/lit/ - Literature

What do you think. genious?

>>4975839
depends on the flavour of individualism

Why does it matter? What are you defining as closeness? Your question is too broad.

>>4975839
Will Individualism draw your mom's legs closer to each other or separate them even more?

>>4975862
Keep us from killing each other like savages

>>4975869
So far there's been nothing like collectivism to make us kill each other like savages.

no

>>4975914
No what? You're annoying m8

>>4975839
Humanity will be drawn together when were most far apart from our own species

The future is Humanist

>>4975924
Back in my day there were 9 planets. You kids have ti easy now.

Stirner's philosophy is not supposed to be a philosophy for the masses, much like Nietzche's.

It looks like he is watching pre-pubescent children having sex and he really likes what he is seeing. Stirner is a sick bastard and I hope he gets raped by a pack of wild tru-moos

>>4975989
He's dead.

>>4975989
>projecting like a baws
He's just shyggin' at humanists.

>>4976004
>implying you aren't projecting projection

>>4975983
This, so much.

>>4976009
Oh, Touché! Whenever I see anyone putting on a smug face I always assume he's thinking about sexy children doing sexy things since this is what I usually do.

Will Individualism bring swag to humanity?

>>4976199
Of course it will.

>>4976102
I seem to have touched a nerve. You may think what you are saying ie sarcastic, but we are getting a lot out in the open that we can hopefully work on together

>>4975924

This isn't true because all the other star systems and galaxies were created for me so that I can tell what season it is, also I am immortal and my life has enormous cosmic importance to God.

>>4976347
But i wanna take all those galaxies over and fill it with human life

>>4976309
>You're talking like a pedophile
>N-no! Y-YOU are talking like a pedophile!
Srsly.

>>4975839
This question can be answered empirically by examining the evolution of individualism over the last century and correlating it to social structures.

Individualism (and egoism) is one of the major spooks of the 20th century. Allowing ourselves (or rather our ideas thereof) to be governed by it, we have transcended individualization and reached atomization.

There is only one thing that brings humanity 'close to each other', and that is empathy. Individualism does not rule this factor out per se, but individualization has effectively dulled our ability to look beyond our own bubble.

From PKD's final interview:
>We are in a time when there is a cruel spirit across the land, and it seems to be gathering momentum. I have some very close, personal friends who are showing symptoms of great cruelty, and interest only in their own individual welfare. These are people who at one time had been in the anti-war movement, very idealistic, and are now exhibiting a complete narcissism

http://www.philipkdickfans.com/literary-criticism/frank-views-archive/philip-k-dicks-final-interview/

Is the individual a spook?

>>4976844
*You* as an individual, are not a spook, but the idea that there you have a "self" other than you is.

>>4976829
>There is only one thing that brings humanity 'close to each other', and that is empathy. Individualism does not rule this factor out per se, but individualization has effectively dulled our ability to look beyond our own bubble.

But who cares if people are "close together" or not?

Generally, people talking about being "closer together" and "community" mean trampling your fucking negative liberties. "Community" is another word for stealing your shit and annoying the fuck out of you.

If I want to get close to people, I hang out with my friends, my family, or go on 4chan or play vidya, or read a book. I have no need to get close with some dumb nigger in africa where the relationship is totally one way. Yes, I feel empathy for all human beings in the most possible way 1 thing can feel empathy for 6+ billion other things....I don't really, not outside of my immediate sphere, but I am responsible enough to feel a pang for how shitty the next generations will have it due to pollution and overpopulation. So I would contribute to a condom fund for people in 3rd world countries.


I think Narcissism is an extreme word for that feel. I'd say it's closer to realism.

>>4977210
Hey kid you're in /lit/ now, adults are talking

>>4977210
It's closer to narcissism

>>4977210
>"Community" is another word for stealing your shit and annoying the fuck out of you
this sounds like you have a social anxiety

>>4975983
Stirner's philosophy isn't for a group, it's for the individual, that's the point. At the same time, there's no objection to everyone being a moral nihilist, and Stirner makes it clear he'd personally enjoy that.

>>4976844
Stirner says some spiritual conception of the ego is spooky; his definition, being bodily, is clearly something real.

>>4976844
What's the significance of the spook meme? Please tell me guys I hate being left out of a meme?

>>4977656
"Spook" is just Stirner's term for "essence" (because essences "haunt" shit). He applies it to a whole fuck ton of stuff, and people who hear about it all without having read his explanation of the term (which is when he introduces it) think it's just hip meaningless term like "postmodern" (although postmodern isn't meaningless per se, it's just been applied that way by many folks).

>>4976365
Srsly, look at that face and tell he doesn't look like he would enjoy just a little bot of pedophilia. Not a full on pedophile, but if he saw some neighbor children going at it in the back alley he would mind taking a peek

>>4977667

"Spooks are spooks themselves!"

