/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11821466]

Political liberty,” what are we to understand by that? Perhaps the individual’s independence of the State and its laws? No; on the contrary, the individual’s subjection in the State and to the State’s laws... Political liberty means that the polis, the State, is free; freedom of religion that religion is free, as freedom of conscience signifies that conscience is free; not, therefore, that I am free from the State, from religion, from conscience, or that I am rid of them. It does not mean my liberty, but the liberty of a power that rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my despots, like State, religion, conscience, is free. State, religion, conscience, these despots, make me a slave, and their liberty is my slavery.

[Anonymous No.11821660]

stirner is great

[Anonymous No.11821676]

>>11821466

[Anonymous No.11821683]

Prove him wrong
You can't

[Anonymous No.11821685]

[Anonymous No.11821705]

Does Stirner have any advice for dealing with depression and self-hate?

[Anonymous No.11821711]

>>11821705
Depression and self-hatred are spooks.

[Anonymous No.11821735]

>>11821705
kind of. ego and its own is very self empowering. it also tears down big institutions and you come away with the feeling that a large part of your depression, self hate, fear, meekness etc is actually a planned product of these institutions to keep individuals from asserting themselves against them

[Anonymous No.11821787]

One cannot prove~ili~disprove any one wrong or inwrong.

[Anonymous No.11821793]

what if the ego is a spook

[Anonymous No.11821797]

>>11821793
It can be if it undermines its own will

[Anonymous No.11821915]

>>11821793
Cogito ergo sum, no one has disproved this

[Anonymous No.11821929]

>>11821915

[Anonymous No.11821936]

>>11821915
The phrase "cogito ergo sum" isn't even a valid argument because it isn't presented in a valid logical argument form.

[Anonymous No.11821942]

>>11821929
i hate this guy so much

[Anonymous No.11821945]

>>11821929
He's literally Pepe

[Anonymous No.11821955]

>>11821705
You call me the unhuman," it might say to him, "and so I really am—for you; but I am so only because you bring me into opposition to the human, and I could despise myself only so long as I let myself be hypnotized into this opposition. I was contemptible because I sought my 'better self' outside me; I was the unhuman because I dreamed of the 'human'; I resembled the pious who hunger for their 'true self' and always remain 'poor sinners'; I thought of myself only in comparison to another; enough, I was not all in all, was not—unique.[102] But now I cease to appear to myself as the unhuman, cease to measure myself and let myself be measured by man, cease to recognize anything above me: consequently—adieu, humane critic! I only have been the unhuman, am it now no longer, but am the unique, yes, to your loathing, the egoistic; yet not the egoistic as it lets itself be measured by the human, humane, and unselfish, but the egoistic as the—unique.

[Anonymous No.11821976]

Did Stirner account for the fact that capital is sentient?

[Anonymous No.11821980]

>>11821976
Sentience is a spook

[Anonymous No.11822258]