/lit/ - Literature

Fear of unhappiness can be a spook.

>>4324238
Epicureanism doesn't fear unhappiness though, that would be counter-productive. It's just optimised self-enjoyment.

>>4324238
Did he fuckz that pig?

>>4324244
Like you wouldn't.

What does Stirner add to Epicurus?
What is the difference between ataraxia and being free of spooks?

i'd be too wild if i went full stirnerite. i need to keep my job.

>>4324275
Kånkelfajv

>>4324287
I'd rather say Stirner clears all the spooks away and Epicurus functions as sort of a lifestyle coach in that spook vacuum. Epicureanism offers a nice arrangement of life that doesn't require ideology. I think they complement each other nicely. What they both essentially do is attack superstition. But ataraxia basically is established freedom of spooks (in addition to freedom of physical needs).

>>4324289
Wouldn't it be in your interest to keep your job? Of so, how would Stirner's philosophy be in contradiction with it?

Jun Tsuji, later Ryūkitsu Mizushima (辻 潤 Tsuji Jun?, October 4, 1884 – November 24, 1944) was a Japanese author: a poet, essayist, playwright, and translator. He has also been described as a Dadaist, nihilist, epicurean, shakuhachi musician, actor, feminist, and bohemian.

>>4324287

A lot of theory you can spout to be an annoying prick.

>>4324321
>Jun Tsuji, later Ryūkitsu Mizushima (辻 潤 Tsuji Jun?, October 4, 1884 – November 24, 1944) was a homeless alcoholic.

>>4324347
Yes, he wasn't very good at the whole Epicureanist part.

Lucretius, an Epicurean, was all about getting rid of spooks. His whole poem is devoted to getting rid of the idea of life after death, organized religion, and divine intervention. However, some of his physical theory is crazy.
>Laminas are beams of thought that bring things to mind.

>>4324376
Das it mane. I still have to read Lucretius myself, would you consider it worth reading for the (translated) poetry of it as well or is it merely the ideas that are interesting?

Another important thing I think Stirner and Epicurus share is this realistic concept of friendship and affection that is ultimately rooted in the self instead of some lofty, selfless endeavour. And of course their brushing off of all kinds of things that are supposed to be their concern. Epicurus then retreated into a voluntarily communal life with like-minded people who shared goals and didn't care for concerning themselves one way or the other with the authorities where it wasn't a necessity. Sounds pretty Union of Egoists.

>>4324312
>Wouldn't it be in your interest to keep your job? Of so, how would Stirner's philosophy be in contradiction with it?

I have no idea if it would be in my interest to keep my job. It might turn out that getting fired would be in my interest. But from what I could tell, it would probably be in my interest not to get fired. However, in order to keep my job I'd have to participate in a number of disingenuous behaviors: feigned interest, customer service, small talk, etc. These may not contradict Stirner, but that's 40 hours a week of disingenuous behavior. At that point, what's the point of being a Stirnerite? I'm still shackled.

>>4324416
Well, if you were holding on to your job out of concern for the greater good or giving back to society or something like that, Stirner would probably tell you to get over your superstitions. Which doesn't seem to be the case.

You just seem to have conflicting desires. You're not shackled by anything but your own choice, really. The behaviour you mention wouldn't be something contradictive to Stirner's thought. The man himself lived by borrowing money without any intention of paying it back in his later years. There's no mandatory outward integrity that comes with his thought. There's nothing in Stirner's work that would intrinsically speak for or against your behaviour. Stirner is all for self-enjoyment, but doesn't really talk much about how to bring it about. That's where Epicurus comes in handy.

Epicurus would say here that the way you seem to live your life isn't in your best interest, because duplicity works at the expense of the one engaging in the deceiving. By putting up an act, by simulating behaviour, you create a situation where you put yourself under a lot of stress. Feigning always saps a lot of energy out of you and in addition to that there's the possibility of being found out. That's why Epicurus would generally advice against deception simply because it fucks with your peace of mind. Which in turn could lead to the question why you're doing the work you do and if there isn't an alternative that doesn't take such a toll on your enjoyment of life. What ties you to this job?

>>4324414
Yeah, I like that bit about the friendship. Even though it is more of a self-interested reason, Epicurus seems to value friendship more than any other philosopher. Here's two quotes from Principal Doctrines

>27. Of all the means which are procured by wisdom to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends.