Every time. As long as stirner exists, retards will keep asking this question/pointing it out to be a grammar nazi legalistic faggot.

>>4978267
>As long as stirner exists, retards will keep asking this question/pointing it out to be a grammar nazi legalistic faggot.

The problem isn't that they are being pedantic, the problem is that they are wrong. If they actually were pedantic (or legalistic), they would have to stick to how Stirner actually uses and talks about the term spook, which would preclude them from making their inane mistakes.

Is The Ego and it's Own worth reading? I'm about a fourth of the way through and the whole thing seems pedantic as fuck. He's spent almost the entire time strawmaning this moral absolutism that, according to him, the vast majority of people follow. Now suddenly he's talking about how the progress of civilization is to be entirely credited to Caucasians, who built upon asian spirituality.

It feels like he's talking out of his ass.

>>4977629

And thats why the nigga couldnt sell milk.

>>4977210
>community is about leisure, and happy feelings

Holy fucking lel, how about we drop you in the middle of the rainforest with nothing and after a week ask you to re-evaluate your opinion on why community exists.

>>4979619

So we can build society enough for leisure, achievement, and good feels? Read your Aristotle, son.

why the fuck is there not a proper picture of Stirner?

>>4979641
He has Kierkegaard syndrome

>>4976009
You can't really project projection, dude. Rather, you adopt this badass-caller-out-of-projection persona as an armour to shield your weak, formerly-projecting self. Being a caller-outer comes with an implicit acceptance of your having formerly been a bitch, basically, where projection is straight up delusion. Projectionists pretend projection doesn't exist.

>>4975914
>Spending all of your time as a caricature on the internet.
It would be less sad if you were sincere.

Draw each other closer. Fundamentally, humans need each other to thrive. Non-coercive cooperation is the most efficient of all human interactions.

>>4975839
Stirner's variety will make you love people for who they really are. :3

>>4977629
>Hey man, you wanna fuck off
>Fuck off man
>Hey stop saying fuck off, you know I'll tell you to fuck off you fucking spook
>Fuck off old man, I'll believe what I want

I suspect Stirner didn't think that one through.

>>4980816
>implying people aren't polite out of self-interest

>>4975924
That is bullshit. I am one of hundreds of trillions of organisms on one planet. Don't try to drag me into your feel-good cess pool of anthropocentrism.

>>4980768
Stirner likes loving people, but his philosophy is not about togetherness, it is about the opposite, the end of all group identity of any sort. He doesn't like Man, he doesn't even think it exists; I don't think he'd see Humanity as any different (unless you meant it purely as a biological category).

>>4975839
OP thinks Stirner is actually a crypto-deontologeist?

>>4981010
Why does he not like Man? What is separation going to do for us?

>>4981438
Because Mankind is a spook, whereas men exist. Stalin killed millions of men for the sake of Mankind; now Stirner wouldn't say that's "wrong" (although he'd probably be personally distressed), but the point is that Mankind is a deified idea; men exist. You can never do something that will benefit "humanity", but you can theoretically do something that would benefit everyone.

Stirner, again, isn't interested in "us". This sounds like nitpicking, but it's important. Now as for the benefits of separateness, Stirner holds group identity as a basis of bigotry and many other issues (which he doesn't call "bad", but rather superstitious). To Stirner, Humanism is a religion seeking convert everyone into another mass identity in the way Christianity did.

>>4981498
Well, thanks. Legitimately good post you fucking tripfag.

>>4981498
Man is as much of a spook as mankind is.

>>4981531
Do people seriously think this is how an anarchy would look like? It's 2014 grow up

>>4981531
Is there anything in this world more obnoxious than dull /b/ tier humor?

>>4981599
>:PPPPPP

>>4981604
Yeah.

>>4981498
I'd argue that transhumanism will benefit humanity. I'd also argue that inventing the scientific method benefitted humanity. Pretty much anything involving science and technology. Although technology does create some problems for us along with solving many, this is solely due to our collective ignorance of many consequences of our manifested ideas.

>>4981635
So what is Stirner propose we do? Like when it comes to being social with each other

>>4975856
>genious

Damn, great job

>>4981639
Humanity as a something that can be benefited, is a metaphysical idea. The genus Homo is a category, not a thing of itself.

I'd like you clarify what you mean by "benefit" tho. I take pleasure in contemporary technology, that is as far as I can go. Are people happier with technology? Possibly, but that's all that can be said; Nietzsche claimed that happiness requires a contrast with pain; I suppose that includes the pain of another along one's own, with the latter creating a stronger emphasis.

>>4981688
>I take pleasure in contemporary technology, that is as far as I can go

What are you even getting at? Your rambling isn't clarifying or furthering your argument
faggot

>>4981667
Stirner doesn't propose we do anything except what would give him pleasure for us to do.

