/lit/ - Literature

Left-wing Ayn Rand, nothing of value.

no lol

Yes haha

>nothing matters brah
>just watch anime and leech off your parents
>do whatever hahaha
Truly the final thinker

>>19651486
>just watch anime and leech off your parents
If you can get away with it and enjoy it, why not?

>>19651486
That doesn't sound like an argument.

>>19651492
Yeah just do whatever makes you feel good whenever, there’s nothing bad that can come or that especially in this day and age

>Hegel's logic had conquered a space that is neither only being nor only consciousness but contains "something of both"; this is expressed in the figure of thought "mediated immediacy." ... Between being and consciousness is something in the middle that is both and in which the illusory antithesis of spirit and matter disappears; Marx transposed this vision to his theory of capital.

>The human cognitive apparatus is, in a way, an inner relay, a switching station, a transformer in which perceptual schemata, forms of judgment, and logical structures are programmed. Concrete consciousness is never immediate but is mediated by the "inner structure." Reflection can assume basically three attitudes to this transmitted inner structure: It can try to escape the inner structure by "deprogramming itself; it can move within the inner structure as alertly as possible; and it can surrender itself as reflection by accepting the thesis that the structure is everything. We now have to treat these three attitudes. Stirner's idea is simply to throw all alien programming out of one's head. After this total self-purification of the head, a naked, so to speak empty, reflected egoism should remain. If society really has trained "kinks" into my head, then my emancipation, thought through quickly, must presumably consist in my dismantling this alien programming. What is one's own in ego consciousness tries thus to rid itself with a snap of the fingers of what is alien. Stirner aims for a liberation from alienation in one's own interior. What is alien makes itself at home in me; I thus win "myself back by expelling what is alien. Marx and Engels ... criticized this neoegotistical position in a devastating way —not morally but epistemologically: as a new self-delusion. They showed that the Stirner egos, those "individuals" who have based their position on nothing and view themselves as their only property, leap into a new naivete that betrays itself not least of all in its petitbourgeois, boasting standpoint of "I am the be-all and end-all." The theoretical anarchism of the nineteenth century reached its first culmination in Stirner. Stirner effected an "existentialist" reduction to pure ego, but in doing this he very naively presupposed the ego as something that simply "exists." Once I have thrown out of "me" what is alien (society), Stirner believes, then a beautiful ego of my own remains that revels in the "possession" of itself. In radiant naivete, Stirner speaks of the "property" that individuals have in themselves. But one can only possess what exists in reality. Here, valid reflective experience and confused naivete stand next to each other, separated by a hairbreadth. Existentialist reflection on one's "own" consciousness is as realistic as the transition to the idea of self-property is false. Self-reflection leaves nothing objective that one could possess.

>Marx and Engels dismantle this construction down to its atomic components.

t. sloterdijk

>>19651500
Yeah it doesn’t but Stirner believed in nonetheless

>>19651503
If you only do what makes you feel good then it is logically impossible for you to feel bad

>>19651509
No, I meant your post.

Captcha: PPPPP

>>19651387
The only thing bad that i see about him is that people like that get killed or bullied
yknow like a cancerous cell and stuff

>>19651503
If it does not matter to you, who cares?

Posting anime edits of Stirner (this includes his original drawing) should be an instant site-wide shadowban

>>19651528

>>19651486
Yes

>>19651387
Barely anyone understands him. It's very difficult to make a thread.

>>19651506
There is no logical argument here.

>But one can only possess what exists in reality. Here, valid reflective experience and confused naivete stand next to each other, separated by a hairbreadth. Existentialist reflection on one's "own" consciousness is as realistic as the transition to the idea of self-property is false. Self-reflection leaves nothing objective that one could possess.
This is literally just "I do not like it thus it is false and naive".

>>19651387
Not sure what you mean by avoided. There's so many minor philosophers in history that the same case could be made for them as well.

>>19651548
Not OP but here
http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html

I wonder if people who profess to like Stirner realize they’re instantly clocked as losers who want to pretend their laziness and general moral atrophy are somehow a philosophical decision. As soon as I see a picture of Stirner I instantly know the person who wrote it is a loser whose never embraced a woman.

>>19651567
Just to harp on this a bit more, Stirner on /lit/ gives the same feelings as /KPOP/ on /mu/. Or the /mlp/ degenerates. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was a major overlap here, either. It’s a feeling of disgust. It’s how I imagine the Alphas and Betas of Brave New World felt when encountering an Epsilon.

>>19651567
>>19651578
hideously based. I will never read Stirner or his groupies on /lit/

>>19651567
but what if i embraced plenty women

>>19651567
Yes, and?

Is it true that Stirner is not for believing (standing for) nothing, but is instead for the building of one's own unique beliefs?

>>19651599
no

>>19651567
>>19651578
Did you just attempt to refure Stirner by posting the most superficial NPC spooks imaginable?
>muh social standing
>muh access to pussy

>>19651599
I don't know what "building ones beliefs" would really mean. He's against adopting beliefs and becoming a slave to them. He advocates a continuous reconstitution of the self, which in itself is in a way empty, or always becoming.
He's certainly not for standing for nothing, as he's for standing for oneself.

>>19651599
He is like Kant but without the imperative. Build your own values but do not become slave to them.

>>19651606
Isn't the central assertion of Stirner that all assumptions and "common sense"(phantoms) are without an ultimate foundation(are spooks) and thus can be modified at will? I understand identifying phantoms, but I don't know what to do with them.

>>19651637
>becoming
That makes sense.

>>19651610
There’s no spook about your desire to have sexual copulation with women, and their rejection of you. That’s reality, my disgusting worthless friend.

>>19651567
I have nothing but pity for you.

>>19651659
The only thing that repulses women more than a short man is the thirsty man. If you have to pursue women, you've already lost; if you unironically get rejected as well, you may as well kill yourself. Make something of yourself without paying attention to women or NPC conformity and pussy will come to you, simp boy.

>>19651662
I have no more pity for him than for any man on the street.

>>19651679
It does not concern me that you have no more pity for him than for any man on the street. I will continue to have nothing but pity for him because making this statement pleases me.

>>19651676
>The only thing that repulses
What women want is a concern of the same tier as what an animal at the zoo wants. When a man wants pussy(biology), he meets the goal.
>if you unironically get rejected as well, you may as well kill yourself
The ultimate worth of a man(he is worth infinitely to himself) is not influenced by any judgement of this world.
Is this a suitably egoist take?

>>19651695
>It does not concern me that you have no more pity for him than for any man on the street.
By pragmatism of communication, a union of egoists would likely take this sentiment forgranted.

