/lit/ - Literature

>le spooks xD

His observations were true and insightful but his prescriptions are ridiculous

>>10099663
>spooks
Nice translation, phantasm.

>>10099669
I honestly think the union of egoists is the organisational missing piece of communism

>>10099656
He was far too right for his own good.

>>10099898
Excellent post.

Guys, intellectually I'm all spooked out. I can't stand philosophy because of all the unfalsifiable garbage. Many fields like economics etc are just applied common sense and stamp collecting. I see novels as nothing but entertainment despite pretentious people claiming life / philosophical insights and tonnes of people will consider you a disgusting plebeian if you don't initially read shitloads of boring as fuck canon novels.

I think I am painfully adapting to the idea of the Internet age / information overload by abandoning any pretension that I can be an all rounder or even dilettante in everything. There are ten trillion books called "Introduction to [broad and important field]", even if you only have one of each field.

History is similar to novels. Shitloads of reading along with a shitload pretension thrown on top telling you that you truly cannot no nuthin unless you have an in depth understanding of the Greeks / Romans / Christianity / USA / WW1 / WW2 / financial systems / or shitloads of other topics I can't stand it. And then there's current events. I don't care about climate change, outer space, inequality, China, the EU (as long as it doesn't stir up too much shit), applied psychology, the education system, diversity (as long as people aren't treated badly), Russia, South America, refugees, nutrition, mental health, and more. Admitting just one of these would make me an iredeemable idiot, no doubt.

Has anyone else had similar thoughts? The spooks are powerful and must be removed but their removal leaves your mind in a promordial state that is more susceptible to spooks than before.

And obviously I have an existential crisis but /lit/ is fucking pathetic in demanding that anyone who has one should immediately "grow up" and become a monotheist and wagecuck.

>>10101170
>I can't stand philosophy because of all the unfalsifiable garbage
>Many fields like economics
kek

>>10101170
>unfalsifiable garbage

Razors are your friend.

>>10101170
You might not like hearing it but it is a case of growing up. Sounds like your in your ignorant sceptic phase but give it a few more years and you'll come round bud

>>10101170
Dude you can't weigh your own knowledge against the whole Internet.

>>10099669
this. people should just stop reading before that part because then you get a lot of people dismissing all his ideas because of the union/anarchy stuff

>>10099656
Believing in spooks is a spook, you mongoloid.

>right

spooky

>>10101927

BASED Oshima

>material ego
ew 3DPD in extreme

>>10099656
>>10101288
>>10099900
Individual entrepreneurs within organisations that are factions of a democratic communist state, or the new oligarchy kids. New as in new oblivion, neo-retro cool, high end yes them.

>>10101170
This is what 0 productivity looks like.

>>10099900
This.
This is why anarchists have adopted his ideas. Now the trouble is trying to get the angsty teen anarchists to balance their egoism with collectivist ideas. (They always seem to shop away the union of egoists part. Too small a section?) "What's that? Commies are collectivists! Do the opposite!!"

>>10102560
>trying to get
people who read stirner as a political theorist, or to take political arguments from him, are too far gone

>>10102859
He's more about ones personal perception and interaction with he outside world. The more extroverted kind of politics can come later.

>>10102560
Stirner was a staunch communist

>>10104017
Citation where?

>>10104046
He thought the proletariat should stand up for their ownness and take what is rightful theirs.

>>10102560
>(They always seem to shop away the union of egoists part. Too small a section?) "What's that? Commies are collectivists! Do the opposite!!"

Anyone who ignores the union but claims to have read Stirner is suspect. Every non-statist human interaction is an egoistic union; communists have failed historically because they intentionally infect their genuine interactions with the taint of ideology (Debord the Situationist says, "we must have an anti-statist dictatorship of the proletariat!").

There doesn't need to be a "balance" if one understands that a commune (in the form of an egoistic union) is not diametrically opposed to the unique. On the contrary, being member of a union of egoists can only benefit the ego.

