/lit/ - Literature

>>6307725
it made me make this amazing piece of art, not so that you could enjoy it but for my own pleasure

>>6307725
I stole a book. Only an autist could seem like one through egoism, you don't have to be blatant about it, you're allowed to lie.

>>6307790
Hey, I've started stealing, too! It's fun, more people should try it.

>>6307725
Every time someone tries to appeal to some sort of unspoken ideology to manipulate me I see through it more easily.

>be a man and do thing i want
>don't be a pussy and do thing i want
>come on anon, we're family, do thing i want
>don't you feel like you owe it to society to do thing i want
>if you were a real friend you would do thing i want
>in this country people do thing i want
>as human beings we owe it to each other to do thing i want
>it's only common sense to do thing i want
>lol normal people just do thing i want
>omg he's such an asshole he doesn't do thing i want
>you're such a child, an adult would do thing i want for me
>grow up and do thing i want

Et cetera et cetera.

>taking LSD and realizing you are the creative nothing

>>6307831
I don't want to be caught and I don't really have any use for petty theft

piracy is enough

>>6307725
Made me a comfy guilt free NEET.

>>6307862
this

#StirNEET2015

Egoism is the biggest spook of all.

You guys think you're so based and powerful but in reality, you're puny.

Everybody hates egoists because they're shit to work with. And everybody knows that groups of people can (but don't necessarily) get a lot more shit done than individuals. The reason why group projects don't necessarily succeed is because of the fucking egoists in the group.

You all think that you're the universal cosmic destroyer thanks to crackpot Stirner's bullshit, uber-contrarian philosophy. In fact, you're pathetic worms who will fail in life insofar as you clench on to your false "ego".

Do something better with your life.

>>6307945
Striner isn't ayn rand faggot, what kind of american does it take to confidently insult and dismiss something they haven't read?

>>6307945
You have no idea what 'egoist' in the Stirnerist sense means.

/lit/ - Literature

reported

>>6307956
>s-stop discussing the ideas found in philosophical non-fiction

Just make a fantasy thread if you want friend, there is plenty of room for us all.

>>6307975
fuck off cunt this shit is off topic and you know it

you are a NEET virgin

>>6307956
>there will never be a war on /phil/ posters

>>6307956
i get that you're new here, but /lit/ has doubled as a philosophy board for a long time so you best get used to it

>>6308004
its not even discussing philosophy its just an excuse for idiots to shitpost about what is happening in their lives

just fuck off mate

>>6307765
I saved the image for my own benefit, I don't care if you allow me to or not

>>6307989
there should really be a /phil/ board already

would get more traffic than /n/ or /3/ for sure

>>6308008
it's literally a discussion about the practical applications and consequences of a philosophy

>>6308004
>this is what plebs actually believe

/lit/ is in no way a /phil/ board, the mods are just impotent

>>6307984
But I'm not a virgin, anon.

>>6308026
no it isnt dickbrain
>>6308032
yes you are you fucking loser

REPPIN' THAT SPOOK STREET, MY PROPERTY!

S-P-DOUBLE O-K STREET!!!

SPOOK STREET!

>>6308035
Look everyone, I'm upset on the internet!

>>6308035
>yes you are you fucking loser
You don't seem to realise Stirnerists are bad boys that get the pussy wet and take it like it's their property.

>>6307956
> announcing your ban
Newfag

>>6308053
*report, not ban
Maybe I was the newfag all along...

>>6308044
Could you post the webm pls

>>6308066
I can't because my CAPTCHA is covering the image post button and I don't know if there's a shortcut. I also don't want to pay $20 to moot.

>>6307945
>Everybody hates
:)

>>6308066
Not him but here you go.

Now that webms have sound someone should re-make this with the actual audio.

>>6308110

wow africa looks like a scary place

I don't think it can change much immediately after you read it, you still acted from egoistic intent upon the spooks, was unconscious egoist.

I don't feel the social obligations which are inconsequential to my happiness. I am still like the idea of working for my country, or in other words the world and economy of it, to keep order and prosperity in it, which is why I still sustain that NEETs here were losers before and after because of how they take joy in being parasites and acting against the well being of everyone including mine.

Also, it's rather depressing that you are only your ego, death being the biggest fear you can have.

>>6308120
>implying I fear death
>implying death is the end
Don't you ever wonder where spooks come from?

>>6308024
If I were the admin (RIP moot) I would just make /lit/ /hum/anities

Does Stirner's philosophy actually work for 20s virgin NEETS? Or is it more for normies to justify things they want to do?

>>6308120
I think you should read Stirner again if you think someone is a 'loser' (at which game?) for living life as he pleases.

Does embracing Stirner necessarily lead to anarchy?

>>6308138
made me realize I don't really give a shit about tfw no gf and that it's really just a spook in my case

I think i've become slightly more arrogant but who said arrogance was a bad thing

we'll see if my good mood keeps up

>>6308150
No, a king could be a conscious egoist. He just nullifies the state as a source of authority(beyond the we-will-fuck-you-up-if-you-break-our-law part)

>>6308138
It's for everyone who wants to feel okay just being themselves.

Stirner has been championed by those on the margins of society though, since they're the ones who always suffer for not being a normie. Stirner basically tells you how the notion that one must be a normie is nonsense. So his message is very emancipating for those who do not wish to go through life as a normie.

>>6307984
I resent the implication that you refer to me as a virgin and am summarily incensed by it! Produce your credentials forthwith! we shall see who hath defiled more supple females vaginally

I no longer fall for appeals to morality or emotion. If someone tells me 'its the right thing to do' I immediately dismiss them as a nitwit.

