/lit/ - Literature

>>16002795
You don't, you realize it's spook.

>>15939799
hey yo whats up the outside is a spook and the self is actually a spook too since its literally nothing so basically nothing is real and i am not a total sophist.

>>12999786

Because we're the best

>>11408754
Best post on /lit/, no, on 4chan right now.

>>11274209
>Srpski, bosanski, srpsko-hrvatski, hrvatsko-srpski
>ne zna srpsko-bosanski-hrvatski, hrvatsko-bosanski-srpski, bosanski-hrvatski-srpski, i bosanski-hrvatski-crnogorski-srpski
mozaklet

>A Stirner zaista je mema i to me ne zanima.
ti si mema jebi te

>>10888276
That sounds like spooky shit my guy

How do I get these ghosts out of my head?

>>9173428
I've done so many times in the past, but no one cares.
Her philosophy essentially just runs among a hierarchy of values with the survival of your life being the highest value, as it is the basis of all values. You have your life at the top, dictating everything else in the bottom sphere of values. She advocated for what an ideal state would be, and it represents her philosophy, but her life was more important than living for the sake of her philosophy, to be a martyr of what she believed. And even if she did die poor and never accepted social benefits, what would that have even done more?

If you go full spook, people are saying
>hurrr Ayn Rand didn't kill herself because of spooks
She followed her ego and used whatever means to survive. Her life was more important than her philosophy. It's just a boring refutation that says nothing more than
>ah ha! She didn't die for preached and that makes everything she said wrong

I don't agree at all with her on her politics, which is what everyone bitches about, but I do feel she argued well for individualism and for life. Honestly, a lot of Ayn Rand's philosophy makes sense when you place her in the context of advocating for an idealized master morality. I just don't understand why people lose all rational thought when it comes to her.

>>8694311
Good point, actually, morality is a spook.
Everyone WITH morals is morally corrupt.

>It is a social construct, thus it is meaningless

I disagree.

Anyway, I mentioned him to my philosophy teacher. Shit was gucci

>>8660427
>God isn't 'somebody else'
Uh huh. I sure would like to hear your opinion on that.
Those three points are the overall views on God other than the vagueness he's eternal and everything.

>becuz i sed so
No, it simply is. It's the concept of life that make values possible. It's living that gives value and death that makes us realize the importance of those values.

>wow so fucking profound
It appears infinite to people when we did not know that the universe was finite.

>Or, you can reject it all.
>Embrace nihilism
Good idea!

You're fucking stupid.

>>8660752
Methodology is limiting if you stick to one, but methodology requires rationalism, it is not rationalism itself that is limiting.
If you confine yourself to be a skeptic of everything, that methodology is limiting, but your rationalism is not.

>>8661583
They want to accept nihilism but are too afraid to say it. They want to be free and do whatever.
Striner is a good tool to dismiss positions of duty to any ideology but horrible as a foundation since he has none other than the ego.

>>8505897
When asking a question such as this it is helpful to take into account the various views in which Hegel and Nietzsche differed.

For example, Hegel was brought up by the Jesuits when he was younger--this is something that greatly shaped his thought and influenced his philosophy. It is also one of the reasons for why Hegel had a difficult relationship with religion; he never fully accepted Catholicism, but neither did he fully deny it.

Where as Nietzsche, when he was a teenager, he adopted Schopenhauer's epistemological idealism point of view. Only after studying mathematics he than turned away from that belief. I also remember reading that later in life, Nietzsche became somewhat strange. When work was being conducted on his sisters house, Nietzsche decided to change the height of the ceiling after it had already been made--by 3 centimeters! He was very precise about things--I remember also reading that during world war 1, he would write much of his work in code, so that if he were kidnapped, nobody would understand it. Though to get back to the main point, Nietzsche became more religious late in his life before dying--and even after claiming that he had solved all philosophical problems began to write again. I know that some clear descriptions of his late-life madness was how he would just begin writing about how hilarious he thought it was that David Hume had grown so fat that he had been stuck in a bog and had to be helped out! This was much to the dismay of his wife.

All in all, when comparing the two these things must be taken into account--they were like night and day--Hegel of course being day, as he enjoyed waking up very early in the mornings, and he spent much of his time in in the solitude of graveyards writing about time. Nietzsche would spend late nights in the cafes of France chatting up various female philosophy students. It is important to note that Nietzsche was arrested quite a few times. He was even pardoned by the president of France after one arrest with the president famously saying: "One does not simply lock up Karl Marx"

>>8495469
>too far
though to be fair I wish people would meme him less since he had some big things to say and so on

>>8407765
>Wisdom is knowing I am nothing
Phony wisdom, perhaps.
Cogito ergo sum only works for ego, thus I am everything tbqh, at least as far as I'm concerned.

>>8298908
>spooky-free
You have me interested

>>8214595
>learn to be human
Oh but, you see, there is no prescriptive content to humanity, my little spook.

>Privately fascinated -- Stirner was "the most ingenious and freest writer I've ever met," wrote Feuerbach to his brother; Ruge, Engels, and others spontaneously proved themselves to be similarly impressed -- and publicly rejecting, aloof, or silent, this intellectual avant-garde reacted ambivalently and cunningly to the most daring of their colleagues. No one wanted to follow Stirner's step beyond the New Enlightenment. His "nihilism" simply could not be the result of enlightened thought. Greatly alarmed, all were blind to the fact that Stirner had already opened up ways "beyond nihilism."

>The automatic rejection of Stirner's line of thought is also characteristic for the bulk of the subsequent story of the re(pulsion and de)ception of »Der Einzige und sein Eigentum«. However, the book was initially forgotten for half a century. Only in the eighteen-nineties did Stirner's ideas experience a renaissance that continued into the next century. However, he always stood in Nietzsche's shadow, whose style and rhetoric ("God is dead," "I, the first immoralist", ...) fascinated the entire world.

The Shadow of the Spook
Spook of Darkness
The Consolation of Spooks

>>7188318
> fearing anything

>>6776561

>>6685006
>2015
>shaming with spooks

*puffs cig* Sex is nothing to me.

Does eating meat give you pleasure?

>>6428300
>no discussion about Stirner
not MY commune, plebeian!