/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11679565]

Please DON'T take the Stirner pill. Believe me, no good will come from it unless you are 90 years old and dying in hospital.

[Anonymous No.11679566]

>t. materialist

[Anonymous No.11679573]

>>11679566
My family hates me and won't talk to me. I got fired. I have no fucking education because I faked it on my CV and now no University will enrol me due to this.

[Anonymous No.11679578]

>>11679573
I somehow doubt this has to do with taking the ego-pill, or you extremly misunderstood what it implied

[Anonymous No.11679581]

>>11679565
but I just wrote my master's thesis on Stirner and got an A, I say Stirner's already been good to me and I'm only 89

[Anonymous No.11679587]

>>11679578
I'm doing everything for myself.

[Anonymous No.11679591]

>>11679587
Doing everything for yourself yet you have a family that hates you, no job and no education?

[Anonymous No.11679628]

Somehow I feel like Stirner's perspective is very close to what Kierkegaard describes as a Knight of Faith. They share breaking ties with the Universal, and while Stirner does not empathise what leads an Individual through his life, he never implies it to be a mere hedonism.

[Anonymous No.11679634]

>>11679591
name some more spooks, please

[Anonymous No.11679641]

>>11679565
DO NOT ENTER! I MEAN IT, DO NOT ENTER FOLKS!

[Anonymous No.11679656]

When will all you edgy existentialists finally realise that there is no consciousness or "ego" without language and language is necessarily a social phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.11679662]

Is Stirner's philosophy worth picking up if you're a sad virgin loser?

[Anonymous No.11679666]

>>11679565
Wrong. I took the Stirner pill when I was 23 and now three years later I'm happier than ever. Stirner showed me how to love and be free.

[Anonymous No.11679672]

>>11679656
Nobody argues that a human can exist without a society. The question is whether a human should be understood as a subordinate of a society.

[Anonymous No.11679694]

>>11679634
You don't know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.11679795]

>>11679587
There's a 98% chance you're memeing, but just to clarify anyhow:

Being a Stirnerian egoist requires (more than) a base level of intelligence to go out and act in a way that turns things in your favor. Going out and doing things in "self-interest" in a way that makes people distrust or dislike you and in turn draw away resources from you is just dumb.
Egoism is consistent and will eventually leverage the people around you. Some level of capability to calculate the effect of your action is implied.

[Anonymous No.11679803]

>>11679672
I'm saying he should.

[Anonymous No.11679811]

How do I take the Stirnerpill? Couldn't be worse than what I've got going on now.

[Anonymous No.11679817]

>>11679656
Wait what have I missed? What does linguistics have to do with the concept of "ego"

[Anonymous No.11679821]

>>11679565
Is this reverse psychology?

[Anonymous No.11679822]

>>11679817
You can't think without language.

[Anonymous No.11679827]

>>11679822
Do you say that *you* cant think without language or that its literally impossible to think without knowing a language?

[Anonymous No.11679831]

>>11679827
I'm saying that conscious thought only arise with the knowledge of a language. Everything before that is just processing biological signals.

[Anonymous No.11679839]

>>11679822
Factually untrue

[Anonymous No.11679844]

>>11679831
And since language is a generally agreed upon definition and symbolisms, its a social construct, and because of that the man should yield to the society? And if I correctly characterized your position, can you think of any arguments against it?

[Anonymous No.11679848]

>>11679831
>>11679822
How did language and therefore thought come about to exist among the first humans then, considering there exists no inherent "language" in individuals, and that they could only process biological signals and not think at the beginning of their time on Earth?

You bozo

[Anonymous No.11679870]

>>11679565
You don't need to autistically spout Stirner memes at everything in your life, you retard. If you obviously don't like it (that is, adhering to made-up prescriptions you've forced onto Stirner), then don't take it all into stride. Take bits and pieces you think useful, and discard the rest. Or ignore it altogether. You can disagree and agree with something from multiple different angles and levels.

You being a failure has no relation to Stirner's philosophy. Stirner doesn't address such things, he speaks of the more fundamental. The rest is entirely on you. Perhaps if you are a failure by your own eyes, then you should have shaped yourself into something stronger. Like faking your education better or not at all. Or finding completely different means of living and growing. Stirner didn't say: be a lazy dumb cunt. And even if he did, it's not good advice no matter your ideology so you could easily think Stirner a lazy dumb cunt for suggesting it whilst simultaneously taking the rest of his words to heart...or not. Think for yourself and reflect, you dog.

