/lit/ - Literature

>>11916871
There is no Final Answer to the question of life. Doesn’t matter which stuck up arrogant author you read, there are always shattering arguments that can be used against any view

>>11916880
If you read Stirner you would know that the "Final answer" is pretty much whatever the fuck you want

>>11916871
youd be better off reading a book about evolution and tossing out the entirety of the humanities forever
t. blessed anglo

Does it have a good plot? I read for the plot.

give me its synopsise

>>11916895
>>11916896
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6QMmrM4BmI

watch this

>he doesn't know "Stirner" was being ironic

Existence is not a predicate. Read Kant or something, idc.

>>11916871
You don't understand Stirner if you haven't read Hegel.

>>11916918
>reading idealists

>>11916922
Bullshit. Hegel is an excelent read, tho.

>>11916927
Disagree. Stirner was one of the Young Hegelians for a reason.

>>11916927
>>11916947
Also, why are you complaining about reading idealists if the Absolute Idealist Hegel is a good read according to you?

>>11916947
Stirner always was aggainst the other hegelians, even Marx was a fucking young hegelian, it doesnt mean anything
Do you need to read Hegel to read Marx? No. You can read Marx just as well without even knowing who the fuck is Hegel.

>>11916954
Are you comparing Kant's idealism to Hegel? Really?

>>11916960
Not him but stop being obtuse. They’re both German idealists you twat

>>11917006
did you even read Hegel he just proves Kant wrong

Anon, have you even read Locke?

>>11916960
>>11917010
Disregarding connections between philosophers because you think they supersede eachother is, like, the least Hegelian thing you could do.

>>11917014
have fucking you

>not realising Stirner refutes himself
Lol ok

>>11916871
>stirnerlarpers are STILL larping
The only reason to read Stirner is if regular nihilism isn't pretentious enough for you, prove me wrong.

>>11917218
Pretentiousness is a spook.

>>11917218
Stirner is a nihilist in the same sense that Nietzsche is a nihilist. They aren’t nihilists

>>11917229
>>11917236
And right on cue they prove my point.

>>11917272
Spook.

>>11917285
>m-muh spooks
>i-i'm in charge here!

>>11917311
>charge

>>11917331
>he's still doing it

>>11917374
>

>>11916960
>Do you need to read Hegel to read Marx? No.

>>11916871
Stirner is just a 7 year old smaht kid that keeps asking „Why?“ with a smug grin ad infinitum. Starts and ends there.
Prove me wrong

>>11916871
>>11917458
lol why is this guy a cartoon?

>>11917472
Because he's a joke.

If I give you $100 dollars do you spend it now or save it for when you really need it. Explain why.

>>11916871
I want to justify psychopathy and degeneracy - the book

Notice how every Stirnerite never uses him to justify acts that are "good" or of a traditional moral nature which the majority of people derive pleasure from doing. It's never "morality is a spook" while donating to charity and improving society around them, it's always "morality is a spook" while getting fucked in the ass with stolen nipple clamps on in a dilapidated building they're squatting in.

>>11917592
Because donating doesn't bring nothing to you, being fucked does.

>>11917592
>degeneracy
>(((traditional)))
>"good"

>>11917642
It's a matter of time preference, donating helps those around you which will eventually lead to a better society. Being an upstanding character attracts people who are also upstanding and inspires others to be like you. It also makes you feel good.

like >>11917548 said - if you spend the money now you get instant gratification, but if you spend the money when you really need it you will get even more utility out of it. Saving for retirement and settling down is a move which produces much more utility for yourself than ODing on heroin in a gutter.

if hedonism ended in good long lives we would be looking to Elvis for life advice. Living a modest, austere, and moral life is no more or less valid using Stirner's arguments - it only serves as a weak justification for people who don't want to.
>>11917657
If you are too much of a brainlet to get that I phrased my point with good in quotations and specifically used the term traditional morality to make it clear im talking about common definitions then I can't help you.

>>11917709
>donating leads to a better society
Lol no, arguments are spooks so fuck off.

>>11916960
>Do you need to read Hegel to read Marx? No. You can read Marx just as well without even knowing who the fuck is Hegel.

Well you can maybe read the Communist Manifesto at face value, yes. But all in all you surely need to know about Hegel in quite some detail to know where Marx materialism is coming from.

And yes, I think Stirner may be quite confusing too, without knowing anything about Hegels talking points. The book after all starts with a parody on Hegels historicism.

>>11917458
well someone's gotta ask

>>11917813
why

>>11917709
>still buying into the idea of society

> if you spend the money now you get instant gratification, but if you spend the money when you really need it you will get even more utility out of it. Saving for retirement and settling down is a move which produces much more utility for yourself than ODing on heroin in a gutter.
Can anyone name the logical fallacy taking place here?

>>11916871
>Goethe
So, you're wrong

>>11918438
>we don't live in a society
gang weed btfo

>>11917458
but he self owns because he's not a 7 year old he was an adult with philosophical training.

>>11918690
Why?

>>11918713
oh sorry my dear boy, because adults are expected to be rigorous and to defend their own ideas and not to be insipid little shits who waste other people's time. If they all were like that we'd starve or murder each other and that would hurt, you may ask me why that would be the case; well why don't you go find a bus and walk in front of it, ok sweetie?

>>11918438
No

When will mods ban this type of reddit tier threads?

>>11918749
Tiers are spooks.