>>19651698
Yes

I want further clarification about the position expressed here
>>19651695
>making this statement pleases me
The egoist position is to accept one spook: that which pleases me. Is this correct?
But what I am pleased by is, to a large degree, created by my environment. I can selectively modify myself(modify what pleases me), but even the way I modify myself is a descendant of every environment I've ever lived in. I feel as if I am created by spooks.

>>19651421
Egoism isn’t left wing you imbecile

>>19651676
Ive had sex with six different women, two girlfriends, and have had the option to have sex with much more though I wisely backed away. You on the other hand have never had sex with a single woman

>>19651387
the final boss is Adi Shankara

>>19651753
Egoism isn't left wing, but it is certainly "left hand".

>>19651754
This is merely a flex of worldly status.

>>19651766
Yes. It is because I am sexually attractive to women. I know you call this a spook but it provides a lot of pleasure

>>19651773
This brings up an interesting point. By dismissing phantoms, Stirner eschews the "sacredness" of the material world, does he not? The only thing kept is yourself. Does this not lead to existential solipsism?
>the interpretation of this world is entirely at my discretion
>therefore, only I am divine; or, though I live amongst things that are divine, my own divinity is defended/"sovereign"
Any thoughts?

>>19651773
Wouldn't Stirner have said that bodily desires are the only thing that are not spook? Sex makes you feel good and all, and Stirner would agree that it is awesome, but it's not the same as a belief system built around religion, communism or conservatism, all of which can be considered spooks as they're supposedly built upon a view that is little different from an outright lie and therefore is a spook.

>>19651877
Well I suppose the issue here is that Christianity is the truth

>>19651893
Embarrassing

>>19651893
But what if it is a spook? A shadow-reaction of the downtrodden to combat the extensive excess of the elite within the Roman Empire.
Then comes the Jesus and says "the last shall be first" and other forms of cope that seem oh so attractive to the downtrodden.

What then?

>>19651387
only trannies like this guy because he validates their retarded existence

>>19651904
Your life

>>19651919
Christ’s birth and redemption of humanity was prophesied six hundred years before it happened. This power insecurity you’re describing is ironically the exact mechanism by which Stirner’s philosophy and most marxist thought comes from

>>19651919
I suppose if that were the case then all the Roman’s and Pharisees would have to do is roll the boulder aside and prove there was no resurrection, right? Seems simple enough

>>19651949
But what if Stirner isn't insecure, but actually is right? How can you be certain that he isn't? What if men created "the idea of evil" because they were looking for meaning for their meaningless suffering?

>>19651877
>Wouldn't Stirner have said that bodily desires are the only thing that are not spook?
Independent of desires, the answer is no: Stirner does not, as /lit/ would make you believe, use the word "spook" as a catch all term that can always be applied to everything. Which is to say the "only" part is wrong in your question

>>19651973
>meaningless
Literally no such thing

>>19651958
Stay with me on this one; you know how there are shills and actors within both virtual and real life spaces? People who create an artificial concensus in hopes of making the sheep follow their will. I mean we've seen plenty of staged events both on 4chan and real life - glowniggers and actors.

What makes you think that this wouldn't have happened over 2000 years ago with Jesus?

>>19651948
He also validates my dislike of trannies (ugly ones, cute ones with non-mutilated genitalia are fine).

>>19651976
How can you be so certain?

>>19651813
The issues I find are that even if I were born without ever having known a state and I were, say, completely alone, the interpretation of the world still wouldn't be entirely at my discretion, as I would still have to contend with my memories and past experiences. Every point of contact with the senses can bring out something to meet the sensation without my say. (There's a historical dimension here, which is why hermeneutics is a thing.) One can't proclaim themselves divine, fighting it would mean policing every intuition, bring some state equivalent order upon yourself and defeating the point of the egoist.

>>19651652
Yeah, this is the problem I've been having with Stirner, if everything I work towards are spooks, then what do I work towards?

>>19651741
Personality is a spook, the idea that I couldnt just start being a dick is retarded so therefore I can change all my dreams and goals - therefore leading me into nothingness

>>19651998
I don't understand what you wrote. I shouldn't have used the word divine, I should have said "fit/valid within an eternal context".

>>19651741
Spooks must not rule over you. They can influence you in any assortment of ways but the point is to not be controlled by them. Egoists will use and exploit spooks to get what they want.

>>19651984
Mental illness

>>19651877
Stirners interpretation of what a spook is doesn't include things such as pain, but if we take Stirner's ideas to their logical conclusion then yes - everything is on the table as everything has been overcome. The fact that people have died doing hunger strikes or the fact that asexual people exist proves these so called "unchangeable ideas" can be changed and are therefore spooks

>>19652036
Can this be summarized as
>biological imperatives are unique to the individual
?

>>19652052
They're not really imperative if they can be changed

>>19651984
The Pharisees wanted to create a religion which destroys any power they hold over its followers, and the Roman’s wanted to make one that would result in their destruction and then try to persecute the early followers of this religion. yeah that makes sense dude. Nothing mentally ill about that thought process

>>19651984
Olympic level mental gymnastics

>>19651387
He's the standard final boss. If you pay close attention, do a 100% completionist run, and solve the final puzzle in the Stirner nihilism boss room you get the actual final boss, which is the first boss at his full power.

>>19652056
Then biological imperatives can be modified just as my desires can be modified. >>19651741
That makes sense considering that a great deal of mental thought is biologically originated (gut bacteria, etc).

>>19652077
How exactly do you solve Stirners final puzzle?

>>19652030
>>19652068
A typical defensive machanism brought by a weak mind unwilling to entertain the thought. Possibly ignorant or disingenuous.
>>19652063
At least you can talk.

What if it was easier back in the day to be a partisan against the dominant narrative? Romans never had access to a similar system the elite of our day currently uses to silence discourse.

>>19651648
They actually have the same philosophy
Not being spooked is following the categorical imperative.

>>19651560
Thank you for the link.

>>19651753
Yes it is faggot

>>19651753
He is considered a left Hegelian iirc.

>>19651560
>Stirner was of the opinion that the stage of development of humankind, which is characterized through behavioral regulation by means of the pre- and irrationally induced super-ego, would, as the outcome of the process of Enlightenment, merge into a new one, characterized by self-regulation, that is to say, by true autonomy of individuals.
Are there any novels with a self-regulating character like this?

>>19652103
His philosophy breaks every established worldview on the basis that everything is a lie/spook - and he's probably right. So when you enter the "nothingness" phase, instead of succumbing to nihilism and overall meaninglessness, you start building shit. You create new worldviews and values that you believe are the right ones; at that stage Stirner will dissolve into nothingness since he himself is a spook, and Platon will teleport you to his final stage where you will have to 1v1 him as every other philosopher in the game watches.