I hope this was all bait to support the meme of Stirnerposters being retarded, and by extension Stirner being illegitimate.

[Anonymous No.11679878]

>>11679848
Slowly. Other animals have language, it's just not as complex as that of homo sapiens. Others in our genus surely had language, too. Don't think of linguistic constructions, think of biological faculties.

[Anonymous No.11679894]

>>11679844
This is not about moral claims. Man "shouldn't" yield to society. I'm just saying the very thing you consider the core of your individuality is in fact socially conditioned and you should stop trying to escape that fact.

>>11679848
I don't know what these state of nature thought experiments serve for but I'd imagine conscious cooperation was an evolutionary factor for humanity.

[Anonymous No.11679910]

>>11679894
sorry maybe this isnt the same poster as you then >>11679803

[Anonymous No.11679927]

I can't take Stirner seriously because of 4chan

[Anonymous No.11679936]

>>11679565
Anarcho-stirnerites have never been taken seriously. It's just an excuse to be selfish and get attention.

[Anonymous No.11679940]

>>11679803
Nah, you are part of society, not a subordinate of some Metaphulysical image of it.

[Convex !2JFC8Gml3c No.11679948]

>>11679565
>>11679573
Idiot. Did you even read his work? For some reason there is a weird common misinterpretation with stirners ideas where people just take them as meaning "Oh, so I should be a fucking asshole to everyone then." If your family hate you it's only because you don't love your family because you're a fucking asshole. Does loving people (even those closest to you) not give you joy? Does loving the most biologically similar people to you not bring you joy? Also, the fact that you are not educated has nothing to do with Stirner. The fact that you have no job has nothing to do with Stirner (you got fired either because you were being an asshole or you weren't doing your job, another reason to hate you). I have a solution, GET A NEW ONE WHERE YOU ARE YOUR OWN BOSS, OR GET ONE WHERE YOU ENJOY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Stirner was a gym teacher for fourth graders, do you know why? He liked being a gym teacher.

In closing, I feel sorry for you, being such a failure that you need to blame your failures on some bullshit instead of taking responsibility for them. You weren't an "egoist", you were a "dumbass", commonly referred to as OP. I smell resent in this post, and if this isn't a troll, (which I hope it is) please get off this website.

[Anonymous No.11680063]

>>11679628
he even states that he has no intention of going against the overcoming of worldlyness by the Christian era

[Anonymous No.11680081]

If you intend to take the Stirner pill you might also be interested in "Eumeswil" by Ernst Jünger. It is very much influenced by his reading of Stirner and combines it with a perspective that is more sober when compared to the intentional provocations and social utopianism (the "union of egoists" as the basis for social organization) which you find in Stirner's work.

[Anonymous No.11680128]

>>11679694
Oh but I do, what would 'ein Einziger' have to do with family ties, a job, and an education? Before you can do anything for yourself, you most first throw all these shackles away. I grant you 'education' is ambiguous, but I interpreted it as the kind on a piece of paper.

[Anonymous No.11680157]

>>11680128
When Stirner talks about "spooks" he refers to social institutions which force people to act certain ways and which aren't grounded in any objectivity. Morality, states, religion and etc, all of these are spooks. It has nothing to do with how you personally want to lead your life

[Anonymous No.11680159]

>>11679565
>good
Nice spook, nerd

[Anonymous No.11680222]

>>11679628
The similarities are superficial although the opinions of philologists on the matter of a provable influence remain split. Two works come to mind that treat the matter Stirner-Kierkegaard somewhat in depth: Karl Löwith's 'Von Hegel zu Nietzsche' (available in translation) and a piece by Martin Buber, something like 'der Einzige und der Einzelne. Über Stirner und Kierkegaard' (not available in translation? Printed in Synthese Vol. 1, No. 1, 1936).
>>11680157
Spooks aren't just social institutions, he explicitly states a spook is 'eine fixe Idee', nothing more, and to think of spook as a concept ('Begriff') might be altogether flawed to begin with. For example, it's not really to be distinguished from 'Sparren' (unsure of the translation, I believe Byington is 'wheels in the head', Landstreicher 'bats in the belfry'). There's no reason 'ein Einziger' can't be in a family, but family ties are ridiculous, there's nothing wrong with a job, and to benefit from education ('Bildung') is no shame at all, but the idea of education as such is crazy (although to be fair, on the side of Bildung, this realisation often constitutes Bildung itself).

