't see how something you yourself believe minus the external dogma is a spook.

I, personally, believe in God. Is religion still then a spook? At best only the organized sort.