/lit/ - Literature

>>17740483
Marxism Leninism

>>17740493
haha that's a funny joke anon

>>17740483
Whatever the fuck you want, isn't that the point?

>>17740529
Wherever*

>>17740509
Being and Cum by Cumbreon yes that's I go

>>17740483
You leave /lit/, for one.

Baby's first philosophy. Nietzsche and Stiner are pretty fucking cringe kek.

>>17740577
>t. seething christcuck or another kind of spooked drone

>>17740572
You're here forever

>>17740483
Sartre

>>17740483
>Where do you go from there? Stirner & Nietzsche are the exit point.
>>17740529
>>17740552
>Wherever the fuck you want, isn't that the point?
This.
Stirner tells you the answer is inside yourself, and Nietzsche encourages you to accept that and live your own life. You don't really need to read any more besides clarifying what exactly is the authentic you, or the actual possibilities you have open to you in life according to your particular circumstances.
Essentially, the remaining intellectual project is clarification, and from there you give up intellectualizing and start actually participating, acting, doing.

>>17740722
>Sartre
Just "Existentialism is a Humanism". That's the only other thing you'd possibly "need" to read after Stirner and Nietzsche, if you accept the bulk or essence of what they say.

>>17740556
>yes that's I go
what did anon mean by this?

>>17740774
>clarifying what exactly is the authentic you
How do you free yourself entirely from external moral systems?

>>17740929
Exactly, this point proves there's more analytical philosophy to be had.

>>17740976
And Sartre addresses that single-handedly?

>>17740483
You reread them, obviously

>>17740483
straight to zen buddhism

>>17741014
>Buddhism
lmao fuck no

>>17740929
>>17740976
>How do you free yourself entirely from external moral systems?
>Exactly, this point proves there's more analytical philosophy to be had.
Considering that Stirner is a philosophical pariah and Nietzsche is respected yet marginalized, you can be sure that the answer, if it has been thought up by anyone thus far, is very obscure.
>>17740999
>And Sartre addresses that single-handedly?
No, he doesn't tell you how to do it, he only repeats egoism somewhat with a heavier focus on metaphysics---what he's missing is concern for the external as entirely distinct from the internal---which is to say, he doesn't say established ethics is invalid with regards to authentic identity, unlike Stirner.

Again, to my knowledge, no one has yet explained how to identify spooks and exorcise them.

>>17741312
>Stirner is a philosophical pariah
A shame, really. He's one of the most interesting.

>>17741312
Isn't thinking you "have to" rid yourself of spooks itself a spook?

>>17741383
Nobody has said anything about 'ought' until you.

>>17741333
>He's one of the most interesting.
That's exactly why he's a pariah. He virtually destroyed the philosophical project as far as ethics at least is concerned.
http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html

>>17740483
De Maistre-Carlyle, Spengler-Yockey, Schmidt-Strauss, Mosca-Pareto, Bataille-Delueze, Heidegger-Harmon

>>17741467
>ethics
It extends farther than that, Stirner (like Nietzsche) never bothered with metaphysics but egoism tacitly rejects it, and epistemology, anyway.

>>17740483
Hi!
I came from /mu/ and I have no idea who these people are.

I wanted to learn Philosophy for so long, but never came around it, for I regard music a kind of philosophy in and of itself.

What am I missing here, exactly? Wikipedia isn't very helpful, I am afraid.

>>17741590
You should make a thread for this.

>>17741566
>It extends farther than that
Not really.
>never bothered with metaphysics but egoism tacitly rejects it
That doesn't mean it did so decisively in a manner that embarrasses anyone who would continue to work in it, as was done with ethics.
>and epistemology
Egoism, again, was not much a threat here. What you're looking for is the Pyrrhonist Sceptics (and Academic Sceptics), which also takes care of metaphysics through epistemology.

>>17741590
the fuck is this post

>>17741634
idk but i bet whoever made it is cute irl.

>>17741631
>in a manner that embarrasses anyone
No, that's what Kant did, but metaphysicists are shameless and kept going anyway
>not much of a threat here
Egoism partly paved the way for pomo despite never having an epistemic focus

>>17741590
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTQKbSPAoE0

>>17741650
yeah probably

>>17740483
Reddit

>>17740483
Klages is their rightful successor.

You go back.

Seriously both of these people just stole their ideas from the ancients. Only an utterly pea brain plebian would think they had anything original to say.

>>17740493
Marxism-Leninism for people with a retarded development cycle stuck at adolescence
>>17740483
Zen

Read Stepelevich's "Stirner and the Last Man" and Bruno Bauer's "On Stirner and Szeliga, 1882 - Edgar Bauer" if you want to understand the implications of Stirner's nihilistic arguments. What get missed often that Stirner's alternative to communism, socialism, and even anarchism (Stirner depised Proudhon, if you read The Unique and Its Property you'd see his criticisms of him), is much more sensible than its let on to be.

>>17740483
you become racist.

>>17742030
Who did they steal their ideas from?

>>17740483
>exit point
They are the starting point
And the answer is simple, you stop wanking, consuming, and living in a daydream, and you go out and actually do something

>>17744090
I would, but there's nothing I want to do

>>17744090
>and you go out
No

>>17740483
What was their take on hedonism?

This all sounds like sophisticated "don't think about it and just kick the can of nihilism down the road".

>>17744177
Everything is a way to cope with nihilism.

>>17744190
How does nihilism justify itself as a worldview?
Seems self-destructing on a epistemic level.
>there is no truth, except that the truth that there is no truth.

>>17744246

>>17744256
So what precedes truth?

>>17744276
axioms

>>17740493
This post is only applicable for people aged 14 or under. People with developed brains need not read.

>>17740891
we may never know

>>17744246
>How does nihilism justify itself as a worldview?
Force, the inevitability of death, subjective idealism. There's also the fact we certainly do live in a nihilistic age where people care about food and sleep. They don't strive for political change or participate in the process in a meaningful way... turning politics essentially into a para social hobby.