>>6308164
This gave me a hardy laugh.

>>6307725
>Has it make you act like an autist? A criminal?
laughing at this because I've been avoiding human contact (with exceptions [loved ones, i seek conversation with bohemians and non-normies]) and begun to shoplift even though i make 85000$ a year

>>6308153
but will it actually help you

>>6308150

Despite what /lit/ will tell you from a purely theoretical standpoint it seems most compatible with Objectivism. Of course it is not as retarded, in fact there are a lot of good points. Of course its also compatible with anarchy but the very existence of anarchy as an actual social model is pretty much untenable.

>>6308150
No, it leads to the opposite, a staunchly hierarchal society with cream rising to the top.
>>6307984
Virginity as a mark of the failure is a spook.

>>6308163
but will it help me become Chad Thundercock?

>>6308174
>from a purely theoretical standpoint it seems most compatible with Objectivism.
It is not, since objectivism implies that violence isn't a valid means of acquiring property.

>>6308178
"Chad Thundercock" is a spook.

>>6308178
It will help you break down some psychological barriers that prohibit you from living the Chad life, perhaps. But it won't make you anything. It just gives you more mental freedom to do as you please.

>>6308192
Okay I guess there is that. I am really just trying to ruffle feathers anyway.

>>6307945

Group of people get more shit done but NOT FOR ME, BUT FOR THEM, IF I WANT SOMETHING THEY WON'T GIVE IT TO ME, BECAUSE THE GROUP IS NOT MY PROPERTY

I AM THE ONE THAT CAN DO THE MOST FOR ME, I'M THE EINZIGER, GROUPS ARE JUST TO WORK FOR ME, ONLY ME

>>6307725
You people make me wished we lived in a paleolithic society. You'd make your tribe weaker and allow me to kill you and rape your women or I could just push you off a cliff when we are boar hunting and say it is an accident and not feel bad because I'm a savage.

>>6308174
>but will it actually help you
I am helped. My mood is soaring, and I can impossibly get anything done when feeling down all of the time. I didn't give a shit really about girls, it was just a spook haunting me, making me afraid of being a "failure". Maybe one day I can meet a qt I really like and then feel genuinely bad over not having her, but until that day whatever.

>>6308176

>Virginity as a mark of the failure is a spook.

just buy a whore m8, they are cheap

>>6308228
male virginity is a spook

>>6308163

In my case it was the contrary, I realized that my real cause was that i wanted to be a normie to get pussy, but that the means to do it were too long and stupid

So based Stirner teached me to buy whores, and i'm really happy now fucking bitches weekly

>>6308222
Maybe stirnism is good when one end of the extreme is good in the obvious sense of the word in a case of choices between two extremes. If one can't balance peer pressure and self-worth then they'd have to choose between being a miserable, timid unproductive waste or a happy asshole. The first may very well result in more misery factoring into the potential dick head stirner. There is no reason he shouldn't care for himself being happy just as much as others when most of us care more about our happiness than others. As long as he isn't finding a stirner and wife and spawning striner kids, all is well. The person may be a psychopath but that is why we have police.

>>6308238
That's kinda sad actually.

>>6308244

It's not sad if you don't find it sad :^)

>>6308246
Maybe you will someday, a woman who is your companion and loves you and not just a hole to fuck is important.

I'm not you of course, maybe not.

ITT: We find that Stirner faggots are virgins and NEETs and hopefully we end with this Stirner faggotry forever

Why doesn't anyone outside of /lit/ and niche anarchist circles care about Stirner?

>>6308243
I'm not an asshole though, and I don't think stirner was either. Well, if we're talking how pleasing that person is to interact with and not how much he cares about the mongolian orphans or some moralistic shite like that lol

>>6308219
>implying tribes aren't unions of egoists
>implying stirnerists, being concious of this, wouldn't make the best tribes

>>6307790
>>6307831
I am not done reading/analysing Stirner's work.
Does he address the counterargument that if everyone did what they pleased regardless of laws/morals (such as stealing, raping, killing), then society would be a fucked up place?
Or does he rely on the fact that not everyone will become egoists? Or does he just not give a shit about anarchy?

>>6308246
Us normal prefer making emotional connections with the women to make sure we can take care of the baby together and they don't cheat on us or something. The dopamine from an orgasm not working in concord with the other less edgy chemical for long term happiness seems like a cheap, bad drug used by someone with their apartment in shambles. I suppose you have arrogance in place of that, but that just disgusts me because that is like competing in a competition you judge and giving yourself 1st every time. On 2nd thought, that doesn't sound too bad... still gross to me though.

>>6308268
society's health is a spook

>>6308255
>haha i'll insult these despooked people by reminding them they are not living up to my social standards of gainful employment and frequent mating

Kek. Trying to shame a Stirnerist for being a virgin is like shaming someone for being offside when he isn't even playing football. The rules don't apply to those who don't play the game, and there is nothing bad about being a virgin if you don't base your self-worth on the amount of pussy you get.

>>6308278
No it isn't.

>>6308268

>everyone

What do you care about everyone, you already discovered a very precious secret, the ghostbusting, which will make you be god among *everyone*

>>6308268

"Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it."

>>6308268
Why do you assume that a society based on self-interest would be unable to cooperate successfully?

When I share a cab with a stranger we're both in it for the money, selfishly, and both completely fine with it. We don't need any rhetoric about magical brotherhood of all mankind to do so.

In fact, cooperation is often facilitated by transparent mutual self-interest.