>>19653310
>just create your own values bro
and how am I supposed to do that if there's no objectivity in anything? No right, no wrong, there's nothing to build with - unless you want me to just do a dice roll of what should be good or not - which will never satisfy because humans needs reasons for things, why else do you think we made up God?

>>19653370
>which will never satisfy because humans needs reasons for things, why else do you think we made up God?
Who is this we. And why do you need reasons.

>>19651753
It isn't right wing either.
It's so fucking fringe it's lateral to everything.

>>19653837
There needs to be a point of origin, be it truth or a lie. While it is fiction, I do believe that Hogfathers dialogue about belief was interesting enough and it does kind of answer Stirner in a way:

>“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

>REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

>"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

>YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

>"So we can believe the big ones?"

>YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

>"They're not the same at all!"

>YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

>"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

>MY POINT EXACTLY.”

>>19651387
I do unironically love many of his ideas, especially that of 'oneness' and his dismantling of people who cope with their shitty lives using false gods like ideology and religion

>>19651387
Wittgenstein, Kripke, Chomsky, final bosesses.

>>19653370
Consider this objective: you will die. To find the meaning of life, start from death and work backwards.

>>19654549
The only way Stirner differs from Death's position here is that he drops the "needing" part. Feel free to have beliefs and frameworks, you are not prohibited. Just make them your own and do not let others impose theirs onto you.

>>19653837
Because my human brain demands them, why would there be philosophy if no one demanded reason?

>>19655963
I've got no clue what that will achieve

>>19651567
>I wonder if people who profess to like Stirner realize they’re instantly clocked as losers who want to pretend their laziness and general moral atrophy are somehow a philosophical decision.
Nigga Stirner dismantles philosophy. If anything other people are more guilty about pretending their actions are philosophical decisions.

>>19651387
The Final boss is U.G Krishnamurti

Unironically, the final boss of philosophy is Ayn Rand because you have to recognize that she is 90% right about everything but the part that she isn't right about requires you to deconstruct her entire philosophy and stand on your own which only a few people can do. Even people in most objectivist circles don't do this. Once you beat Ayn Rand by fixing her, you genuinely beat the final boss of philosophy, and then you find the secret boss: Robin Hanson. That's when you realize that you can't transcend the unconscious and the signalling game that permeates every human action which its realization makes you more cynical and pessimistic than any actual pessimism philosopher.

>>19656511
Can I get a quick breakdown of this poojit?

>>19656824
>Blavatski touched me when I was little so all religious people are nuts

>>19656844
How the hell is that guy a final boss? Stirner's ideas blow this poojit out of the water....

Stirner is a not a philosopher; his book is attack on the entire field of philosophy as nothing more than a form of sophistry for higher officials to manipulate stupid people into doing stupid things. He isn't unique in this regard, Callicles and Schopenhauer made these claims. Stirner's significance is that his critique specifically focuses on the sophistry of socialists and liberals, and by one, dissects the stupidity of their claims. For socialists, Stirner sees them as nothing more than dictators in disguise who's idea of a "stateless society" is nothing more than a state of dictatorial affairs that regulates the self activity of the individual into an effective bondage of slavery to the state and its party. For liberals, who Stirner explicitly finds better to be the better of the two, limit freedom within the scope of the law - i.g. you are free to do somethings but not others as the state demands. The egoist, however, wants the freedom to do as he pleases as a function of his capabilities and power - much like Nietzsche's Ubermensch. Stirner's Einziger, as Julius Evola described, is a Odysseus hero fighting against a world that has largely put adversaries in his to test his resolve. Junger's Anarch, which was influenced by Stirner's book, fits the idea closely - a man who's been through a lot, a man like Junger, who have lived through the lies of politicians and philosophers on the battlefield, to see that the only thing that matters to one's freedom, and happiness, is their willingness to fight regardless of the circumstances for what they desire in life.

>>19657158
>the only thing that matters to one's freedom, and happiness,
Brainlet and philosophlet here, thanks for the explanation but isn't the point of philosophy to figure out what these things are?

>>19657186
caught off the quote by accident but I'm referring to what you desire in life

>>19657186
There are no universal values of anything. Values will differ just as much as tastes in food, aesthetics and fashion. So even if you figure out what you believe is the answer to life, someone else will challenge you on those views by presenting his case. This is a painful realization, especially for brainlets who don't like using mental energy on figuring out things for themselves, because it shatters their inherent belief that someone smarter than them has anything worth listening to.

The gurus/philosophers/theologians have no clothes

>>19657336
This constant remaking of oneself is called Becoming. Am I right?

>>19652462
By retarded lefties who also attempt to claim NEETzsche as their own.

PBUH = FINAL BOSS

>>19657186
That is indeed the point of philosophy to figure it out. You have to figure out who you are, what you value and what is important in life.

Ignore this >>19657336 idiot charlatans as he gives no answer with his bullshit 'you gotta figure it out for yourself maaaaan' which is muddying the waters and being unhelpful, as with nearly all philosophers. The method by which you find happiness is by first recognizing that happiness is sustained coexistence with reality and the method by which humans, who are sapient beings, achieve this is by interacting with reality, reshaping it in a productive way. This is done by creating art, creating new inventions or enacting your physical abilities to their maximum potentials like being an athlete or mercenary. This is the proper function of morality. It comes down to figuring out who you are, what you consider important in life that promotes life-affirming values and continually commits to it which makes life and reality mutually shine and makes the world better by your mere existence. The endpoint is that your actions become a push that leads to achieving immortality, the endpoint and desire of humans.

The final boss of philosophy is one that doesn't muddy the water and tells the answer without pretense because having the answer means you want everyone to be happy and find their happiness. Stirner is right that you are not bound to ideas, but that's as far as he goes. Nietzsche was right that you create your own values through art, but that's as far as he goes. Ayn Rand got it right that you have to be rational, examine reality, systemize it, act productive and create life-affirming values through your actions.

>>19651387
his account of pleasure is retarded
his account of the state of nature is based

>>19657594
I don't care about doing most of that shit (like being "productive"), and you haven't explained to me why I should.
>you just have to bro
Nah, that other guy seemed more reasonable.

>>19651387
>might be right
it do be right Ragnar Nigbeard

>>19657594
Ayn Rand is a spook. She has no critical analysis of the ego or the "control mechanisms" behind it. All her moralities and beliefs are based on the soliphistic fact that can be boiled down to: "all world is about me and everything in this materialistic world that serves me has a moral right to exist because I'm a greedy selfish ugly little jewish whore who wishes to amass wealth".