>>11918718
Why?

>>11918755
well you see there was a moment when the whole world spun around the eye of a child like you and that moment is inevitably sanctioned by all that behold beauty as the Good, and as good platonists we know that we must submit to the will of this monstrous force but still this presence lingers, even far after its felicity has warranted it. We can't help but echo with the warmth of a young mind's incredulity at creation, and you mistreat us, us life givers and guardians, we can't be asked for infinite patience anymore than the lark can be asked for an infinite song. You understand friend? Your inquisitions and demands exhaust even the most staid and bountiful of spirits. But, you have so much still to see, depths that cannot be painted by any silver haired ancient. Go on now, there's more people to shitpost at

>>11918783
Why?

>>11918783
y

true ascension is the realization that the physical universe is a spook

>>11918837
woah I never thought of it like that. Philosophy is really quite a cool and provoking subject and I'm glad that you and others like you can come up with these neat ideas!

>>11918674
Lol i never said we dont live in a society you fucking pseud.

>>11918849
Stirner isn't a philosopher.

>>11916909
Irony is a spook

>>11917218
Larping is a spook

>>11916871
Why prefer Egoism over Apathy?

>>11917592
Individual self-realization rests on each individual's desire to fulfil their egoism. The difference between an unwilling and a willing egoist is that the former will be 'possessed' by an empty idea and believe that they are fulfilling a higher cause (i.e Donating to charity), but usually being unaware that they are only fulfilling their own desires to be happy or secure; and the latter, in contrast, will be a person that is able to freely choose its actions, fully aware that they are only fulfilling individual desires:

>>11916871
>read stirner
>still think you "need" to read things
guess you were'nt paying attention

>>11917458
This. Find a better egoist kids. Like Rand
Rand>Stirner as Rand's undergirding validation of egoism and individualism, the supremacy of reason, are what make these things objectively unassailable. Stirner's egoism has far less defenses and contradictions throughout as it practices what Rand termed "whim-worship" ad nauseum. Furthermore the Anticoncept>the Spook because the former is an actually useful (and historically revolutionary) tool for assessing bad ideational beleifs/philosophic logical fallacies and the latter is a barely useable whim-centric absurdity.
Overall? Stirner pretty much amounts to an attempt to validate the self by bruteforcing whim-worship. Your impression might be Stirner represents a sort of "purer" Egoism than Rand but the fact that Rand delves deeper into Egoism's causal foundation means the opposite is true and the result is more powerfully validated.
>I am not primarily an advocate of Capitalism; but of Egoism, and I am not primarily an advocate of Egoism; but of Reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, he will find that all the rest follows.

>>11919592
This is basically psychological egoism which just defines "self interest" in such a way to make itself a tautology.

>All men desire only satisfaction.
Satisfaction of what?
>Satisfaction of their desires.
Their desires for what?
>Their desires for satisfaction.

>>11919709
If you're gowing to be a libertarian, read Hoppe and Nozick.

>>11916880
>>11916888
>he still hasn't figured out the one think in the universe that has meaning
Haha oh wow
The magic pyramid says W is your philosopher idol
Read some n

>>11916871
>need to
You underestimate my power.

>>11919709
>Rand>Stirner

>>11917014
>thinking that Locke and Stirner are similar

>>11919716
Wow its almost as though humans are inherently hedonistic or something and should embrace their egoist nature

>>11921382
>should
>inherently
Yikes, the naturalistic fallacy, the Is-ought gap and essentialism in one post. Big ouff

>>11921400
>hurr durr look at me mom! im smart cause i read a bunch of shitty theories rather than looking at the reality of human nature

>>11916871
Unless you were never in denial of your ego then it sounds like a boring ass teacher trying to be edgy.

>>11921421
You seem very wise dear anon. Would you kindly explain how the fact that humans are inherently hedonistic (let's assume this) makes it so that we should embrace our egoist nature?

>>11921437
Because if we embraced our egoist nature, therefore only do something if it is within our self-interest, we embrace hedonism and therefore become more content individuals

>>11921447
Let's assume that theese premises paints a true picture of human psychology, why should we become more content individuals?

You're basically making the same circular argument >>11919716 pointed out

>>11921382
>should
Nice ghost story nerd.

>>11921225
Refute what he said

>>11921502
>refute his value statements with your own
?

Stirner is Nietzsche for teenagers
Not a bad thing mind

>>11919390
Not really.

>>11919841
Libertarianism is incomplete Objectivism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk

>>11921597
Well, libertarianism is just the political aspects. One could be a transcendental idealist and still be a libertarian, so to speak

>>11916871
>Need
I'm so sorry anon

>>11916960
You didn't condemn kant's idealism. You condemned all idealists

>>11921607
True, I suppose you could. Though not, ultimately, without contradiction.
In my view "libertarian" is only valid as a technical classifier as distinct from things that are authoritarian in nature or ultimately entail the same.
It is far more appropriate to call lolberts of today "libertarianists" as this more accurately identifies their actual meaning.

>>11921680
implications are a spook

>>11921914
">>11921680", "implications", "are", "a", and "spook" are spooks anon.

I'm still waiting for the post that has the actual argument against what stirner says

Stirner's a spook

>>11922027
>still not getting it
Stirner is his own refutation.

>>11922050
Wrong.

>>11922096
>wrong
>right
spooky

>>11922152

>>11918799
>>11918819
I like this philosophy