>>17741631
Couldn't Stirner's idea of the insubordination of the individual to the spiritual be considered a denial of metaphysics?

>>17744390
The problem with questions like this it turn his book into a academic work when its not meant to be seen that way. He's just describing how one can arrival to the positions of essentially nihilism. You just don't have to give a shit about anything or even Stirner himself. You can use him however you desire. It does certainly give way to that position, but its not important. The real take away from him is your mind is measure all things ethical, rational, moral et cetera, and you can use it to your full advantage. Egoism was just the tool he used to attack his opponents, not because he was an "egoist." The unique is not a concept, but a name, he uses for your own flesh and your own blood. Its purely subjective, undefinable, and can not be expressed in language alone - nothingness. If you're familiar with Zen, its kinda similar to the concept of not having a "self." The "unique one" is "enlightened" because much like in Zen - to be enlightened you realize there is no "enlightenment." or "truth" to be found or actualized as a higher thing. Its just you, your flesh, your bones, and what you want to do with your life. If you are familiar with Stirner's personality, and actions, you can see how the book can give way to a person like him, but you don't have to be him or anything at all.

>>17741467
Fuck I had something interesting to say about this article but right after I finished reading it I forgot
I think I have brain problems

The Realm of Understanding and the Individual by Karl Schmidt was an interesting response to Stirner's "The Unique One", but the work is not translated, and well the English translation is a by socialist who doesn't like Schmidt or Stirner well. So, I'm not sure if I can trust the translation because he would obviously put his autistic slant on it. It also left out a large part of the book too - the idiot.

>>17740483
Living your life with courage and joy. Dancing— realizing there is no greater metaphysics than dancing.
Any other answer is cope.

>>17744134
He isn't called Neetche for nothing...

>>17744569
Meaning, understanding that thd endpoint of philosophy is not more philosophy, but rather a joyous abandonment of the futile quest to “know,”— the delusional project of the philosopher, as if we *could* know— in favour of the ecstasis of poetry, art, music, and dance.
Read the late Nietzsche and this is where he’ll bring you. He offers liberation— liberation from the foolish chains of “philosophy.”

>>17744574
>>17744134
Stirner defended people being lazy in the Unique and Its Property, and also doubled down on the argument Stirner's Critics
> Another example of the uninteresting is work, which passes for one’s lifework, for the human calling. This is the origin of the prejudice that one has to earn his bread, and that it is shameful to have bread without having worked a bit to get it: this is the pride of the wage. Work has no merit in itself and does no honor to anyone, just as the life of the idler brings him no disgrace. Either you take an interest in work activity, and this interest doesn’t let you rest, you have to be active: and then work is your desire, your special pleasure without placing it above the laziness of the idler which is his pleasure. Or you use work to pursue another interest, a result or a “wage,” and you submit to work only as a means to this end; and then work is not interesting in itself and has no pretension of being so, and you can recognize that it is not anything valuable or sacred in itself, but simply something that is now unavoidable for gaining the desired result, the wage. But the work that is considered as an “honor for the human being” and as his “calling” has become the creator of economics and remains the mistress of sacred socialism, where, in its quality as “human labor,” it is supposed to “develop human capacities,” and where this development is a human calling, an absolute interest. (We will have more to say about this further on).
Nietzsche also pointed out work was just a meaninglessness form of labor meant for existence not to be worshiped - check out the "Greek State"

>>17744591
How the fuck could anyone mistake Nietzsche for a pessimist, let alone a nihilist when he's the most life-affirming thinker there ever was?

>>17744605
Because Christians think life can't have meaning without god.

>>17744605
This >>17744613
The reason he is stereotyped as a pessimist is literally just Christian cope, and the occasional confusion of him with Schopenhauer.

>>17744605
He’s the essence of anti-pessimist and anti-nihilist, only retards who haven’t read him would think otherwise.

>>17744592
>>17744574
This has nothing to do with hedonism, but all to do with will to power. Even this quote, you could summarize as "work is good because you get paid", he just warned about worshipping labor in-of-itself.

>>17740483

>>17744771
Stop spamming this in every thread, christnigger.

>>17744771
I reckon you mean the Old Testament only, right?
>Jewish, and subsequently—to a greater degree—Christian, priests survived and attained power by siding with decadents, Nietzsche claims. They turned against the natural world. Their "instincts of ressentiment" against those who were well–constituted led them to "invent an other world in which the acceptance of life appeared as the most evil and abominable thing imaginable."
>In order to survive, the Jewish priests made use of the decadents and their large population. The Jews were not decadents, themselves—they are the "very opposite." Rather, according to Nietzsche, they have "the most powerful national will to live, that has ever appeared on earth." However, "they have simply been forced into appearing" as decadents, in order to "put themselves at the head of all décadent movements (—for example, the Christianity of Paul—), and so make of them something stronger than any party frankly saying Yes to life."

>>17744718
That quote isn't from N, its from Stirner, and he's defending vagabondry ( he praises Diogenes in U&P, and essentially by pointing you don't have treat work as a "virtue", and that your value as human being does not he be predicated on labor because it is a vanity, and not necessarily a sacred pleasure. Nietzsche made similar arguments because saw man's artistic potential being what gave human's value, not their workaholic nativity:
>The Greeks did not require such conceptual hallucinations, for among them the idea that labo r is a disgrace is expressed with startling frankness; and another piece of wisdom, more hidden and less articulate, but everywhere alive, added that the human thing also was an ignominious and piteous nothing and the“dream of a shadow.” Labor is a disgrace, because existence has no value in itself; but even though this very existence in the alluring embellishment of artistic illusions shines forth and really seems to have a value in itself, yet that proposition is still valid that labor is a disgraced disgrace indeed by the fact that it is impossible for man, fighting for the continuance of bare existence, to become an artist

>>17744785
seethe more, rabid
>>17744785
Jesus Christ is not a philosopher, that's why I recommended it.
Max Stirner completed secular philosophy; hence, I believe you would gain insight from the teachings of Jesus, which is not secular nor philosophy.