>>10101927
>What is a nation
A pragmatic observation of cultural and ethnic unity among a given area that is meant to ease governance by not allowing for internal strife within a given area?

Oshima is retarded

>>10104053
So do anarchists.

>>10104059
That's the balance I mean.

>shop away
Damn. Meant chop.

>>10104046
https://books.google.ca/books?id=wdXLCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA104#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>10104071
>A pragmatic observation of cultural and ethnic unity
Gibberish. Observation is not a practice, and of itself it is not pragmatic.
>that is meant to ease governance by not allowing for internal strife
How does this work out, "pragmatically" speaking?

>>10104071
Read the book, noob.

>>10104059
What is the source of this image?

>>10104090
>individuals are the reality

No, individuals are a result of state power breaking down intermediary corps during the early modern era.

No one thought of himself as an individual before that.

>>10099656
I can agree with the individualism that comes from misanthropy

But being an atheist is a brainlet symptom of people who can't leave the edgyness phase of egocentrism were God needs to satisfy them or the retardation from the line of thought if you can't consume and prove a omnipotent and omniscient being, this means it doesn't exist

And while I'm am individualist to a large extent, I know how the estate and cooperation is necessary for everybody including myself, because I read Leviathan from based Hobbes

>>10104099
>No one was allowed to think of themselves as individuals before that.

Exhilarating age we're in, isn't it?

>>10104099
You're hung up on concepts, but what Stirner means by "the unique" or "the individual" is the absence of conceptuality. In other words, the "unique" is the most meaningless of signs because it supposes absolutely nothing at all, and as such, is the only thing capable of standing in for the what cannot be signified. The unique is the linguistic zero into which all qualities sink.

>>10104092
Not sure (other than Memri), saw it on /his/ the other day.

>>10104117
And then you propose to destroy the institution that permitted individuals to rise.

There is no reason to believe it would go the way you want it.

>People replying to the flaming tripfag

>>10104127
>Hilarious even if serious.

>>10104046

>>10104087
explain this pic

>>10104169
He has a tub for popcorn (that has free refills in most theaters) but Stirner takes the soda in his tub and there's nothing you can do about it

>>10104163
>Best Birginia?

>>10104178
Oh, it's KFC. A place that gives tubs of chicken.
Haven't eaten there in decades.

i don't get it
how can this tripfag be so goddamn oblivious to how pathetic they are?
posting in every thread saying the same asinine epidermal-level bullshit, going this far out of their way to get attention, all while failing to contribute even one constructive comment (which is almost impressive when you look at how ubiquitous they are)
is it legit autism? a cry for help? do they really not understand how annoying it is to see their inanity in every fucking thread? do they not understand that they are retarded?
i swear i get secondhand embarrassment every time i see one of its posts.
it is the absolute worst part of this board

>>10104017
>stirner
>staunch anything
way to miss the entire point of the fucking book

>>10104059
youre a fucking faggot. stirner and i hate you

>>10104238
>Stirner's ghost wouldn't like what you're saying!

Inquire within

>>10104227
>they
>Tranny posting incognito to fit in.
Oh anon.

Face the corner.

>>10104229
Staunch egoist

>>10104227

it's some sperg larping as butterfly. he does this from time to time.. though your criticisms would apply equally if she were on, kek.

case in point:
>>10104260
>Tranny
no way the real butterfly is calling anyone a tranny. she is far too le understanding for that. u played yoself fool.

>>10099898
>Spuk
>spook
sure a lot of meaning lost there

>>10104299
>too le understanding
I'm making fun of the turd.

>your criticisms would apply equally
Well forget you anyway

>>10104227
This, I have no problem with name/tripfagging as long it isn't as obnoxious as those people are and the fact that people still feed it attention is nauseating

>>10104311

lol if this really is you go and have a chai tea or whatever the fuck goofy drink it is that you normally have and stop posting on /lit/ for a while because you are having a shitposting meltdown.