This belief alone indicates that she's a indoctrinated prisoner who lacks the freedom to dispel the lies placed upon her by society. If Stirner is a free man, she is a slave.

I've found having a background in Greek and Roman philosophy helps you have a better understanding of Stirner's points. An entire section of Stirner's book is focusing on the Greek contributions to egotistic thought. You really should have a decent background in as much Greek Philosophy as possible and art/culture. Aesop's fables share a lot of the traditional wisdom you see in Stirner's book.

>>19657693
Why? To ensure your independence and it leads to your happiness. You don't 'have to bro,' you can just die in a ditch, be a Stirnerfag and go lmao everything is a spook and my property so that means I can kill and loot however I want until I get shot by someone protecting their property which is fine because life and my ego is a spooky yolo.

If you steal, do whatever, act irrationally, etc, you'll feel pleasure but it's just a hedonism drive without meaning or satisfaction. You become dependent on the productivity of others. It's the same as NEETs who laugh at wagies while they live under the subsidy of the government or their parents who do work, never utilizing their own strength to obtain what they want. When you increase your strength, knowledge and skill act productively, you own your property, skills and method to continually exist rather than survive on the productivity of others. The 'why' is to live. If you choose otherwise, you'll only survive so long as someone doesn't kill you or the person you're feeding on either through crime or pity (like your parents or the government) allow you to take advantage of them. If you don't want to live, you can commit suicide. If you are too lazy to live, go rob people until someone kills you. You have no choice but to act that way due to the way reality is metaphysically structured. Act productively, rob people, depend on others by being a leech, or commit suicide. Those are your options.

>>19657706
>a philosopher is a spook
Sounds like someone is threatened by a spook. It's also funny because this sort of mention that Ayn Rand is a spook is weirdly always said by Stirner people towards Ayn Rand and never anyone else. You don't see anyone say that Marx is a spook or Heiidengger is a spook. Ayn Rand herself is a spook. It's similar to how people say that she isn't a philosopher, a title no one else says about anyone else.

> "all world is about me and everything in this materialistic world that serves me has a moral right to exist because I'm a greedy selfish ugly little jewish whore who wishes to amass wealth".
Sounds like projecting and reductive to the point of being a strawman. Do you ever think that straw-manning a philosophy is a telltale sign of final boss energy where you can't even fight them on their own playing field that you have to bullshit and reduce them to your level? Why don't you just admit that you don't know anything about Ayn Rand other than some summary, like idiots do when they think that they know Marx by how right-wing people strawman him. Can you admit your own stupidity? Or is that also a spook?

>>19657777
>Heiidengger
Heidegger*

>>19657777
That doesn't sound like anything deeper than "if you aren't productive you'll feel bad and / or die sooner". That might be true in many cases (just as a statement of fact), but it's not a grand revelation. It's not some universal truth.
Your "productivity" sounds like hedonism to me as well, except with more pretension. If I watch a funny movie I'll laugh and feel happy, but I'm not going to write a thesis on why funny movies are the end goal of our existence.

>>19657777
>lmao everything is a spook and my property so that means I can kill and loot however I want until I get shot by someone protecting their property which is fine because life and my ego is a spooky yolo
strawman quads

>>19657777
Slave rhetoric implanted by her by those who created values for others so that they could take advantage of them and leech of their value.

>>19657845
>That might be true in many cases (just as a statement of fact), but it's not a grand revelation. It's not some universal truth.
>it's true but it's not a truth
Really? Define universal truth then. Give an example of a universal truth. I suspect that you're using that term vaguely and won't provide any examples. Also, why does it have to be some grand revelation? It may seem obvious because it's the current standard and philosophy of our era by living in a liberal and pseudo-capitalistic world and society, but it is nonetheless true. Acting productively increases your standard of living, grand better ownership of your life and pushes humanity towards achieving its ultimate endgoal of immortality.

>Your "productivity" sounds like hedonism to me as well, except with more pretension. If I watch a funny movie I'll laugh and feel happy, but I'm not going to write a thesis on why funny movies are the end goal of our existence.
Productivity means cooking, building a house, figuring out the properties of reality using the scientific method, writing, etc And yes, that includes writing essays. When you do that, you provide others the means to grasp values within art to help people orient their consciousness towards values about reality. What do you think philosophers do when they write about reality? No one does it for fun but to help guide people to better understand reality and orient their actions to transcend the metaphysics of reality to become immortal.

It's also important to recognize that the meta-ethics of pleasure and happiness are different. Both are built on positive stimuli called joy but they are time relevant. Eating chocolate is pleasure, continually eating chocolate is hedonism but it is not sustainable long term whereas acting productively permits sustained coexistence long term which creates happiness. Happiness is about maintaining one's attachment to reality long term. And when you establish the methods of achieving it, acting productively is the only method to do so without facing constant fears of death by needing to rob others for your survival.

>>19657846
If you question someone who talks about Stirner, they will eventually admit to this. Morality? Spook, I can kill you. There's no reason why I can't kill you. Ayn Rand argued for property rights? lmao that's a spook, I can steal if I want to. Why shouldn't I steal or rape? Although Stirner argues that you can choose your values, by not establishing how to property live, he ends up advocating moral-nihilism. Although Stirner is correct to say that there is nothing preventing you from committing murder or robbery, the reason you don't do it is that you depend on others for your survival rather than your own strength which you can utilize by acting productively and being independent. Just because nothing stops you doesn't mean you should do it.

>>19657937
>Why shouldn't I steal or rape?
It is unwise, because other people have the power of defence.
>the reason you don't do it is that you depend on others for your survival
Is this leading to the meme of "if everyone did this, we would all die"? This mentality is an American disease. Different beliefs are for different people.

>>19657965
>Is this leading to the meme of "if everyone did this, we would all die"? This mentality is an American disease. Different beliefs are for different people.
No, I literally explained it in egoistic terms: if you do it, you give up your life and exist solely on the life of others rather than your own strength and power. You don't do it for literally the reason you gave: because other people have the power of defence. You could steal and prolong your survival but it will still depend on others.

>>19657937
>Really? Define universal truth then. Give an example of a universal truth.

Not the poster you're aiming this towards.

Why does he need to define it if he's the one who challenges your truth in the first place? Rand has it all figured, now do tell why her values are objectively better despite the fact that they're most likely built upon what Stirner would call Spooks?

>Happiness is about maintaining one's attachment to reality long term.
That's your opinion. For some happiness can be extracting value out of productive horses who subscribe to your shtick. Why are their opinions worse if they can get away with it? Last time I checked Rand lived like that anyway.