>>17744854
>17744785
>seethe more, rabid
meant for
>>17744773

>>17744854
>you would gain insight from the teachings of Jesus
lmfao
>>17744861
Not a kike, I simply see cucktianity for what it is; worthless.

>>17744854
>christian calling anyone rabbi when his entire religion is about larping as a jew

>>17741590
Stirner was an anarchist who rejected movement anarchism and said the truest anarchism was individual level; living your life and developing yourself while rejecting external moral systems and standards.

>>17744881
I don't think its accurate to call him an anarchist, but he does have strong anarchist implications. Anarchist use him for their causes though. If you free Stirner from labels, and just acknowledge the nihilistic implications of his thought - any thing is possible, all is permitted. Nothing is sacred. His criticism of socialism is much nuanced, where he's against sacred socialism, like the socialism of Marx and Lenin,
The guy ran a milk co-operatives, so, I assume he probably would be fine with particular arrangements like that if could be for mutual benefit. Although, this is paradoxical in his own right because you don't NEED to use Stirner to justify anything or cite him as a sacred philosopher.

>>17744910
>>17744881
Egoism is not anarchism. Calling Stirner an anarchist is exactly as stupid as calling Nietzsche a nihilist.

>>17744870

>>17744865
To be fair, you would gain insight from literally the most minute of texts, but I believe that the lessons taught by Jesus are particularly potent and you will certainly learn something regardless if you think it is cuckholdery. On that topic, could you please explain what are the most 'cucked' aspects of Christianity.
>>17744870
I called him 'rabid'; that was not a spelling mistake. Also, a fair amount Christians, namely Isidore of Seville, Augustine, John Chrysostom and Paul, intensely disliked the Jewish-LARPing aspects falsely ascribed to Christianity, known as Judaizing Christianity.

>>17744923
>come into a thread about something he doesn't like to shill something nobody in the thread cares to hear about
What's the next step of your master plan?

Here we have truly Chrismatic™ discussion. Chin chin! (wingèd)

>>17744923
>the lessons taught by Jesus are particularly potent
If you're a fucking retard desperate to latch on to pre-fabricated meaning, maybe. I read the entirety of the new testament except the apocalypse and got absolutely nothing from it. How can anyone feel moved by this?

>>17744923
>On that topic, could you please explain what are the most 'cucked' aspects of Christianity.
Literally just read Nietzsche, retard. Your bad faith argument will not convert anyone here, quite the opposite in fact.

>>17744914
It is stupid to all Stirner an anarchist, but his thought has inspired anarchism greatly (Marx raged against Bakunin because he argued he was a merger of Stirner and Proudhon) especially more modern currents such as anti-civ/post-civs ones that cause anarchy-commies and Marxists screech about him and Eco-fascism

>>17744937
>just read Nietzsche
Not even necessary, the greatest argument againt institutional religions will always be its proponents. Just look at how christians or buddhists behave on /lit/, this alone will show you this is not the right path to take.

>>17744923
Calling Nietzsche a nihilist makes no fucking sense. Thus Spoke Zarathustra makes it a central theme to attack nihilism using the "last man" to contrast Zarathustra the over man. This is basic stuff bro.

>>17744950
I agree, but buddhism isn't really institutional.

>>17744950
>Against institutional religions will always be its proponents. Just look at how christians or buddhists
>buddhist
There's a zen current that emphasizes burning buddhist sutras, and rejecting religious authority that kinds of interesting

>>17744956
I would argue some of its main branches tend to be, but that's not the point, it was just an example.

>>17744928
>come into a thread about something he doesn't like to shill something nobody in the thread cares to hear about.
Stirner and the Unique and It's Property was not paid attention to by the milieu of his day, which was an opportunity missed, given that it was a monumental and excellent work, I happily admit. I post where I please, and I like to think that I am not restricted by the nature of the thread, since 'appropriateness' is irrelevant to me since Christ's word permeates all.
>inb4 it also permeates altar boys lmao
>What's the next step of your master plan
Not to convert people, I'm in the process of internalising Christian doctrine, so I can walk with Christ .

>>17744950
Are buddhists really that bad on lit?

>>17744969
>Christ's word permeates all.
Demonstrably not.
I genuinely can't understand how anyone can seriously believe in christianity or abrahamism even.

>>17744971
They're smug proselytes, just like the christians, though not as outspoken (probably because there are many more christians than buddhists on this site)

>>17744969
Stirner references the bible a lot in his book, and he's been compared to Ecclesiastics. He did read the bible because he was a school teacher and had to teach it for a living.

>>17744987
Telling people to meditate is not proselytizing.

>>17744992
Case in point

>>17744992
Meditation was literally rejected by Zen masters as being cultish and tyrannical.

>>17744992
>>17744994
kek

>>17744994
It isn't. Meditation is virtually self-help, even family GPs will recommend it. By the same logic, the local GP is proselytizing by prescribing you medication or healthy-eating habits.
>>17744998
Meditation is basically the only practice that Zen did not strip from mainstream Buddhism. Not really sure how you could get something so wrong

>>17744952
I did not mention Nietzsche in that post, and I do not believe that Seraphim Rose was correct when he referred to Nietzsche as a nihilist, since that is not the inference I got from the book, nor do I consider it a logical conclusion that proceeds from what Nietzsche stated.. I believe that the end of Nietzschean ideology is generally exclusive to the person who utilises it, which has and will produce men of excellence for centuries to come, I just dislike his disparaging of Christianity and Christ.

>>17745010
Meditation is worthless.

