/lit/ - Literature

>>4664066

>>4398927
That's the freeing part. Stirner divides this formation between the child, the youth and the man. The first is concerned with the world, the second with ideas and the third with himself. Once you get over being enthralled by ideas and ruled over by strange unrealistic demands and indignation you can entrench yourself in reality and deal with things as they are instead of as they should be. This is where the joyous life really starts.

>>4376041
>growing up

How spooked can you get?

>>4362604
If you think Stirner is about being a "selfish asshole" then you haven't read Stirner. Plain and simple.

Zen and Tao would be more like it.

>>4360070
We don't make the distinction because it lies beyond the domain of language, any verbal expression of it doesn't really refer to it anymore.

>.....The Unique One is the straightforward, sincere, plain-phrase. It is the end point of our phrase world, of this world in whose "beginning was the Word."

>What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable.

>... For 'being' is abstraction, as is even 'the I'. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently, even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. ...."

>>4340091
That's only a valid argument if you believe in a liberal spook called human rights.

>>4321420
>Implying extremism isn't a liberal democratic spook

How plebeian.

If only we could have the wisdom of the east without the collectivism and the world weariness.

I really like these comparisons of Stirner to taoism and zen and stuff.

embrace the philosophy of Max Stirner

>>4215642
>On the contrary, it absolutely cripples you.
It only seems that way. It only cripples the concept you have of yourself, freeing yourself from that burden. Only when you don't obey the conceptual you can you be true to the actual you. When you ascribe authority to the you of yesterday, you are not even dealing with a you that points towards the non-conceptual you. It's a you that points towards something no longer and therefore non-existent. It's fidelity to an empty shell stemming from a misunderstanding of conceptual thought.

>To be honest, it does more than that, it destroys you, because "you", "I", etc., are all "spooks" --- all forms of identity are destroyed. "Choice", "this moment", "true to oneself", "responsibility", these are all "spooks".
Yes, but the Stirnerian Einzige is not the conceptual you. But I agree, these are all spooks the moment you start ascribing authority to them and serving them. Obedience to a former self is superstition.

>This is really just the Daoist "thoughts are evil".
>Well, actually, the real Daoist statement is, " ". A non-statement, because Daoist don't state think or non-think, they don't speak or non-speak, they don't choose or non-choose, they just " ".
I've also found Stirner and certain Daoist/Zen things to be eerily alike. Compare your statement to the following for example:

>What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable.

>Stirner speaks of the Unique and says immediately: Names name you not. He articulates the word, so long as he calls it the Unique, but adds nonetheless that the Unique is only a name. He thus means something different from what he says, as perhaps someone who calls you Ludwig does not mean a Ludwig in general, but means You, for which he has no word. (...) It is the end point of our phrase world, of this world in whose "beginning was the Word."

There is no you that is destroyed, it's just that the conceptual you that is ascribed existence and authority never existed in the first place. The you considered you never was you, and only by dismissing it can you act as the real you, which is neither the concept of you nor anything else, for " 'being' is abstraction, as is even 'the I'. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently, even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. ...."

Does anyone have have that greentext story of HP Lovecraft talking shit? It uses his style and I think it ends with something like "Let's see what beast of macabre come out"

Also /lit/ humor thread I guess.

but I'm a stirnerian anarchist/taoist

Can Stirner's egoism be reconciled with buddhist ideas of the illusion of the self?

>>3811629
There are some interesting similarities really.

"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable."
— Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics

"Stirner speaks of the Unique and says immediately: Names name you not. He articulates the word, so long as he calls it the Unique, but adds nonetheless that the Unique is only a name."
— Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics

"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnameable is the eternally real."
— Laozi, Daodejing

"For 'being' is abstraction, as is even 'the I'. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently, even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. ...."
— Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics

"The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities."
— Laozi, Daodejing

This is a mere glance and I'm still comparing and working out this shit, but I think somewhat of a case can be made for a particular reasoning in Stirner's thought and Taoist philosophy. They are at least compatible in a lot of ways.

>>3790205
'Tis true, but not to such a degree of making differentiating on a spectrum of the amount of which one is influenced by the ideals of his society something superfluous altogether. The distinction is still useful, if only as a tool to be able to dismiss anything you don't like but feel somehow obliged to.

>tfw all philosophy is mere conceptualisation and justification of what you want anyway
>tfw old Casparus Maximator Stirnerii's work is a cleansing tincture and not a nutritious stew
>tfw it can be distilled towards the old Hashashins creed as curated by Freddy

>counter-culture
>loud-mouth exhibitionism and shallow posturing
>not quietly going your divergent way

>>3631197
As long as you have goals you can't appreciate life fully. The only goal is to achieve a position where you can enjoy life without worrying about the maintenance of life.

Acquire a position in which you don't have to worry about things like food, money and shelter. Create a life for yourself that requires minimum effort to maintain. From this position out, you are free to enjoy yourself as you please. You can only have life when you are not busy acquiring it. Acquiring it means you don't have it. Having it means you have nothing to look for. “Shouldering a staff you wander this way and that, East or West, South or North, knocking at the wild stumps as you please.”

I like how people still mistake Stirner for being edgy. In the end what is called his egoism isn't egoistic in the ethical sense, it's egoistic in the sense that the motivation for ones actions stem from oneself without being seduced by external tempers who try to manipulate you into doing their own bidding. Stirners philosophy is emancipatory. How one lives one's life after this cleansing is what comes from oneself, what springs up for one's own well. To me Stirners thought has almost mystical aspects and goes way beyond "fuck you I won't do what you tell me". Of course it may very well lead to that and there is nothing particularly strange about a Stirnerist embracing illegalism or something like that. On the other hand, there's nothing strange about a Stirnerist living like a saint either. If anything, an act of kindness from someone who embraces Stirners thought is more truly kind than one from someone who has accepted compassion as a homework assignment from God.

>actually still trying to be something in this world instead of letting things run their course in an effortless and sagely manner

>>3192482
He's freeing. He's like the soap of philosophy. You put it on you with all the other dirt, and when you're done it all washes away together. He can deliver you from external imperatives, and to put it tritely, helps you to be yourself.

I stopped taking notes because I don't wish to disturb the flow of things with jarring artificial feedback from the past. I like the past to gently descend into nothingness and don't bother with it anymore. Then again, I also dislike photographs and old emails and letters and all that. Dwelling on the past is a slandering of the present and I sincerely believe it's psychologically unhealthy because it fortifies an artificial image of the self by reconstructing it continually from incomplete information. You create a stunted narrative from something that doesn't exist anymore.

Best to let it all go and wander on.

>>2964336
There's no one who can get out either then, is there? There's no problem.

>>2954594
>implying I'm preoccupied with considering myself intelligent
>implying I'm not beyond that
>implying I don't take naps in the sun after a few glasses of wine with lunch instead of going around proving I'm intelligent