/lit/ - Literature

>Kafka
>True Neutral

>Lawful Evil

Dostoyevsky is lawful evil cause he's a Christian

>>8834202
third post best post

>Lawful Neutral

Lawful Good

>>8834202
>>8834206
>abandoned societal norms and morality
>ate fruit even after being told not to
>lawful

Fuck off with this nerd bull shit

>>8834208
Lawful Evil >>8834205

>>8834174
>Chaotic Neutral

>Sam Harris
>Lawful Moron

Facebook-tier thread

>>8834236
Reddit tier post

>>8834236
>chaotic evil
>>8834290
>lawful evil

>>8834174
not even reporting this out of admiration for your baiting skillz

>Chaotic Good

>ThE ABsoLutE MadMAn

>Cervantes
Chaotic Good
>Shakespeare
True Neutral
>Dante
Chaotic Neutral
>Plato
Only he could be so autistically Lawful Good

>>8834327
This

Chaotic Good

Bad Goy

>>8834335
>Dante
>Chaotic Neutral
My god he's serious.

Goethe
Chaotic Good.

>Machiavelli
Chaotic Good
>Stirner
Lawful Good
>Biblical Authors
Chaotic Chaotic
>>8834344
Dante was lost upon the path. Fight me.

Holy Evil

>Homer
Neutral Good

>Chatoic Good

Chaotic Good

True Neutral

>>8834372

>>8834174
>Chaotic Good
Shelley
>Neutral Good
Homer
>Lawful Good
Milton
>Lawful Neutral
Dante
>True Neutral
Shakespeare
>Chaotic Neutral
Keats
>Lawful Evil
Virgil
>Neutral Evil
Wordsworth
>Chaotic Evil
Byron

>>8834561
>moi did nothing wrong

Chaotic Evil

>and it feels so good

>>8834348
Machiavelli's clearly lawful neutral, m8.

>

>>8834174
I feel like Pynchon is chaotic good. He's wacky and subversive but ultimately with strong moral fiber.

>>8834822
impressive

>>8834607
Yes son!

>>8834827
didnt he say "stay cool, but care"

>>8834586
>Wordsworth
>evil
explain

>>8834827
It's less the pynch approves of things morally as much as he disapproves of things morally

He isn't disgusted by the type of racism in GR because of moral obligations, it's because it doesn't make sense to him. It's illogical. Read his introductory to 1984 and fascism in America and it makes more sense. It's because they don't fit in line with his worldview, which he considers outside the average American perception, so therefore it should not be taken seriously as an ideology. That's pretty chaotic neutral.

>>8834893
In other words, Pynchon is a libcuck

>>8834911
No, Pynchon is a far-leftist and hates rich manhattanites

>>8834341
My man, you hit the needle on its head

>>8834815
Machiavelli is true neutral; he doesn't advocate adherence to laws, he advocates the use of laws towards one's own ends

A willingness to eschew laws when it benefits one's self-interest is part of what it means to be Machiavellian

>>8834815
>>8835997
>I have never read Machiavelli but boy have I heard of him
Machiavelli clearly believed in, and advocated for, a strong state in order to bring about protection, stability and prosperity: the highest good a ruler could bring, in his eyes. This is the end that justifies the means in that famous quote.

Self-interest is certainly machiavellian, but it's not Machiavelli. He even has a whole section in which he analyses, but condemns, "criminal" princes (Stalin and Mussolini &c. would be the modern equivalent).

>>8836590
>Machiavelli clearly believed in, and advocated for, a strong state in order to bring about protection, stability and prosperity: the highest good a ruler could bring, in his eyes.
sounds pretty good (not neutral) to me

>>8836596
I'm glad you agree with me then you tremendous dongle. >>8834348

>>8834174
Lawful Good

>>8836597
Me too! I thought you were defending the person I was responding to, my bad

And you're completely right, I haven't read any Machiavelli.

>>8834348
Stirner is the very definition of Chaotic Neutral.

