/lit/ - Literature

>>4963499
Stirner is neither statist nor anarchist. His philosophy doesn't allow for ideology. However, a Stirnerist might very well go along with either statism or anarchism depending what he likes.

>>4963499
In a different age, he might have been a statist, but the state as it is in the modern era would make him an anarchist.

Stirner is a statist if you adhere to Rothbardian or Randian anarcho-capitalism, because he doesn't believe in the NAP. However, from a traditional anarchist perspective his philosophy is indeed a form of anarchy.

how 2 become stirner-bird

>>4963537
Nihilismus.

>>4963537
gotta get rid of your spooks

>>4963537
stop immediately accepting things as truthful just because they're in well-edited .png format

>>4963526
> Stirner is a statist if you adhere to Rothbardian or Randian anarcho-capitalism
But Capitalism requires individual property to exist and Stirner considers it a spook.

He's a statist if he has absolute control of the state. He is a statist where the state buttresses his desires. When the state obstructs his desires, he is an anarchist against establishing anarchy; Stirner does not want to enact a new society, he simply wishes to abrogate all societies and states which hinder him (which in his time and place, was all of them). When he supports states and societies, since he wrote against them, he is sort of a hypocrite (not really, because he only against them because they are opposing his self-interest), but as he explicitly said he doesn't think hypocrisy is Wrong.

Stirner is the result of an extremely degeneration of German existentialism

>>4963631
3edgy5me

>>4963641
Evola is the result of degeneration and pseudo-science of modern Human societies which were caused by religion and the new found idolization of science, with a hint of complete delusion

>>4963662
>Evola is the result of degeneration and pseudo-science of modern Human societies which were caused by religion and the new found idolization of science, with a hint of complete delusion

No he's not

try harder

>>4963665
Why?

>>4963641
>Stirner is the result of an extremely degeneration of German existentialism

No he's not

try harder

>>4963665
I see you are hiding back into no explanations and just simply dismissing things

try harder m8

>>4963652
I don't know, unless you think purpose is life is being the tool ("useful) of a deified idea or a person or people other than yourself, then it's not really crazy. To say that serving oneself is edgy, is questionable.

Stirner isn't necessarily interested in ruling as Caligula; rather, to him power and freedom are synonymous (power without freedom is an illusion; it just makes you a tool, like a gun, whose power must stem from use); according to Stirner, to be God would be ego with absolutely no obstruction.

>>4963673
>No he's not
Yes he is
try harder

>>4963665
>No he's not
Yes he is
try harder

>>4963679
So Evola Kid, please explain why evola is good?

>>4963677
Could you please explain the foundations of Stirner to me?

>>4963682
>Stirner is the result of an extremely degeneration of German existentialism
>Yes he is

Agreed

>>4963686
>So Evola Kid, please explain why evola is good?

he has to explain why evola is bad

>>4963691
Well, I'm seeking the counter-argument, because that in turn would imply the argument.

>>4963677
Can i get some recommendations for the Stirner reader?

>>4963697
>Well, I'm seeking the counter-argument, because that in turn would imply the argument.

You've made no argument just blind assertions

>>4963726
I'm not attempting to argue with you. I'd just like to know your reasoning as to why Evola is good.

>>4963686
>Could you please explain the foundations of Stirner to me?
Metaphysical nihilism. For clarity on that, see the Wiki page on absurdism and scroll down to the chart and see how it compares with existentialism and nihilism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Stirner's uses "spook" as a derogatory term for essence, and compares essentialism to believing in ghosts, the idea that essences "haunt" things or actions (gender and morality, for instance).

>>4963700
Novatore, Al-Rodhan, Nietzsche, Sade, Burroughs, Foucault. Unless you mean a work by Stirner himself, in which case pic related.

>>4963804
Thankyou!

>>4963804
Do you think Kafka, Camus and Hesse will go well along these authors?

>>4963816
sure

>>4963842
I think existentialism, nihilism and absurdism are generally complimentary even though they aren't totally reconcilable. I mean, one of my favorite works is The Second Sex, and that is surely existentialist rather than absurdist or nihilist.

feminister confirmed for least icky grill

>>4963804
>Al-Rodhan
He seems cool, any recommendations?

>>4964007

Feminister is the only good tripfag on this board.

Is modern society more or less conducive to egoism when compared to Stirner's time?

>>4963631
I usually hate you, but that was a great post.