>28. The same conviction which inspires confidence that nothing we have to fear is eternal or even of long duration, also enables us to see that even in our limited conditions of life nothing enhances our security so much as friendship.

That just makes me happy.

>>4324476
Supposedly he was also an extremely nice and inclusive guy to the point where his rivals, even in the extremely competitive atmosphere of the Greek philosophy scene, didn't feel quite right talking shit about him.

As far as embodying one's philosophy goes he's probably one of the best examples.

>>4324336
That's not even true. Stirner adds almost nothing you can 'spout'.

>>4324516
Hey, I've got a question. I'm learning Latin, and I want to read some Epicurean works in Latin. Besides De Rerum Natura by Lucretius, are there any good writings in Latin?

Because I'm a Stirnerist Cynic which is better.

>>4324629
Do you actually enjoy homelessness?

>>4324629
Cynics aren't as good as Epicureans, because there's no way you can actually embody the cynic philosophy. Plus Epicureans have more realistic goals.

>>4324679
Cynicism is nothing but an embodied philosophy, it's not a way of the mind it has no abstract principles, to be a cynic you have to live it or else you're a stoic which is a "civilized cynic"

>tfw a complex blend of stirner, camus and epicurus
>tfw it's deja-vu

>>4324679
Well you can go Diogenes mode and be a hilariously annoying bum, but if you don't have the whole ideal of living according to a (quite arbitrary) conception of nature as a holy calling, being a true Cynic probably isn't a very fruitful endeavour these days.

>>4324717
What's Berty for?

>>4324629
>back to nature guys
>has e-reader

Lucretius presents Epicurus' chief achievement as the defeat of religio. Although this Latin word is correctly translated into English as ‘religion’, its literal meaning is ‘binding down’, and it therefore serves Lucretius as a term, not for all attitudes of reverence towards the divine, but for those which cow people's spirits, rather than, as he thinks such attitudes should, elevate them to a joyful state of tranquility.

Lucretius invented the concept of spooks.

Who should I read for ataraxia and epicureanism? I'm very interested from your posts

>>4324723
That picture isn't vaporware...

its nice to see my images making the rounds in the unending stirner circlejerk but im not an epicurean for a couple of reasons, mainly my teenage hormones and weird/ ultimately oppressing delusions. pretty sure im addicted to acting and thinking like an edgy little pussy and i don't really want to be happy, the idea of being tranquil and friendly fills me with anxiety for some reason.... i think im far too obsessed with image to be an epicurean. this fact really makes itself clear considering i truly have absolutely no interest in doing anything the epicurean life would have me not doing, if i did that'd be one thing but i dont, yet i still indulge in pointless fantasizing about these things and lie to myself constantly in relation to them. but i'd like to be one.

i should probably see a therapist.

Can someone explain to me what Stirnerist Epicurean philosophy is?

>>4324910
Read On the Nature of Things (De Rerum Natura) by Lucretius for the most complete work of Epicureanism. Additionally, The Essential Epicurus, compiled by Eugene O'Connor, has good stuff.

For a quick introduction:
http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Epicurus.html

This is De Rerum Natura. This particular translation I found to be kind of dense, but it's free and you might like it.
http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.html

>>4324935
self-image is a spook and religio, a binding down. Philosophize and reach for tranquility.

>>4324943
The self defines its own reality. Society is what goes through you and what you make of it. Maximize the pleasure of your interaction with society and life by being aware that everything is within the reach of your outlook. Moderate the enjoyment in your life and make it one that allows for you to grow, not self-destruct, as you are the vehicle through which life is lived and you will become more powerful as a result.

This is at least what I see of it. Thoughts?

>>4324943
stirner is 'nihilist egoism' i.e. the despooking (removal of fixed ideas like morality, all 'shoulds and should nots', etc.) of the individual for the individual, epicurus is 'rational hedonism' lets achieve inner peace and be nice people, make friends, want less and reach contentment
read ego and his own and then epicurus' pricipal doctrines and vatican sayings
>>4324962
ill see what i can do. gonna try to lay 'zeta' down for good as that's clearly a big part of it

>>4325000
Try everything you can do. Plus, nice trips.

>>4324476
And it makes me so fucking depressed, I don't really have friends

>>4324935
>>4325000
Stirner actually dulled my edges by making me see how ridiculous being edgy for edge's sake is. You can make it brah, even if you post in triple nils.