>by not establishing how to properly live, he ends up advocating moral-nihilism.
That's in the eye of the beholder. Stirner rejected morality by stating that there are non-moral actions that can be assessed positively. You're confusing his rejection of sacrosanct values as a denial for all morality and ethics, aka you got filtered.

Rand faggot got BTFOed out, Stirner reigns supreme once again.

>>19657937
>Define universal truth then. Give an example of a universal truth. I suspect that you're using that term vaguely and won't provide any examples.
The only thing I'm absolutely sure of is my own conscious existence. This may not convince you and that's fine. Everything else I am skeptical about. Human goals don't look universal to me at all, they aren't even the same between different humans.
For example, regarding your ideology: for everything you have declared as virtuous, I could take another stance and find an example. Like living within poverty. Or killing for profit. I don't really like either of those, but there are / were cultures that see things differently.
>No one does it for fun but to help guide people to better understand reality and orient their actions to transcend the metaphysics of reality to become immortal.
They were acting according to their nature. Clearly they had some personal reason to do it, whether that's fun or a sense of duty. Whichever one it was may have influenced the quality of their writing, but they did it for themselves all the same.
>Happiness is about maintaining one's attachment to reality long term.
That's again just an opinion. Many have found happiness in an early death. Is the soldier that dies for his cause productive?

Generally speaking, my opinion is that you're taking your personal goals and opinions (some sort of entrepreneurial spirit to be specific), and projecting them on everyone else.

Every Stirner thread on /lit/ is the same 30 people posting, 28 of which have never read the book and think "spook" just denotes a derogatory way of saying "concepts" or "idea"

>>19658315
Midwit faggot thinks that a discussion should be proportional to the number of posters. Literally KYS

How have libertarians tackled stirner? or does he BTFO them?

>>19658716
Nobody is willing to tackle him because the moment you're forced to enter the topic with good faith, introspection and willingness to entertain ideas outside of your comfort zone, is the moment Stirner shatters your very foundation.

>>19651387
Epitome of midwit tier.

>>19658813
No, he has good points but Evola took it farther and integrated them into something useful and meaningful.

Its true I picked up a copy of the ego and its own and broke down crying halfway through as stirner systematically demolished my childish - and downright imbecilic views on reality. But through that nexus was the catalyst for my rebirth. NO LONGER am I a slave to morality. NO LONGER do I hide from the spooks. Now I am a true alpha wolf who stands above his lesser peers. AMA.

>>19659093
How did you get past the pseud dash? I couldn't get through his damn book.

>>19659118
I dont know anon maybe you are just a beta forever fated to not grasp complicated ideas like morality being bad and people being selfish

>>19658940
>traditon
*whirring intensifies*

>>19656844
Lol don't listen to this retard

>>19657077
>How the hell is that guy a final boss?
If you know you know if you don't that's your problem. Striner is for edgy kids

>>19659534
If you know you know if you that's your problem. Poojit is for edgy kids.

ITT virgins. Spooked by pussy.

>>19651567
good post, however the irony being that I instantly clock people like these as wagies who never experienced any vital urge to cut out the corn syrup

>>19659737
I instantly clock people that use clock as a verb as being subverted by modernism. You will never be a woman.

>>19657777
see >>19655276

>>19651567
>>19651578
Cope. People who rag on stirners come off to me as wannabe revolutionaries or christcucks who rely on being able to peddle their sacrificial mumbo jumbo to others and themselves. Stirner is impenetrable and correct. Which is why he made Marx and Engels seethe.

>>19651510
Wrong, much of feeling good is about endurance, thresholds, and abundance. Being hedonistic quickly creates an imbalance and fucks this up. See happiness and fulfillment is a multi tier system and not all parts work in a linear way.

>>19659872
Here is my BTFO of stirner

>Says morality (the idea that some actions are good or evil) is bad
>This is in itself a moral judgement.
>Therefore stirner is making a contradictory argument
"morality is le bad" is just another form of morality.

>>19659921
He doesn't say that morality is bad.

>>19651560
Thanks for the link. Take this comfy picrel

>>19659921
False. He says it isnt logical. You amde the judgement that illogic is 'bad' and therfore you are the paramecium level intellect, or nonintellect as I call them, and you dont read or speak German.

>>19654549
Where is this from exactly, it’s rather comforting to read

>>19656756
>That's when you realize that you can't transcend the unconscious and the signalling game that permeates every human action which its realization makes you more cynical and pessimistic than any actual pessimism philosopher

This is just what taking enough psychedelics when you’re smart enough does in my experience. You see the game for what it is but you can’t change it. Nihilism is bullshit, embrace humanity both from above and below. Everything but striving for aesthetics is a cope.

Stirner didnt go far enough

>>19660260
This is why I love Stirner. He challenges people so hard they literally lose touch with the reality and start assigning to him labels he clearly was not. Stirner wasn't a nihilist, yet so many midwits try to cope with it by desperately giving him that label.

>>19660412
Do expand on that please.

>>19651387
Stirner was soundly refuted both by Marx
>>19651506
and by Sigmund Freud who demonstrated that we do not even possess our ego consciousness.

Because the idea that an individual can "possess" their consciousness is absurd as the idea that water can "possess" it's "wetness". Water is "wet", water doesn't HAVE "wetness". Humans are "ego/conscious", they do HAVE "consciousness". And just as water can be frozen and thus no longer be "wet" a human can die and no longer be "conscious". But in theory if the death state could be reversed in man as the solid state of water can be returned to liquid, there would likewise be a return to conscious in man as there would be the "wet" of the water.

>>19660514
What the fuck are you talking about? They didn't refute shit. None of them had the balls to tackle the fact that our entire foundation of beliefs are quite possibly built upon lies.

>>19651387
Nietzsche did it better.

>>19660514
That last paragraph is bad.
>>19660543
I think they breezed right past that without really spending too much time and effort on it. Because it's a given. The refutation is contained by the realization that when you throw out all the 'lies', you're not left with anything to build a sense of self with.

>>19660260
based psychonautical outlook

>>19660543
If the entire core of your philosophical stance is based on the axiom that you are in possession of yourself (ego/consciousness); and it is demonstrably proven false, then like it or not you have been refuted.

>>19660260
>This is just what taking enough psychedelics when you’re smart enough does
Then we have crowds of Joe Rogans to deal with because he's not dumb, he's done the trips, but he's a certainty addict that doesn't even understand how sick he'd get without his constant fixes of that delicious lack of doubt.

>>19660619
>That last paragraph is bad.
Yes I went a bit far with the analogy but it was to prove a point and demystify the idea of consciousness that people seem to have where they elevate it to the level of divinity.