>>4964051
You must understand the distinction between psychological egoism (everyone IS an egoist) and ethical egoism (everyone SHOULD be an egoist). Stirner believes everyone IS an egoist ("should" does not stand on its own in Stirner's eyes; you do something for a a specific end, not because you "should" do it), it's just that most believe there are monsters under their beds or ghosts that they alter their behavior in reaction to.

is stirner a rapist?

>>4964051
pls explain the signs in pic and what they relate to

>>4964074
Wouldn't that make it a rehash of that guy who basically said "it's possible that in the entirety of history no selfless act has ever been committed?"
I forget who said it, I think it was a German, certainly sounds German.

>>4964104
I too would like to know

>>4964104
The first one is the insignia and motto of the Assassins from the popular Assassin's Creed video game franchise. The last one is the insignia of Chaos United from the Warhammer 40k franchise, and a summary of their beliefs. No idea about the middle one.

>>4964104
>>4964110
1st is the Assassin symbol from Assassin's Creed and their main belief.

2nd is the symbol for the Ork faction in 40k and their mantra.

3rd is the symbol for the forces of Chaos in 40k and their way of thinking.

>>4964091
I too would like to know

>>4964074
So everyone is an egoist regardless of their belief system/standing, but their society doesn't necessarily conform to their egoism?

>>4964091
>>4964126
Only if the process of rape stems from his desires as the Unique.

>>4964091
Paying homage to the idol of Consent is pretty spooky.

Stirner is the end of philosophy.

>>4964175
So basically
>hurr durr might makes right

>>4964208
Yeah. Beautifully fucking illustrated.

>>4963676
Its Evola Kid, that's all he does.

>>4964105
Yeah, if Stirner argued that in itself; but he mostly focuses on arguing nihilism. Egoism is more of a conclusion than a premise.

>>4964130
Society conforms to egoism that believes in ghosts. So if the priests say you if you don't give all your surplus to them, God will send you to hell, then it would be egoist of you to provide surplus IF you believed that; if didn't, then you'd have no reason to provide it outside of compulsion in this reality.

>>4964175
Stirner would agree with that, but he'd also saying paying homage to lack of feeling for others is pretty spooky as well.

>>4964208
No. He says might makes right, then later explicitly says he was using that as form of speech to simplify for you; might makes what is, but doesn't make Right, nothing does; just because something Is, does not make it Right.

>>4964412
What if i just like to help people?

>>4964412
>Stirner would agree with that, but he'd also saying paying homage to lack of feeling for others is pretty spooky as well.
Sure, but not any more than the 'ought to have feelings' variety.

so, actual physical obstructions to the exercise of your will (e.g. i want to climb to the top of a mountain but i can't because it's too steep) are not spooks because they really exist, correct?

>>4964556
Correct. You just do not have enough power to climb the mountain.

He also has a great bit about things that are "possible". Basically, nothing is "possible" unless it's been done, since the mere "possibility" of something being done is only a thought, and since that thing has not been done it is not possible. "Possibility" is a spook!

>>4964449
Then help them.

does anyone still have the lower part unedited of OP pic with the 3 men (up until sun seeing dude) in its original size?

>>4964180

A poster after my own heart.

>>4964449
Then by all means do it. It's a simply a question of whether you do it for Duty or Right vs. consciously doing it purely because it makes you happy like any other pleasure.

>>4964456
Indeed, no. Stirner doesn't grade spook quality; a major point in his argument is that believing in Right is similar to believing God or ghosts.

>>4963499
>is stirner a statist?
the most anti-statist thinker ever, I would dare to claim.

>>4963641
>Stirner is the result of an extremely degeneration of German existentialism
I like how your shitty opinions are matched by ignorance about facts: German existentialism didn't even exist when Stirner wrote the Einzige.

>>4965930

>I can kill them, not torture them

Jesus fucking christ, the more I learn about him the more I love him.

>>4965930
But Duty is question of moral and by compliting Duty you just simply satisfying your egoism. Or spooks.
People do good things to know that they did good things, there is no such thing as altruism.

That has to be the most retarded quote I've ever read. I can't believe it's put forward seriously, it's just some retarded "oh, no, I love people and good stuff" that Stirner threw out.

>>4965930
Man, this quote resonates so much with me. Killing, but not torturing. That's, like, who I am, man. Profound.