>>17745018
A few people claim that, most people don't. I'd say it's worth letting each person decide for themselves, considering there is virtually no risk involved.

>>17745010
You don't get the point... I'm saying Zen masters rejected Buddhism because it was proselyting a mediation cult

>>17745013
He praised Jesus though being an overman essentially though. Christians aren't like Christ which is his problem with them; they don't create anything new, they just follow a cult

>>17740483
Read the pre-socratics and realize they didn't even need to write whatever they had to say.

>>17745026
Zen diverged heavily from mainstream Buddhism, yes, and personally I believe it to be superior as an organization because it is much less dogmatic and focused on proselytism. You claimed they rejected "meditation", which is just plainly wrong. Zen does indeed have its forms of active meditation, but that does not rule out sittings.

>>17745045
>reading metaphysics after Nietzsche
FOR WHAT PVRPOSE

>>17745046
Buddhism is filled sex predators, especially in the west, where they use that medition, sitting and religious shit to prey on victims
https://www.dw.com/en/dalai-lama-admits-he-knew-about-buddhist-teachers-sexual-abuse/a-45507680
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/us/21beliefs.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/nyregion/shambhala-sexual-misconduct.html
Happens so many time

>>17745065
Buddhism at its core does not regulate moral conduct. One of the guys in your links, Chögyam, did cocaine and went on orgies, for instance. I can't speak for his intents, but there is nothing in Buddhism which specifically forbids this sort of thing in all situations (Buddhism is not really "life-denying" as Nietzsche claimed).
>where they use that medition, sitting and religious shit to prey on victims
Depends whether you find an authentic group or not, there are plenty of scam organizations founded by new-age perverts, sure. Or, if you want, you don't have to find a group at all. You can't be molested if you just meditate by yourself, which was my original point.

>>17745092
>praises a cocaine sniffing orgy enthusiast
>berates 'new-age perverts'
You've got to be shitting me.

>>17744988
My favourite book is Ecclesiastes, but I think the experience of recitation and the dreariness of the orderly curriculum, prevents you from fully absorbing the lessons that the Bible teaches. I think did not read it again while he was philosophizing, because even though the references to Ecclesiastes are there, they seem mechanic and less devoid of spirit from Stirner's interpretation. Despite that, Stirner is a great thinker and I would even say that he is the greatest philosopher of his time, and the best and only truly atheistic philosopher.
I recommend that you read the Bible
>>17744975
I believe that most people have faith in God alone and receive it through inferences from the world around them. This is I believe why the teleological argument is the best, since it acknowledges the beauty of God's creation, even though it is structurally weak as put by Paley.
People like to cite Aquinas' as proof of God's existence, but I dislike his Five Ways purely because I think they are mechanic. As such, despite his secularism, I definitely prefer Spinoza to Aquinas, though I strongly disagree with panentheism and his variant of it, given that I'm a Catholic catechumen.
I don't think presuming the intelligence of anybody is what Christ would do, and I believe that a great portion of the consciousness is receded from physical display and inferences, but I believe that faith and inferences from the natural world are preferred, despite admittedly being logically inferior to Thomas' proofs.

>>17745092
>Buddhism is not really "life-denying"
It really is if you're unbiased and don't resort to mental gymnastics.

>>17745092
Buddhism kinda does with it Noble Truths and 8 fold path, Zen doesn't regulate moral conduct though, however, you don't see Zen masters doing the raping, its Zen Buddhists who pretend they know Zen. If anything, Zen, without its buddhist religious roots, is much closer to Nietzsche's iconoclasm seeing Zen masters told people not to rely on sutras, but create based your own circumstances - to essentially be self reliant

>>17744937
Which one do you recommend that I re-read, if you don't mind?

MANACLES, RESTRAINTS, FIRE SALE NOW ON!!

>>17745108
I don't think calling Stirner a philosopher is the best way to think of him because he attacks philosophy, much like Ecclesiastes, when Ecclesiastes points out that more knowledge just leads to more sorrow, Stirner days the same conclusion because there is no ultimate truth to be found

>>17745129
This one.

>>17745140
That is a novel perspective, though I am not sure it is a correct one, nonetheless I appreciate your contribution. I assume that you mean he attacks philosophy in general because it's working towards a neverending goal, much like Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. I disagree because I believe God holds all objective truth and that philosophy will eventually lead to him. Would you agree that he has become the end of man, though his egoism, in that he has become totally man?
>>17745159
I have heard that this is vastly inferior to his previous writings and that his anti-Christian sentiment is better gleaned from his previous works. but I will grab a pdf of this, thanks for the suggestion.

>>17745207
Stirner would be the Nietzchean Last Man, Ecclesiastes without finding objective truth in god at the end of the story. Stirner thought you could have meaning through the relations one makes out of conscious choice. So, you love your work because you enjoy doing it, you love your wife because she makes you smile, you love hanging out with your friends at the bar because they create joy for you - these are the things that Stirner cherished, and did, while acknowledging there was no end or ultimate end state of humanity. He cheerfully walks into the void, the utter meaningless of the universe, understanding that life has gave him everything he's ever wanted - the true joys of life. He doesn't compel himself to serve god, or a revolutionary cause, but serve his own self enjoyment and happiness.

>>17745207
>anti-Christian sentiment
I mean arguments opposed to Christianity, sorry about that.
>>17745036
I do not like the concept of Jesus as an 'overman', but as fully God and human and that he reached his overman status by virtue of his divinity, upon his conception.I believe what Nietzsche describes as overmen are just men, who are excellent at utilising the attributes given to them by God, and are admirable in their achievements, but still remain as men

>>17745140
>there is no ultimate truth to be found
How do you know?