>>19660610
Only good thing i can say about Nietzsche is he never despised the success he never got.
Other than that he was basically the Henry Rollins of philosophy. Eternal return is a useful idea.

>>19660637
Reading Ken Wilber shows us that there's really only two religions, ones that assert that consciousness erupts from matter (A disgusting and weird idea) and another that asserts that all things erupt from consciousness.

19th century thinkers, bumping into ideas brought home by trade empires from across the world, were just starting to incorporate ideas corrosive to their pre-existing views.

Once people understand that Jesus brought a mix of small and large vehicle Buddhism back to his illiterate countrymen, you see how the second outlook, combined with Hillel, gave us the scientific method and a way out of old paradigms.

>>19658188
I went to bed.

>>19660514
Freud was preemptively refuted By Brentano and Husserl while he was sharing classes with them.

>>19658030
>Why does he need to define it if he's the one who challenges your truth in the first place?
Because if we're using different concepts to communicate different things, I can't understand his criticism. I argued that what I said is a universal truth and he says 'yeah it's a universal truth, but not' which is contradictory and I am therefore asking him to establish the premises of his views. I can't just say that he's wrong without first understanding why he thinks what he thinks. It's naive to think that even if you're correct and speak truth that everyone just hmmm yes I see, I am obvious wrong about everything, lemme correct myself on everything.

>Rand has it all figured, now do tell why her values are objectively better despite the fact that they're most likely built upon what Stirner would call Spooks?
Her values are better because they permit sustained coexistence with reality and the capacity to live one's life to the fullest and enjoy the most out of life.

>that's your opinion. For some happiness can be extracting value out of productive horses who subscribe to your shtick. Why are their opinions worse if they can get away with it? Last time I checked Rand lived like that anyway.
Because it's not sustainable. You're not living, merely surviving. This is the equivalent of saying 'well, a NEET that leeches off their parents is surely happy, isn't this proof?' when it's not? They're merely surviving by the efforts of others rather than their own strength, which means that their life is not their own. If their parents die, and leave nothing, so does the NEET. By acting productively, you coexist with reality, sustain your life and live. Their opinion isn't worse if they get away with it but that it isn't sustainable. You think a thief can keep robbing people without being killed? And even if one just steals enough to live a life of comfort, they just live hedonistically which I can just point to Nietzsche The Last Man and have you argue him on that.

>Ayn Rand lived like that
Nah, she never took health benefits. That's a meme people made up to dismiss her.

>>19659416
You're entirely missing the point. Even before Evola became a Traditionalist he was already rectifying some quandaries of Stirner pertaining to the indiviual.

>>19658030

>That's in the eye of the beholder. Stirner rejected morality by stating that there are non-moral actions that can be assessed positively. You're confusing his rejection of sacrosanct values as a denial for all morality and ethics, aka you got filtered.
Oh please, you're not even denying that I'm right. All you've done is go umm acktyully moral-nihilism may not be moral nihilism; raping might be good okay :^) which is dumb shit. You merely focused on the words 'moral-nihilism' and ignore the rest of the sentence preceding it. I said that Stirner DID NOT ESTABLISH HOW TO LIVE. He said you're free to live however you want to live, you're free to not be bound to ideologies or ideas. You have no duty. Ayn Rand argues the same thing. But the difference is that once you accept that idea (which is also a spook btw) you ask the question of what is the proper way to live, to which Stirner has no answer because he just goes lmao do whatever yolo which ends up advocating moral-nihilism. This is equally a failure of Nietzsche, although he's better because he argued to establish one's values and one way of doing that is through art, which is a productive endeavour; he lacked the foresight to understand that this applied to other aspects such as creating a business which he saw as bad for some reason in Thus Spake.

>>19659861
It's laziness. To be fair, Ayn Rand, in her time, didn't call herself libertarian because it had a different meaning. Nowadays, thanks to Rothbath, it means reducing the government through persuasive arguments and essays. Ayn Rand's position of minarchism would classify her as a libertarian in our era.

However, if you want an argument against libertarianism, I can give you one: rhetorics against governments to abolish themselves are merely just that, rhetoric. They can ignore it. Do open Borders lead to overall wealth for a country? Sorry, Bryan Caplan, I hate immigrants. The endpoint of libertarianism is to convince the government to reduce itself to a small size and eventually abolish itself. Although some like Ayn Rand argue that a very minimal state is preferable rather than no state, the goal remains the same. So while you can convince the state at times to reduce itself, you can do it all at once or completely because states like to expand. This position is actually criticized by Ayn Rand and she didn't have an answer to this. In her story, she had a minarchist state and it went to ruin because the state wanted to control it. And when Galt tried convincing those in charge to enact libertarian ideas, they denied him. That's the flaw against libertarianism. If you want the answer to libertarianism, it's crypto-anarchism.

Refuted by Guenon.

Just read Prometheus Rising then Atlas Shrugged

>>19660514
we dont have the posession of consciousness, we are consciousness. that dont refute stirner at all.

>>19660619
>The refutation is contained by the realization that when you throw out all the 'lies', you're not left with anything to build a sense of self with.
imagine believing this. no, i believe in a lie just because everything is a lie and if i dont believe lies then i dont have a sense of self. this boil down to you as a dishonest person. stirner egoism is just being honest with yourself (yes, the yourself that doesnt exist.)

>>19660999
Sounds to me as if you all read this while believeing that everyone you see around you is also a sentient being. They arent human. They have their own little ideas and if they thought about they might believe themselves to be 'human' but you and me both know that is not how it works. Think about Stirner's logic in terms of my proposal that the NPC hypothesis underestimates the scale of the matter by an enormous degree.

>The fact that most philosophers and thinkers actively avoid mentioning him – in fear of the potential for his ideas to destabilize the society – show only that they do not have any proper retorts to his ideas outside of strawmen. It’s almost like they fear mentioning him because they’re afraid that he might be right, and what if he is? What’s so bad about him being right and making a point? We can’t just stick our heads into the sand and pretend that what he has said is not true. Engaging with his ideas seems like one of the greatests potentials for growth with in the intellectual world. Yet very few are willing to do it seriously.

>>19654549
It's from one of the Discworld books, one of the ones where Death's adopted daughter is a key character.

Read althusser you utter golem

>>19660232
It's from one of the Discworld books, one of the ones where Death's adopted daughter is a key character.

>>19661047
>Sounds to me as if you all read this while believeing that everyone you see around you is also a sentient being.
dont believe the memes till this point anon.

>>19660210
how can a illogical action be considered good?

Read Bertrand Russel. He completed the system of German Idealism.

>>19651387
Yes. And there is no need to elaborate.