>>6308286
this is beginning to sound spooky

>>6308281
I don't care about them, but I care about getting raped/injured/killed by them.

>>6308146
My worldview consists of calling you a loser because your lifestyle goes against what I prefer.

You are still trapped in your environment, where surrounding people have spooks on the social etiquette and virtues, making me believe you are deranged, for experience from practical standpoint let's me think it's difficult to isolate yourself and not to fall on the common views, which mostly involves benevolence, yet still attempt to act on your own unproved and ill crafted ones. Not without reason Stirner accepted Christian values, they made him the most happy.

Derrida"s "The Gift of Death" makes me think of something: it doesn't matter whether you are aware of spooks or not, there are still many generalities(basically complex spooks in Stirner words) which are followed by people only because they like them, as one system of spooks is no different than the other, only matters the preference of the individual.

>>6308289
There is nothing spooky about joining forces with others where it serves you, anon. It's called a Union of Egoists.

>>6308292
don't let them rape or murder you then

Can someone please explain in clear English what a "spook" is?

I downloaded his book but I can't stand his writing style. From what I understand a "spook" is something which we think actually exists, and which influences our actions, but in reality it is just an idea in our mind? For example, would a country be a spook? If all humans died there wouldn't be a country anymore, and 'serving' the country is just an example of somebody doing something because he thinks the 'country' is ontologically independent existing entity that he must serve, when in reality it's just the customs and attitudes of a group of individuals.

Am I getting it?

>>6308292

It's not like becoming a voluntary egoist will change all the uncounscious morality and the guilt that goes on in the world. Neither proving or disproving an idea will change it

>>6308294
you looked like you were going to segue into some randroid anclap political nonsense for a second there

>>6308293
>Not without reason Stirner accepted Christian values, they made him the most happy.
citation needed

>>6308303
I wouldn't dream of it.

Stirner is a post-modernist. There is nothing outside of the text

>>6308297
basically I think it's just the idea that there are no fundamental "oughts" like you ought to be a "good" person and you ought to have a gf and you ought to be a democrat and so on

a country is an abstraction, but so is everything else, a lamppost is an abstraction

>>6307725
I realized that my concept of self was a spook and nothing changed.

>>6307835
pretty much. all concepts are spooks really, but they become problematic when they become fixed ideas. see pic: >>6307835

>>6308306
Someone didn't pay attention to Stirner it seems. I don't have the book on my computer, would not even bother to search up the exact quote if I had.
Think clearly, were not ideologies made to lead people into happiness in the first place? Why did Christianity was so favorable over other religions? People accepted most of Christian values, some of them interpreting the ways they like and making sects, because of how, it seems, universal they are. Could you craft a better set of virtues you would follow for your happiness?

>>6308263
>implying stirnerists, being concious of this, wouldn't make the best tribes
Well if they're conscious of the effect of their actions of course they're going to be awesome. However, humans aren't like that. For evidence, look at the many pointless wars where we spent resources into killing each other instead of helping humanity. In place of logic we have instinct and emotion. A paleolithic man that cares too much about himself is going to quickly murder his buddies when he finds them having sex with a woman he had his eye on or not give away his food because he thinks himself more capable. He'll not listen to what the group says because he views his intelligence as higher than theirs creating problems. The evidence for this, as I am am an of evidence, is that places with dense populations brains shrank quicker (don't take that as a good thing!). This big theory behind this is that dumb people can be cared for by smart people. This allowed for the homo-sapiens population to thrive and out-compete the other losers.

Now that we live in a modern society and we can't have the egoists die off through evolution, those more connected to their evolutionary roots causing them to be be hateful and jealous of you are butt hurt. We were the ones that evolution that intended though and only may live through our sacred sympathy that allowed modern society possible!!!

>>6308372
>We were the ones that evolution that intended though and only may live through our sacred sympathy that allowed modern society possible
spooky

>>6308379
Holy shit I made a lot of typos, I'm sleepy ok. Got motherfucking calculus homework but I gotta make my spirit strong through spouting bullshit on /lit/ or something. Don't judge me

>>6308372
Indeed a spooky post

Modern society is egoist as much as the brute, but they developed their egoism and preferred not live in a vile society because it would hinder their own happiness. Be brute all you want but there will be an another one who can do exactly the same head bashing to you, what makes you unhappy.

>>6308364
>Someone didn't pay attention to Stirner it seems. I don't have the book on my computer, would not even bother to search up the exact quote if I had.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34580/34580-h/34580-h.htm

Here it is, just a quick search away. But of course you won't provide the quite since you're full of shit.

>>6308418
While your comment is dumb, I've come to the conclusion that I just have anger issues from being abused as a kid resulting in me being very anxious about the way I act and being jealous and angry at those who aren't.

I'm going to learn about taylor series and put cathartically put a gun to my head, peace

>>6308508

>taylor series
>being this new

git gud

Protestant-voluntary-egoist reporting

>>6308643
Isn't self identifying with groups pretty spooky?

>>6308798
Isn't talking authoritatively about a philosophical text you haven't read unwise?

>>6308815
>asking a question
>authoritative
Isn't speaking english without learning the meaning of its words unwise?

>>6308822
Making a claim ('isn't?'), especially with the emphasis ('pretty') is authoritative.

Stop

>>6308846
>commanding and self-confident; likely to be respected and obeyed.
That anon was actually just asking a question, your response made it seem like you were being attacked or made the object of contempt. If you can somehow twist an innocuous question into someone authoritatively speaking about something, we're unlikely to be able to make sense of anything the other says.