>>4325074
Make some friends then m8.

Also, found an article on Stirner/Epicurs combo but haven't read it yet:

http://th-rough.eu/writers/campagna-eng/garden-egoists-short-introduction-epicurus-and-stirner

I like the Garden of Egoists phrase though.

>>4324935
>>4325000
Stirner actually dulled my edges by making me see how ridiculous being edgy for edge's sake is. You can make it brah, even if you post in triple nils.

>>4325074
Make some friends then m8.

For a proper into for the uninitiated:

http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/epicurus-principles
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/epicurus-ethics
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/epicurus-gods-death
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/lucretius
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/warren-epicurus

>>4325000
>not keeping zeta and transforming him into a happy and well rounded person

>>4325437
no anon, its ok, really.. zeta's accepted its fate. i'll still be around, always watching and typing without capital letters

Zeta you are cool, keep on keeping on.

I like some of Epicureanism, but it seems a bit...beta

Where is the Nietzschean affirmation of life? The desire to improve yourself and be great or create something great?

Idk, I feel its missing something

>>4326151
Why do you want to be great? Do you think it will make you happy?

>>4326186
arete bro, its its own reward

>>4326151
Do it.

If you "fail" by someone's standards, meh.
I feel the how-to-live parts of epicureanism are almost as open as the atomist/proto-scientific parts. People ITT are filling the gaps they see with Stirner. Go right ahead and strive for "greatness" just remember not to get hurt if you fail, or succeed.

>>4326151
epicureanism is rational hedonism, if you don't desire the most pleasant life and instead desire something else (like greatness) it isn't for you.

>>4326151
Greatness, like failure is a spook. Success can make you arrogant and make failure follow, failure can be a fountain of wisdom, that improves your person greatly.

Also both are outside your control and ultimately depends on illusions upheld by strangers to your inner workings around you.

>>4326317

>>4326199
Please share you're experiences.

Perhaps it's completely a character thing, but striving for greatness doesn't make me happy at all. I'd rather be that jovial cunt in the meadow with a cup of wine.

>>4326595
>you're experiences.
Going to leave this as it is to practice unrustlement.

Because I'm a Spinozist Stoic.

>>4326309
What if my conception of pleasantness is not static, peaceful, but dynamic and agonistic?

This really comes down to Epicurus' view on static vs dynamic pleasures. He denied that dynamic pleasures were valuable, I disagree with him of course.

>>4326595
Ever played a sport? Had that rush of outdoing yourself and others?

If you haven't experienced it, its hard to make any sort of argument. This is basically a qualia comparison thing anyways.

I'd say it was the reason Camus preferred soccer over literature though.

>>4326317

But there's no need to also denounce the thirst for struggle, quest, strength, victory along with it.

>>4326317
>Greatness, like failure, is a spook. Success can make you arrogant and make failure follow. Failure can be a fountain of wisdom that improves your person greatly.

Well the important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel superior to both.

>>4328475
>What if my conception of pleasantness is not static, peaceful, but dynamic and agonistic?
>This really comes down to Epicurus' view on static vs dynamic pleasures. He denied that dynamic pleasures were valuable, I disagree with him of course.
Epicurus didn't deny dynamic pleasures, he just considered them as providing a bit of variety in a life of stable happiness but ultimately not being very important. Sort of like bonuses that you can take or leave. It's not like an Epicurean wouldn't be up for a swim or a game of soccer. He'd just recognise how silly and fruitless devoting your life to becoming the best soccer player is. The core of happiness lies in a cultivated attitude and long term good habits. He seems to have research on his side in this one.

>Ever played a sport? Had that rush of outdoing yourself and others?
Yes, but ultimately I didn't find it worth it. I enjoy play more than strife and consider it to have more worth. It's more spontaneous than organised struggle, which mostly seems to be a part of a neurotic worldview/lifestyle.

As for your picture, it comes across as just another form of otherworldiness. Struggle and suffer now you will be rewarded sometime somewhere. Seems like more trickery than the suggestion to take it easy and enjoy the present. I prefer Pan to Heraclitus, who rather than struggling to get into the pantheon took it easy in the fields away from Olympus. Heroicism is the sure sign of a lack of divinity.

