/lit/ - Literature

>>7430471
Existentialism is a spook. Why can't they just deal with reality?

>tfw you reread his work every year

>>7332993
He got spooked.

Aristippean Stirnerism.

>>4658510
Now—we are in search of the enjoyment of life! And what did the religious world do? It went in search of life. "Wherein consists the true life, the blessed life, etc.? How is it to be attained? What must man do and become in order to become a truly living man? How does he fulfil this calling?" These and similar questions indicate that the askers were still seeking for themselves,—to wit, themselves in the true sense, in the sense of true living. "What I am is foam and shadow; what I shall be is my true self." To chase after this self, to produce it, to realize it, constitutes the hard task of mortals, who die only to rise again, live only to die, live only to find the true life.

Not till I am certain of myself, and no longer seeking for myself, am I really my property; I have myself, therefore I use and enjoy myself. On the other hand, I can never take comfort in myself so long as I think that I have still to find my true self and that it must come to this, that not I but Christ or some other spiritual, i. e. ghostly, self (e. g. the true man, the essence of man, and the like) lives in me.

A vast interval separates the two views. In the old I go toward myself, in the new I start from myself; in the former I long for myself, in the latter I have myself and do with myself as one does with any other property,—I enjoy myself at my pleasure. I am no longer afraid for my life, but "squander" it.

Henceforth the question runs, not how one can acquire life, but how one can squander, enjoy it; or, not how one is to produce the true self in himself, but how one is to dissolve himself, to live himself out.

What else should the ideal be but the sought-for, ever-distant self? One seeks for himself, consequently one does not yet have himself; one aspires toward what one ought to be, consequently one is not it. One lives in longing and has lived thousands of years in it, in hope. Living is quite another thing in—enjoyment!

Now—we are in search of the enjoyment of life! And what did the religious world do? It went in search of life. "Wherein consists the true life, the blessed life, etc.? How is it to be attained? What must man do and become in order to become a truly living man? How does he fulfil this calling?" These and similar questions indicate that the askers were still seeking for themselves,—to wit, themselves in the true sense, in the sense of true living. "What I am is foam and shadow; what I shall be is my true self." To chase after this self, to produce it, to realize it, constitutes the hard task of mortals, who die only to rise again, live only to die, live only to find the true life.

Not till I am certain of myself, and no longer seeking for myself, am I really my property; I have myself, therefore I use and enjoy myself. On the other hand, I can never take comfort in myself so long as I think that I have still to find my true self and that it must come to this, that not I but Christ or some other spiritual, i. e. ghostly, self (e. g. the true man, the essence of man, and the like) lives in me.

A vast interval separates the two views. In the old I go toward myself, in the new I start from myself; in the former I long for myself, in the latter I have myself and do with myself as one does with any other property,—I enjoy myself at my pleasure. I am no longer afraid for my life, but "squander" it.

Henceforth the question runs, not how one can acquire life, but how one can squander, enjoy it; or, not how one is to produce the true self in himself, but how one is to dissolve himself, to live himself out.

What else should the ideal be but the sought-for, ever-distant self? One seeks for himself, consequently one does not yet have himself; one aspires toward what one ought to be, consequently one is not it. One lives in longing and has lived thousands of years in it, in hope. Living is quite another thing in—enjoyment!

>>3880417
>Give a solid recommendation on how to comprehend science and math better
>Get nothing but a sarcastic hostility in return

It's ok. I can take it.

>>3790016
>mfw I support the status quo since as a lumpenprole I'm a direct benefactor of the very system I'm exploiting

>>3766034
>Show me a happy person who is a nihilist.

>>3723959
Take a chill pill.

>>3645539
>I prefer happy delirious singsong nihilism amor fatism.
>>3645539

You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
All moral values are merely spooks

>>3609272
>hey guys, if you don't contribute to Mankind, you're not worthy of Manhood!
Nice try, spookslave.

>>3323042
implying stupidity is a value

5/10
made me laugh

>>3246875
>Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.

>>3223708
>no free will
>fat people shouldn't be blamed
>people who blame them should be blamed

I'm the guy that was defending antinatalism the most in this thread. To be honest, I actually don't really care whether people reproduce or not. I'm more of an apanatalist. Actually, you could say that I'm a bit of a natalist, since I am wholly in favour of having a generation to pay taxes so I can keep living of government money for as long as I want.

Antinatalism is a great position to defend though, since it's rather reasonable while very unpopular.

>>3210719
I agree it's quite problematic and half arsed, especially since I was getting tangled up in my actual and my professed positions. I actually think all personal preferences are no more than that and that preferences in the category that's called "ethics" or "morals" are no less personal and arbitrary and just as much an irrational expression of ones personality or character or nature or however you want to call it as ones favourite vegetables.

>>3182924
>>3182936
>>3184309
I came to this thread to say this as well. I love you, /lit/.

>mfw Rand is babby tier egoism