>>6308858
Anyone who makes a negative out of spooks hasn't read or understood Stirner
Anyone saying 'is not?' is making a claim, whether or not it's within a question.

If I had contempt for the anon I'd tell him to fuck off and tell him nothing, now he knows more than he asked for in the first place.

>>6308870
>Anyone saying 'is not?' is making a claim, whether or not it's within a question.
This isn't true. Many people use the sentence that way in a passive-aggressive manner, but many use it in its normal sense, one of questioning, which necessarily implies a lack of knowledge.

And if you wanted to educate the anon you would tell him why such views weren't 'spooky', not just accuse him of not having read the book.

how exactly has Stirner changed your way of life?

>>6308884
Stop being defensive and accept the mistake, you're conflating personal and objective.

You're also either the very same anon or yet another person who hasn't read the book and isn't willing to do a little research.

I have nothing to gain by replying to you any further.

>>6308897
I now go around with half a beard

>>6308257
Camus writes about Stirner in The Rebel. He's not TOTALLY obscure, though I've searched for him in every local bookstore and never found anything.

>tfw Stirner is more obscure than Zizek

>>6308993
holy shit, time read The Rebel

>>6308993
Zizek isn't obscure. He's pretty hip. VICE did a documentary on him.

freed me from perceived obligations and taught me the joys of shameless egoism

This flies in the face of biblical commandments and teaching though

>>6309499

So how frequently do you commit acts ofgenocide?

>>6309525
I never thought of it that way.

Today I met with my undergraduate advisor to discuss my major, or lackthereof. I still haven't declared anything. For the past two and a half years I've taken six courses per semester across a wide variety of fields. Mathematics, thermodynamics, film analysis, fiction writing, philosophy, middle eastern history, native american history, linguistics, german language, cognitive psychology. Whatever seemed interesting I'd take it. I aced every class that I didn't drop, always for being too boring.

My professor said, "What the hell do you want to do, though?"

I said, "I don't know. Go to the woods. Write stories and paint. I like animals. Maybe I'll adopt a raccoon or something."

"But realistically," he said, "What do you see yourself doing five years from now?"

"I don't know. Why would I care about that? If there were something I wanted to do five years from now, why don't I just start doing it now?"

"That's exactly my point. You need to find something to focus on, and start focusing on it now. With a job market like this, you need at least a year's worth of internship to get hired at any decent company."

"I refuse to work for any company."

"What?"

"I will not work any job where a manager dictates what I may do and how I may do it, and I refuse to take any managerial position. I work alone, on my own terms, at my own pace."

"The real world doesn't work like that."

"Fine. I have no interest in the real world anyways. I think I'll go into the woods after all."

Dumb spook could barely even speak. Not that I would have cared what he had to say. I was already writing my manuscript in my head while filling out the forms to drop out of that spookhouse.

>>6309548
I'm surprised this isn't a copypasta

>>6308166
Did you not learn this from Nietzsche?

>>6307835
>Someone on /lit/ actually reading Stirner as I do.
You aren't trying to push some psychobabble or sociobabble into this ?

>>6309548
H-Howard.. R-Roark..?
''muh career'' people are funny, though.

>>6309548
>With a job market like this
And then he says
>The real world doesn't work like that.

Well apparently it does.

>>6308257
People interested in relevant political writers have all read the best of the last century, Carl Schmitt. And thus, as Carl Schmitt was heavily into Stirner, they all have at least heard about him.

Was not Ernst Junger a heavy fan of Saint Max too ?

>>6308963
Why half a beard m8?

>>6308963
If "light beard" hipsterism, that's a spook.
If you are shaved on one side and bearded on the other, absolutely based.

>>6309548
>>6309846
>"The real world doesn't work like that."
I love this kind of spook. This is a "no true scotman" of cosmic proportions. What is the "real world" ? The opposite of the fake world ?

>>6308280
SOCIETY IS A SPOOK YOU FUCKING GHOST

>>6309890
no it isn't
it's a description

>>6309881
People like their illusions. I don't give a shit about people or their illusions, so I leave them alone.

I just hope WW3 is around the corner.

>>6309895
>it's a description

It stops being a description and becomes a spook when you use it as a justification for altering individuals behavior.

>>6309015
He's even got a whole section on his philosophy. Short, but interesting. Pic is my copy's table of contents.

Stirner doesn't really call for any drastic life changes. He just asks you be more self aware of why you do what you do.

Reminds me of those little kids who keep asking "why"

>>6309897
I wouldn't be fond of WW3 though.
Can you picture the level of spookyness that would ensue ? I'm afraid war in the last century and out own are absolutely spooky : nationalism, call of duty, "being a man", propaganda through the roof, the ominous general interest.

>>6309564
who learned it from _______

>>6309797
you don't even need to read the first 5 pages to get this much out of stirner lol

>>6308364
>Think clearly, were not ideologies made to lead people into happiness in the first place? Why did Christianity was so favorable over other religions?
Christianity was successful because westerners stomped across the globe and established deeply ethnocentric ideologies/discourses dictating the nature of thought and normative practises for half a millennia. Arguing that christianity has 'favourable' values is essentially implying that it has some inherent and determinable positive qualities which are universally appealing, which is a spook in itself.

>Could you craft a better set of virtues you would follow for your happiness?
An egoist would craft their own 'virtues' from spooks as and when they are congruent to their own ends.

>>6308255
You can say that about any sizable portion of any fanbase of anything on /lit/ contains those.