>>4328552
I don't completely disagree with Epicurus, but I think that finding something to be passionate about and constantly pushing yourself to get better and better at it is definitely something which contributes to eudaimonia - and this is something the Greeks believed. I'm not sure if there is research on this, but it just makes sense intuitively to me. I see Epicurus' neglect of the power of dynamic pleasures to improve Eudaimonia as the only real issue with the philosophy, that and his neglect of sexuality.

> I enjoy play more than strife and consider it to have more worth.

I don't see play and strife as two different things, the best game is contains elements of both.

>As for your picture, it comes across as just another form of otherworldiness. Struggle and suffer now you will be rewarded sometime somewhere. Seems like more trickery than the suggestion to take it easy and enjoy the present.

I would argue that Hercules enjoyed his 12 labors. He enjoyed them more than he would have enjoyed the path of Kakia. He enjoyed it because he was able to exercise his Will to Power to the highest point, he enjoyed the thrill of combat and overcoming his obstacles.

All in all, I think we need a balance between Ataraxia like contentment/static pleasures and Agonistic dynamism for full Eudaimonia. Just sitting around in a garden eating bred and water and talking with friends sounds good, but that's not all that life has to offer.

>>4328684
I think the most important aspect lies in the motivation here. It's mostly a misguided sense of duty and plight that sends people into misery. That and a misunderstanding as how to satisfy their desires.

Epicurus did have such a thing that he was very passionate about himself of course, and that was his philosophy. He was a tremendously prolific author and liked nothing more than to write and discuss. But he considered philosophy an essential component of the happy life. I would think he'd judge other activities in the same way and that he wouldn't discourage a passionate gardener or something. But there is a turning point where the passion becomes obsession and takes on a life of it's own and becomes detrimental to the person. Where the person starts serving this singular desire and sacrifices the rest to it.

This is, I think, where Epicurus and Stirner work well together. It's the constant evaluation if an activity serves you or if you serve the activity. People easily fall into the latter, which brings nothing but delusion and misery. I think a lot of the 'greats' fall under this category, because we judge their greatness by one aspect of their life. If you would look for a generally great person in them, you generally won't find one. You find an unbalanced, dramatic shitheap of misery and dysfunction. People obsessed with one-sided excellence are often alarmingly similar to junkies. And people plagued by a holy Ought often live lives of neurotic dissatisfaction. This is the kind of mentality I thought of when I mentioned strife rather than play.

But if you take your more positive definition of it as an enjoyable activity than involves some level of struggle with resistance, a delight in this activity itself instead of being guided by external motivation, which ultimately isn't damaging to the person in question, then I would think that this wouldn't provide a conflict with Epicurean philosophy at all. After all, ataraxia isn't a deliberately sitting still, but a balanced contentment in your daily endeavours.

>>4324588
Not sure about Epicurean works, but because of the season there are some free ebooks and apps you can get on romansgohome.com/free. The Hercules one is really good.

>>4328771
Epicurus advocated chastity or promiscuous sex. Marriage and persistent sexual relationships were sources of pain, as he saw it. So, a man who cannot be chaste must only engage in casual sex, purely to fulfill physical urges, rather than an emotionally committed relationship.

I'm not an Epicurean, by the way. It's always seemed to me that the desire for truth outweighs the desire for any kind of pleasure, ascetic or otherwise.

>>4331254
>It's always seemed to me that the desire for truth outweighs the desire for any kind of pleasure
I love truth. Truth brings me happiness.
A certain amount of subterfuge may be necessary in life, but truth is usually the best policy.

Pic/thread >>4326961

>>4331266
>I love truth.

What truth?
The unfindable or the pedagogic?

>>4331254
>>4331266
What's this truth thing you're so passionate about?

>>4331642
Facts. Not sure how something unfindable can have truth attached to it, so I guess pedagogic.

>>4331943
The tangible or future tangibles of the world. Self evident. In a scientific sense.

>>4332075
So facts being facts bring you happiness regardless of what they are? Sounds spooky.

>>4332085
I guess I was generalizing and not thinking of all the nasty facts of the world. Optimism blinded me!

>>4332098
Optimism is a notorious enemy of ataraxia.

>>4332102
I think its a key component. Though one shouldn't replace truth/facts with a mere hope. Its good to stay positive.
I hope for a brighter future for mankind, but I am in no way under the delusion that this is sure thing. It bothers me, and I want to do more to fix the current situation as best I can. Pessimism is a bigger enemy of ataraxia.