>>10104087
>Writes a bunch of gibberish
You see, most "human beings" are not misanthropic edgelords and feel something called a "connection with others" through "empathy" , and want to minimize conflict with other people

>>10102360
can u link the thread that's from?

>>10104333
Perhaps, if you're unwilling to read the thread, you will let the text speak:
>But “the egoist is someone who thinks only of himself!” — This would be someone who doesn’t know and relish all the joys that come from participation with others, i.e., from thinking of others as well, someone who lack countless pleasures — thus a poor sort. But why should this desolate loner be an egoist in comparison to richer sorts? Certainly, for a long time, we were able to get used to considering poverty a disgrace, as a crime, and the sacred socialists have clearly proven that the poor are treated like a criminals. But sacred socialists treat those who are in their eyes contemptibly poor in this way, just as much as the bourgeoisie do it to their poor.
>But why should the person who is poorer with respect to a certain interest be called more egoistic than the one who possesses that interest? Is the oyster more egoistic that the dog; is the Moor more egoistic than the German; is the poor, scorned, Jewish junkman more egoistic than the enthusiastic socialist; is the vandal who destroys artworks for which he feels nothing more egoistic than the art connoisseur who treats the same works with great love and care because he has a feeling and interest for them? And now if someone — we leave it open whether such a one can be shown to exist — doesn’t find any “human” interest in human beings, if he doesn’t know how to appreciate them as human beings, wouldn’t he be a poorer egoist with regard to this interest rather than being, as the enemies of egoism claim, a model of egoism? One who loves a human being is richer, thanks to this love, than another who doesn’t love anyone. But there is no distinction between egoism and non-egoism in this at all, because both are only pursuing their own interest.

From "Stirner's Critics"

>>10104328
Wow, if everyone would just get up leave before they started shitposting 4chin may as well shut down for lack of traffic.

>>10101170
nibba it's a useful guideline that you can derive benefit from (no matter how much you warp or disagree with what stirner says). don't be autistic or so literal about it.

>>10104349
>We think of each other as human beings as an abstract concept a priori
Dog shit > Stirner
>It's not thinking only of yourself
>Its thinking only of yourself in the context of others , who are accessories for your enjoyment
So in other words, a jaded misanthropic autist tries to intellectualize his own edginess

>>10104361
>We *try* to think of each other as human beings as an abstract concept a priori

Alright so it's fair to say that he was just trying to trigger Marx right?

>>10104361
>We think of each other as human beings as an abstract concept a priori
That's literally the fucking opposite of what he's saying. Again, from "Stirner's Critics":
'One flattered oneself that one spoke about the “actual, individual” human being when one spoke of the human being; but was this possible so long as one wanted to express this human being through something universal, through an attribute? To designate this human being, shouldn’t one, perhaps, have recourse not to an attribute, but rather to a designation, to a name to take refuge in, where the view, i.e., the unspeakable, is the main thing? Some are reassured by “real, complete individuality,” which is still not free of the relation to the species; others by the “spirit,” which is likewise a determination, not complete indeterminacy. This indeterminacy only seems to be achieved in the unique, because it is given as the specific unique being, because when it is grasped as a concept, i.e., as an expression, it appears as a completely empty and undetermined name, and thus refers to a content outside of or beyond the concept. If one fixes it as a concept — and the opponents do this — one must attempt to give it a definition and will thus inevitably come upon something different from what was meant. It would be distinguished from other concepts and considered, for example, as “the sole complete individual,” so that it becomes easy to show it as nonsense. But can you define yourself; are you a concept?'

>Its thinking only of yourself in the context of others , who are accessories for your enjoyment
Do you spend time with people you detest to spend time with? I am only friends with people I enjoy

>>10099656
replace all in pic with >science
suddenly things are objective

>>10104350

not everyone.

just you.

