/lit/ - Literature

Enlightenment is spooky

>>6478282
Bend over, my property

The Buddha would tell him that the self is a spook and Stirner would melt like the Wicked Witch of the West.

>>6478282

"hello, fellow journeyman."

>>6478298
Stirner himself said that the self is a spook, silly.

>>6478298
Plato also would have been destroyed by the idea of forms.

>please initiate me as your disciple, i clearly know nothing, this much is obvious to me as i behold your ariyan nobility
>i am but a haughty philosophy teacher who wrote a pamphlet on edginess

>>6478548
xd m8 eguj treeeel

>>6478552
i'd let her give me a prostate exam if you know what i mean

>>6478556

. . . . . y-yes.

>>6478556
m8 yes

>>6478556
faggot

He would tell that fat prince that virtue is a spook, nirvana is a spook, enlightenment is a spook and that Buddha is a faggot. Buddha would then go eat comfort food under his tree.

>>6478577
>being this sexually plebeian

>>6478591
>being this decandent

death soon

>>6478588
Basically this

>>6478594
>not being a smart stirnerist who knows how to enjoy sensual pleasure properly without becoming enslaved to it

>>6478605
>valuing freedom

stirner talked about that, m8.

>>6478616
>implying i'm not valuing ownership rather than freedom

>>6478282
How do I into Stirner? I am pretty beginner-tier when it comes to books of philosophy I have actually read. I have a decent working knowledge of the more "prominent" ones however. Do I have to read any other work in order to understand Stirner?

>>6478652
Why in God's name would you want to be into Stirner?

So you can ape these poultroons?

>>6478669
>not having read stirner
>still having a negative opinion on stirner

I thought '/lit/ doesn't read' was just a meme.

>>6478674
it is just a meme, but Stirner is even more just a meme

>>6478669
The general sentiment seems to be though that he is one of the philosophers who have not really been BTFO yet, which would mean that his work may have some illuminating effect on my mind.

I liked Nietzsche

>"How long do they get to be enlightened before the sense of wonder deteriorates?"

>>6478678

>thinking stirner is just a meme

I bet you believe in Kant

>>6478652
No he's medium strength, Stirner reads like an angry professor writing clear essays to hide this fact.

>>6478652
just dive into the ego and its own. it's up on gutenberg and is a fine starting point, since there's not much diversity in way of translations or abridgements

>>6480928
That intro by leopold felt like he only wrote it so that he could justify republishing the whole book for a change of title. He then swapped the title form "his" to be more gender neutral and be "its". That's shit.

Stirner is magic, when you dive into his work freely he will absolve you of all your fictional bonds. When a sincerely engaged person reads Stirner, and he's inclined to think, consequences will literally never be the same.

>>6478298

Stirner fully acknowledged "the self" as a spook.

>You are not to me, and I am not to you, a higher essence. Nevertheless a higher essence may be hidden in each of us, and call forth a mutual reverence. To take at once the most general, Man lives in you and me. If I did not see Man in you, what occasion should I have to respect you? To be sure, you are not Man and his true and adequate form, but only a mortal veil of his, from which he can withdraw without himself ceasing; but yet for the present this general and higher essence is housed in you, and you present before me (because an imperishable spirit has in you assumed a perishable body, so that really your form is only an “assumed” one) a spirit that appears, appears in you, without being bound to your body and to this particular mode of appearance — therefore a spook. Hence I do not regard you as a higher essence but only respect that higher essence which “walks” in you; I “respect Man in you.”

What Stirner meant when he said everything is spooky and you are not, is that "you" are a creative nothing. You are not a spook, you are void which language fails, and from which only creation occurs. Stirner would probably identify Nirvana as an egoistic goal.

>>6481174

why is he so dreamy, bros?

>>6478282
mfw people wouldnt like stirner as much if they attributed his real looks to his thoughts.

>>6482259
that's Rudolf Steiner

>>6482259
Nigga you fucked up

>>6482259

>inb4 people post that random historian

There are no surviving photographs of Stirner.

>>6481763
It almost sounds like he's acknowledging the connection between the unmoved mover and humans.