>>4332122
>under the delusion that this is A sure thing
I keep dropping the "a" this morning.

Anyway. As in taoism. Find the most agreeable balance.

>>4325400
But we are initiated, aren't we Bruce?

>>4332122
Having hope is basing part of your happiness on hypothetical future events, which is quite an unstable foundation. Only the present and your memories belong to you. The future is mere speculation. Not something to place your bets on from an Epicurean perspective. As he said:

"Don't spoil what you have by desiring what you don't have; but remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for."

Ultimately it's better to do away with both pessimism and optimism if you want peace of mind of course. And getting too involved in politics and the faith of the mankind is a sure way to end up miserable either way.

>>4332133
Those guys were mostly about a total disregard for speculation and keeping as far away from courts and politics as they could.

>>4328504

Superiority is a spook, too.

>>4332156
I live for the day, but I plan for the future, I have no unrealistic standards of it anymore though (this made for the darkest periods in my life) Still, sitting by and not doing anything to improve the world is a sure fire way to end up with a shitty world. The lesson I take from Candide and the revolutionary age that followed.

>>4332133

>the most agreeable balance

wouldn't that rather be aristoteles tenet of the middle

>>4332195

I would say that if everyone stuck to pursuing their own objectives and stayed out other's business barring to cooperate, the world would be a better place.

>>4332195
So what are you going to do for the world, eh?

stirner takes the self for granted

also, attaching "ist" or "ism" to the end of a name is "spooky" (for lack of a better word off the top of my head). all these people are random bros who wrote down their thoughts. the patina of truth that accretes with publication and time needs to be chipped and buffed away. one need not import wholesale.

the second problem i have is that the attitude of calling oneself a "stirnerist" is like "this is my horse in the race, it is faster than your horse." catchphrases you use to trade against others and the world at large. this is ultimately making ideas servile to your emotional being. i on the other hand take my body and mind as in a state of disintegration until death. not only do i view my "self" as constituted by and atomizable into impersonal ideas, but also that ideas outlast and supercede me. i endeavor to sublimate my being into total abstraction.

COME AT ME MARXISTS
COME AT ME DERRIDA DECONSTRUCTIONISTS

>/lit/ loves Stirner
>/lit/ hates Ayn Rand

?

>>4332294
The funny thing is they like Stirner for the same reason they hate Rand.

It's ridiculous. If only Rand was more obscure...

>>4332320
I'm pretty sure it's a troll because he's fucking terrible

>>4332294
>rand

Stirner did not prescribe what was and was not in a person's self-interest. He did not say you should act in certain ways because he preferred it, he did not redefine selfishness to allow most of bourgeois morality to remain intact. Rather he urged the individual to think for themselves and seek their own path.

>>4332331
I think he's just the fad of the year.

I remember a thread a while back where someone had combed the archives and found that there were only 10 or so threads about Stirner in the entire year of 2011, but now there's one every day or every other day.

It'll die out once /lit/ finds some other mega-super-obscure dude to wank over.

>>4332340
>Rather he urged the individual to think for themselves and seek their own path.

So did Rand.

>>4332294
there are huge gaps between them, and you're a pleb for not already knowing. stirner does not have pretenses to "objectivity" (in the randian sense of the word), nor did he endorse free-market capitalism as the proper social expression of his philosophy

>>4332347
Nobody said they are the exact same, retard. Obviously, there are differences. But, obviously, there are many similarities.

The bile had for Rand, here, is always justified in ways that are totally applicable to Stirner.

And while Stirner never "endorses" free-market capitalism, it inherently follows from his philosophy. There is no other economic policy out there that meshes so well with Stirner, and it doesn't actually matter if he outright says it or not.

>>4324220
>Stirnerist Epicurean
Because I am my own person.

>>4332290
Stirnerism is merely a descriptive term for a certain way of thought influenced by St. Max, not an ideology that one ought to adhere to.

>>4332294
>>4332320
>>4332331
Rand was an idealist babbling on about capitalism and rights and individualism. Stirner is completely different.

>>4332343
No, Rand did it in a way that also said 'but it should be done this way which is right and the best and muh objectivism and rights and laws and muh holy this and that.

>>4332331
Hasn't read him.

>>4332362
>The bile had for Rand, here, is always justified in ways that are totally applicable to Stirner.
No, it's a completely different way of thinking.

