/lit/ - Literature

he retroactively refuted georg

>>16611678
Yes.
but so are Diogenes, Plato, Batalle, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Hegel, kasinski, Nietzche, Zizek, Deleuze, Land, Marx, Descartes etc.

He is a meme, but simultaneously 100% correct

He made Marx seethe. A man that does that can't be wrong.

more based than meme, but still highly meme. Don't tell anyone you read him either, people who wear him like a badge are 100% meme

we're all memes when you think about it

>>16611678
he's useful if you dont care about philosophy and you're left leaning

>>16611678
definitely a meme
anyway, Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum it's a 10/10 read
nice ideas, although impratical

>>16611678
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtDxBjfWoPc

>>16611678
The problem with Stirner is that he deconstructed all principles and morality, but didn't establish the new ones, unlike Nietzsche.

>>16611841
https://youtu.be/_5qmDOf5SSk

>>16611845
Here, that's what I'm talking about:
>Nietzsche seems a far more active nihilist than Stirner - that is, both of them try to unmask the pretensions of ethics (they both attempt to reveal the emptiness of bourgeois ethics; I think Stirner offers a more compelling criticism of morality in his indictment of ontological essentialism... this his his concept of the "Einzige" or ownness/creative nothingness, which isn't really matched by Nietzsche and more resembles 20th century existentialists and absurdists), but Stirner doesn't really try to offer an 'alternative'... If imagine bourgeois ethics as a chain, both break the chain, but Nietzsche tries to 'lead' you somewhere (to a new form of virtue ethics based on a positive orientation towards life and the embrace of the Dionysian), whereas Stirner's job is basically done once we've escaped the essentializing forces of the geist. We're left "empty" (nothingness) with Stirner; we're still pursuing some sort of conception of virtue with Nietzsche.

>>16611830
Damn, he's just for me then.

>>16611678
based autist
he wouldve browsed /lit/

>>16611858
well put

>>16611678
Ideologically sobering, not very instructive otherwise. Not a meme, but a very potent anti-meme. Helps to go back and read parts of the ego-book whenever you get confused about the world or too haunted by spooks.

He also made Marx seethe and Engels almost convert to his brand of anti-hegelian anti-nominalist political philosophy, so purely on that account he's on my based list.

>>16611845
>deconstructed all principles
false
he doesn't do away with them but points out that they all emerge from, relate to, and are subservient to a single finite and ineffable actor - the creative nothing, also known as "you"
Stirner's negative ethics is closer to Heidegger's unity of opposites in the Dasein's authentic being than the post-structuralist deconstructivism you seem to be accusing him of

>>16611678
He's based and the ultimate filter.

>>16611678
He annihilated Feuerbach and thus made Marx and Engels seethe, as stated previously. Through all of the massive seething historical materialism was born.
Stirner still debunks historical materialism anyway, so all that seething was for nothing.

>>16612967
lol how?

>>16612992
How does Stirner debunk historical materialism or how did he annihilate Feuerbach?

>>16613088
not him, but the former would interest me. currently reading the german ideology for uni

>>16613088
I know how he annihilated Feuerbach, I'm interested in the debunking of historical materialism.

>>16612874
holy based

>>16612967
>>16613139
>>16613149
This is all debatable and I don't agree Stirner debunked anything but here's my view on it.
Marx and Engels were developing their ideas for awhile, and subscribed to Feuerbach's idealist views to an extent. After Stirner's critique, they had to build their ideas around a system that could defend against it, so you have historical materialism.
Thing is, I feel that historical materialism is just cope. The German Ideology was just a collection of seething in order to skirt around all issues Stirner brought up and still have some sort of justifiable system based on materialism.
Maybe I'm wrong in this assessment, but historical materialism to me just sounded like justification of some absolute moral truths for a limited period of time based on material conditions. How does claiming there's some sort of scientific/material objectivity based on historical conditions counter Stirner? Genuine question, if I'm misrepresenting historical materialism please explain.

>>16613275
>it's just cope.
>how does it counter Stirner?
>how am I misrepresenting it?