>>4965983
>People do good things to know that they did good things, there is no such thing as altruism.
No, behavior that is called 'altruistic' is also the result of instinct, mirror neurons, etc., aspects of one's 'nature' which affect our behavior without recourse to normative linguistic representation (spooks).

Someone: "Stirner you're a sociopath, u don't love nobody"
Stirner: "Nah man, I got the grooves man, I feel the feels . . . but I do kill bitches, you got that shit man."
I mean who the fuck cares. Stirner details his sociopathy, it is immortal.

>>4965977
He does have a way with words sometimes

>Man has killed God in order to become now—"sole God on high." The other world outside us is indeed brushed away, and the great undertaking of the Illuminators completed; but the other world in us has become a new heaven and calls us forth to renewed heaven-storming: God has had to give place, yet not to us, but to—Man. How can you believe that the God-man is dead before the Man in him, besides the God, is dead?

and

>The fall of peoples and mankind will invite me to my rise.

and

>The bourgeoisie is the aristocracy of DESERT; its motto, "Let desert wear its crowns." It fought against the "lazy" aristocracy, for according to it (the industrious aristocracy acquired by industry and desert) it is not the "born" who is free, nor yet I who am free either, but the "deserving" man, the honest servant (of his king; of the State; of the people in constitutional States). Through service one acquires freedom, i. e. acquires "deserts," even if one served—mammon. One must deserve well of the State, i. e. of the principle of the State, of its moral spirit. He who serves this spirit of the State is a good citizen, let him live to whatever honest branch of industry he will. In its eyes innovators practise a "breadless art." Only the "shopkeeper" is "practical," and the spirit that chases after public offices is as much the shopkeeping spirit as is that which tries in trade to feather its nest or otherwise to become useful to itself and anybody else.

>But, if the deserving count as the free (for what does the comfortable commoner, the faithful office-holder, lack of that freedom that his heart desires?), then the "servants" are the—free. The obedient servant is the free man! What glaring nonsense!

>>4965983
As I have already mentioned, Stirner is a psychological egoist (everyone IS an egoist), not an ethical egoist (everyone SHOULD be an egoist). Duty is a monster under the bed that it is might egoistic to behave with respect to UNTIL you see it for a spook; in which case, you might love, but without ever being concerned over whether it's connected with Duty; you are free to love those you'd be duty bound to hate, and not love those you'd be duty bound to love; you love without concern for the monster under your bed.

>>4966032
>Someone: "Stirner you're a sociopath, u don't love nobody"
>Stirner: "Nah man, I got the grooves man, I feel the feels . . . but I do kill bitches, you got that shit man."
>I mean who the fuck cares. Stirner details his sociopathy, it is immortal.
are you... retarded?

>>4966042
No, but you are.

>>4966042

you just dont get it, do you?

>>4966027
I don't think there is difference between source of endorphins - jerking off and saving lives are both just ways to feel satisfaction.

There is no altruistic instinct, it's conditioned. This is extremely evident in familial psychology.

>>4966027
I think it actually is more connected with social engineering to the point of neurosis. Altruism as a virtue was hardly with us most of our history, it's mostly a product of Christianity. Before then, magnanimity was more the in thing.

>>4966063
>magnanimity
>>4964019

>>4966065
No it isn't.

>>4966068
Must have accidentally highlighted. Disregard greentext.

>>4966069
>>4964019

>>4966068
Oh, shut up. Christian theology in itself is a study on familial psychology. The son so opposite the father, etc.

>>4966082
It's basic fucking Sherlock Holmes. This shit has been around since the dawn of man.

>>4966082
In some regards. In most aspects, Christianity is anti-family in favor of collectivism.

>>4966088
You're dumb, Feminister. In love with old bullshit; you have OCD, basically.

>>4966088
Feminister talking out of her ass again.

Exodus 20:12
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

Exodus 21:17
"Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

Leviticus 20:9
"'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.

Deuteronomy 5:16
"Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

Proverbs 20:20
If someone curses their father or mother, their lamp will be snuffed out in pitch darkness.

Proverbs 23:22
Listen to your father who begot you, And do not despise your mother when she is old.

>>4966115
>conflating Judaism with Christianity

>>4966115
You realise that's all just nonsense, though, right? It's patriarchy, basically.

>>4966119
>I don't want to change them inold linaws my nizziggihs
>Regards,
>G-Ziss

Disproves altruism. Awesome. Now I can be a cunt.

