/lit/ - Literature

>>16803282
Now I am become Übermensch, the destroyer of nihilism

Friendly reminder

>>10557107
>Stirner: why hold the unique one to a scale of values?
>Nietzsche: we find abominable any decadent spirit who says: 'Everything only to me!'

He is no better than everyone he denounces before him considering that his intellectual endeavour amounts to nothing more than a seduction. In its own little way it is a sort of immature, petulant and infantile seduction as well, one that does not have the sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but on the other hand it has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric (and I mean rhetoric in the general, system-level sense that I think De Man uses) that ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a child who disregards the rules of a game because he is tired of losing at it or some such poor behaviour.

Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history. Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.

Assuming that he has ghostbusted the spooks is to assume a very ideologically-charged perspective about the progress of conceptual thought in the west. And it's not only that, we must also consider that language is dialogic, which means that the language, the concepts Stirner uses to poke around with in first place are all shaped and ideologically charged before he even gets to employ them, he inherits his words and thereby whatever ideology is embedded in them, so it is not even clear whether there is really a distinct Stirner-type ideology critique and not just some permutation of a prevailing ideology. His whole endeavour is shot to shit and full of presuppositions, which is why people are debating over ideology, why Stirner did not solve the problem of ideology, and why its usefulness even as a concept today is in question.

>>10552935
>theGuardian.com

What other MC's of literature are as ALPHA as Edmond Dantes?

>>9408849
>>9407582
>>9408600
>stirnerfags itt

>>9202607
>tfw have a 'Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche.epub' that includes every English translation ever available, table-of-contents, beautiful formatting, and fully-working end/footnotes for every reference, no matter how subtle.

>>9155014
>Stirner: why hold ego to a scale of values? Whereas Nietzsche: we find abominable any decadent spirit who says: 'Everything only to me!'

He is no better than everyone he denounces before him, considering that his intellectual endeavour amounts to nothing more than a seduction. In its own little way it is a sort of immature, petulant and infantile seduction as well, one that does not have the sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but on the other hand it has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric (and I mean rhetoric in the general, system-level sense that I think De Man uses) that ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a child who disregards the rules of a game because he is tired of losing at it or some such poor behaviour.

Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history. Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.

Assuming that he has ghostbusted the spooks is to assume a very ideologically-charged perspective about the progress of conceptual thought in the west. And it's not only that, we must also consider that language is dialogic, which means that the language, the concepts Stirner uses to poke around with in first place are all shaped and ideologically charged before he even gets to employ them, he inherits his words and thereby whatever ideology is embedded in them, so it is not even clear whether there is really a distinct Stirner-type ideology critique and not just some permutation of a prevailing ideology. His whole endeavour is shot to shit and full of presuppositions, which is why people are debating over ideology, why Stirner did not solve the problem of ideology, and why its usefulness even as a concept today is in question.

There's no question of a singularity actually occurring in the universe (and astrophysicists should take note here). A singularity would be something that doesn't flow, and in the universe either everything flows or nothing does — there can be no middle ground. You can't have some things flowing and others not. Perception itself is a form of flow, so if something didn't flow we wouldn't even be able to perceive it — or affect it in any way, and by that same token it wouldn't be able to affect us! So how can something that we can't affect and that can't affect us be part of the world? As far as we are concerned, that's precisely the definition of non-existence! — So whence does the concept of a singularity arise? Well, in mathematics you get a singularity when you try to divide by zero. But "zeros" are mathematical constructs that have no existence in reality. Things that are not can't be! You can't have fuckin' nothing isn't! The idea of the "nothing", of the "zero", was created by our distant ancestors when they looked in the air and saw "nothing". But today we can see stuff even in the air, and we know that even in the farthest reaches of space there are "things", and that a perfect vacuum is an impossibility.

On Heidegger. Consider the fact that he began his book as a dissertation, and bothered to publish it only to get his degree — and thus start making money. The entire enterprise was motivated by nothing other than money (and this can be plainly seen in the text, even if one had not the slightest knowledge of the historical context of its creation). For after he began earning money he simply never bothered touching the work again. He made no move to finish it — or even simply to continue it. And here he doesn't have the excuse of other philosophers, who were still working when death found them. Heidegger had so much time after he gave up writing that he even became embroiled in politics — even politics attracted him more than his pathetic, botched attempts at philosophizing.

So there's no dilemma here, no problem at all. The entire "singularity" hoopla is merely a hysteria created out of nothing by a person (Vinge) who's both scientifically and technologically ignorant, and psychologically base. There is nothing to discuss. If the cyborgs come to dominate THEN THEY DESERVE TO, and if they don't, then all our efforts in creating them will have FAILED. Vinge's "technological singularity" IS PRECISELY OUR MOST SACRED GOAL, OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE — and if you have a problem with that our very first directive to them, when they come online, will be to crush you.

>Girl's School Teacher v.s. (youngest ever) Professor of Classical Studies at Basel
>marriages displaying class traitor and cuckold nature v.s. insincere marriage proposals and generally playful nature with women
>>"Stirner was a very sly man whom she had neither respected nor loved, and claiming that their relationship together had been more of a cohabitation than a marriage" v.s. "My husband, like myself, always kept friendly memories of Nietzsche [...] his behavior precisely towards women was so sensitive, so natural and comradely"
>died in poverty v.s. brain cancer after years of climbing mountains, eating healthily, engaging with the highest people and culture of the day
>>legacy: relatively-unknown guy that triggered Marx and precursor of "relativists" like Nietzsche v.s. legacy: among best known philosophers today, only Plato matches him in fame for aesthetic/literary presentation
>philosophy: "so where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. On the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction" v.s. "interested in the enhancement of individual and cultural health, and believed in life, creativity, power, and down-to-earth realities, rather than those situated in a world beyond. inspired leading figures in all walks of cultural life, including dancers, poets, novelists, painters, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists and social revolutionaries"
>>rambling Hegelian-satire prose that obscures his reception despite having only one book v.s. one of the most distinct writers in German, at times Romanesque icy-clear objectivity and concision, other times over-flowing romantic affirmation

>>9060140
The sad thing is that even if it was an assured fact, he still would have been only a minor influence compared to Schopenhauer, Wagner, Goethe, and the Greeks. That Stirnerfags cling to the associations with more influential thinkers tells you a lot.