/lit/ - Literature

>>18884573
I refuted him but I won't tell you how.

Unironically I think trannies would benefit from reading Stirner.

>When later, against Stirner’s statement, “I am more than a human being,” Feuerbach raises the question: “Are you also more than male?,” one must indeed write off the entire masculine position. He continues like this: “Is your essence or rather — since the egoist scorns the word essence, even though he uses it — [Stirner inserts:] perhaps Stirner only cleanses it of the duplicity it has, for example, in Feuerbach, where it seems as if he is actually talking of you and me when he speaks of our essence, whereas instead he is talking about a completely subordinate essence, namely the human essence, which he thus makes into something higher and nobler. Instead of having you in mind — the essence, you, you who are an essence, instead he concerns himself with the human being as “your essence” and has the human being in mind instead of you. Stirner uses the word essence, for example on page 56, saying: “You, yourself, with your essence, are of value to me, for your essence is not something higher, it is not higher and more universal than you. It is unique, as you are, because it is you.” — [end of Stirner’s insertion] is your I not masculine? Can you sever masculinity from what is called mind? Isn’t your brain, the most sacred and elevated organ of your body, definitively masculine? Are your feelings, your thoughts unmanly? Are you merely a male animal, a dog, an ape, a stallion? What else is your unique, incomparable, and consequently sexless I, but an undigested residue of the old christian supernaturalism?”

>If Stirner had said: You are more than a living essence or animal, this would mean, you are still an animal, but animality does not exhaust what you are. In the same way, he says: “You are more than a human being, therefore you are also a human being; you are more than a male, but you are also a male; but humanity and masculinity do not express you exhaustively, and you can therefore be indifferent to everything that is held up to you as ‘true humanity’ or ‘true masculinity.’

>>13289819
Unironically I think trannies would benefit from reading Stirner.

>When later, against Stirner’s statement, “I am more than a human being,” Feuerbach raises the question: “Are you also more than male?,” one must indeed write off the entire masculine position. He continues like this: “Is your essence or rather — since the egoist scorns the word essence, even though he uses it — [Stirner inserts:] perhaps Stirner only cleanses it of the duplicity it has, for example, in Feuerbach, where it seems as if he is actually talking of you and me when he speaks of our essence, whereas instead he is talking about a completely subordinate essence, namely the human essence, which he thus makes into something higher and nobler. Instead of having you in mind — the essence, you, you who are an essence, instead he concerns himself with the human being as “your essence” and has the human being in mind instead of you. Stirner uses the word essence, for example on page 56, saying: “You, yourself, with your essence, are of value to me, for your essence is not something higher, it is not higher and more universal than you. It is unique, as you are, because it is you.” — [end of Stirner’s insertion] is your I not masculine? Can you sever masculinity from what is called mind? Isn’t your brain, the most sacred and elevated organ of your body, definitively masculine? Are your feelings, your thoughts unmanly? Are you merely a male animal, a dog, an ape, a stallion? What else is your unique, incomparable, and consequently sexless I, but an undigested residue of the old christian supernaturalism?”

>You are more than a human being, therefore you are also a human being; you are more than a male, but you are also a male; but humanity and masculinity do not express you exhaustively, and you can therefore be indifferent to everything that is held up to you as ‘true humanity’ or ‘true masculinity.’

>>13218476
>Stirner
>Fichte
>Hegel
Generally German idealism just has me hooked. I don't really subscribe to any one guy, but it's a central point on my bucket list to understand what the whole thing is about before I kick it. Working my way through Hegel's Logic right now. Stirner's definitely the coolest kid in class, though.

>>12323405
Because I said so.

>>12225208
no, it's naught

>As the riches of this world do not make me happy, so neither do its truths. It is now no longer Satan, but the spirit, that plays the story of the temptation; and he does not seduce by the things of this world, but by its thoughts, by the “glitter of the idea.”

>Along with worldly goods, all sacred goods too must be put away as no longer valuable.

>>12013550
Fuck off spook

stirner is just so fucking entertaining

>>11514946
>>11514952
you need to read at least 1 book to post in this board

>>10511302
Because it sounds like pic related, I guess

Muscles are a spook.

>>8832459
Someone already wrote my manifesto desu. Tell me about your ideology though.

>>8823290
your anger is a spook, property.

:^)

I don't know why I like this one so much.

>>8426719
>>8426788
>>8427272
It actually ends with pic related (don't listen to that Karl Schmidt guy).

>>8335687
I think you are understanding Me wrong. Space cooperation is only cool as long as it's the option that benefits Me most desu.
>Union of Egos
>Egos
>plural
>>But I am not an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego.

>>8298991
It seems to be missing a key book.

>