As for how a socialization of people who think like him would work, he calls it a "union of egoists" and goes into it a bit.

There's even a Wiki page if you'd like to take a look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_egoists

>>4981692
"Benefit" is an ambiguous term here, especially for something so broad as "humanity". Would you say that everyone who has been affected by technology was made "happier" (I'm guessing that's what you mean?) for it?

>>4981608
>no system of operating as a collective and collaborating ideas, can only "discuss" in the same way we do on 4chan

The original American vision is the perfect balance for humanity to rule itself. But today it's not at all what was intended, today America is an outright kleptocracy, not the Republic it's supposed to be.

Seriously, think about it, no one in America today has experienced true Democracy their whole life, and many people don't even realize that yet. We have no Democracy as long as any dickhead with 50 million dollars can drown out or amplify the voice of any politician they please because the supreme court deems money as free speech.

>>4981688
The other replier wasn't me, and i mean benefit by it's literal meaning. Technology has already proven to help us thrive on a scale that has the potential to become galactic, if we don't destroy ourselves. We can only address ourselves biologically when speaking of benefit, anything outside of that is far too varied, or is a human concept subject to change or to be entirely incorrect.

>>4981608
Personally, I think a complete anarchy would look like mad max world but with more hard drugs and child rape. Limited anarchy would be a gross commune where everyone's on food stamps. If you can tell me exactly why that's wrong while considering human behavior in the absence of responsible government I'm all ears.
I guarantee that picture is a shit-ton more realistic than what you have it mind.

Even if anarchy in practice could work. You will never be able to sell anyone on it, because every definition of it is so slippery and subject to revision at every turn. That's because definitions themselves are sort of laws and restrictions and responsibility you can't into those. The anarchist ideal is limited to reflexive emotional reactions against perceived injustices. It can only be defined by what it isn't. It isn't whatever the person you are speaking to doesn't like.

If it could work, it won't happen. If it could happen, it won't work.

>>4975839

both

gravity in memetic terms

creating singularities within memetic timespaces that can reach one another

when ideologies with the correct selection processes are promiscuous, self-correcting memetic organisms emerge

>>4981761
"Benefit" means achieve something that is good for something. What is "good" according to your value system?

>>4981872
What is "good" is relative in almost all aspects except for our biological existence. Yes, it is objectively good that we find ways to prolong our existence. Morality shouldn't even be a discussion on this topic. Morality is a product of existence, and is a result of many sociological nuances that do not have anything to do with objective universal truth.

-Same replier

Some of you might find http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/massimo-passamani-mutual-utilization-relationship-and-revolt-in-max-stirner to be interesting. Its very relevant to the topic (stirner and all) and a short read.

>>4981923
Positing an inherent metaphysical value to something--as you posit "good" as a metaphysical essence to existence--is functionally morality.

Rather than stopping with, "Existence brings me pleasure," you codify it, you deify its spirit. Which in itself is laughable, but then you claim it is objective, that spirit you believe in is directly observable (objective)

>>4975839
separate it
source: entropy

>>4981998
The universe isn't moral, what i said is "good" for us regarding survival is just a fundamental function of life. The ant (if it could even contemplate it) would find it a "good" thing that the colony has spread. We may find it "bad". This is more or less why i say morality shouldn't even be a discussion regarding what benefits us, because what we think about it doesn't matter. All that DOES matter is that we stay alive so that we CAN think, or talk about our ideas of morality. Outside of our own perception, it's neither good or mad that we survive. It doesn't even matter in that case.

>>4982032
Ants don't think in terms of good or bad, that is simply instinct.

YOU staying alive has nothing to do with ME staying alive, we are not a We, there is a me, and a you. My life might require to stay alive at some point; it might also require you to do. In neither case is existence fundamentally "good". If your whole existence until your death is being tortured all day every day, it is "objectively" "bad" to die?

>Outside of our own perception, it's neither good or mad that we survive. It doesn't even matter in that case.

Similarly, God does not exist outside of our perception

>>4982032
>or it might require you to die

>>4981498
>To Stirner, Humanism is a religion seeking convert everyone into another mass identity in the way Christianity did.
And since we'll never merge into a single ant colony culture, just learn how to embrace individuality. Crowds of respectful individuals.

>>4981697
>If one party silently finds themselves to be suffering, but puts up and keeps the appearance, the union has degenerated into something else.
Is this person supposed to vent to someone about her suffering? Would anyone care?

>>4981998
Like a parent, I just want to see mankind continue. I know it will all just blink out in time, but I want to help it to do better while it goes on without me. It doesn't please me to feel they will slide into some kind of barbarity as they choke the last bits of life out of the world before reaching some higher potential.

