/lit/ - Literature

>>18454565
>How did he manage to refute Shankara, Plato, Plotinus, Aquinas, Guenon, Evola, Kant, Hegel and Marx?
He didn’t.

he was literally the perfect embodiment of hegel's philosophy but whatever

I never read Capital and probably never will, is my intuition correct in telling me that the 2100 or so pages amount to nearly nothing?

>>18454757
a guy who writes THAT MUCH has to be onto something

>>18454760

start by regurgitating the memes about him and move into deeper study when anons challenge you to engage in deeper analysis
this method works with literally every writer btw

>>18454760
Or a schizo desu

>>18454757
no, and your "intuition" is just laziness

>>18454565
Start with this.
>How did he manage to refute Shankara, Plato, Plotinus, Aquinas, Guenon, Evola, Kant, Hegel and Marx?
He was able to recognize the Spirit for what it was: a mere apparition, a ghost needing exorcising. Thus, Stirner was able to retroactively refute almost all the philosophers and mystics throughout history. His non-dualism allows him to effortlessly refute dualists, pluralists and monists alike - leaving only the unspeakable, nameless Unique at the forefront. Commies, socialists, “anarchists,” fascists, Butterfly and jannies all fear him.

>>18454898
>retroactively
Meant to type irrevocably

>>18454565

As far as I can tell from his followers, by cramming his head so far up his own ass that arguments against him cannot reach his ears.

>>18454929
Spook

>>18454579
>>18454649
>>18454757
>>18454760
>>18454781
>>18454929
Cringe
>>18454898
>>18454925
>>18454963
Based.

>>18454565
>>18454898
Stirner just acknowledges the inherent violence of meaning and goes back to the primacy of will. This way he can't even justify his own existence, but I know he would agree and posit the Will as the only justification for anything at all. I believe Sade was much cooler and exposed this better, perhaps Sade is the esoteric side of Stirner.

>>18455061
What? Stirner is far more esoteric than Sade. It is by becoming “nothing” that he has made himself everything, as everything is nothing to him. This is reminiscent of Eckhart and various sages.

What do I gain by reading him?

>>18455129
Smugness

>>18455161
time to start reading

>>18455103
and reminiscent of... Sade. I recommend Klossowski's work on him.

>>18455192
>>18455103
Also, there is affirmation in Stirner, a sybaratic will, whereas Sade recognize only the pure emptiness, pure hunger of will and thus his libertinism is ascetic. There is only negation in Sade (hence all the symbolism of sodomy).

>>18455192
Isn’t Sade a Dionysian eternal return guy? I don’t remember any of his works every pointing to non-dualism. At most his works seemed reminiscent of pantheism.

>>18455213
Yes, he recognizes the eternal return and eternal hunger of will that is expressed purely in nature. His pantheism is his expression of omnimalevolence, which he imitates, but imitates hating it as he makes one of his characters say. Klossowski will read him as more or less as a gnostic.

>>18455203
>there is affirmation in Stirner, a sybaratic will,
Where? The Unique, which is all, is an all-in-all no-thing, a complete endpoint of language. I always interpreted Stirner as dealing more with consciousness than will.

>>18455059
You're a tranny nigger.

>>18455059
>here's my list of upvotes and downvotes

>>18455272
I mean, Stirner follows this All, Unique, which is the Will, or better saying, what Will is itself: hunger. That is how he affirms his own Self in identification with the hunger (thus you are right here in his becoming ''nothing'').

>>18454898
So Stirner is just a bugman lolbertarian, got it.

>>18454898
Stirner was retroactively refuted by Diogenes.

>>18454898
>leaving only the unspeakable, nameless Unique at the forefront.
why are individualists such autistic special snowflakes

>>18455287
>what Will is itself: hunger.
That’s not what the Unique is, though. The whole point of the work was not to be identified with anything.

>>18455326
Denying that there is no identification with the Will in Stirner is affirming there is no identification with the Unique. The difference is both Sade and Stirner affirm this Unique - Will, but the latter affirms with his own negation (wording it better: he affirms it by denying, negating everything) and the former negates it with his own affirmation (by his imitation of it, as I said). That is why Stirner is sybaritic and Sade ascetic.