>>6308257
Because anarcho-capitalism is a less popular form of anarchism.

>>6307846
i know that feel bro

My bet is that insecure teenagers get into Stirner in this board because it's being depicted with this "badass" pictures and is useful in reducing cognitive dissonance in people that lead indulgent and non-virtuous lives.

>>6310837
I also wield this point of view

>>6310837
>badass
No, but it is funny to me
>virtue
picture related

>>6308372
A true egoist would be comfortable with his own intelligence, realize that he is less intelligent than others, and use their intelligence to further his own happiness.

The true egoist would not succumb to jealousy/envy because "true love" is a spook, not just in the Stirner sense either. It's quite possible that biology makes it impossible for most if not all females to love a man the same way a man can love her.

The true egoist would not be a slave to these emotions, to love, to jealousy/envy, to pride/shame. He would do what makes him happy. If having sex with the woman makes him happy, he will do it, but he will feel no obligation towards it or her. He will also realize that being alive provides many opportunities for happiness, and thus will strive to continue living in happiness, which means letting his brothers live if the union is necessary for his own life.

The true egoist will ride his wheel through a camp of neanderthals, all the while laughing the good laugh of true joy.

>>6310837

>Virtue is a spook

>>6310675>>6310675
From a evolutionary psychology point of view, many traits are universal in men, and some mammals. Pride, guilt, happiness, fondness, fear, etc. An idea can be forcibly spread, but it wouldn't stick unless it harmonizes with the psyche in some way. Why do none of the popular world religions involve say, killing your parents? Its unharmonious with human life. Both spooks, but some are clearly spookier than others if you know what I mean.

>>6310851

>>6310877
>it's quite possible that biology makes it impossible for most if not all females to love a man the same way a man can love her.

>Egoist master race

Stirner turns on his grave

>not realizing that reading this book because a nigerian internet magazine says so is one hell of a spook

>>6310887
That's funny, but you should go way harder with the slander, like making him obese and wearing dipers and neckbearded so on and so on.

>>6310904
you don't understand what a spook is

i swear there might be 4 posters who actually read stirner

>>6310882
>An idea can be forcibly spread, but it wouldn't stick unless it harmonizes with the psyche in some way.
I'd disagree, but that's merely because I read Stirner primarily through a deconstructive lens. An idea doesn't need to be forced, because a bias towards the idea is already engrained in the subject as a natural and universal presupposition concerning the signifiers of 'pride', 'guilt', etc etc you referred to. It isn't forced, but it's simply the way in which discourse has shaped normative practises to appear self-evidently valuable when it is and always will be dependent on the subject.

>>6310882
>Both spooks, but some are clearly spookier than others if you know what I mean.
You're right, but only in an immediate sense - one spook is no more inherently worse than another, it is simply the lesser option in discerning which spook can provide you with the means towards yourself as an end in itself.

>>6307725
>A criminal?
I shoplifted at walmart after the consciousness of laws being a spook came to mind. Court is in two months.

>>6311068
>court
>spook

wait no

>>6310900
Prove me wrong? ;)

>>6309797
Why do you mean exactly?

>>6311241
I think the burden of proof is on you.

>>6311365
Women don't love men in the same way, that much is obvious just from looking around you if you live in the western world. Vast majority of divorce is initiated by the woman, I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true for break-ups in general. Women have little problem dumping a guy when something better comes along. Not that they don't feel for the man, but it's in their biology to take care of themselves and their children first. It's in a man's biology to take care of a woman at his own expense. Just how we operate.

>>6308268
lol >caring about society

>>6310877
>le true egoist

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

>>6310882
>turning normative statements into descriptive ones

ya ya ya shut up faggot

>>6311774
le can't argue so gonna throw up a maymay

;*

>>6311815
polemics and mockery are the only true form of argumentation

the rest is just silliness

>>6309900

But as a descriptor the behavior of the group defines it, whether it has changed your behavior or not. Whether you define society as an influence on behavior or not, it does change if all behave under egoism.

You don't have to give a fuck about everyone mudering and raping each other, as long as it doesn't happen to you. What you are doing, is condoning it, if not participating wholeheartedly.

>>6308310

I'm just chiming in here as a non-egoist. I used to steal things, because I didn't know better. Assuming I wasn't prey to spooks, I'd probably rob you, so that not only could I pay the cab, but make a profit. If i'm quick enough with the knife, I could probably prevent you from defending yourself. Not to say I wouldn't murder you, i'd probably only do that if you claimed you wanted payback or something.

>>6307952

>implying he hasn't read it.

How well does Sterner and Nietzsche relate regarding self overcoming and being an ubermensch?

>>6311815
his point is probably that striving to be "le pure <y> would <x>" is the type of spookery stirner laughs at

>>6311878
That's a pretty dumb way to go about things, if you're acting out of self-interest.

>>6312065
well fuck him he's a nigger and so are you you fucking nigger shit! i read stirner always and know more than you nanner nanner boo boo stick ur head in doo doo

le froggy face

c'mon you know you medium jej'd at least, if not a full on top wew.

eh? amirite? gettin some keks up in hurr? yall gonna make me lose my mind, up in hurr, up in hurr. remember that song with dmx. he's gonna give it to ya! watch out for niggers lel!

>>6312127
wow you really went too far dude that's not even funny

>>6311723
>biology makes it impossible for most if not all females to love a man the same way a man can love her because of biology.

people who haven't read stirner are stupid fuckoff jerks

>>6310837
yeah dude that's exactly it

you nailed it

>>6309921
noice m8

>>6308993
I believe Penguin cut out the Stirner part in their versions of The Rebel.

