/lit/ - Literature

>>18779567
Your advice is fucking bullshit, because every single author you reference rests their ideas upon the foundations established by the classics.

The 'ideas' of the classics have not been 'refuted', we simply live in different times, different conditions, and therefore require an orientation towards their ideas that attempt to bridge the gap. The criticism of their original principles and respective categories is actually a criticism of changed possibilities, of trying to orient ourselves in the present to what is possible politically in respect to how we envision society.

The only way to proceed to practical solutions for us now is by situating our understanding historically, and that requires harboring a deep respect and sustained engagement with the classics.

What does Stirner mean when he talks about higher essences? Is he saying that that spooks can be real after all?

"You are not to me, and I am not to you, a higher essence. Nevertheless a higher essence may be hidden in each
of us, and call forth a mutual reverence. To take at once the most general, Man lives in you and me. If I did not see
Man in you, what occasion should I have to respect you? To be sure, you are not Man and his true and adequate form, but only a mortal veil of his, from which he can withdraw without himself ceasing; but yet for the present this general and higher essence is housed in you, and you present before me (because an imperishable spirit has in
you assumed a perishable body, so that really your form is only an "assumed" one) a spirit that appears, appears
in you, without being bound to your body and to this particular mode of appearance – therefore a spook. Hence I do not regard you as a higher essence but only respect that higher essence which "walks" in you; I "respect Man in you."

>you will never banter with spookman in the fleisch

What does Stirner mean when he talks about higher essences? Is he saying that that spooks can be real after all?

"You are not to me, and I am not to you, a higher essence. Nevertheless a higher essence may be hidden in each
of us, and call forth a mutual reverence. To take at once the most general, Man lives in you and me. If I did not see
Man in you, what occasion should I have to respect you? To be sure, you are not Man and his true and adequate form, but only a mortal veil of his, from which he can withdraw without himself ceasing; but yet for the present this general and higher essence is housed in you, and you present before me (because an imperishable spirit has in
you assumed a perishable body, so that really your form is only an "assumed" one) a spirit that appears, appears
in you, without being bound to your body and to this particular mode of appearance – therefore a spook. Hence I do not regard you as a higher essence but only respect that higher essence which "walks" in you; I "respect Man in you."

Diskussion über Stirner