>And while Stirner never "endorses" free-market capitalism, it inherently follows from his philosophy. There is no other economic policy out there that meshes so well with Stirner, and it doesn't actually matter if he outright says it or not.
Stirner's thought is completely compatible with every economic model, just not any ideology.

>>4332362

>And while Stirner never "endorses" free-market capitalism, it inherently follows from his philosophy. There is no other economic policy out there that meshes so well with Stirner, and it doesn't actually matter if he outright says it or not.

Are you kidding me? If anything Stirner's thought is capitalism's anathema. He completely destroys any reason for property rights.

>>4332502
>thinks economic models aren't ideological
you've been spooked

>>4332523
Economic models in the descriptive sense.

>>4332502
Human beings can only survive through certain means, their minds only work through certain ways, and man has a certain nature. You can reject that anything can have value, you can reject epistemology (or just have nihilistic epistemology), you can reject that one should live for ones self, and you can reject plenty of other things, but if you're not rejecting the idea that you should live for your own benefit, rejecting the idea that you should act in a certain way to benefit yourself doesn't have much standing (providing you'r not also rejecting the epistemological things I mentioned earlier or you hold some crazy subjectivist metaphysics). Self interest being valid is the "is" that forms the "ought" of certain virtues and actions to achieve it (as again, man requires certain things to survive and these things can only be achieved through certain actions.)

I suppose you could try to divorce the concept of physical health from psychological health and just discard one, but the reasons why that is hilariously bad planning are pretty obvious. Given, I'm speaking of actually accepting self-interest as being neato, and just not total subjectivist ethics that regard egoism and altruism as being equally acceptable/pointless.

>>4332502
>no, stirner isn't like rand. they're different.

Excellent rebuttal.

>>4332524
You can't apply any action to any set of facts without conjuring up a spooky ought that is your recommended series of actions needed to be taken. Visionary thinking is required for doing anything and perfectly human no matter if Stirner loathes them when they crystallize in government action or ideology.

Stirner was a fag.

>>4332523
Technically a proper economic study shouldn't be ideological unless your just speaking of basic philosophy regarding whether or not we can know things and how we can know it. It should just be a study of market interactions, what forms them, how they function with all other things being equal, and other qualitative understandings of human exchange. From there you could definitely infer proper political action from the data by whatever standard you wish, but the study its self is apolitical.

Now, are there economic schools that seem like they're a bit more built around justifying certain actions or seem like they take a long of things for granted? Yes. However, the study its self if done proper is apolitical. Unless your judging data by how well its ethical conclusions work (which is decent for checking to make sure your not doing something batshit, but is a backwards way of evaluating data), you want to treat economics as just being an attempt to understand the world and then build your beliefs off that.

Wouldn't be too quick on that though. Economics is a moderately heavy subject with a lot of disagreement on some very fundamental levels. Need to get a good grounding in it before you can really evaluate much.

>>4332557
I'm going to be honest, I know jack shit about Stirner other than what I read on wikipedia and really fucking skimmed, but I'm not sure if what you just said in the middle made any sense.

>>4332548
There was nothing to rebute since there were no arguments made. That would require having read Stirner.

>>4332557
>planning is a spook hehe
Read Stirner. You faggots outright refuse to familiarize yourself with anything you attempt to criticise.

>>4332623
So, am I understanding this right that Stirner refers to as a "spook" the ideas that we create to understand the world and guide our action, with the word spook also implying that these things are unreal in nature? Sort of a complaint against synthetic truths? Perhaps suggesting that these things prevent us from properly perceiving reality?

Or is it closer to a Nietzsche type thing where he is just referring to ideas subconsciously absorbed from society and other sources of prejudice that prevent us from functioning properly/as we wish/as our true selves? Would the confines of Nietzsche conception of slave morality (if I remember correctly) be sort of similar to what Stirner refers to as spooks? From what I'm reading I'm leaning more towards the latter, I just don't have access to any of his actual works at this moment and was hoping for some clarification.

>>4331943

Conclusions deduced from sound premises.

>>4332502
>Stirnerism is merely a descriptive term for a certain way of thought influenced by St. Max, not an ideology that one ought to adhere to.
Humanity is a descriptive term for the collective human species, but even max noted in the ego and its own this can be a controlling factor. I would not use such terms as the line of being controlled and the controller becomes blurred (though at this point, I've accepted myself being spooked, so whatever).

