/lit/ - Literature

>>13475274
I enjoyed writing it. That's what matters to me. And you expecting posts on 4chan to be useful... Please. Certainly my was useful to me, in a manner, but expecting non-personal and objective usefulness here beyond a few chosen posts is in my eyes rather childish.
Hm... I have not studied writing or literature, but my apparent success at giving reason to your assumption grants me smug satisfaction as well.

This is all so fun.

>>10834180
It makes me laugh to read the negative reviews of its on Goodreads from "real" psychologists, who call it "pseudo-science." It's more well researched than any psychological "study" I've ever read. I think his writing has the same problem as Freud's, in that it offends the more dandified generations. I can imagine how "patriarchal" his descriptions of the mother-child social dynamic as essentially one that satisfies the mother's desire to control another living being would seem to the average psychology undergrad, and how "anarchic" and "unscientific" his account of the sting would seem to a Petersonian. And the similarities between his conception of Schreber's illness as a "disease of power" and Deleuze's "insomniac rationality" are worth noting, namely, that in both conceptions abstract reason's relation to paranoia is the primary factor, against Freud's "latent homosexuality." I also liked the tones of Stirner, as when Canetti says, in relation to the desire of an arsonist to be found out, "Arson is a fixed idea."

It took me about three months to finish it because he isn't the most colorful writer, but I am very glad I took the trouble.

>>10151607
>theft

>>10069584
No, I'm saying that if you criticize on the basis of a sacred truth, i.e. a "rigid" criterion, you'll only engage in servile criticism. Rather criticizing mother! on its own merits, and noticing e.g. that the film simply deconstructs Christianity to reconstitute it as ecology, one criticizes using an ideal schematic, and only notices (like the plebes on /tv/) that it "shits on Christianity."

>>9508402
You can't be spooked if you're dead.

>>9390209
It isn't necessarily: Stirner describes genius as "a definitive eigenheit." Eigenheit literally means "ownness," but it best translates as peculiarity. I think his is the best characterization of genius so far produced.

Although, like anything, it can become a spook if one is frightened and overawed by its ideal.

>>9248827
>If you commit a crime you will be punished for it
Unless I'm not.
>Natural order is the perpetual state of human kind, Anarchy never exists something or somebody Always fills the vacuum within moments.
Pretty easy to say "There can never be anarchy" when your premise is that it's impossible. Also, do you mean "anarchism" when you say "anarchy"? Because they are not the same thing. Further, to say "anarchy" in the sense of "chaos" is impossible is just silly; I mean, by your own admission, if someone "fills the vacuum in moments" then there must be a vacuum to fill (anarchy). Anarchy is a natural consequence of statism.
>Just because you can get away with a crime doesn't mean you live in a state of Anarchy unless you live in Somalia and even then.
>and even then
Literally not an argument. Get your shit together.
>The state has power over you by the power of gun, if you disobey the law you are going to get punished.
Unless I'm not.
>As I stated before just because you don't get punished doesn't mean that you aren't in an organised society.
So, the state has power over me because it "will" punish me, except when it doesn't, and even when it doesn't, I still live in the state because the state is the same thing as "ordered society"?

You're so spooked out, I don't think you can even have your own views anymore

Is there any job more worthless than literature professor?