I smell a Marxist conspiracy.

>>6308993
>>6309015
https://libcom.org/files/The-Rebel-Albert-Camus.pdf

ctrl+f Even before Nietzsche, Stirner

>>6314943
lol, nice

>>6308993
In his opus magnum Joël writes: 'The Ego' is the "most rampant heretic book a human hand has ever written", and Stirner laid with it the foundation for a veritable "devil's religion."

The "destruction of alienation", that Stirner aims for, he says, amounts to "the return to authenticity", and this would be "nothing else than the destruction of culture, the return to animality [...] the return to the pre-human status."

Even Nietzsche appears, according to Kolakowski, "weak and inconsistent compared to him [Stirner]."

Calasso too regards Stirner's "Egoist" or rather "Owner" as an "artificial barbarian", an "anthropological monster" etc.. 'The Egoist' is the "writing on the wall", signalling the doom of occidental culture.

No, the intrinsic reason, which was passed down probably by accident, was that [Husserl] wanted to protect his students (and perhaps himself?) against their "temptational power".

Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had "let the cat out of the bag". However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner's name.

Nevertheless in his study of Nietzsche, [Klages] was prompted to commemorate the author Stirner as a "sheer demoniacal dialectician." He concedes to him that his thinking, in comparison to Nietzsche's, is "often more radical, less circumlocutory, analytically more exact", and that he "gives ultimate conclusions, for the most part, with more conciseness." Klages regards Stirner as that "antipode of Nietzsche, who in any case should be taken seriously." Stirner, he says, is the reason why Nietzsche is of paramount importance, because "the day on which Stirner's program becomes the will-guiding conviction of all, this alone would suffice for it to be the 'doomsday' of mankind."

>>6315050
There's some spooky shit going on here.

>>>Nietzsche's closest friends and other people near to him were perplexed. No one could remember ever having heard the name of Stirner from Nietzsche's mouth. There are dozens of letters in the archives that bear witness to the confusion of his friends. They understood well enough why Nietzsche had been publicly silent about Stirner, but why did he, given his "habitual communicativeness" (Overbeck), never mention him even in the most familiar circles? Only Overbeck's wife Ida remembered in 1899 a discussion she had with Nietzsche about twenty years earlier, during which he unintentionally let escape the remark that he felt a mental kinship to Stirner. "This was accompanied by a solemn facial expression. While I attentively observed his features, these changed again, and he made something like a dispelling, dismissive movement with his hand, and spoke under breath: 'Well, now I have told you, even though I did not want to speak of it. Forget about it. They would talk about a plagiarism, but you will not do that, I'm sure.'" (33)

>>6315084
I know. Real fucking spooky.

>>6315084
>>6315050
Jesus christ I'm getting chills down my spine here

From now on I won't be able to live my life without expecting stirner to jump out of a closet and shout phrases at me in german

>>6315050
>Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had "let the cat out of the bag". However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner's name.

[citation needed] or else no spooks

>>6310837
what cognitive dissonance would an egoist living non-virtuously feel?

>>6315050
>Bernd A. Laska
>credible source

sorry not spooked

>>6310877
>The true egoist will ride his wheel through a camp of neanderthals, all the while laughing the good laugh of true joy.
Kek.
Just because something is a spook, like "true love" or "pride" doesn't mean it's neither good nor bad, it's just that, an idea. That doesn't mean you shouldn't want them, it means you need to realize it's a spook.

>>6308297
Have you ever heard the term "Social Construct"? It is exactly that.

>>6315336
Equality is a social construct

apparition, appearance, banshee, daemon, eidolon, ethereal being, ghost, haunt, incorporeal being, kelpie, manes, phantasm, phantom, poltergeist, revenant, shade, shadow, specter, spook, wraith

>>6315354
It is, brother.

>>6315354
>>6315409

What does that mean? Pretty sure there could be equality or inequality even without a society (at least without a kind of society that can 'construct' things). Imagine one group of creatures on one planet all living similarly happy lives and another group of creatures on another planet on the other side of the galaxy all living really shitty lives. There's inequality in this galaxy, but there might have been equality. None of this has anything to do with social construction.

>>6315477
You're mentally retarded ain't ya

>>6315477
Equality is an extremely arbitrary term. One could say people are equal when they get paid equally, another could say they're equal when they're rewarded proportionately for their work. This gives way to questions about what proper reward is, et cetera. Some people consider current society equal because if you work hard you get rich. Some people don't since no matter how hard you work, if you don't belong to le special club you don't get rich.

And that's just economical factors. How can people be equal when some are taller or more pretty? How can people be equal when they aren't equally healthy? "Equal" refers to "equal according to this one arbitrary ideological factor that I find important". There is no equality or inequality without someone's value judgements determining what that equality is based on.

The very notion of the equality/inequiality dichotomy is spooky as fuck.

>>6312036
What?

>>6315477
Essentially the other poster is right, you arbitrarily assign which quantities decide "equality", and invariable those are picked because they offer gain to someone. Pure or true equality is nonsense. Once you realize it's all politics, you can no longer take the idea seriously.

>>6315508
true equality would be multiple identical universes where every true agent person is that same guy in that universe and the other people in those universes doesn't real tbh.

>>6315508
>>6315501
If you take every single factor of human beings into account, then you will eventually stumble against discrepancies which makes us unequal. I am not saying that it is a bad thing, or a good thing, it is just how it is.

The negative thing comes when we seek to be equal to one another, it is just not possible. There will always be differences that will make us quarrel.