>>19659921
>>Says morality (the idea that some actions are good or evil) is bad
The absolute state of illiterates.

>>19660757
You keep arguing about NEETs without mentioning the biggest NEETs of the system that is the elite. They produce nothing of value, keep extracting resources out of the productive people, and on top of that think that they know better when they really are just rich midwits. They don't give a shit if it's sustainable or not, and on top of that they keep getting away with it. How do they fall into Randian worldview?

>>19651387
Yes, you can tell by how only two people in this thread have even read the book and the rest is just parroting memes.

>>19662860
Am I one of the two?

>>19662883
Don't know and don't care.

>>19651599
that would be a little bit more like Nietzsche

>>19661910
Thats up to your judgment I guess isnt it

>>19651753
>Egoism isn’t left wing you imbecile
It literally is.
Leftists are "empathy parasites".
A force that could only exist in high trust western societies.

>>19660800
> minarchism
A bunch of jews that like the state to whack goyim in the head but they don't like big state promoting goyim cohesion vs outsiders with money.

>>19665091
Interesting take, care to expand, or point direction at in depth discussion if it's not too much bother?

>>19651387
Not at all. For all we know, we could already be living in a union of egoists type society (only we aren't the egoists, we are the puppets they manipulate for their own pleasure).
>>19651421
Nice meme buzz words. They are handy when you want to say something without thinking.
>>19651486
He didn't say nothing matters.
>>19651506
This is a logically poor argument which falls victim to the fallacy fallacy. He states, since Stirner didn't definitively show that the ego can stand on it's own, then it certainly doesn't, which is logically bunk. The point is we cant grasp with certainty that which is not ego, so we can throw ideas on it away and see what's left standing.
>>19651540
Its a shame since his philosophy is so simple (and falls into obvious errors with respect to naieve ideas on time that cant work in a spookless philosophy that his philosophy of power relies on)
>>19651599
Nope, he wants to go beyond transcendental belief in that sense.
>>19660610
Nietzsche is a poor, cluttered, and misleading imitation of what stirner clearly an elegantly showed in one book.

>>19651754
The fact you say this on an anonymous board shows how deeply worried you are about social validation.

>>19660610
His similarities to Stirner are overblown

>>19651421
>Left-wing
SPOOKS

>>19660625
If we are not in possession of ourselves then we are the puppets of the Gods. Do you mean to say that free will is an illusion? You say free will has been refuted, but I have yet to see evidence of this other than in abstract hypothesizing.

>>19662821
We let them. Parasites can only feed on a host that is unable to fight them off. Similar to the vampire myth they have to be let in.
We are a weak and sick society. If we were not they would not have been able to fool us and take power.
There are many who see them as the source of our material comfort. If we were to upset the status quo there would be chaos (in theory) and we would have to be subjected to a temporary period of discomfort. In the same way that many will not get up and go to the gym in order to build strength and experience greater future comfort at the expense of momentary discomfort, we do not upend the situation we find ourselves in because we dread the temporary discomfort of rebuilding.
It doesn't necessarily have to be all that painful, but that would require everyone to be on the same page. A simple "no" would do the job, but that would have to be a collective and unanimous no followed by a collective and unanimous decision in how we would proceed from then on.
If a man in a funny hat strolls into town and demands that all the people give him authority and great material wealth it is the decision of the townspeople to give it to him.
We ultimately get what we deserve.
It gets a little more complicated when it comes to the productive rich who actually benefit society, since there are instances where someone's brainchild is the reason why material wealth is created. We cannot forget that without the idea that precedes the engine cannot be made a material reality.
It's a matter of separating the good from the bad, the con men from the inventors. If you see a product as useless and a waste of time and material, if that product is profitable that means someone is buying it and has seen value in it. You may decide that it has no value, but someone else has. When you play the game of telling others their desired product has no value you go into central authority dictatorial territory and you're playing the same dangerous game that you criticize.
>How do they fall into Randian worldview?
I would say it depends on the person. Those who pursue power for the sake of power are just dregs who managed to weasel their way to the top, but those who are truly inventive deserve to be there.

>>19653310
So... Mustache man?

>>19656756
Yeah, this. Once you go schizo mode and become somewhat of a mind reader you realize the absurdity of our condition and become a kind of hermit guru that can barely stand to be around people because it's a constant barrage of incongruity. Yet you still love them all the same. You hate them all, yet without them you would have nothing. You would be nothing. Beautiful flowers wilting under the weight they put on themselves. Ugly dumpsters, set on fire and smelling of hobo piss. We're just puke on a sidewalk.
The final boss is schizophrenia, or more accurately the loss of your previous schizophrenic focus on the spooks we accept as being real based on faith and conformity.

>>19652001
Work towards whatever you want, just understand you don't have to work for anything if you don't want to. It's quite simple. Basically Ayn Rand if you take away Libertarian ethics

>>19651506
>atomic components
and Heidegger would tell you dass man darüber schweigen muss worum man nicht sprechen kann.

>>19652103
>>19653310
You faggots just unraveled the true final boss. Reality is something you can't even imagine, folks. We're on the software layer, not the hardware layer.

>>19653837
>>19653370
Anon, we are the creators. We literally create meaning; it's within us just as consciousness is within us. The ability to perceive and have an active experience in this modality is just part of an endless cycle that spans greater iterations than your current brain can evaluate.

The deepest pill to swallow is that we're trapped in a paradox. Experience everything or experience nothing. Value everything or value nothing. Unsere Weltanschaung ist von der Dualität geprägt.

We must rise above this, to truly become Übermensch we have to create the conditions that remove us from this infinite cycle, this loop. So many philosophers, emperors and even teachers or engineers have come to this conclusion anon. They all just express parts of the piece but it all leads back to the same.

Light and love.

>>19657706
Big true. You don't even need to read much to gather this anon's understanding of Ayn Rand and her slave philosophy; just Jung himself can break you out of her spook. But then you gotta break out of Jung's spook and eventually.. well. It's all just spooks from here, am I right?

>>19668006
>part of an endless cycle that spans greater iterations than your current brain can evaluate
This is the question that plagues me.
If we are constantly evolving then we can view ourselves as iterations in a cycle. Each birth and death an iteration. Ever refining, ever perfecting. Imperfections are discarded and success lives on. But, now we arrive at the question: To what end? What is the goal? What are we fighting for? Survival? If the goal is survival then what is the survival for? There must be a deeper goal. If we are contained within this simulation, for lack of a better term, then we are bound to its limits and laws. We cannot bring in that which is outside. Everything inside has been there from the beginning, and will be there until the end. If this rule is universal it extends to ideas. The conscious mind itself may be an exception to these rules, but that would be an anomaly, so for argument's sake we'll stick to it being subject to that rule. This means that there is no such thing as human creation. A cake was not invented, but rather discovered, by the first person who combined the already existing ingredients. The ingredients all existed, but the blueprint was yet to be discovered. Every blueprint must work within the confines of our universe, therefore every blueprint already exists, but is yet to be discovered. If we have extrapolated meaning, or the idea of meaning, then would that not mean that it must exist in some capacity? If we can conceive of it, then it must exist, or it must be within the realm of possibility. Nothing is impossible, otherwise we could not conceive of it. Ah, but that would be a paradox. Because if we could conceive of not conceiving that would invalidate the rule.
Anyone else care to pull at this thread?

