/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16336691]

>The People is dead! Good-day, Self!

[Anonymous No.16336709]

>>16336691
Is there a bigger Pseud than Stirner?

[Anonymous No.16336714]

>>16336709
marx

[Anonymous No.16336717]

>>16336691
My power is my property.
My power gives me property.
My power am I myself, and through it am I my property

[Anonymous No.16336723]

>>16336717

[Anonymous No.16336764]

>>16336723
If your idea controls you, rather than you control your idea, then you give into it your power. No longer are you your own property, you've created your own shackles.

[Anonymous No.16336781]

>>16336764
>If your idea controls you, rather than you control your idea, then you give into it your power. No longer are you your own property, you've created your own shackles.

So become a stoic?

[Anonymous No.16336821]

>>16336781
Ee, it's more like Cyrenaic Hedonism and Stoicism had a baby

[Anonymous No.16336824]

>>16336821
Okay that makes sense

[Anonymous No.16336843]

>>16336764
But are not, these shackles a birth right?
We all have them, subconscious egoistic desires.
One can justify their Humility as lack of egoistic nature, but it always comes down to conscious decision to justify it.

If we would have no ego, we would give our foot to a crocodile, but it is always about what we gain from our conscious actions that stems from subconscious desire to have, control, have and be the center of ones perspective.

Love etc. is no different even if it appears to be all giving, it has an egoistical foundation.

If one can recognize human fragility, only then, he can improve, influence the subconscious as you are now aware of its existence (Jung thought).
We all are shackled in nature - to be just a human and we will be distinct from our nature, thus we can improve only within its bounds but in the end only as a conscious egoist.

[Anonymous No.16336853]

>>16336764
But are not, these shackles a birth right?
We all have them, subconscious egoistic desires.
One can justify their Humility as lack of egoistic nature, but it always comes down to conscious decision to justify it.

If we would have no ego, we would give our foot to a crocodile, but it is always about what we gain from our conscious actions that stems from subconscious desire to have, control, have and be the center of ones perspective.

Love etc. is no different even if it appears to be all giving, it has an egoistical foundation.

If one can recognize human fragility, only then, he can improve, influence the subconscious as you are now aware of its existence (Jung thought).
We all are shackled in nature - to be just a human and we will never be distinct from our nature, thus we can improve only within its bounds but in the end only as a conscious egoist.

[Anonymous No.16336858]

descartes already did it

[Anonymous No.16336860]

>>16336691
>Look at Stirner, look at him,
>the peaceful enemy of all constraint.
>For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
>soon he will be drinking blood
>as though it were water.
>When others cry savagely
>«down with the kings»
>Stirner immediately supplements
>«down with the laws also».
>Stirner full of dignity proclaims;
>you bend your will power,
>and you dare to call yourselves free,
>You become accustomed to slavery;
>Down with dogmatism, down with law.

[Anonymous No.16336871]

>>16336853
based?

[Anonymous No.16336978]

>>16336860
engels secretly agreed with stirner but when marx went so hard against him he had to act like he hated him too

[Anonymous No.16337025]

>>16336691
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

[Anonymous No.16337033]

>>16336717
funny, since stirner wasn't an anarchist, he was the complete opposite.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16337045]

>>16337033
Naw. He was the complete opposite of Tolstoy type of anarchism, and a challenge to Kropotkin style. Emma Goldman admired Stirner and Kropotkin and made it work for her

[Anonymous No.16337058]

>>16336709
You faggots think anybody is a pseud, while being one yourself

[Anonymous No.16337060]

>>16336978
Possibly. I think Stirner was a pleasant guy to be around, I forget who said it but there was a remark about how one wouldn't expect such destructive ideas to come from such a chill dude.

[Anonymous No.16337080]

>>16337045
>tfw no modern Emma Goldman

[Anonymous No.16337165]

>>16336709
No, because literally Stirner's entire system of belief was really just a massive cope for himself.

[Anonymous No.16337174]

>>16337165
Marx?

[Anonymous No.16337179]

>>16337174
Ill give Stirner this, he kept his belief system enclosed within the realms of his own being.

Marx projected his onto the whole world in the hopes of changing it.

[Anonymous No.16337196]

>>16337165
What's not a cope according to you then? I find Stirner to be as far from a cope as you can get.

[Anonymous No.16337305]

>>16337196
he’s really the anti cope. he’s the embrace

[Anonymous No.16337489]

>>16336717

Where did that get this nigga? Like for real? Was he a party animal? He fuck mad bitches?

[Anonymous No.16337500]

>>16336691
Can someone explain me how Stirner wasn't a psychological egoist?