>>6315501
>>6315508

I grant that we can talk about different types of equality. Equality of income, equality of wealth, equality of pleasure/pain experienced, equality of weight, equality of height, whatever. And I grant that there may be no useful notion of equality all things considered (where we'd include income, pleasure experienced, wealth, height, etc., presumably each weighted in some way).

But equality of X is not socially constructed except perhaps to the extent X is (which might include wealth, e.g.).

And it seems to me that degrees of equality in certain respects might matter. E.g., greater equality of wealth might be have certain economic or social effects. More importantly, it might be that for whatever we take to intrinsically make a life better or worse (maybe this is amount of pleasure and pain, and/or preference satisfaction, and/or accomplishments/development of talents, whatever), it is better for the world to be more equal in terms of it rather than less. That is, other things (total amount of well-being, amount of deserved well being if you think that matters) being equal (or nearly equal), we should try to create a world with more equality of this sort rather than less. A world with two people (or, to make things less complicated, lower organisms) each experiencing 1 hour of some kind of pleasure is better than a world with two people where one experiences 2 hours of pleasure and the other experiences none. I'm not saying this is obviously the case, but it doesn't seem out of the question, either.

>>6315531
No, equality of any form is inequality of another.

>>6315547
Nice spooks dude, you've arbitrarily assigned "betterness" to quantities that are inherently not hierarchical.

>>6315686
If you don't think lives can be better or worse, fine, say so. That seems like a pretty extreme position to me (compare a life of constant torture to one filled with accomplishment and happiness), one that would require an impressive argument for me to take seriously. "Nice spooks" and asserting that certain quantities are not hierarchical (whatever that means) is not an impressive argument.

>>6315704
Not on an absolute scale, no. Equality itself is predicated on absoluteness.

>>6315547
>we should try to create a world with more equality of this sort
Except 'this sort' is still an extremely arbitrary thing which you can't get people to agree on.

Also, the guy getting the two hours of pleasure would disagree on sacrificing half on it for someone else.

>>6315477

>Imagine X and then Y and then forget about X and Y and their difficult power relationships and think about the meaning of words instead

>>6308297

No. Spooks literally exist. A spook is essentially something that must itself corporeal through something else. Christianity makes itself real through humans. If all humans ceased to exist or lost faith, Christianity would vanish, as with the state, the value of money, societies ect. You utilize your earthly body to exist, and so are a spook. Your body is haunted.

Literally the only difference between Stirner and your average gutter SJW is that he calls them spooks instead of social constructs.

>>6316417

no. Social construct are a very interesting thing indeed, but SJW misunderstand them trying to change everything that is "fake" for what is "true" (morality and stuff).

>>6307790
4chan found its perfect philosophical rationalization.

>>6316417
No, SJWs are like humanists. They seek to replace old spooks with new spooks. Stirner just wants to wreck them and be content playing in the rubble.

>>6316543
There's no doubt Stirner would love this place. It's like a 24/7 Hippel's wine bar with millions of degenerates.

>>6316417
except SJWs constantly whine about feelings and morality

>>6316576
if we all drink wine in the same thread and argue with each other

he would love it

stirner would be the guy who lurks for 4/5 of the thread and suddenly gets into a 30-reply debate about whatever he was finally drunk enough to see as bullshit

>>6316599
"Look at Stirner, look at him, the peaceful enemy of all constraint.
For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
Soon he will be drinking blood as though it were water.
When others cry savagely "down with the kings"
Stirner immediately supplements "down with the laws also."
Stirner full of dignity proclaims;
You bend your willpower and you dare to call yourselves free.
You become accustomed to slavery
Down with dogmatism, down with law."

— Friedrich Engels

>>6316417
underrated post

>>6316635
see
>>6316436
>>6316571
>>6316591
btfo that quickly

>>6316417
except not

stirner threads are getting boring, there's a few people who like stirner and circlejerk then there's a few idiots who have clearly never read him who just shitpost

like it's getting old kind of

>>6307725
>Has it make you act like an autist?
no that's from my autism

stirner's for insecure randian faggots

>>6308163
Id there a stirner equivalent for teens?
Like if you want someone you care about to realize that they can act as they wish.

>>6308252
Love is a spook. Just wait till your wife or gf fucks someone else and dumps you. Lets see what you say about love then.

>>6320103
he's more for anxious neets who want to be chill neets imo

Fucking morons. Stirner is not to be read as life advice but as an analysis of a part of human nature.

You can run circles with all these concepts. If im an egoist and I also want to succeed at x and require others to respect me and be friendly with me I need to act civil and be a productive caring member of society. tada.

It's a nice meme though, especially with that picture people use.

>>6320140
I mean I need others to respect me and work with me because I need them to achieve my desires and goals.

>>6310887
>someone made an edit of my meme image edit

>>6320140
or you could just commit crimes

>>6320140
>human nature

>>6320140
>Stirner is not to be read as life advice but as an analysis of a part of human nature
I actually says at the end of the book to use it as a ladder to self-improvement.
also
>human nature
You never read Stirner in your life

>>6320228
Here, have another, friend.

>>6320453
Yeah, Stirner is nice and all but human nature does exist.

>>6320434
Do people not have common needs? Common limitations? Do we not have DNA?
Yeah, read more meme philosophers.

>>6320536

Exists as what?

>>6320541
Define human nature.

>>6320140
Those are some prime ideas you shared there bucko

>>6320103
Yah dude totall I'm afraid to go outside but... THE WEAK SHOULD FEAR THE STRONG

>>6316417
Epic-assed trawling fling going on here amigo

>>6320558
as a spook

>>6320536
All humans are necessarily unique, even if mostly the same.