>>18455347
>>18455326
>Denying that there is no identification with the Will
Denying that there is identification with the Will*

>>18455293
“Lolbertarians” are liberals capitalists, goldbugs and bitcoiners. Stirner’s egoists are free to do whatever they want. But that freedom scares the state-capitalists (along with all the other spooked) most of all because they have complete control right now and the most to lose. So absolutely not.

>>18455319
Why are you an idiot?

>>18455347
>Denying that there is no identification with the Will in Stirner is affirming there is no identification with the Unique.
Yes, there is no identification with the Unique. It is a mere placeholder label. Stirner says this himself. Personally, I do not believe in any kind of metaphysical “will.”

>>18455363
Read >>18455061
Stirner says nothing but what has always been the case with humanity, there is nothing liberator there, actually the opposite, it leads necessarily to the current state of things.

>>18455374
You can take Will to mean Power. Will you tell me there is no power in him? Ok you will tell me there is negation of power too, but that is the point, his negation is his (or the) pure power, as I said above. That is why he is not ascetic.

>>18455377
The current state, and State, is spooksville, anon.
Finding oneself at this base point, we’re left with choices to make. The repressed and decadent Sade of course wanted, or envisioned, psychotic sexual excesses. Max just wanted to run a milk shop and skipped out on creditors

>>18455398
>his negation is his (or the) pure power, as I said above.
I do not like your attempt to label me, that is all. It seems antithetical to the Creative Nothing to try to label it as “power” or “will.” What you are talking about reminds me more of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

>>18455441
>I do not like your attempt to label me
It is not an attempt, it is the point here. You are even saying the same things I say in your own way, thinking you are sayign anything different. Why? For example:

>Creative Nothing
This is literally what I'm telling you Will is: a movement of hunger, a creative emptiness. I was going to tell you about the buddhist shunyavada but you already know it: samsara and nirvana being one and the same thing: all meaning and no meaning, surplus and emptiness. I don't know about Schopenhauer, but this is kinda what Nietzsche is about: creation and destruction.

>>18455427
Read all my posts here talking to the other (like you, not me!) stinerite anon.

>>18454757
Midwit moment.

>How did he manage to refute Shankara, Plato, Plotinus, Aquinas, Guenon, Evola, Kant, Hegel and Marx?
>refute Aquinas
>refute
>Aquinas
Anon, I...

>>18455468
>a movement of hunger,
I don’t want to come off as pedantic, but where would I be moving? In relation to what? Are you talking about desire?
>a creative emptiness
This pleases me, but I do not like the word “emptiness.” Stirner actually clarifies that when he says Nothing he actually means “no-thing,” not emptiness.
>I was going to tell you about the buddhist shunyavada but you already know it: samsara and nirvana being one and the same thing: all meaning and no meaning,
This pleases me.
>creation and destruction.
Also pleasing.

repent

>>18454565
Imagine thinking Stirner refuted anyone
Oh, autodidacts, never change

>>18455498
You affirm the semiotic order of difference with your linguistic inclinations. I thought you would see how emptiness, hunger, no-thing all refers to the same Void.

>where would I be moving
It is difficult to talk about power, will without resorting to spatial, kinetic metaphor.

>this pleases me, pleasing
Ahhh the sybaritic ecstasy.

>>18455550
>I thought you would see how emptiness, hunger, no-thing all refers to the same Void.
If we are both ultimately referring to the same thing outside of language, then it matters very little.
>It is difficult to talk about power, will without resorting to spatial, kinetic metaphor.
Understandable.
>Ahhh the sybaritic ecstasy.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh

>>18454898
>leaving only the unspeakable, nameless Unique at the forefront.
In English, Doc!

>>18455596
>If we are both ultimately referring to the same thing outside of language, then it matters very little.
Yep. This is what moves everything into the paroxysm of violence. In the cathartic murder meaning and language emerges, together with the community as expression of the conjunction in the one, single Will.
But this is already a whole different (not that different) matter.

This thread has made me see the error of my ways. I will stop reading traditionalist literature and only read Stirner from now on. Goodbye, human critic!

>>18455472
You all have the same name

>>18455377
Do you think that it is just tsundere for Sade?

This thread was moved to >>>/his/11347721