/lit/ - Literature

Since some time I've thought of myself as an egoist. Before that, I was deep into Spinoza, so the Love for others was a clear imperative for me. But after some time (maybe after getting into Kant's Critique and Schopenhauerian pessimism) I realized his grounds for ethics were propositions that exceed the limits of our knowledge of this world. And thus I lost my "faith". It seemed then like the rational stance in a world without God and thus without objective morals was egoism. However, the truth is I am weak and there are times where I need the support and compassion of other people. That makes me think that I too have to be compassionate to others, maybe not because of some metaphysical concept as karma, but because it is only logical in a retributive psychological sense. What do I do about my beliefs? Do I die in misery as an egoist or is it better for me to accept that Love is the real imperative? Or maybe these too philosophies can be reconcilied in a way?

You know

Looks like an absolutely hauntological ghostmodern spooktacular

>>12175166
i-i... i can't read.

fuck off spook

How is it not objectively within your best interest to spread your genetics and seek the satisfaction and pleasure of sex? I’m really curious what Egoists answers will be because I’ve been trying to debunk this argument myself. I like Egoists, too, they’re anarchists that don’t piss me off t b q h.

>>10325086
>>I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do.

I'll explain, let's just first define our terms.

Meaning: The purpose of a construction. The meaning of say a hammer is to hammer, determined by it's construction.
Now we deductively know the meaning of life, the meaning of life is to act out the purpose of our construction.
What does this mean for morals? Let's define good and evil first.

Good: What one ought to do.
Evil: What one ought not to do.
Now that we know objectively what we ought to do ( fullfil our meaning due to our construction) we can then determine if something is good or evil based on how it relates to our objective meaning.

>no stirner

>>10218928
>ideas and ideals

There is a hard line between these two conceptions and you have smudged it

>moral code

>>9581730
>gets killed by an insect

>ctrl f
>"spook": 0 out of 0

This thread is absolutely useless property

>>9410077
>he doesn't know Freddy drew on and modified Max's ideas

>>9023001
>better man

Why did he think everything was a spook?

>>8993469
>start wearing circle rim glasses
>wear suits, pop my collar and adorn with red fancy ties and ascots
>start calling things "spooks"
>open a milk shop
>business fails because people can buy milk anywhere nowadays.

>>8733512
>backwards

I have always wondered... why is this predominantly leftist board so fucking elitist?

What is the appeal of trying appear 'patrician' or other nonsense like that?

How can you know whether you love anyone?

>mfw the creative nothing is the ultimate spook

>decide to get rid of all my spooked books that do not serve my interests
>few hundred books later only the ego and its own is left
>barely have any property left
>mfw

PHILOSOPHY BELONGS HERE

I've worked out why Stirner is so popular on /lit/

Cynical people would believe that everything is done out of self-interest and that everyone is selfish. /lit/ is full of cynical people. This would also connect with the tendency to highlight problems rather than suggest solutions.

Stirner provides a nice formal way to confirm those beliefs.