/lit/ - Literature

OP here,

I don't care if it's Jung of Petersons idea. I'm interested in the idea.
And since I've watched at least 6 Peterson lectures or so and Peterson mentions Jung every 10 minutes, I'm well aware that he's not the source of everything to do with myths.

Obviously Peterson stumbled into a culture war and isn't ashamed to profit (in form of money but also audience gathering) from his status. But him being liked by the right should not be a fucking argument for all the leftists that simply try to dismiss everything he says because they don't like him. Memes aren't inherently bad.
I don't care about this shit.

I've also like this guys 300 videos on Nietzsche

https://youtu.be/soT-kZHBTlE

which are lower video quality and he never gained an audience - but with a Peterson who's known due to politics and memes at least we can discuss this stuff an there's a chance people saw the content.

>>8932233
>people acting like selfish asshole get annoying in the long run.
Indeed.
Stirners hope is that people are capable enough to see that elevating one another is the best way to go - then egoism isn't detrimental.

If you have a garden, you may cut the leaves in an English garden style, or in a French garden style. If you properly own it, you can also decide not to give a fuck and not water it and let it die.
If you have a dog, you may decide to feed it an extra bone on its birthday. Or you may be an ass to it. If you love your dog, you own it less, because you find yourself not capable of doing whatever with it.
If you have a t-shirt, you may throw it away. If you can't because you're tied to it (it's the t-shirt of your best friend who moved to India), then some emotional spell has power over you. If you can drop the t-shirt, it's YOUR OWN.
Being hungry isn't a spook, because it's physical and real.
Or if your teacher slaps you because you're not doing your homework, or if you don't show up to school, and thus you behave, then he exerts some real power over you.
But if you can't bring yourself to invite your black neighbor over to dinner because you're born a racist, you're just spooked.

If you own a t-shirt, you're inclined to treat it well and wash it. There's benefit in looking out for your property.
Stirner says people should own everything, and each other. You'd do enough to protect, enable and elevate your property (the others, and all things), and in turn they would protect and enable and enable you. Being an asshole would not be a good strategy. Dropping out would be possible but stupid. unless due to change from outside powers it's objectively not a good idea to stick with it. A union of egoists, like a communism without a common pool of property and one that always reasserts itself.

PS I'm not claiming this can be realized. Stirners egoism is mentally challenging, I think, especially if lots of change is happening in the world (like at these times).

But his idea of unspooking yourself and his notion of ownership (which is not simply legally owning something on a piece of paper, but instead having power AND simultanously independence w.r.t. something) is great.

>>8190584
Cool.
Not sure how it helps though, mhm..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLAcO3r5Xjs