>>17745252
>Stirner would be the Nietzchean Last Man, Ecclesiastes without finding objective truth in god at the end of the story.
"There is no truth, only interpretations." - Nietzsche

>>17745263
How would you know, and are you willing to sacrifice your limited time here doing so? Do you even have to? Not really. See - >>17745275

>>17745275
>>17745289
The problem with this kind of epistemological nihilism is that it refutes itself.
>"There is no truth, only interpretations."
Is that also an interpretation?
Maybe wondering about it is a waste of time, but that's not really the point.

What would Nietzsche think of Cioran?

>>17745297
>Maybe wondering about it is a waste of time, but that's not really the point.
That is the point because that's where all these philosophical "problems" come from in the first place, and more so, the argument of refutation falls flat because it assumes human knowledge must be a function of rational, Aristotelian thought - what's stopping a human from having "refutable" or "false" beliefs from living their life or applying these beliefs?

>>17745317
Aren't we always prisoners of logic and rationality?
Where can knowledge come from, if not from rational inquiry?
>what's stopping a human from having "refutable" or "false" beliefs from living their life or applying these beliefs?
If your beliefs are demonstrably false, why would you keep them? One of the purposes of philosophy is to learn to identify your misconceptions and fix them, in order to understand yourself and the world better. Refining your reasoning so that your beliefs, even if they are hard to verify, have solid foundations at least.

>>17745252
A powerful post that is most embodied in the last half with that image of Stirner walking into the void, that much is certain; I again appreciate your effort in writing this out and I admire your depth in thought, despite my obvious aversion to egoism and Nietzschean thought.
>>17744933
All meaning remains in the mind of the author at the time of writing, the trouble comes in deciphering what he meant, which is what Seraphim Rose and countless others have failed to do because as I see it and have said previously, the conclusion of Nietzschean thought is generally exclusive to the person who utilises it. Now imagine doing that with, in my perspective, people with the holy spirit in them giving them divine knowledge and inerrant word of God, the Holy Spirit or in your case, deciphering the ramblings of eons-old schizophrenics; It will inevitably be very tough to do so.
Also, no biased juxtaposition is intended in the preceding paragraph, with regards to the quality of either view; I have just tried to represent each of our views, as from my own views and from the inferences of your posts.
>>17744950
/lit/ demographics are not a good representation of any ideology.
Go straight for Christ.
>>17745312
He would likely dislike his nihilism but appreciate his passion in proclaiming it.

>>17745367
>Go straight for Christ.
I don't believe in his religion, so no. It took a lot of time for me to finally realize I was wasting my time trying to convince myself of unverifiable dogmas other people came up with, I'm not about to jump into that again.

>>17745387
I meant with regards to his character, as opposed to /lit/izens and other Christians, was he not a man of inspiration and of great insight?

>>17745402
Oh, you mean read the gospels. Well yeah, obviously relying on /lit/ for factual knowledge on the NT would be a bad move.

HIS gospels?

>>17745417
Xir*

>>17745329
>Refining your reasoning
>Aren't we always prisoners of logic and rationality?
I don't believe we have to be, but you certainly could be. There are specific world views that reject "logos", "rationality" as we see such as Eastern Philosophy (Zen, Buddhism), and there are certain religion, post-modernism certainly can escape that too with spiritual and obstructionist jargon. Knowledge can from our senses, but this is separate from truth, and does not necessarily have to be rational.
> If your beliefs are demonstrably false, why would you keep them?
As Ecclesiastes points out, more knowledge just leads to sorrow. So, one may keep "false beliefs" because the knowledge of falsehood could psychologically harm them. There is also the fact that certain falsehoods are predicated on authority, and the loss of those lies, could endanger your position. And, false beliefs, or myths, can certainly empower individuals to part in actions that are beneficial to you (i.g. I lie about the superiority of your culture, race, heritage etc to dupe you into being a soldier for my cause). This, however, is the besides the fact because Stirner is demonstrating a skepticism against modernity. His argument stems from Hegel's "History of Philosophy" which demonstrates revolutions are a continuously, seemingly endless process, of overthrowing one form of domination for another. He is skeptical of claims made by political philosophers who make claims they theorize a way out of this loop. And, even if these claims were fruitful, or true, the argument becomes one of utility as with any logic or rational thought - does the "truth" of this benefit me? Do I have to even care when I'm just going dissolve and die regardless of what I do?

>>17745466
>There are specific world views that reject "logos", "rationality"
But in order to reject them, they base their own truth on something they consider superior to rationality. In eastern philosophy or really just theology in general it's praxis/experience. I don't know about postmodernism.
Can knowledge be separate from truth, by definition?
>more knowledge just leads to sorrow.
Does that mean we should avoid searching for the truth? What do you think of Plato's cave?
The examples you cite do not seem appealing at all to me, they seem to be advocating for some kind of avoidant behavior for the sake of a blissful existence.
>Stirner is demonstrating a skepticism against modernity.
As it's been pointed out ITT, Stirner's case is an ethical one, not an epistemological argument. Whereas Nietzsche's statement about truth and interpretation is very much an attack on epistemology itself, it's not limited to political theory.
>Do I have to even care when I'm just going dissolve and die regardless of what I do?
It is possible that what happens after you dissolve is dependent on what you did before dissolving. This isn't a purely religious argument either, as it's also present in platonist/neoplatonist metaphysics

>>17745506
>But in order to reject them, they base their own truth
If one can have their own "truth" then there's no point of one being rational or logic, no? Doesn't it just become a question of utility.
>Can knowledge be separate from truth, by definition
Isn't what knowing what constitutes as "false" considered knowledge? We can use "false" hypotheses to deduce possible conclusions.
>Does that mean we should avoid searching for the truth?
No, because Stirner's argument is not an "ought", however, an argument could be made this is all for vanity - that it is meaningless because I don't have the time, skills, or patience to break down every possible belief. And even if I find "truth" I could still be skeptical. I'm not making an "ought" of what you "ought" to believe - I'm leaving the door open for where I can leave.
>As it's been pointed out ITT, Stirner's case is an ethical one,
I would Stirner has a particular ethics that is nominal and unique the individual's circumstances. Throughout his book his gives examples how someone can lie, murder et cetera to accomplish their goals without falling to an involuntary servitude to sacred ideals.
>It is possible that what happens after you dissolve is dependent on what you did before dissolving.
That could be the case, but the skepticism towards it could push me to a position where I'm willing to take that chance to maximize my happiness while I'm here.