>>4966126
That's what he said, but he changed them considerably. Christ explicitly said he came to separate families, and to reinforce this point you might remember than when his family calls him, he tells them his disciples are his family. Christ says several times to sell all your possessions and give away the money and be an ascetic, and condemns the priesthood for their wealth; but in the law of Moses, the priestly tribes are to live a life of luxury and always wear ostentatious clothes as per law, to dine on sacrifices for three days before burning the remainder. In Moses' law, if you refuse to carry it out, you are yourself subjected to it. Christ extends the law to include thoughcrime, and warps the meaning of family include anyone who is a Christian.

No, no . . . that was magnanimity.
lol?

>>4966136
I don't understand this belief that we can naturally derive joy from sadism, but kindness is something artificial that only emanates from codification.

>>4966119
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

>>4966148
It doesn't sound like you're too naturally enjoying selfishness, Feminister. Sounds like you've got all sorts of justifications, done all sort of codifying. Ayn Rand, basically. That speculative philosophy is a motherfucker, eh?

>>4966150
But that really doesn't mean anything when he says things directly contrary to it and even steals (a horse).

>>4966154
I don't really care for speculative philosophy except as a curiosity and historical concern.

>>4966164
Don't lie to yourself.

>>4966168
Hm?

>>4966157
How the hell can you expect a guy to stay consistent for a whole lifetime when most people can't stick to their shit for a week?

>>4966169
When you say you don't care for speculative philosophy, what you mean is you don't like thinking about there being a god. But you do speculate. This is your speculation. Beating down that which makes you feel uncomfortable. Altruism? Nah. That was just magnanimity. It's the same deal as the retards who go hell-for-leather (pun intended) with all those dumb studies against vegetarians --because they have a moral sense they must beat down.

>>4966144
>Christ explicitly said he came to separate families.

You're misreading it.

Luke 12:51 “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. “They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Jesus's end here isn't the dissolution and division of families but rather that restructuring of a wayward society might inevitably as a consequence lead to turmoil and division at the lowest units of social organization: the family.

Christians most definitely utilize the rhetoric of fraternity and familiar ties when speaking of themselves as a community but that community doesn't dissolve the base, nuclear organization of the family--they exist alongside one another. You're also rejecting the Old Testament in a way that Christians simply do not. If you actually went to your typical church service, you'll find that pastors often read just as much from the Old Testament as they do from the New Testament.

Both Christianity and Stirner are utterly retarded. Please go away, godfag.

>>4966184
prove God's not real, kid

>>4966194
I don't give a fuck if he is or not.

>>4966174
I don't. But the law is hardly significant in Christianity; where it matters, it's because of Paul, not Christ. To Christ doing something in your head is as bad as doing it in real life, and he is absolutely opposed to punishment. An eye for an eye and turn the other cheek are utterly irreconcilable.

>>4966177
I speculate, yes, about god even, yes. Same thing as when I speculate about works of fiction

>Altruism? Nah. That was just magnanimity.
I mostly got that from Genealogy of Morals plus reading ancient literature. Killing and sacking were where the values were at; giving gifts to other members of your class was important in war because γέρας was roughly equivalent to a medal; it was also a token of alliance. Giving any decent amount to charity isn't anything I've ever encountered being mentioned though, except as required as code of the host.

Yeah, yeah, Feminister, I get it, you're solid as a rock, existentially, not justifying yourself by anything else or anything like that, just being.

No wait, that's actually dumb. But you're dead right (curious saying that)! God is indeed a cunt. Not like he's living down here with us, what right has he to tell us how to live together in this flesh he forced us into.

>>4966183
I'm not saying he wants to abrogate family, but rather minimalism it's distinctiveness from the community as much as possible.

Nuclear family is relatively new. I know "family values" people love the word "nuclear" but that actually started with a breaking up of the extended family brought about through industrialization.

Pastors read from the Old Testament as a prequel to the NT; it would be like a Roman religiously reading the Iliad for its relation to the Aeneid.

>>4966212
We don't exist inside the physical, we are the physical, we exist only bodily.

>>4966218
Don't be dumb.

>>4966220
Instinct, eh? A nice soothing thing to believe in. And yet it just fits in amongst all the other justifications, funny isn't it? You'd think it'd just be the last stop.

>>4966226
No, no . . . that wasn't me, that was my instincts.

>>4966220
>Replying to the wrong post
>2014

I didn't reply to the wrong post.

>>4966237
Don't be dumb.