>>4332218
Lovely if brief notion of a hermit

>>4332242
Classified. Lovely developments in the Ukraine, Seattle and Switzerland, are making me quite happy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rhpp9SpK2Y

>>4332200
Is it? Fine with me. I'll look into it.

I'm not doctrinaire epicurean. These aren't religions obviously. A world filled with strict Epicurus epicureans wouldn't do a heck of a lot. Wouldn't be all bad either but...

>>4333150
Switzerland is the income thing probably, what are the other two?

>>4332673
Technically all concepts are 'spooks', but it's one's relation to the concept that is deciding. Stirner is not against conceptual thought. Whether one owns one's ideas and uses them for his interests or is ruled by them is what makes the difference.

The slave/master morality thing is a whole other matter and both slave and master morality are superstition according to Stirner. Morality itself is a 'fixed idea' and therefore to be dismissed by Max.

>>4333150
>waking up with excitement
>fighting the embrace of morpheus
>wisdom
Parents have a way to get on your nerves that is just special.

>>4332673
>From what I'm reading I'm leaning more towards the latter, I just don't have access to any of his actual works at this moment and was hoping for some clarification.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580
http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/GeneologyofMorals.pdf

This is the internet, friend.

>>4333612
The moment they spawn kids everything will turn into sophisms to justify their choice. Ever notice how parents tend to dwell in a sort of tired, vapid unjustified optimism? That's because otherwise they have put their children into a bad world. That's the same reason they interpret little Jimmy's behaviour as just precious. They can't even consider the notion that they have a shitty kid. Everything that sows doubt regarding the children matter is decidedly off limits. And if you don't have children after a certain age, they will hold it against you and will try to dismiss your life as empty and without meaning. Breeders are strange beings.

>>4333563
Ah. Seattle elected the first Socialist the nation has has seen in decades, and the Ukraine is revolting against their Kremlin bought govt. for a sort of Orange revolution part 2.

>>4333737
That guy looks like a bro.

>>4333759
He's a reigning heavyweight champion boxer AND a member of the Ukrainian parliament.

I still hold out hope that Yulia will be released and win the presidency. Vitali can be Prime minister for a while

Ok, this Stirner meme is done. Let's pick a new obscure philosopher now. I say we go to Russia for this one:

>Pavel Florensky
>Sergei Bulgakov
>African Spir
>Vladimir Solovyov

Who will be the next /lit/ idol?

>>4333867
It doesn't work like that.

Epicurus is the new flavour for now, this thread is the transition.

Anyone else trying to get dat ataraxia?

>>4333867

Solovyov

>"As long as the dark foundation of our nature, grim in its all-encompassing egoism, mad in its drive to make that egoism into reality, to devour everything and to define everything by itself, as long as that foundation is visible, as long as this truly original sin exists within us, we have no business here and there is no logical answer to our existence. Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do. And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure."

>>4333897
Not just a cure though.. they need an epic cure.

>>4333877
>Anyone else trying to get dat ataraxia?
Through the pleasant exertion of picking up some grub from the market and listening to some tunes (that AREN'T Christmas)

>>4333867

I say /lit/ goes on a hermeticism kick now.

let's get started here: http://gnosis.org/library/hermet.htm

>>4333913
>tfw ataraxia through meticulous flossing and nothing besides in the flossing moment

pls censor the non-believers

>>4333953
I'm not sure what you're saying.

alright im bored with epicureanism gonna keep moving along now

>>4333913
whats your phone number?

>>4333981
You will keep searching like a hungry skellington because you're not trying to remove your boredom but keep feeding it. It will only grow in need of greater stimuli. You'd be better of learning to be content in doing fuck all. Once you manage that 99% of your problems will disappear.

>>4333970
I suspect hes referring to pure attention to the moment. Flossing, in that case.

>>4333970
>>4334033
That's it. Nothing wrong with a bit of theft from the orient.

>>4334044
Theft? No theft. The moment belongs to us all.

>>4334048
That cunt at the zen center said it was 20 bucks for an hour.