>>10104059
Absolutely disgusting. You literally read shit to find material to validate your ideology. Maybe you can make up shit for other works but regarding Stirner it is impossible. All of these things are just considerations resulting from the central points, not some resolute ideological web of ideas, in of themselves. They're unimportant, more like random examples that illustrate the central points, than anything else. Many of these illustrations are aggressively satirical too.

>>10104398
>You literally read shit to find material to validate your ideology. Maybe you can make up shit for other works but regarding Stirner it is impossible. All of these things are just considerations resulting from the central points, not some resolute ideological web of ideas, in of themselves.
>You literally read shit to find material to validate your ideology.
>All of these things are just considerations resulting from the central points, not some resolute ideological web of ideas, in of themselves.

So do I have an ideology or don't I? It seems like you're just shouting about how you don't Stirner's writing style at this point

>>10104376
I guess you missed
>>10104368

Moron

>>10104410
I think you misinterpreted my post.

>>10104420
If by "try" you mean "try and fail," I agree. A lot of the Ego and His Own was written in direct response to Marx's ideas. I don't think he was "just" trying to trigger him, but he certainly succeeded in doing that if The German Ideology is any indication

>>10104423
In what way?

>>10104376
>Modality is a spook and observing any similarities that are innate among people regardless of any environmental factors is a spook
Wew

>>10104472
Every idea can be a spook

>>10104476
>Grass is green in spring
>Fucking spook

>>10104525
Yes, colors are spooks. How is that hard to grasp? Language itself, is the ultimate spook.

spooks are spooks

>>10101170
I know the feeling, and I'm a high school philosophy teacher..
I struggled with this while getting my masters degree and basically my solution was to just stop giving a fuck about the things that I find unimportant and not even pretend that I care.
Now I only read Sci-fi, ethics and logic. I hit the gym 4x/week and walk my dogs.

>>10104090
Go to literally any Asian or African country you globalist fuck

>>10101170
You just need to
>a: develop intellectually
>b: do something else
I'll give you a hint: spooks/"the ego" are not as solid of a transcendental ground for everything as you may think

>>10099900
>dubtripdubs

Jesus Max you are on fire today.

>>10105260
>nu/pol/

>>10099656
>right and wrong are spooks
>true and false are spooks
>good and bad are spooks
>"Should" and "shouldn't" are spooks

>heh, you shouldn't be spooked, it's bad or something ;)
>also don't believe in God, he's a big phoney ;))

>>10104525
A spook is just a fixed idea, as opposed to the normal kind that you eventually let "fall to ruins" (as Freud put it). Spooks are unpleasant because of the cognitive dissonance that arises from giving a false description (you cause the idea to become interminable instead of letting it dissolve back into virtuality).

In short, observing that the grass in green in spring is not spooky. Worshiping the spring's green grass (a fertility or harvest cult, etc.) would be spooky indeed.

>>10105749
>right and wrong are spooks
>having strong convictions is wrong
thanks for the tip, I guess I'll let the idea of spooks fall back into virtuality.

he suffered from the opposite syndrome baudrillard or d+g did, which is cyberneticism fetishism. stirner is full of category mistakes. the cure is marx and lukacs

>>10099900
Splendid Digits

>>10105843
Never said spooks were "wrong," merely unpleasant to me. Many people really enjoy the moral fervor they work themselves into, even if it ends up hurting them in the end. I don't think this is "wrong," just laughable. Is it "wrong" for an idiot who isn't looking where he's going to drive off of a cliff?

>>10104090
>The Schrödinger's cat isn't real!
Myths are real, dumbnuts.

>>10101927
following this logic a car is an abstraction, because its just a combination of parts
Hell, even the crankshaft is an abstraction - just an accumulation of atoms

>Wow, nothing is real, everything is concepts, so deep XD

>>10105858
Feel free to correct me, but defining people by certain sets of characteristics is a spook. Only the individual self is real.