>>6482259
Is that Jeremy Irons? Handsome as fuck.

>>6482386

I think Stirner acknowledged God, but in no more a special way than he acknoewledged Einzige. To Stirner, God is simply another human, and another human God; there is no difference.

>>6478564
Is she in a high school cafeteria?

Is the only difference between a stirnerite and anyone else is that the former is aware of the framework? Is reading Ego purely to feel better?

Given that both classes of people are egoists, voluntary or not, their actions should be the same.

>>6482628

There is no such thing as the Stirnerite.

" But not only not for your sake, not even for truth’s sake either do I speak out what I think. No —

I sing as the bird sings

That on the bough alights;

The song that from me springs

Is pay that well requites.

I sing because — I am a singer. But I use[gebrauche] you for it because I — need [brauche] ears.

Where the world comes in my way — and it comes in my way everywhere — I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but —my food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use. We owe each other nothing, for what I seem to owe you I owe at most to myself. If I show you a cheery air in order to cheer you likewise, then your cheeriness is of consequence to me, and my air serves my wish; to a thousand others, whom I do not aim to cheer, I do not show it."

Those who are volentary egoists do what';s in their interests just like the involuntary egoists, the difference is the Einzige is always changing, and reading Stirner will obviously change it. The Einzige is always egoist and follows its own cause; but upon knowing this its very cause may change again.

>>6482652
>quoting stirner correctly
>quoting him in german where necessary

makes me happy

>>6482652
Fuck you buddy, I am the stirnerite, or as I like to call it, the stirneroo, and I will be as long as I feel like it

>>6482755

Fair enough, I don't give a fuck.

Reading Stirner will demolish your spooks, but you won't run away from these spooks. They are all you have, all you know of, and everything you live by.

>I will live a NEET lifestyle because I can; I am not pathetic, why are you so spooky?
You are already befallen to a spook to consider such position. You still are pathetic.

My conclusion is that this philosophy, although breaking shackles brought by fixated ideals, leaves us questioning if the spook is worth used by us, for example, will you support christian morals and the happiness inducing implications of them. Or do you need more knowledge upon the commonly accepted generality(spook), question why and to what effect it is accepted, to know if it will bring you joy?

When will the Stirner meme end? It's been two or three years now.

>>6482912
If you're a grill you're my dream person.

If not I'll buy you a pint.

>>6482974
ebin

>>6481763
Woah actually quoting and discussing the actual content of a book?? Do you know where you are? /lit/ is for vague Wikipedia generalizations

Seriously though good post. Id like to see more of these.

He would kill him.

btw how has no one made this joke yet. im ashamed of you guys

>>6482929
/lit/ has been talking about Stirner since it was just a thread on /r9k/
If your so tired of it maybe you should leave? Did you know you can hide threads?

>>6481763
Stirner is talking about the Cartesian self, and I don't know what retarded shit that nigger wannabe Buddhist keeps spamming but it's probably just retarded.

>>6483892
lol the stirner meme came from /r9k/? why am i not surprised..

>>6483887
i didn't even click to open the thread because i was sure that was the joke and didn't need to see it

>>6483896
ebin tril m8 keep trol b8 is funny xdxd

>>6483896
lol, u came out of ur mum vagina?

>>6483887
Don't you mean that he would kill him, not torture him

>>6482912
>Reading Stirner will demolish your spooks
Reading Stirner may make you aware of the notion of a "spook",
but it will not necessarily demolish it.
Spookry is a substantial life.
I have a personal spooky religion.
I choose to spook as opposed to not spook.
Thinking one has to release themselves from personal spooky religion is spooky,
in which case it is okay,
but do it sincerely,
sincerity being a spook,
but removing yourself of spookry being spooky,
there fore do or do not.
Do.

>>6483881
Most people have read the book,
you evidently have not been around in many of the threads.
What is with these new edgy "lit is so stupid" vibrations?

>>6483955
>What is with these new edgy "lit is so stupid" vibrations?
generalization fallacies

>>6482912
dude what

Stirner would ask the Buddha why is he sitting.

