/lit/ - Literature

philo

HAHAHAHA Nice spooks nerds

Nice spooks bros

>>18145662
And yet no dubs for any of us.

>>17901412
>>17901473
Those are some rare Stirners. Saved.

>>17843979

>>17814784
There is no free will, there is only MY own will. It matters not if it is free to me.

None of these are suitable, I am a ghost type trainer

>>12105937
It really depends on what you want to get out of it and how deep an understanding of the book. For instance. If you just want to read about an interesting and radical individualist philosophy then you can go right in. However if you are more interested on the figures hes constantly referring to and his place in 19th Century Philosophy you would probably want to read about the Young Hegelians.

>>12105937
I dont necessarily agree that Stirners work was made in response to Stoic movements and the like I saw that more as a function of the the genealogical approach that was popular with German Idealists. Reading a bit of Feuerbach would probably be a be more important in getting the work even if your recommendations are a good general standard for anyone interested in philosophy

>>11054529
i use it like smug anime girl pictures, because no matter how you look at it he is right, but you just don't want to admit it
>what, you like [insert show, game, or book]? It sucks.
>quality is a spook

>>11038180
Nice /pol/ bait spooked fag

>>11000829
>How did this nigga, and solipsism by extension.
What makes you think he was linked to solipsism?
>manage to garner any fucking credibility?
He the greater scheme of things he did not really get that much credibility. However for his time it was because he demolished and outed as hypocritical one of the biggest thinkers of his time period and took the deconstruction of the time that was in vogue to its scary and radical conclusion.

>>10336420
Preposterous.

Language is just another spook.

>>9062184
>Analogies sound nice but don't actually prove anything.

Its shows you the nomanalist critique of your reasoning. Trees and individuals exist forests and societies and the names used to describe collections of them (and their interactions) and have no reality outside of that.

>Stirner's egoism implies it.

Not at all its simply you jumping to conclusions about a book you havent even finished.

From that same work

>I see the loved one suffer, I suffer with him, and I know no rest till I have tried everything to comfort and cheer him; if I see him glad, I too become glad over his joy. From this it does not follow that suffering or joy is caused in me by the same thing that brings out this effect in him, as is sufficiently proved by every bodily pain which I do not feel as he does; his tooth pains him, but his pain pains me."

and

>You love man, therefore you torture the individual man, the egoist; your philanthropy (love of men) is the tormenting of men.


>The rest of your post is pretty much a waste of time.

That speaks more to the what it was responding to than the content itself.

However if you grasp that poem of his you will realise just how badly you've misinterpreted him

>>9026312
What do you guys mean with non-fiction? Nabokov, Tolstoy, Kafka etc. are all fiction right? Why would someone not want to read them? What do you mean with non-fiction? Do you read science/philosophy books all day?

I agree that genre-fiction is a waste of time, but I don't think literary fiction is

>>8860976
>tfw I derailed the entire thread with 5 words.

Holy shit do I hate people like you, OP.

You try to debate something, yet you don't even present an argument.

All you do is state an opinion playing it off as a fact but not backing it up with an argument. Then once someone tells you to back it up with a valid argument you say you that his statement is not an argument and that he should try to dispute your statement. At this point most people have already understood that you're mentally handicapped and stop bothering but some will make a statement trying to dispute your non-argumentative opinion. You then try to dispute the (often very poor) arguments on why your statement is wrong, claiming that your initial statement must be right.

You never try to debate that your initial statement is true, but rather try to argue that it's not wrong, never proofing anything and wasting everyone's time.

>>8814319
This.

>>8801624
Rather than succumb to anger because of your spooked ideals of philosophical conversation it's probably in your best interest to embrace Stirner.