>>16611678
He's a pure, unfiltered genius. Reading his works will change your life forever and for better. Few other people in history have been so profoundly bold in their defense of the individual and of those, several of them plagiarized him without acknowledgment, particularly Nietzsche.

>>16611678
Yes, he was doomed to kill himself sooner or later.

Egoists are truly pathetic and angry creatures. Accept yourself and the wonders of humanity, OP, for only then can you accept the faggotry within you.

>>16613517
Great response

Test

>>16613529
Yes, yours is low

>>16613526

>>16613275
>I feel that historical materialism is just cope.
It is. I would contend that communist doctrine doesn't establish objective conditions as much as reify subjective ones. It implies a philosophical "natural man" in the form of the proletariat which rests on the presence people with a particular set of interests. It commits surreptitiously to an essentialism of an ideal man not by prescribing it as a moral restoration but assuming it as existent from the outset. The christian eschatology with the arrival of heaven on earth and whatnot remains because the young hegelians, Marx included, never wrested themselves out of Hegel's narrative dependence on a teleology. They never ran the dialectic to its logical end point: complete negation as found in Stirner's creative nothing.

>>16613547
That's a weird looking cat

>>16611726
so who isnt a meme?

>>16613596
Menciues Moldbug.

>>16613596
Me.

>>16611678
Stitner posters are the type of hysterical weebs that puts stickers on laptops.

>>16613734
>gluing a patch to a laptop

Really.

>>16613734
That isn't just a weeb or a stirnerfag, that's a Scotsman
Fucking mountainniggers

>>16613734
>I Voted

People who vote don't understand Stirner. You're just another retard buying into the Machiavellian shit-show, kys.

This board still doesn't get Stirner

>>16615707
Just take the 2 minutes to mail in your ballot anon. It makes a big difference whether or not you see the effects. Primaries are most important, but any election (especially local) align more with you. No, reform isn't a solution but if you don't see a point in using electoral politics as an opportunity to sway the politically interested toward whatever revolution you're after it's never gonna happen anyway.

>>16613525
>humanity
Uh oh boys

>>16616540
It's not about the effort. Voting is morally wrong

>>16616605
you're gonna have to show the inner workings of how you came to that one for me pal, why is voting morally wrong?

>>16616605
>voting is morally wrong
I am honestly excited to hear why you think this

What do I need to read before stirner?

>>16616613
>>16616617
Any control you have over others should be the the extent you can personally convince them as an individual.
Democracy brute forces the process of moral and legalistic diffusion and leads to a scenario where people are abused and have their autonomy taken from them by a system that pretends it had their consent.
That is the most insidious part of democracy. It justifies great evil by pretending votes give it the consent and justification it needs to hurt.

>>16615760
It never will. Because Stirner is dead, only the ideas of his live on as ours.

>>16616648
And not voting only serves to let the situation become worse.

>>16613596
Milhouse

>>16616749
And here's more of it. Trying to justify the hurting of people by using votes as a way to spin consent.
>it's your fault for voting for this
>it's your fault for not voting
>well your vote lost so you had it coming

Nah but he turns people into memebrains though

>>16611726
Based.

>>16613734
>schizo egoist memer
>still donates blood
Based

>>16616749
So why are people getting mad when the "Wrong" thing is voted for than like trump or brexit? Seems like voting also causes the situation to be worse too if they are correct

>>16611858
there is some crucial manipulative misconceptions here
first he say
>this his concept of the "Einzige" or ownness/creative nothingness
and then in the conclusion he say
>We're left "empty" (nothingness) with Stirner
he deliberately omit the creative part of creative nothingness and he do this probably because he knows its good for his argument. and this is the kind of subtle tricks and misconceptions they do with stirner all the time.
i just dont believe he forget that creative nothingness is suddenly just nothingness.

stirner dont direct you to some essentialist kind of virtue and they feel empty for that. but you can see stirner´s virtue is the egoist virtue. stirner explain an explicit direction. even if you dont agree is not necesary the misconception of "he left you empty".