And the Buddha would say "to sit."

Stirner would ask the Buddha why is he focused on helping his Sangha attain Enlightenment.

The Buddha would reply "because they never will, not in this life."

Stirner would ask "what is the purpose of this, asking these poor deluded people to follow you, asking them to achieve the impossible?"

The Buddha would reply "Stirner, you are the philosopher, your craft is to write down the thoughts beyond thoughts, to be the surgeon with utmost precision in the blurry depths of the back of the mind. You should very well know what it is like to try and do what is impossible. To be, as you say, as Spook. Or rather to live focused on these Spooks. Without Spooks you wouldn't feel the urge to write about Spooks. So even in the immaterial of the Spook, just as much as in the concrete material of unfettered reality, there can be the Buddha Mind, the state of bliss and awareness."

"Believing in the necessity of duality of material and immaterial to see into the pure nature of reality sounds like a Spook itself."

"If the Spook is still haunting you, then go and write about my philosopher friend. It is your job. I must sit here and help the Sangha reach Enlightenment, and don't forget, they never will reach Enlightenment."

>>6483955
>thinking you have a choice

>>6483955
By demolish I meant by recognizing the spook and seeing it only as a function, a fixated idea, but it might be an error on my part to say 'demolish'.

>>6485811
The only reason you recognize yourself here, recognize what are you doing is bad or good, or even not bad nor good, is solely because of these spooks. Escaping spooks would mean death of your consciousness.

Second point is that there isn't much use in recognizing spooks. I see people claiming here that they can now live NEET or whichever lifestyle without conscience and, more specifically, believing they aren't bad doing it, but they fail to realize that choosing to live such way is already falling to a spook, a spook they can't escape. Say, person lives by generalities, each of little difference in his society, and chooses to do something, in this case being a NEET. He does this while being aware that the generality he follow condemns that, without which he wouldn't be able to choose such position altogether, and so he is what "NEET" is considered to be by this generality. And every choice and action has these positions that you can't escape falling to.

Then I said my conclusion on the effect of this book, it being that by recognizing spooks we ask ourselves if we want to follow these spooks, or which one we want to follow, or if we need to attain more knowledge to see what we want. Yet we did that when being subconscious egoists, called it "spirit searching" and what not. I suppose this books exemplifies this want by destroying every notion of holiness or sacredness or other spooks you formerly needed to tacitly agree with(mostly agree from lack of proper position to want to disagree).

I haven't read Stirner yet, I first heard of him here on /lit/ not too long ago. But I'm interested, so here's my question: this idea about spooks seems to be extremely close to the point of Discordianism, did Stirner lay the groundwork of Discordianism?

>>6487471

Looked up Discordianism in the dictionary and it sounds extremely gay.

>>6487570
Cool bro, good for you.

>>6482929
I remember a Stirner-thread back in 2011 about the Nietzsche-Stirner controversy. It triggered my deeper engagement with Stirner and led me to start a PhD project on him (unfinished).

>>6481763
>from which he can withdraw without himself ceasing

So...souls?

>>6478588
>dissing Buddha without even knowing the difference between Budai and the Buddha

>>6485905
HOLY FUCK

>>6487471
it wouldn't surprise me. the feeling i had reading black iron prison was similar to the ego and its own.

there is even a section titled 'ego sickness' within black iron prison that echoes some of stirner's individualist/nonconformist sentiments.

Anyone listening to Philosophy Talk right now?

Butthurt reincarnationist getting BTFO

According to Marx, Stirner was the most loud of the anarchist hegelians. I'd guess he would just try to convince Buddha while he starts blankly and nods.

>>6489181
>Marx
>being right about anything ever

What would happen if Kierkegaard met Jesus?