>>17745445
Unironically kind of, eh?

>>17745611
To add,
You can accept that contradictions, illogical assumptions of philosophy questions exist, and accept the conflicts that arise from those as as absurd order of the universe, as Stirner does, and attempt to do your best maximize your stake from it, or as Stirner did, walk away from the revolutions of 1848 and let the process of life takes its course while you enjoy yourself with the time you have here.

>>17745706
capital-P

I am NOT a robot

>>17745611
>there's no point of one being rational or logic
The point is that experiential truths are allegedly superior to rational truths. This however is just a viewpoint adopted by some, and there's really no reason to tell if those alleged truths are actually superior to logic, or simply mere delusion.
>Doesn't it just become a question of utility.
No, because the search for truth implies there is an absolute truth to be found. Those who claim the existence of experiential truth do not deny this, they just say that the absolute truth is above logic itself. They're not saying you get to pick your own truth.
>Isn't what knowing what constitutes as "false" considered knowledge?
Yes, but I don't get your point.
>Stirner's argument is not an "ought"
Fair enough. But then Stirner is basically just telling us what he's chosen to do himself.
You can be skeptical of everything you find, but there's also the possibility you might find something that'll shatter your skepticism.
>push me to a position where I'm willing to take that chance
I think we're straying a bit from the original argument, which was that all truths are relative and that individuals can make their own "truths".

Home, if you can.

>>17745856
...Home?

>>17744591
>the ecstasis of poetry, art, music, and dance.
then the memes about nietzsche's philosophy boiling down to "just be yourself and simply rejoice in being alive" aren't actually off the mark?

>>17740493
>last man's socialism
t. didn't read Nietzsche

>>17745856
Possible gay nigger

If your philosophy isn't useful why bother? If Stirner were right I would still reject him because his philosophy would be incomparable with most lifestyles including the ones I want to live. This isn't to say you should be totally pragmatic with philosophy but it is to say that Stirner is kind of a dead end in terms of practical philosophy.

>>17745611
>That could be the case, but the skepticism towards it could push me to a position where I'm willing to take that chance to maximize my happiness while I'm here.
I mean that's the only thing that props up religion: the lingering threat that if you don't devote yourself to spirituality, then when your time comes you won't have accessed the states of realization required to get the good afterlife, and you'll either have to try again or get the bad afterlife.
All of spirituality hinges on this, since if there's no distinction between the uninitiated/unbelievers and the initiates/faithful, everything loses its purpose.
I've read Stirner but not read Nietzsche, does he talk about this, does he take a stance on spirituality that isn't just the rejection of Abrahamism?

>>17746261
But Stirner's philosophy is the most practical one you're ever gonna get. There is nothing more practical than egoism

>>17744969
>Stirner and the Unique and It's Property was not paid attention to by the milieu of his day,
Wrong. Marx wrote the German ideology as an answer to Stirner.

Stirner would have considered Nietzsche spooked, prove me wrong.

>>17746418
And nobody gave enough of a fuck to publish it until they were both dead and Marx had made a name for himself.

NEET-s-chee doesn't hold a candle to The Ultimate Spooker.

>>17746549
Why would Nietzsche be spooked? His ideal is that of the utterly unspooked man.

>>17741590
Is that Kim Gordon? If so, you at least have better taste than the vast majority of /mu/. If you don't have a specific philosophy in mind, start with with Greeks

>The truth Nietzsche vindicates is not metaphysical. Nietzsche renounces all
metaphysical Truths as illusory, because they deny life through the avowal of a
transcendental ideal beyond life. None of Nietzsche’s truth claims are transcendent,
as he makes no reference to truths beyond life, nor does he stand beyond life to assert truths about the world. All his assertions are presented as interpretations from a
perspective within the world, not as absolute or ideal Truths. Nietzsche asserts that
truth is not independent of the life we live and reality is not external to our experience, as idealism holds; truth and reality are not subjectively ascertained through
the intellect, as modern philosophy surmises; nor are truth and reality imposed on
the world externally, as scientists deduce.
I don't get it.

>The truth Nietzsche vindicates is not metaphysical. Nietzsche renounces all metaphysical Truths as illusory, because they deny life through the avowal of a transcendental ideal beyond life. None of Nietzsche’s truth claims are transcendent, as he makes no reference to truths beyond life, nor does he stand beyond life to assert truths about the world. All his assertions are presented as interpretations from a perspective within the world, not as absolute or ideal Truths. Nietzsche asserts that truth is not independent of the life we live and reality is not external to our experience, as idealism holds;3 truth and reality are not subjectively ascertained through the intellect, as modern philosophy surmises; nor are truth and reality imposed on the world externally, as scientists deduce.
I don't get it, could someone explain?

>>17744923
>On that topic, could you please explain what are the most 'cucked' aspects of Christianity.

>>17747048
>protestantism
That's cheating

The Stirnerist conception of Ego is a utopian spook. Humans are not individual atoms, they exist together within societies, and societies are embodied hierarchies. For a Union of Egoists to be possible "hierarchy" would have to be a purely accidental feature of societies that arised out of chance as opposed to being an essential feature of societies as societies.

>>17747157
>bro, what if humans, were, like *hits bong* like, um, one big superorganism, you know?
egoism isn't a philosophy about structuring society you fucking dingus, how the fuck is it utopian?

>>17741312
> Again, to my knowledge, no one has yet explained how to identify spooks and exorcise them.

Terry Davis said they glow in the dark and you should run them over with your car.

