/lit/ - Literature

Your question is self-answering m8.

Way to /thread your own OP.

>>6640570
>be a raging spookmaster
>try reading OP
>spooks everywhere

I mean really, how do foreheadites believe in these thought construct so devotedly and earnestly?

Thoreau was a retard. Easily the dumbest writer in the western canon. Almost pants on head tier. HIs prose is alright though.

>as if you could kill time without injuring eternity.

>>6640597
Examples of his dumbness?

The problem is that Thoreau often in appropriately gets called a philosopher, and is compared to other thinkers of more academic rigor. Walden and the rest of Thoreau's writing is just non-fiction philosophical musing, similar to Aurelius' meditations, wherein it is the spirit of the text that is important over the syllogistic truth

shame he became a meme

Walden
Or
I lived in the woods; I'm better than you

>>6640570

>I mean really, how do people believe in these thought constructs so devotedly and earnestly?

They haven't autism'd their capacity for poetic nuance out of themselves like you have.

Stirner has done a lot on this board to make kids even more pleb than they were before reading him. No they see "spooks" before they feel pathos. It's a shame.

>>6640570
What spooks ? NAME them.

>>6640784

>No they see "spooks" before they feel pathos.

so much this, i was a stirnerist too for like two weeks

>>6640570
Spooks aren't bad. They are just bad when you put them over yourself.

>>6640784
>Stirner has done a lot on this board to make kids even more pleb than they were before reading him
I think it's mostly reading wikipedia articles about him, considering people shit on libraries in library threads and I doubt many people have purchased copies of The Ego and It's Own.

>>6640784
Good post you sure convinced me with that hot argument.

>>6640789
In Civil Disobedience, "The Good", "The Right".

>>6640570
>implying you can talk about abstract concepts like this without invoking spooks
>implying you can talk about spooks without invoking spooks
>implying spooks aren't the basic constituent of human cognition

>>6640846
>"The Good", "The Right".
I'm pretty sure he meant what you thought right and good, in fact I'm pretty sure he says that. Sometimes you have to read in between the lines of he uses "the good" when he's slready said that if it's what you think is good, not that it's a truth but if you believe it's the right decision to action for whatever .

>>6640837
it's a dense book anyway

I know there is a bunch of people that are actually knowledgeable about Stirner's Philosophy, but the majority either didn't bother to understand the book and meme, or they misinterpreted some passages.

You have to consider that in order to undestand fully what Stirner meant you need to have a sound base about western Philosophy up until Hegel, which itself is a hard author to read (Yes, he is hard), so I even if they bought a copy of The Ego, they would have to spend a lot of time reading preparatory books. It's kind of undestandable honestly. You don't either see a lot of threads of Heidegger or Foucault for the same reasons.

>>6640862
Can you give me a recommended list of western philosophy to read before stirner, heidegger and foucault, please?

>>6640854
the point is recognizing that they are abstract concepts and then you can give that word what ever value you want.

>>6640889
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM

>>6640862
It was easier for me just to get the semantics by listening to an audiobook.

>>6640846

>Good post you sure convinced me with that hot argument.

Let this adolescent need to obsess over "spooks" whittle down whatever artistic sensibility is in you. I don't really care either way. All you will end up being after it is another mediocre prole ideologue.

stirnerites are fucking dumb

>>6640900
Thank you very much~

>>6640945
You're welcome babygurl <\3

To honest it seems to me that reality itself, insofar as it is composed of information and cognition, is essentially a spook..

>>6640937

>>6640960

>>6640958
Yes. So unless those stirner fags are willing to lobotomize themselves they should stfu . It's only logical by their only self-serving "everything spooky" whop! Notion. All stirner gags are spooked sbdctet ding even know it.

>>6640986
Stirner does not say there's an imperative to get rid of spooks.

>>6640862
Not really, Stirner can be understood with a knowledge of philosophical terminology and Hegel's philosophy of spirit. He really only touches on a small amount of what's considered philosophy.

>>6640998
So stop yelling "spooks" at every body else's spooks then !!

>>6641006
>tfw you realise stirner is a self-help author

>>6641020
People here have described him as a mental plunger.

>>6640570

>>be a raging spookmaster

stirnerkids prove time and time again that they are tied with antinatalists for lamest posters on this board.

>>6641026
Very fitting. On a basic level that is what all self-help authors do, even if some of them add lots if bullshit after the plunging.

>>6641027
>sonebody has to counter the new age udeology that seems to be for ideology's sake