/lit/ - Literature

http://universaldonor.livejournal.com/2271.html

>>2176888
You overcome rezaunt'mon by making a subtle shift in your reaction to reading. I have this problem too:
If I read something good, instead of feeling enlightened, I just feel jealous and pissed off, and that I will never be that good. Of course, jealousy and being pissed off can give you impetus to improve, but there is a very thin line between impetus to improve and impetus to just give up.

So don't get jealous, [being jealous is probably the hardest thing to admit, too] get even.

That's my problem, anyway.
Either that, or I am talking out my ass.

>>2176897
be more sure of yourself when you make a point- you know if you're talking out of your ass or not, don't pussy out and say "i may be talking out of my ass" because people may disagree with your opinion.

know what you believe and say it with confidence.

>>2176895

that's the biggest load of naive bullshit i've read all day.

>>2176897

So the only solution can come from self will alone?

>>2176916
sup earnest?

One overcomes resentment by embracing master morality instead of slave morality.

>>2176916
sup ernest?

By loving fate.

>>2176923
>that's the biggest load of naive bullshit i've read all day.
what exactly do you find naive about it? i think there's a lot of truth in the following:
"The world is not full of good things, or bad things -- it's just full of things.* Your response is everything, and it is one of the few things in life you have the REMOTEST chance of controlling."

>>2176930
You rid yourself of one phantom only to replace it with another.

>>2176964
mainly the stuf about how every person who causes suffering does so because they are suffering.

It's a noble thought but ultimately sometimes even though we hear the whole story of the enemy, they need to remain our enemy. Some people feel at their best when they are inflicting suffering, and they cannot be said to be mentally unwell. see (an extreme case) hitler.

Being 'spiritually centered' depends upon your perception of what a 'spirit' is, and certainly the 9/11 hijackers were pretty certain about their spiritual alignment.

Sometimes its not enough just to wish that they would suffer less and to love our enemies, sometimes you need to do something.

know your place.

actually, just accomplish something.

>>2176999
I both agree and disagree. This is one hell of a complicated topic, and slightly off-topic from OP, so I won't go into it.

So. I've decided i've had enough of these scummy hipster douchebags around where I live and the university I go to. I'm changing my fashon sense drastically. I don't want to have the same checkered shirts, the same "Trendy" hair, and I sure as hell don't want to be titled one of those massive candy-asss.

So sometime in the next months I will be returning to university, during summertimes a purple dress and high heels. During the winter i'll have the full sha-bam too. rolled-up sock breasts (Not the fag-ass tiny ones) lipstick and pantyhose.

With my height. (6ft2) and my build (Athletic, wide shouldered) I should look the part. And I'll be making a fucking change, too.

What do you think? Yes or No? or even more to add to it.

PS: This isn't no dumbass "Tophat monocle what what" this is ladyboy style. (Not zoot suits, they suck).

I also babysit kids. Pic somewhat related.

>>2176897
Holy shit. Are you me?

>>2176979

Sir, you are completely right. Forgive me. One should rid oneself of morality whatsoever.

>>2177007
onionring want do you think about slavoj zizek?

Maybe stop posting? Just a thought.

>>2177037
/lit/ would miss me too much

truman, here's how you overcome resentment.

you choose between being an alpha- an unquestioning, willful, confident, ensured person who does not question or think too deeply about what the morality of their actions.

Or, you continue to consider morality, consider to question, and consider to suffer.

Thought does not breed answers, neither does morality. It only breeds confusion.

Certainty breeds achievement. self-worth. respect.

Resentment towards what? Yourself?

It's easy being a victim, ey? Shlomo.

>>2176999
okay thanks for clarifying. i agree with your points and yes, given these points, it is naive. but in most cases, i think such exchanges of suffering do in fact conform to the pattern the writer of that entry describes.

>>2177058
yes, i think that most people (for whatever biological/evolutionary reason) have an innate sense of morality and empathy like you said; which is the reason most of us will choose to seek the owner of a wallet we find, or be traumatised by torturing someone.

but unfortunately socio/psychopathy exists and we have to accomodate for it.

>>2177033
>>2176979

...this is disappointing.
Though i would be initially happy to see other Stirner readers.. on a second look I come rue the bandwaggon's pathetic causal chain of shallow mimicry, which has culminated in your possession of the book... only for you to completely misunderstand it.

The phantoms and spirits (ideas) which poses the victim do not apply to the master, the overman, the egoist. One who embraces master morality is not possessed, there are "no wheels in his head", for each of his token actions is in a class and moral realm of its own, untouched by conscience, or ressentiment.

