/lit/ - Literature

>>17060576
>servants of A
>servants of B
do tradtards really

>>15390696
What does that even mean lmao you sound like a modern movie critic saying some shit so abstract that nobody has any idea what you're saying

Buddhist philosophy fits perfectly with the Stirnerian notion of the Creative Nothing. Prove me wrong.

>>13857025
The concept of union of egoists is a vaguely defined one, and it's part of Stirner's philosophy that I have the most gripe with; politics. My interpretation is that it's not a contractual or a legal union as the current notions of a union, these would be for lack of better a better descriptor, 'spooks in the mind'.

Rather, a 'union of egoists', is no more than a descriptor of a group of people that act out of their own will, but share an interest. The moment a notion of 'ought' or 'must' is attempted asserted by someone that individual falls out of it.

I don't think Stirner is to be read as opposed to hierarchy. If the hierarchy is motivated by conscious egoistic action it's a legitimate one. If I were to want a hierarchy, and another person wanted to join that hierarchy, both to our own benefit, eg. in a kind of symbiotic relationship then the hierarchy would be a legitimate union of egoists. As soon as one of us regards the hierarchy as an entity unto itself, though, and not just a descriptor of our conscious egoistic relationship, it's no longer a union of egoists.