>>8834372
I used to know his son
Pretty chill dude

lawful good

>>8836653
Stirner advocates a very stringent systemlessness. He wrote a whole book on it. He used logic, he countered arguments, and then he set down a set of rules -- what must be avoided to avoid spooks.

And this is all for the good, in his opinion: he acts out of love for everybody. This might not be necessary to his philosophy, but it is to him.

If that's not lawful good, I don't know what is.

Chaotic Evil

>>8836904
>And this is all for the good, in his opinion
Nah, in the end he admits he does it because he enjoys doing it and doing what he does. He revels in himself. It's just that there's no a priori reason as to why that needs to go against other people, or that his sense of self needs to end at his body.

Stirner is the definition of True Neutral. It's just that he's the opposite of what's expected of that because his neutrality is based on being interested, not disinterested. What he posits is a philosophy in which, because you can't justify anything, all you do is for yourself, out of yourself, and only has yourself to blame or worry about. It's about not having having things between you and the world.

>>8837068
You misunderstand me: he indeed is de-spooked in ideological motivation. He doesn't advocate egoism *because* he loves us: he doesn't say "be egoistic, because it indulges in love (and love is Good).

But he himself loves us. To see us succeed makes him feel good. It is therefore egoistic, to him, to see us succeed.

His ideology -- egoism -- is not possible to confine to any alignment chart. That is, after all, the point. But he himself -- he is lawful good.

This bitch is definitely Chaotic Evil.

>>8834228
top kek

>Chaotic Evil

>>8834179
Nah he's chaotic good

>>8837037
Chaotic Rimjaub

>>8837168
>But he himself loves us.
At times. Stirner doesn't advocate for a fixed character either. He's open to changing his opinion. Though he did probably believe honest egoism brought along less problems.

Plus, there's no real "us" to love. There's only unique egos.

>>8837447
Yeah, but I'm talking about what he was thinking and wrote down in his book my man.

>Plus, there's no real "us" to love.
Stirner disagrees. Let's use charity as an example: devoting money to a charity that will help people you will never know of is egoistic, as long as you understand that you are trying to help specific egos. This applies to everyone who you will never know, and those you will, too.

>>8837279
true neutral

Read his interviews and his nonfiction books. Even ultrafeminist Virginia Despentes likes him.

>>8834822
That's a dank meme family

>>8837504
>I'm talking about what he was thinking and wrote down in his book my man.
I get it, but doesn't it need to fall under "moral good" to be classified as Good? Take for example if Stirner said he liked milk: if he'd said he liked milk because milk is a good thing, that's easily understood as Good; now if he'd say he liked milk because of his personal reasons, then him liking it has nothing to do with the correct moral choice, it'd be Neutral, even if based on things like health or taste. No?

>as long as you understand that you are trying to help specific egos.
That's still the same thing. He's helping random people but it's not a categorical thing.

>>8837526
>Read his interviews and his nonfiction books.
Yeah sure, those could be "neutral" ; nevertheless, I just can't read any of his novels without going "The fuck, Michel ?!?" every three pages.

>Even ultrafeminist Virginia Despentes likes him.
Don't wanna sound aggressive or anything, but I honestly don't give a fuck.

>>8837632
>>8837526
Oh and P.S.
*Virginie

>>8837623
>doesn't it need to fall under "moral good" to be classified as Good?
Nope. Stirner doesn't need to believe in "goodness" to be considered "good" under the alignment system. Loving everyone -- and wanting to help them, ultimately -- is very "good".
>>8837632
>Don't wanna sound aggressive or anything
You don't, you sound passive-aggressive.

>>8837648
>you sound passive-aggressive
Well, as long as it's not aggressive...

>Virginia Woolf
>woman

>>8837654
Passive-aggressive is immeasurably worse than aggressive. It is exactly the same as aggressive, only biliously masochistic.

>>8837763
>only biliously masochistic
That's what makes it even better, senpai.