>>6489234
Much groveling and weeping upon the toes

>>6489234
Jesus would put his hands on Kierkegaard's shoulders and tell him God loves him and Kierkegaard would pee himself and faint

>>6489181
Marx never even met Stirner. Meanwhile we read in Stirner's biography that "He was polite toward all with whom he associated; he was never torn by anger or ever overcome by it. He was helpful where he could be----one of the two letters in his own hand that remain gives proof of 86 his readiness to help. He was unobtrusive in every way, in word and in deed, was without presumption or vanity, and enjoyed universal respect and liking. It is said that never, but never did it happen that he accused anyone or admonished him [...] Very seldom did he take part in passionate discussions, and he never became cynical, trying to outdo others who were speaking. One never heard from him a vehement, raw, or even vulgar word, such as were no rarity at Hippel's. Calm, smiling, 'comfortable' as a 'hedonist,' he sat there in the turbulent circle, threw in now and then a pertinent remark or a witticism, which showed how exactly, in spite of everything, he was listening to the general conversation, and watched the smoke from his cigar."

>>6489309

Stirner sounds like such a cool fucking guy, along with the rest of the Hippel crew. I wish I could live in that era, instead of the faggot era we live in now.

>>6489661
tbh he was probably actually pretty nice

>>6489309
>>6489661
I want to hug stirner

>>6489309
>>6489661
>>6489738
everyone flipped out about this good man

>>6485905
>The Buddha would reply "because they never will, not in this life."
>meanwhile Pali Canon abounds with living and dying people, men and women, monks and laymen, attaining enlightenment left and right
OK left and right is an exaggeration, but still.

>"Believing in the necessity of duality of material and immaterial to see into the pure nature of reality sounds like a Spook itself."
>Buddhism
>believing in duality

>>6485920
Free will and simultaneously the lack of free will are spooky constructs.
I fluctuate between having spooky ironic faith in both.
Either thing is a spook.
Both roads are spooky.
You can not not be spooky.

>>6489866
>Free will and simultaneously the lack of free will are spooky constructs.
the more i see you post, the more confusing you become. i don't think you understand stirner at all. free will/determinism has literally nothing to do with his philosophy and phenomenology in general

>>6489661
19th century Prussia?
Yes, I guess I am obsessed with that.

>>6489903
I was referring to the anon referring to "choice",
which relates to free will/ determinism.
I was using stirnerian jargon to talk about some thing which is not with in "Ego".

>>6489970
Awaiting snide comment.

>>6489970
>>6489978
i don't think that has anything to do with stirner

>>6489960
>not early 19th century Vienna

>>6490011
I never said it did.
I was responding to what the person was saying and happened to use stirnerian jargon in a stirnerian thread.
Apologies if it is not relevant to the thread.
You can report it if you wish.
I recently finished reading "Ego" for the third time,
so it is strange to say I haven't understood the text,
when I was not even referring to it.

>>6490011
Also,
well rused.

>>6490014
As far as I am aware Stirner was born in Bavaria but moved to Prussia,
where Hegel was teaching.

>>6489181
>marx being such a butthurt little bitch that he has to resort to defamation of character of someone he never even met just because he couldn't have his spooks and ooh them too

i'm not supprised

>>6482628
Ego is a value that can grow if you contribute your knowledge from literature, give a spook a number and add it to others to see how big it gets, simple math.
You don't have to add up at all though; but that bears the question- are you better for throwing your treasure away?

>>6491382
I think he just meant living in Vienna would be nicer than living anywhere in Prussia

Which I would agree with

>>6482912
My spooks are goals, when I achieve my goals by painfully or joyfully doing X means nothing to me, I will accomplish my goals and then I will be free.

>>6483896
You're new?
COLOUR ME SUPRISED

>>6483896
/lit/ came from arcanine, dumbass. It has just been a few years.

>>6491401
My negro, almost all of my musical heroes worked in Vienna. Currently planning on studying there in a few years hopefully.

>>6492934
Have you read Zweig's The World Of Yesterday? if you love Vienna then you'd love that book

(imho, Vienna's lost a lot since that time - nowadays it's mostly arrogant, not much "new" art)

>>6492959
Thanks, I'll add it to the backlist.

To be fair, I feel a lot of capital cities have gone downhill last century. Paris for example is a shithole now.

>>6482316

"Hey chill out buddy"

👌👌👌👌👌
👌
👌
👌
👌