Aren't his most important works translated in an incomprehensible manner? Really put me off even starting him.

>>19668061
>To what end?
Read everything up to this point, anon. Full stop. You can do it too brother, reread it and feel how true you are holding reality up to this point. You live, you think, you engage, you struggle.. you learn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcqyel7c6Qc

>>19668061
To give a more consolidating response, remember how you are constructed down to your neurophysiology anon. People often forget that dopamine isn't the pleasure molecule, it's the anticipation molecule. This avatar is specifically evolved to be driven by an ideal or a goal. That's in us and much smarter people have exploited this knowledge way before psychology was ever introduced as a "science". In any case, you need a reference point in this loop and that is a negative feedback loop between you here as you exist within spacetime, electromagnetically and so forth.

However, you're not truly here now are you anon? Neither are you truly an individual unit of consciousness, correct? So don't worry so much and just.. enjoy life. Enjoy being alive and go out, be weird.. your kind of weird, anon. That's what it's about; bring your Will into this world and make it the way YOU want it to be. Sadly, it's not all up to you so on your way to your goal, you might have to convince others or find archetypes within you that will make others want to give up their dreams and goals to follow yours.

Then of course ask yourself.. whose goals are you following right now?

Knock, kock.

>>19667508
>You hate them all, yet without them you would have nothing.
Yes, they work for me!
>You would be nothing.
Some people are not incongruous, and I would be something within them.

>>19668070
>works
singular

>The fact that most philosophers and thinkers actively avoid mentioning him – in fear of the potential for his ideas to destabilize the society
What's your evidence of this?
It seems more likely that he's just completely irrelevant for 99% of philosophers today

>>19668277
>Theodor Adorno, who saw himself driven back at the end of his philosophical career to the -- pre-Stirnerian -- "standpoint of Left Hegelianism," once cryptically remarked that Stirner was the only one who really "let the cat out of the bag," but in no way referred to him in any of his works.

>>19660757
>Nah, she never took health benefits. That's a meme people made up to dismiss her.

Even if she did it wouldn't be a issue. From libertarian ethics she'd just be taken back what was stolen.

>>19660232
https://youtu.be/DBnENlXt-H4

>>19668235
Is this the best modern translation?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-unique-and-its-property

>>19668441
The one by Wolfi Landstreicher is supposed to be, yes.

>>19651486

>>19657158
Pretty neat take.

>>19658940
>muh tradition
Evola is the definition of spooked

>>19666085
No they arent.

>>19651387
the final boss is northrop frye
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMw1Jj8Hngg

>>19651387
Why is /lit/ obsessed with this guy?

>>19671903
He's perfect bait for edgy (safe) nu-channers to meme.

>>19651387
What is the name of this cunt again and wich book of his should I read?

>>19672414
Aldous Fuxley - The Spooky Castle

>>19672414
Max Stirner and the only book you need to read by him is The Ego and It's Own

>>19671903
He’s absolutely right
He’s mysterious
He’s memed and highly misunderstood by the non-readers

>>19672414
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-unique-and-its-property

femboy stirner

>>19659919
You are not refuting hedonism, only people who can't even practice hedonism correctly.

>>19657436
bro he was literally part of the official club of Young Hegelians

>>19672758
Is this a play on words on ego and its own?

>>19667319
>we are the puppets of the Gods
The metaphysical does not exist.

>Do you mean to say that free will is an illusion? You say free will has been refuted
In no parts of my posts did I mention free will. I mentioned ego/consciousness which are separate constructs.

But regarding free will. The concept of free will supposes that we are like characters in a videogame who despite circumstances, biological predisposition, memory, experience, imperfect information availability, etc; are guided by some higher force that decides to make moral decisions from a completely separate position from reality.

It is simply an absurd concept. To say that free will is an illusion would be an insult to the concept of illusions which are at worst misunderstandings of some deeper truth which generates the misunderstanding.

And before you respond try not to also make the amateur mistake of confusing the concept of free will with predetermination either. The future is unwritten and humans make choices based on their own understanding of the contingencies of their environment. But in the process of making decisions free will is simply not necessary in the equation. If making decisions was an equation like A + B + 0 = C. Free will would be the unnecessary 0. It contributes nothing to the process.

>>19672846
Read the first couple of paragraphs of the link.
>Tucker funded the project (and published the result). He insisted on the use of “ego” in the title, even though it is not at all an accurate translation of “Einzige.”

>>19660999
>we dont have the posession of consciousness, we are consciousness.
>Water does not possess wetness, water IS wetness

*yawn* yet another child throwing around words that they don't comprehend.

>>19660514
Already detailed here

>>19660619
>That last paragraph is bad.
I must retract my earlier apology. I see now that you are incorrect and that last paragraph was in fact entirely necessary to pre-address the people deifying consciousness in this thread.

>>19660671
>Reading [obscure lunatic] shows us that there's really only two religions
There are not, and such dichotomous thinking is rather childish and simplistic.

>ones that assert that consciousness erupts from matter
Correct.

>and another that asserts that all things erupt from consciousness
Incorrect.

>Once people understand that {insane ramblings about Jesus}, gave us the scientific method and a way out of old paradigms.
Ironically you are somewhat correct. The scientific method was only made possible by mankind viewing itself as above nature because of their supposedly divine inheritance. This led men to dare to study the natural world in an attempt to get closer to understanding "gods" works. The deepest irony of all is that not only did they succeed but science itself destroyed the old paradigms that held that there were such fanciful things as god, meaning, purpose consciousness (as understood by laymen), and the metaphysical.

>>19672929
"The metaphysical does not exist" is itself a metaphysical assertion.

>>19672934
Got it, thanks

>>19672929
>If making decisions was an equation like A + B + 0 = C
Some feller tried to map out human consciousness like this and ended up making a computer.
Last I checked I ain't no god damn computer.

Can the materialists please leave. You actually have to buy into these basic bitch takes for them to make sense. If you disagree with the premise, the whole argument is completely nonsensical.