Human nature is usually just a positive way to force people to act how you want.

>>6308257
read the bottom portion.

i posted the whole 'play' yesterday, but wyndham lewis was friends with ts elliot (and ezra pound). they both personally knew james joyce.

"the god of love came before the God of Love."

Based Stirner

is currency a spook?

>>6325502
is that a quote from him? Nothing comes up when I google it, what does it mean?

>>6325656
There is literally a thread about this up right now.

But yes currency is a spook in that its value is just a thought. That said, Stirner explains something along the lines that if you are able to create an alternative to currency, you will only make another kind of exchangeable something. He also says that money is not a detriment to you, but rather your incompetence to take as much of it as you can.

>>6325656
that's what Marx's Capital is about

>>6325656
fiat currency literally is

>>6325734
what about gold-standard currency or any other currency based on scarcity or real objects

>>6325759
partly. the gold is there, the value assigned to it is spooky. fiat money literally doesn't exist, merely its representations, empty signifiers.

>>6325772
so is this sort of like the existence precedes essence thing of existentialism? the gold merely exists and anything we think about it doesn't real?

>>6325778
it does real as a concept, but no more than that. there's nothing inherently wrong with 'spooks', that's just stirner's way of referring to 'mere concepts'. it's when we start putting spooks on a pedestal that it becomes tricky. pic related.

>>6308093
How do I get around this?

Atheists are pious people.

>>6325672
Aphrodite came before God

It's in ego, the Byington translation

>>6325819
No, that's not the quote you faggot Christian apologist. It's "our atheists are pious people," our referring to left young Hegelians.

Get your facts straight. Stirner is an impious atheist

There are no words beautiful enough to counteract the immensity of stupidity of you "egoists".

Suffice it to say that such imbecility is relegated to the nether regions of the interwebz-far enough away from others- to prevent cross contamination with new minds.

You people are sick, quite literally you've accepted a retarded and delinquent mental virus, a spook of epic proportions and you believe it to be something akin to a divine truth.

You fools will never even aspire to write at my capacity, but continue to jerk off to obscure shitheads you will.

I pity anyone who ascribes to such depravity, and hope one day you may glean through illusion and into thine own soul, the true nature of where you are today.

Pure ideology, that's what your Stinerfagism amounts to, but you morons lack the cognitive wherewithal to even recognize it; mental midgets, the lot of you.

>>6326126

I wish you wouldn't type like this

Because this is how I do it.

And now I think your post is one of mine.

Please stop.

>>6326126

>stop being so egoistical pleaaase, it hurts me so much really ;(

>>6326126
>There are no words beautiful enough
>Suffice it to say that such imbecility is relegated to the nether regions of the interwebz
>I pity anyone who ascribes to such depravity
>you morons lack the cognitive wherewithal

>>6310882
Slaughtering heretics isn't harmonious with human life either, but people still did it. Fuck off with your memetics bullshit, it's literally atheist pseudo-science.

>>6309839
Howard Roark would certainly be as infuriating, but he'd be too driven to make fuckloads of cash to care about the woods, or painting.

>>6325656
Your time and effort are not spooks.
Insecurity about having less than others is a spook.

>>6307945
This post gave me the spooks.

>>6326244
>Your time and effort are not spooks.
True
>Insecurity about having less than others is a spook.
...Uh. And yes. currency is a spook. capitalism is a spook. A game we are forced to play, that, for all the good it does or did, is now doing far more harm on many levels. Far bigger and real than a persons "insecurities"

>>6326334
So stop worrying about it since it's so immense and powerful. It's a huge fucking spook, and you're still spooked.

>>6326383
I'm not in a panic, no.
But you see all these spooks and practically everyone is buying into them.

If we need a spook in our lives of some kind, I'd prefer we pick something better and be mindful that it is a spook. Our lives need not be tied to traditions.

I'm not in a panic, and that's kind of weird really, considering just what I think may happen in my lifetime.

If Stirner subscribes to the thesis of Psychological Egoism then aren't we already living in a Union of Egoists?

>>6326400
If you're mindful that it's a spook, then it is no longer a spook, but your property. Property is what you use for your self, a spook is an idol you are beholden to. The idea of God, for instance, is your property when you use God as such (in phrases, for example, "Oh my God!" "Only God knows." "Goddammit"). The idea of God is a spook when it controls you instead of vice versa.

Stirner's distinction between love as a spook and love as his property is a good example of this. He loves people, but because love makes him happy, not because he is beholden to love as a commandment from Christ. Femininity is another example: as long as you use it as property, something that pleases you employ on your own terms, it is not a spook; once it becomes something your beholden to, an idol you must obey, it becomes a spook.

In thanks to this board for introducing me to Stirner, and because giving thanks and drawing gives me pleasure, I present some OC fresh off the press

Which thinkers follow/share stirner's thought or have the same ethos against contemporary society?

>>6327067
Influenced[hide]
Frank Brand, Steven T. Byington, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Saul Newman, Friedrich Nietzsche, Benjamin R. Tucker, John Henry Mackay, Ernst Jünger, Rudolf Steiner, Emile Armand, Albert Camus, Carl Schmitt, Renzo Novatore, Adolf Brand, Emma Goldman, Bob Black, Miguel Gimenez Igualada, Wolfi Landstreicher, Herbert Read, Robert Anton Wilson, Wilhelm Reich, Gustav Landauer