The egoist is the embodiment of master morality; by removing precedents and imposing his will, he has exorcised the phantoms.

You two sluts better check your facts before you misrepresent one of the greatest minds to ever live.

>>2177069

These innate senses you speak of should in no way produce ressenitment.

>>2177007
>>2177003

So then, which is it you fickle-brained woman?
know your place, or strive to change it?

>>2177277
>reading Nietzsche through Stirner

Take another look at what you said. Denying that the overman is an egoistic concept does not imply any misunderstanding of Stirner. At most it implies a misunderstanding of Nietzsche.

>>2177344
Well, that was a very clunky post. Time for bed, I think.

>>2177344

>doesn't realize two separate philosophers can have perfectly compatible systems
>hasn't read either of them

>>2177277
I've read an argument somewhere on the internet that Stirner's egoist is closer to the last man than the overman, and the main reason Nietzsche didn't mention him was because he was rather perturbed by Stirner's existence, which seems to happen to a lot of philosophers. Can't seem to remember any more, but it was interesting.

>>2177366

>I've read an argument somewhere on the internet that Stirner's egoist is closer to the last man

if you're going to say something like that... at least post some sort of argument accompanying it. I've never heard this sort of interpretation before...
stirner's egoist is the antithesis of the weak-willed last man...but i would still be interested in that argument, if you can find it.


and Nietzche never mentioned him because he probably wanted to take full credit for his ideas, though they were obviously influenced to some degree by stirner

>>2177356
I was hoping for a better reply than this. Oh well.

I hope you realize that this isn't a cut-and-dry issue at all. The relationship between Stirner and Nietzshe has been studied and discussed and plently of people have come out on both sides of the fence.

>>2177413

I don't owe you a better reply than that.
Don't be a fag with delusions of entitlement if you're going to offer no argument of your own.

wat?

>>2176888

You just make it do wat it do

>>2177423
Well, I managed to track down the article that changed my mind about Nietsche. I'll freely admit to being a lot less comfortable with my grasp of Nietzsche than Stirner, but from what I've read this seems about right.

Welsh is able to delve into the nature of Stirner’s critique of modernity by contrasting it with that of Nietzsche. The chapter devoted to this comparison and contrast is one of the strongest parts of the book. I have tended, in the past, to read Nietzsche through Stirner. In other words, I tried to interpret Nietzsche’s ideas in terms of Stirner’s project. Inevitably, I found Nietzsche to be full of contradictions. In time, as I read more and more of Nietzsche’s work, I realized that I was not reading it correctly when I read it through Stirner, but I didn’t grasp exactly where the problem lay.

continued...

>>2177434
Welsh makes it very clear that Nietzsche was, in fact, what Stirner called a “pious atheist.” Like Feuerbach, Nietzsche has no interest in eradicating the sacred by taking his world as his own; he merely wants to replace god — and the human essence — with the “overhuman” (Welsh’s accurate translation of “Übermensch”). This is still an ideal placed above you and me, a higher value to which we are to sacrifice ourselves. Thus, despite Nietzsche’s analysis of morality as a historical and social product, he remains a moralist, through and through. Whereas Stirner sees self-enjoyment as the most sensible activity of each of us, Nietzsche promotes “master morality” and asceticism in the name of the overhuman and the will to power. This is the basis of his warrior ideal. In Stirner’s perspective, each of us, in her or his uniqueness in the moment, is complete, is perfect. For Nietzsche, we are all incomplete, mere bridges to something greater than us. Thus, he sacrifices the here and now to a future and perceives us as mere means to a higher end. This is religious and moral thinking. Nietzsche was a very pious man, and his critique of modernity remained within the framework of the values of modernity, values of progress, of collective identity, of sacrifice for a greater good. Stirner, on the other hand, recognized and opposed the values of modernity in the name of each unique being in the here and now.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Wolfi_Landstreicher__Egoism_vs._Modernity__Welsh_s_Dialectical_S
tirner.html

>>2177436

I see what he's trying to do here..
He's trying to place Nietzsche within stirner's heaven building concept, the overman being a continuation of the "possessing" idea of spirit,phantom,etc.
But that's to imply that the overman is bound by it, this overman "ideal", where in reality he is completely free; his actions set precedents, he does not follow any. His will cannot bend to an idea of the "overman", he is the overman, every action is a completely free exercise of the will, which to me seems perfectly compatible with Stirner's egoist...
that's some pretty interesting stuff though.