>>17745317
>the argument of refutation falls flat
I don't see how, if a statement is self-contradicting then there's nothing else to be said

>>17745317
>>17747197
And just to be clear, assuming human knowledge is a function of rational thought makes sense considering logic very rarely fails us when it comes to predicting the behavior of the world around us

>>17746807
Platonism is life-denying because it implies that there is something 'bigger', something 'more perfect' than our material world.

>>17747233
Why does the possibility of something better existing prevent you from enjoying this existence to the fullest?

>>17747239
Honestly don't know how to explain it in simpler terms, it's trivial and if you don't get it then you're either retarded or should just sleep on it.

>>17747246
Was he implying that if you're anything else than an atheist who believes in complete annihilation after death, you're life-denying?

>>17747173
Stirner believed the Unity of Egoists was possible, because he didn't think that hierarchies are an essential feature of their constitution, only an accidental one. And that error is due to his individualistic understanding of humans as completely separate egos, as opposed to being parts of an organic whole.

>>17740483
Camus. Nothing revolutionary, especially after Nietzsche; but, a good buttress to Nietzsche.

>>17747294
Camus is a gay, whining bitch. Pointless drivel of a depressed teenager.

>>17740483
Literally anywhere you haven't been before

>>17747311
You are confusing the writings of Camus with your own 4chan screeds.
Absurdism is essentially a restatement of Nietzsche's implications stemming from the death of God. You do not have the intellect required to understand the connection. And have, with a very high likelihood, never read Camus.

>>17747345
Camus is a midwit writer for midwit readers. If you enjoy him then so be it, just be aware of your own midwittery, you might as well read New Testament.

>>17747375
I have an IQ between 140-150.

>>17740483
The Bible
Sloterdijk
M. Heisman’s suicide note

>>17740483
Depends on what you're looking for, but Deleuze would be the most obvious answer

>>17747505
How the fuck do you go from Nietzsche to Deleuze

>>17747507
Are you retarded?

SIGNATURES PLEASE GENTLEMEN

>>17747575
Yes.

>>17747507
mate

>>17747048
>part of a movement literally named after one of the Seven Deadly Sins
>christian

>>17747579
What is this meme I don't get it

>>17747788
Thank you Gilles, next?

>>17747254
If you chain yourself to the idea of another world, you're not seeing that this is the ultimate one.

>>17747829
Not being an annihilationist isn't chaining yourself to anything. Does an agnostic chain themselves to their suspension of judgment? Does a vaguely indifferent idealist chain themselves to their belief that death is not the end?
The problem you're talking about is specifically the postponing of your enjoyment of existence because you assume it'll be better once you die.

>>17747111
true protestants actually read the bibleS cough cough

>>17747889
Protestantism is atheism with extra steps

>>17741590
Did you accidentally make this a reply and not a thread.

>>17747263
A "union of egoists" isn't a society; its a social relation between people who see mutual benefit fron association. Constantly, Stirner gives examples of how a father bonding with a son because a son consciously loves his father as a "union of egoists", he uses the example of two people respecting each others' property as a "union of egoists." And, Stirner's ontology of what constitutes a "hierarchy" are "fixed ideas" that compel one to act in a behavior against their own conscious ability. He calls the rule of these ideas, "hierarchy." More so, Saint Max is not being "objective" here, he's simply laying out his own method of seeing the world to defend his self from its advances. Yes, the concept of an "egoist" is a spook, but he's using that in a way for himself. Stirner doesn't actually think "egoism" exists... he thinks its the best way to describe behavior individuals part take in, and he use that as a way to rule out beliefs he does not have to follow. Communists, Anarchists, Christians etc are all "egoists" in the sense they selfishly use others for their own causes, and Stirner's "egoism" is the dialectical product of the individual becoming self conscious of that, and using that information, its utility, for their own self creation.
>>17747223
Its not necessarily that logic "fails", its just that I don't have to use it. To Stirner, it boils down to the utility of the information, not it appealing to a consensus of metaphysical "laws" such as rational or logic. I use those "things" insofar they can be of use to me, and discard them when it may be against my own interests. It may be rational for me to follow the law, but may not be something I'd want be - because I can see myself above us "rational" notions. Early on in the book, Stirner rejects "reason" because he shows "reason" is used to constrict behavior, and knowledge, because it puts limits on what one can do, or think, because you're not being "reasonable." It may not be reasonable for me to love a woman below my social class, but should I use that if I love her? It may not be reasonable for me to go college for a profession that does not make me money, but if I love the information I'm receiving for my own sake of knowledge, and cultivation of my culture, should I not do so? He extends this critique to the concept of a "human being" which is promoted by the political activists of the day who set limits on what humans ought to "be" from "rational" and "scientific laws." .

>>17748739
And to add, people who call egoism a "spook" also hold spooky beliefs themselves, so, its ironic for people use that as an argument against Stirner when it self evident he's using that hypocrisy to overcome their ideological premises. Don't you have metaphysical beliefs, such as love, that you use for your own sake? Why is it that the "egoist" can not do so himself?

>>17748793
And to finish this off - criticism of Stirner goes only as far as criticizing his own metaphysical beliefs, yet, his "critics" hold these ideas, these "spooks", and will not extend their own criticisms to themselves whereas Stirner is willing to do so because he isn't telling people what they ought to do; he's describing what he's doing.

>>17740483
icycalm obviously, then you stop reading.