>>4982044
>Ants don't think in terms of good or bad, that is simply instinct.
but to us their instinct can be thought of as good or bad
likewise we act on instinct and whether or not its good or bad is something that only another person can say

to us however our instinct is always good
we never do bad things

>>4982057
>Is this person supposed to vent to someone about her suffering? Would anyone care?
They might, or they might not, but the whole thing of a union of egoists is that it doesn't involve a list; it is a union your are in only as long as you participate, there's no oath or tattoo. When you cooperate with other egoists, you are participating in a union

>>4982044
I'm not speaking as an individual. Without a collective there are no individuals, if the collective does not cooporate, our species will ultimately die off. It's how we stay alive, we pool together and make it happen. So maybe my death wouldn't directly affect your life, but i'm only one individual of the collective. The survival of our collective species has everything to do with you AND me staying alive. So yes in that sense it is objectively "good" that WE prolong our existence. Because humans exist as a result of other humans survival.

>>4982064
This is nonsense. Instinct is not "good" in the eyes of an ant anymore than a chemical reaction is not "good" in the eyes of a chemical.

>>4982076
You're positing cooperation as synonymous with collectivism, quite flawed. When I am trading you something for something, we are cooperating, but that is clearly not collectivism.

>>4982077
>is good in the eyes of a chemical

>>4982082
The fact that we are of the same species implies a collective of humans. And that collectives survival depends on cooperation. We're beginning to deviate from my original point. Since we've established there is no relevant perspective other than our own as a collective species. Then it is objectively good that we prolong our existence. Case closed? Or no.

>>4982103
>>4982082
Also

>>4982117
lolz

>I can play this game too xD

collective, a. (n.)

(kəˈlɛktJv)

[ad. F. collectif, -ive, or L. collectīv-us, f. collect-us: see collect ppl. a. and -ive.]

A.A adj.

1. a.A.1.a Formed by collection of individual persons or things; constituting a collection; gathered into one; taken as a whole; aggregate, collected. (Opposed to individual, and to distributive: so also in sense 2.)

a1600 Hooker Eccl. Pol. viii. iv. §7 In a collective body that hath not derived‥the principality of power into some one or few. 1642–3 Earl of Newcastle Declar. in Rushw. (1721) V. 135 No Multitude of Men in the World, collective or representative. 1781 Tucker Cui Bono? iv. Wks. III. 97 Mankind, taken in their aggregate or collective Capacity. 1819 W. Taylor in Monthly Mag. XLVII. 31 A collective edition of his works. 1868 Milman St. Paul's
etc etc etc

>>4982103
The fact that we are all made out of atoms--does that imply a collectivism of atomic entities?

>>4981697
How does Stirner decide what gives him pleasure? Does he seriously believe his subjectivity is elevated to the point wherein he can have autonomous agency?

How does stirner not realize that he's falling into the same traps of humanism, extolling the individual and believing them capable of tremendous agency?

>>4981872
>What is "good" according to your value system?

Why assume that their is any sort of authenticity in our system of values?

>>4982077
What a sad state of existence the stirnerite is in? The Gods have truly fled.

>>4982164
I dunno if pleasure is really a decision.

>Does he seriously believe his subjectivity is elevated to the point wherein he can have autonomous agency?
No, to him that would be God.

>>4982171
I don't. Authenticity can only be achieved through an abrogation of metaphysical values.

>>4982178
Stirner's work isn't really a philosophy of "Stirnerism" so much as an argument for a philosophy that occurs to everyone at some point.

>>4982179
If there is an assumed lack of both autonomy and agency for the individual why is a community centered around the individual's needs and desires anymore desirable than a polis defined by men rather than man?

Where is Stirner's ground? I could entertain his political theory more if he actually held some axioms regarding the potentiality within human autonomy and agency.

I think you would benefit from reading some more rigorous, nuanced political philosophy.

http://sduk.us/afterwork/arendt_the_human_condition.pdf

>>4982208
I don't think he was saying it was more desirable per se, just that it was more desirable for him (his greatest desire would be centering everything around his wants, which could include the wellbeing of others). The reason he included the idea of a union of egoists, is for the sake of completeness: how does it work if everyone thinks this way?

Yeah, I've only read excerpts of her, still got to get around to reading her works in entirety.

>>4982220
I'd be somewhat versed in Aristotle's ethics and politics and Heidegger's early work before I jumped into it. Arendt is an intimidating, impressive thinker.

>>4975839
Why do you guys never bring up Dr. Rudolf Steiner´s "Philosophy of Freedom" and the concept of ethical-individualism when talking about individualism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ediPHFsFKxU

http://steinerbooks.org/research/archive/intuitive_thinking/intuitive_thinking.pdf

>>4981610
Yes. Idiots falling arse over tit for blatant bait.

Case in point - you.

>>4982845
Are you sure this guy isn't secretly Jeremy Irons?