[Anonymous No.11680230]

>>11679565
hospitals are spooks.

[Anonymous No.11680239]

Was Junger an evolution of Stirner or a solution?

[Anonymous No.11680241]

>>11680222
You are treating his words way too literally. His ideas how to be put in context. Yes almost anything can be defined as a shackle but there is a big difference in how much they effect our actions. Claiming that job and family ties (which in many way stem from genetics) are as devistating to the ego as morality, states (laws) and religion is simply absurd.

If you take his philosophy to mean disgregarding any idea and just act randomly you have fundamentally misunderstood him

[Anonymous No.11680253]

>>11680081
Martin was a true man, but in the end he disappears lost in the forest, without a legacy, and his liberal brother inherits the world. In the end, what was the point? To live a beautiful life?

[Anonymous No.11680260]

>>11680239
dilution*

[Anonymous No.11680263]

>>11680241
No, you have misunderstood me. It's the intrinsic worth of ideas that he disregards, not ideas themselves. And my suggestion isn't absurd, you're implying a kind of epistemological scale of spooks from less to more real, less to more worse, which I really don't care about and doesn't make me less correct in saying that family ties are spooks. And suddenly you're talking about genetics while still complaining my method isn't sound? Please.

[Anonymous No.11680269]

>>11679656
Unfortunately, in the history of language, costumes and statues and tools, along with a mixture of howls and grunts and sounds we just so keep in our lexicons today, preceded and gave the foundation to what you refer to as "ego". For the history of inner thought, see Shakespeare and Lucretius.

[Anonymous No.11680275]

>>11680263
You basically wrote a point saying absolutely nothing. Atleast now I know this was just a bait thread for a Stirner hater (most likely Marxist)

[Anonymous No.11680292]

>>11680275
No, you're just in over your head. But feel free to disregard everything as bait, assert your Einzigkeit

[Anonymous No.11680303]

>>11679565
I'm running low on adderall, would the stirner pill be a good temporary replacement?

[Anonymous No.11680469]

>>11679565
It's not a real philosophy, Stirner isn't a real philosopher, I disregard people out of hand if they even admit to having read the loser.

[Anonymous No.11680510]

>>11680253
His liberal brother merely inherits a world in which ideas have lost their meaning and political idealism is absurd. The liberal demagogues might run the show for a while but i think the cynical details of Martin's view of history (or the post-historical world after the failure of the world state) seem to imply that they will not be able to change more than the superficial structure of society only to be swept away by the next tyrant.

I personally think this view of history is inspired by Spengler, who sketches the end state of a falling civilization as a battle of diadochi devoid of history like Jünger, and even more so by Jüngers friend Ernst Niekisch. He wrote an essay called "Nihilism" in which he gives Spenglerian Nihilism an idealistic bent: A dominant system of ideals grows hollow and is replaced through the denouncement by revolutionaries who are guided by faith in a new system of ideals. This new system is then established in the practical world, only to share the same destiny as the one that came before it. Because Jünger emphasizes the inability of ideals to inspire faith in the time of Eumeswil in connection with the description of said time as post- or ahistorical (a necessary conclusion if we agree with Niekisch that ideals are the moving principle of history), it seems to me that he implies that political action is pointless, maybe because it is the last stage of one of Spengler's organic cycles and the entire civilization, and with it the very framework of political ideas, is lying on it's death bed already.

[Anonymous No.11680532]

>>11680469
how is it not a real philosophy? It's an eudaimonia-based system of ethics arguing from subjective will, a will which, contrary to that of Schopenhauer, is not to be confused with base instinct, but rather corresponds(at least loosely) to the part of the soul which Plato called "thymoeides".

[Anonymous No.11680549]

>>11680303
Nah I got you on the low for that good meth

[Anonymous No.11680551]

Guess who else was inspired by Stirner, my fellow edgelords?

[Anonymous No.11681850]

>>11680551
Tradition is a spook desu.
Moral superiority is a spook within a spook.