>>17748739
>A "union of egoists" isn't a society; its a social relation between people who see mutual benefit fron association. Constantly, Stirner gives examples of how a father bonding with a son because a son consciously loves his father as a "union of egoists", he uses the example of two people respecting each others' property as a "union of egoists."
Well, that model doesn't work on a higher level. The institution of police for instance isn't compatible with the free association model. Many human freedoms can only flourish if individuals are beholden to institutions whose function serve broader group interests that some times can contradict any one's particular interests at some point in time. The Union of Egoists would not be able to secure genuine freedom at all.
>And to add, people who call egoism a "spook" also hold spooky beliefs themselves, so, its ironic for people use that as an argument against Stirner when it self evident he's using that hypocrisy to overcome their ideological premises. Don't you have metaphysical beliefs, such as love, that you use for your own sake? Why is it that the "egoist" can not do so himself?
The belief that literally anything is an illusion is the biggest illusion of them all. Some propositions are true, others false.

>>17745013
>I believe that the end of Nietzschean ideology is generally exclusive to the person who utilises it, which has and will produce men of excellence for centuries to come
based

>>17745025
>no risk involved
um, what if it turns you gay?

>>17740483
Accelerationism.

I do not really know. I have not found an answer to that. Any other philosopher I read is not even close to being as self-contained and satisfying as they are.
I guess in terms of satisfaction it all boils down to your personal value system and the philosophical branch you most closely align with.

>>17749197
>Well, that model doesn't work on a higher level.
What does this even mean? I don't need to strive for anything "higher" than my own well-being. You set up a goal no has to set for themselves. All your flowery language is utterly meaningless to me; you're selling me a world view, and I don't have to buy it. That does not stop from being to chop wood for money, sleep when tired and draw water when thirsty.
>The belief that literally anything is an illusion is the biggest illusion of them all
This is missing the point... you're being hypocritical by positing illusions of "Free association" and "higher level" , and acting as if these are concrete modifiers we must see eye to eye on. You create these "illusions" , and then argue my "illusions" are the problem? You do this out of a selfish desire to dupe people into going along with your goals, aspirations, for humanity when I can simply base my affair on nothing.

>>17750321
>What does this even mean? I don't need to strive for anything "higher" than my own well-being. You set up a goal no has to set for themselves.
Well, I am talking about Stirner, not your personal version of ethical egoism, and Stirner did have a social ideal, the adequacy of which I discuss in my post.
>This is missing the point... you're being hypocritical by positing illusions of "Free association" and "higher level" , and acting as if these are concrete modifiers we must see eye to eye on. You create these "illusions" , and then argue my "illusions" are the problem?
What illusions did I posit? "Higher level" as I used it is a descriptive term, it refers to social formation on a bigger scale (consider the state vs the family for instance).

>>17740483
These two are midwit magnets

>>17751105
>Well, I am talking about Stirner, not your personal version of ethical egoism, and Stirner did have a social ideal, the adequacy of which I discuss in my post.
Um, you miss the point completely, and I don't even know how this is possible. When I signify "i" I'm using the method Stirner uses to arrive at his conclusions. You don't seem to get Stirner's book is simply a method of displaying ideas - his meta-ethics. I don't know even know you could mess this up so bad.
>What illusions did I posit? "Higher level" as I used it is a descriptive term
Yes, descriptive terms are "illusive" because they are subjective - is reading comprehension a problem for you. Everything is literally right in front of you.
>bigger scale (consider the state vs the family for instance)
And, why would Stirner care about these spooks again.. did you not read the book...

>>17751105
>Stirner did have a social ideal
The union egoists isn't a type of society though. Stirner doesn't have an end goal of what the world ought to be, and you seem to mis-understand what he means by a "union of egoists" because you did not read the book. As stated before, they are social relations we make based on mutual interest. You're talking this non-sense about "Constitutions" and "Police" as if he was making the argument for how society ought to be planned. He doesn't care about societal progress, or societal building, - he dismisses it as a spook. You're creating a problem he does not have because he's not planning a future society like you are attempting - a utopian ideal. "History, progress, humanity" are meaningless spooks to him. More so, this misses the point completely, again, because he specifies you can use his work how ever you wish, and you can do that by using his meta-ethics to overcome humanitarian goals. You seem to be an anarchist, and this is typically how anarchists argue - you project your clerical-liberalism of society, heaven on Earth building projects onto everything as if that must be the default position or default ideal to achieve when it can all just be nothing. Pure particles that we can objectify, onto-logically, however we desire. We live, enjoy yourselves the best way we can, then we pass on, dissolve, into the Earth's crust. The goal isn't liberation of humanity from its "limits", but to self cultivate for my own pleasure enjoyment. That is the realm of understanding to the unimpressive, unambitious, iconoclastic Stirner and the end result of his ethics.

>>17740483
Marquis de Sade

>>17751891
Where can I read the plays he wrote and directed(?) in insane people prison?

>>17751897
Insane? He writes very well.
We currently live in Sade's world.

His Eroticism is more of a scarecrow, you know he has non-erotic works: Aline and Valcour, The Secret History of Isabel de Bavaria.

desu he was a closet saint.

>>17751210
who you reading lately bud?

>>17747111
>>17747658
Are you guys fucking serious right now? Catholics are just as cucked.

>>17751939
Ya, but he wrote plays that his fellow prisoners preformed in, did he not? Where can I find those?

>>17745065
Buddhism is religion for atheistic jews

>>17749994
Disgusting

No point in making a new thread for asking a single question. So I'll ask it here, where do you start with Stirner and in what order?

>>17752798
He only has one book.

>>17740483
>Where do you go from there?
Adulthood, away from shitty meme fauxlosophers, hopefully.

>>17752880
What? Wikipedia says otherwise. Also I assume you have read books written by others before you can read his?

>>17740929
Uronically by being a baby and saying goo gaa ur moral system bad, mines good, easy.

>>17752883
Who are some real philosophers, pseud?

>>17753023
>goo gaa ur moral system bad, mines good

>just be yourself, bro
this is basically self help from the old days

>>17745402
What would he have to say about gay people? Asking unironically. There's really no point in dealing with ideologies that try to shame me for foundational parts of my being I can't influence.

>>17747575
No im not. the guy who said yes isnt me

>>17753673
Yes, you are.