>>4333981
where are you heading friend?
I'm kind of getting tired of this bread and water thing too

>>4334022
i dont want my problems to disappear, or my boredom. the dogma of epicurean hedonism just always reveals itself as far too oppressive to me and denying 'what's best' its spooky power is just too sweet. i'll keep a couple epicurean tricks in my back pocket when i've got nothing to do
>>4334084
doing what i want to, indifferent to 'truth' and garnering as much freedom and enthusiasm as i can

i dont really want your phone number btw Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

>>4334044
I meant "censoring the non-believers"

>>4333981
Boredom, as they say, is self inflicted. I believe you said something about your feeling like you need more exertion or something. Channel your energies into doing something. Still in school? If not, learn a trade or get a hobby that interests you. I chose reading, for the time being. Before that I was finding all sorts of music, but most of my life's spare time was spent drawing.
>What's your phone number
boards.4chan.org/lit/

>>4334084
Enjoy any beverage you like, just nothing in excess is advised. I've mostly given up soda, and rarely ever drink any alcoholics. As for bread, I heard something about mono-culture making our wheat unhealthy. I don't know what's healthy to eat anymore.

>>4334161
>implying you wouldnt let Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ fuck you with a strap on

>>4334192
Is Zeta a girl?

>>4334161
I see. Someone's already cracked your code.

>>4334187
i appreciate the tips but i've got something else in mind
>>4334192
she fingered me one time to the peacocks international band but strap ons have never really been my style

>>4334161
>keeping artificial problems and boredom around for recreational purposes
Sounds like a bummer, man. Epicurus' teachings don't have to be followed orthodoxly or something though for them to be worthwhile. It just provides a great practical base for living in general when you fine tune it to contemporary circumstances. And it's really one of the greatest methods to achieve 'ownness' in the Maximilian sense:

>But is sensuality then the whole of my ownness? Am I in my own senses when I am given up to sensuality? Do I follow myself, my own determination, when I follow that? I am my own only when I am master of myself, instead of being mastered either by sensuality or by anything else (God, man, authority, law, State, Church, etc.); what is of use to me, this self-owned or self-appertaining one, my selfishness pursues.

>doing what i want to, indifferent to 'truth' and garnering as much freedom and enthusiasm as i can
How do you garner freedom? And freedom from what?

>>4334187
>I meant "censoring the non-believers"
Just something you should have casually complied with without further elaboration as to heighten the already great persecution complex of your subjects. Now it's all ruined.

>I chose reading, for the time being.
Sounds kinda NEET.

>Enjoy any beverage you like, just nothing in excess is advised. I've mostly given up soda, and rarely ever drink any alcoholics. As for bread, I heard something about mono-culture making our wheat unhealthy. I don't know what's healthy to eat anymore.
I think the rule of thumb is that it's okay to enjoy as long as it doesn't lead to suffering. This includes future suffering in the absence of what is presently enjoyed. So don't drink fancy cognac if it makes you regret not having fancy cognac next week if you can't afford to drink it at all times, or something like that.

As for health, you'd best look towards diets and lifestyles of populations who have actually been successfully healthy for a long time. Like that blue zones stuff. Most of them lean quite towards de facto Epicureanism, by the way.

>>4334197
>catherine
>not the loveliest of girls

sarah pls

>>4334224
Robbing banks is not a good life choice

>>4334265
>All ruined
:p
>NEET
I work.

>>4334270
I'm not Sarah.

>>4334197
no, but I am a sub

so how about it girl?

>>4334265
yeah yeah
im attracted to romantic and vague images of living, sometimes i get in a mood and daydream with such enthusiasm..i get really into it
like i said, therapist, whatever
if i get out of hand again...you know what to do

dropping trip one more time also i'm not a girl sarah

>>4334312
>>4334294
I'm not a Sarah.
Not interested in males or BDSM

/craigslist

Epicureanism and Stirner really are a beautiful combination

>Some men spend their whole life furnishing for themselves the things proper to life without realizing that at our birth each of us was poured a mortal brew to drink.

>>4335453
high arts, that one.

"I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!"
- Nietzsche

>not being a Stoic like Thoreau

>>4333934
Pearls before swine

>>4336436
We're way beyond Stoicism here

>>4336561
b-but it's stoic week

>>4335549
What book is that quote from?

>>4336781
Nachlass

>>4333607
Mkay, I think that gives a better grasp of what Stirner is expressing. Thank you.

>>4333620
>http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/GeneologyofMorals.pdf

Awww, somebody sharing helpful links and not just quantifying how much cock I gobble. It really is the holiday season!