>>16616832
It's not about justifying hurting people anon. Your argument is against liberal democracy, not voting. By not voting you just give up your agency, which you can do if you want but it certainly isn't any kind of high moral act to sit on your hands when you have an opportunity to influence power.
>>16616995
Trump is bad Brexit is complicated, but yes voting can make things worse too. People are mad because the decision didn't go the way they wanted it to. which is of course why you should vote because it can make thing go more how you would like them to. At the end of the day if you think non electoral action is more important you're still left in the position of appealing to power for any changes and having people in power sympathetic to whatever causes you're attempting to champion is going to make that more successful.

He’s fine but not the best, if you want a more analytical and stronger egoist argument try out the ego centric phenomenology/ontology of Husserl as a extension of Hegel’s ontology since fundamentally the entire dialectic is understood as an unfoldment of ones own “I” and all meaning is created from this I.

Pic related is Husserl retroactively refuting absurdism and various forms of nihilism. (Written 20 some years prior to camus writing about the absurd.)

>>16613596
all eastern philosophers

>>16617133
>this nigha would have preferred hillary over Trump
Lmao

>>16617137
how and why this is an stronger argument for egoism than stirner. maybe you want to say, better or more academically writing.

>>16617188
>A competent response to covid-19
>Staying in Paris climate deal
>Staying in the Iran deal
>No wall
>No space force
>3 supreme court justices

Yes.

>>16617211

Because his argument is based on going to absolute pyrrhonian skepticism and analyzing reality based on just phenomenal appearances, so his analysis is incredibly hard to argue against and is more exact, rigorous and has more general philosophical value and application. It’s just not aesthetically pleasing.

>>16617226
>a demon worshipping psychopath
>one of the people responsible for manufacturing the kung flu
>still trying to screw over the middle east
>literally the reason Libya is a human trafficking hell hole right now

I feel nothing but pity for Americans if this is who the young grow up believing in.

Always prefer the loud clown over the smiling lunatic because with the clown at least you know what you're gonna get. Retard.

>>16617226
Also,
>still believing in global warming

>>16617240
egoism is not based in that you are a material individual, but a subjective, creative individual.
the material can be easily a spook.
anyway, why do you think absolute skepticism is good fot the egoist cause?.

>>16617324

phenomenology isn’t materialism. And it is because in Husserl’s model you can reduce all phenomena/all experience to your empirical ego’s reflection in the other and then finally all phenomena as a whole to the transcendental Ego, everything else can be carved away with the dagger of skepticism except “what is phenomenally experienced is experienced” and since he can locate the center of all Phenomena as the empirical ego and can locate the root of all phenomena/being to the transcendental ego, there is no real way to dislodge the All-importance of the ego.

>>16613569
>>16613569
"Egoist" for stirner is the natural man. At multiple points he references a return to nature, but with consciousness. Its not a very wild idea, both Feuerbach and Bauer express it, just that Stirner notices that "humanity" is an extension of religion, and as such cannot constitute the conscious return to ones nature. Their historiosophy goes as such:
natural age - ie dependence on nature and things
religious age - as an overcoming of dependence on things through (mystical) spiritualism
self consciousness - subject becomes conscious of itself and masters both religious and worldly
the subject in F and B is human, in S its the self

>>16617362
"absolute skepticism" Stirner denounces in Postscript, as it is Bauerian
he also discards transcendental ego of Fichte

Would it be sensible to immediately assume this to be quite a worrying red flag?
I have been trying to develop online friendships/relationships and I've kicked it off nicely with this woman who works in STEM who I met through the r4r subreddit.
To gauge her intellectual bent I asked her what were her favorite books which she read in the last couple of years. She named a lot of non-fiction (claims she mostly reads these) and on the fiction side (rarely reads) she said Tampa is the only one that "truly left an impression" on her, the rest she said felt "quite forgettable". I knew enough about it, thanks to the lit memes in part, to feel distraught by that but didn't tell her.
How should I ask her to expand on that in a way that doesn't feel that I am judgemental if I bring it up all of a sudden?