/lit/ - Literature

>>17572842
Stirner's philosophy is just what everyone that isn't an NPC eventually realizes on their own.

>when Nietzsche isn't edgy enough for you

>>17572867
please expand :)

Stirner’s philosophy places ultimate fear on death, it’s hard to imagine someone liking him and not also being a terrible coward

>>17572889
Egoism is inescapable. The only difference is whether you're aware of it or not.

>>17572842
Nietzsche did it better

>>17572867
fpbp

>>17572892
>Stirner’s philosophy places ultimate fear on death
Death is a spook. The ego is all, i.e, the ego is nothing/God.

>>17572943
i.e.,*

>>17572842
He didn't refute Nietzsche. Nietzsche was the first true Stirnerite.

>>17572842
Because his philosophy is vaccous hedono-nihilistic garbage just like all vedantic rooted spiritualities. Idolatrous nonsense.

>everything is just a cope bro!

BRAVO, JUST BRAVO!

>>17573354
They aren’t nihilistic, but that’s only because they have some spooky doctrines, e.g., karma. And in Advaita Vedanta seeing yourself as the psychological ego and acting according to its desires is considered to be a mark of delusion, so they are able to fit a morality in their “I am God; God is all.”

>>17573354
t. thinks in buzzwords

>>17572842
>he
that's clearly an anime girl

>>17573532
That’s what you think

>>17572842
i remember making the thread connecting stirner back to the advaita a while back. i realized that stirner ultimately draws inspiration from fichte who is a granddaddy of all of my influences to an extent that i didn't initially appreciate... now that i see it, there is no turning back. the creative nothing is recursively considered in its pure activity, as no longer containing content, but following fichte ultimately producing the rest of the world which is just my property. people when they read stirner mistakenly interpret him to be a vulgar materialist merely caring about material relation of his self qua individual. it's much more radical than that, since the empirical self is itself determined and thus not the nothingness stirner must be pointing to
>>17572889
its funny because while reading fichte he repeatedly insinuates that people who dont understand him are NPCs since their posting is completely determined by the necessity of nature thus they can't recognize the intellectual intuition of transcendentally freedom

>>17573554
>transcendentally freedom
*transcendental freedom

>>17573554
>but following fichte ultimately producing the rest of the world which is just my property.
Absolutely based.

>>17572842
was Stirner a femboy?

>>17572892
How did you get that interpretation?

>>17574124

>>17573354
>Vedantic rooted
Fucking how? If anything, Stirner sits completely in opposition to eastern spirituality despite staring from similar premises.

>>17574319
The final redpill in Stirner is that the phenomenal ego is itself property, and that You, That, are indescribable bliss. But yes, “morally” we are opposites.

>>17574366
That's hardly a revelation, even for modern psychology. Stirner offers a reasonable alternative to Hinduism and Buddhism's predicament without the soteriology and mystical hoodoo.

>>17574412
>That's hardly a revelation, even for modern psychology.
Not many psychologists are non-dualists.
>Stirner offers a reasonable alternative to Hinduism and Buddhism's predicament without the soteriology and mystical hoodoo.
I agree.

>>17574445
That the ego and the self are constructs is known and acknowledged as far back as William James and Freud. If they weren't, it would be impossible to repair or rebuild them trough therapy.

>>17574502
>That the ego and the self are constructs is known and acknowledged as far back as William James and Freud.
That’s not non-dualism.

>>17574502
yeah but those are like the pseudo-buddhists who deny the absolute self (cringe)

>>17574531
>That’s not non-dualism.
I'm tired of this meme, it's called monism and it's nothing new or super deep, it's everywhere in the western canon.

>>17574574

>>17574608
Hey, it's you who insists on talking about it. Metaphysics have nothing to do with psychology or practical philosophy like Stirner's.

>>17574611
I am having a hard time deciphering what your goal is. Do you think that Stirner is wrong? That non-dualism is literally the same as monism? That Stirner wasn’t original enough? That psychologists are non-dualists?

>>17574574
if this was true why did fichte and stirner write anything at all? what btw do you think monism is?

>>17574574
Advaita Vedanta’s non-dualism is not monism because in Advaita consciousness is completely different from objects whereas generally in monism consciousness and mind would be properties or variations of the same substance. Other non-Advaita schools of Hindu non-dualism are closer to monism, but much less people tend to read and post online about those schools, at least on western websites. Advaita’s metaphysics are very different from Spinoza for example

>>17572842
it's interesting how he did litteraly none of that.

>>17574670
keep your attachment to maya, stay spooked

>>17574651
I just dislike mysticism.

>>17574745
Your ego, it is like a little baby

>>17572842
Do you know what retroactive means?

>>17574946
are you implying that stirner didn't live before nietzsche?

>>17574946
Yes. You should have tried to correct my use of “respected.”