/lit/ - Literature

>>7380618
Not the guy you ask, but here two cents...
The first book is quite different than the second one - this thread is about the first.

Mini-lecture:
The context is the turn of the century somewhat over 100 years ago, after Frege came up with a (classical) logical calculus including quantifier (with possibly infinite range) and people in analytic philosophy started projects like putting all of math on grounds of symbolic logic.
This is the phase from Wittgensteins kind of mentor Russel (and the problems they cooked up), over Hilbert (who proposed to solve it, which would require a formalization of "algorithm") to Gödel (who did it and fucked Hilbert up) and finally to Turing (who used it to show you can produce code that reads in other code as input).
Today we have the computer because of EXTREMELY academic questions asked by those people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begriffsschrift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

As the first book includes quite a bit of elaboration of that, but in the language that's being form as the subject is being newly developed and changed for the quest at hand, it's somewhat fuzzy and hard to read. I'd say it's helpful to understand the formal aspect before you read the philosophers who try to put the real world in context to this. An online script I like is

http://www.personal.psu.edu/t20/notes/logic.pdf
http://www.personal.psu.edu/t20/notes/

>>6985091
2 much drama 4 me

http://www.oliviacaramello.com/Unification/InitiativeOfClarificationResults.html

>>6977002
Geneva is really gray, and the red light district is not red and creepy.

:/

>>6913111
How can all philosophy be obvious, if you have Objectivism and Marxism, Religion and Nihilism, Fregean logic and Hegelian logic, etc.?

>>6684674
The pic is themed. If it was supposed to look cool, it could get more greek and funky with brackets specific to stochastics and whatnot.

Sure, algebraic topology will have some applications, but it's not a stretch to say that many other fields have much more practical ones.

Steady /sci/ user for 7 years of so here.
I don't know any literature that isn't science and math stuff, really.
I've only been to /lit/ since 3 weeks. Started reading Stirner because of it, lel.
>I'm done with this fucking shithole
>Enjoy pseudo-intellectualism, retards
What is so bad here? I can't really judge, obviously, but I feel it's just opinions anyway. What I could think is that there are too many basic opinions, no showing of heaving read related and background material. Is that it?
If so, how isn't that clear from the start? The average 4chan user is 21 or so.

/sci/ here.
Do you ever have something like reading clubs?

Okay, so I started reading the book.
Questions:

- From the introduction/motivation, to what extent does he see the god/humanity as something whcih can have a cause on it's own?
How can he claim god/humanity is egoistic (and we should put it before us)?
- I like the part with the developement from child to young adult to man. We have that child fears father/etc. things in the world, the thinking young man, with his ideals fears his conscious, the strong man is living with and for himself.
Now wouldn't it be more true to say the young man fears rejection, to a big part? Realistically, you can't reject everything, all ideals of others too, and still live nicely. Everybody is socially dependent.
- How do woman fit in the picture, he strongly has a male protagonist in his mind, in those rants. What about a womans development in this world, are the suggestion the same?
- I guess people here like Stirner because they want to change/improve their life by acting differently, and that by thinking differently. What does Stirner say about tasks which I have figured out are in my favor but are boring or make me put in others shoes?
Once I’ve fixed my goals and my cause, how can I analyze it from a Stirner perspective. Do you actually have suggestion here?
- What is 'courage' for him?
- Will he speak about money?

I find it hard to read, because he switches, without mentioning, from speaking in first person as his opponents (i.e. making claims which he then refutes), to arguing against those, to historic descriptions - and on top of that there are some ironic/sarcastic sentences and jokes.
- Is Geist (spirit/mind?) actually defined, I’m not sure. He uses this quite differently. Same with „holy“: sometimes he uses it in the „spooky“ sense, other times he declares whatever is very relevant to me I can consider „holy“ and it hasn’t to be supernatural.
- he criticizes how people respect (all, in principle) other people for them carrying something human in them. The notion is spooky, he says. So is he against the bill of human rights for everyone?