[Anonymous No.16337512]

>>16337500
He was a transcendent egoist

[Anonymous No.16337617]

>>16337489
He had a failed milkshop and allegedly died of a bug bite.

[Anonymous No.16337638]

>>16337512
That meaning? It's this bit that troubles me.
>Moreover, at one point, Stirner appears explicitly to consider adopting the explanatory stance of psychological egoism only to reject it. In a discussion of a young woman who sacrifices her love for another in order to respect the wishes of her family, Stirner remarks that an observer might be tempted to maintain that selfishness has still prevailed in this case since the woman clearly preferred the wishes of her family to the attractions of her suitor. However, Stirner rejects this hypothetical explanation, insisting that, provided “the pliable girl were conscious of having left her self-will unsatisfied and humbly subjected herself to a higher power” (197), we should see her actions as governed by piety rather than egoism.
If, for example, I sacrifice myself to some extent for a friend because I genuinely care about him, because I'm defending my property, how am I not being a psychological egoist? How can you separate psychological egoism from Stirner's egoism? To me it seems the first is necessarely needed.

[Anonymous No.16337761]

>>16337638
the distinctions between branches of egoism seem so obscure, help me understand the difference between psychological egoism and stirners egoism

[Anonymous No.16337904]

>>16337761
>Psychological egoism is the thesis that we are always deep down motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest.
Stirner says one has to liberate himself from fixed ideas (spooks) to reach the final stage of egoism. His egoism is about "ownness".
>"Ownness includes in itself everything own, and brings to honor again what Christian language dishonored. But ownness has not any alien standard either, as it is not in any sense an idea like freedom, morality, humanity, etc.: it is only a description of the — owner."
Now I've read Stirner's Egoism is a descriptive psychological egoist and it seems logical to me but in his book at one point Stirner seems to reject it, I posted an analysis of that bit earlier.

[Anonymous No.16338041]

>>16337617
he seemed like a ruseman enough to make up his death story in advance

[Anonymous No.16338144]

>>16338041
Maybe he went on to live in Nietzsche's attic, occasionally spooking him.

[Anonymous No.16338165]

>>16337617
>failed milkshop
Better than what half of /lit/ can do

[Anonymous No.16338203]

>>16338165
He was a professor but he resigned shortly after publishing his book because of the controversy that would've followed.

[Anonymous No.16338215]

>>16338203

[Anonymous No.16338266]

>>16336709
Karl Marx

[Anonymous No.16338297]

>>16338165
I mean I wasn't trying to knock him...
It's not like my business venture didn't basically fail.

[Anonymous No.16338482]

>>16338297
Sorry to hear that, what were you doing anon?

[Anonymous No.16338635]

>>16338482
selling snacks and drinks in vending machines

[Anonymous No.16338676]

>>16336709
Yes, it's some kind of absurd egoism. Rand is the only real Egosim

[Anonymous No.16338718]

>>16338676
coping lolbertarian

[Anonymous No.16338744]

>>16337638
If you follow egoism to its natural conclusion there is no reason to respect the egoism of other people and therefore preaching egoism defeats the purpose of egoism.

Read Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.16338792]

>>16338718
Not so, it may interest you to read about Rand's problems with the libertarian movement and even as a philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16338800]

>>16338744
If you're a sociopath, sure

[Anonymous No.16338812]

>>16336709
literally none.

[Anonymous No.16338905]

>>16338744
aware egoism =/= unaware egoism

[Anonymous No.16338929]

>>16338744
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.16339086]

>>16338744
I respect others egoism as long as they respect mine.

[Anonymous No.16339268]

>>16338812
seething marxist

[Anonymous No.16339398]

>>16338744
Read Rand you mean.
Force, failure to redound to objective reality, and curtailed means of deploying the results of the development of one's ego begets failure and backstabbers.
Esteem cements power forever.

The the Ego requires freedom and the whole host of the world with that same freedom to know that ego, most importantly under their own initiative. Anyone who doesn't think (rather know) Egoism directly, necessarily, in-logic implies Capitalism is delusional.

[Anonymous No.16339430]

>>16336709
Karl Marx

[Anonymous No.16339464]

>>16338744
Mutual egoism exists and is how successful groups survive. You've heard "Do unto others" and "quid pro quo," that's mutual egoism in action.

But, I get the feeling you're the type to think selfishness is inherently-bad.

[Anonymous No.16339521]

>>16337489
He was a bitter loser who spent much of his life in debtor's prison, was not respected by his wife (who divorced him), and died of an infected bug bite at an young age, poor and mourned by no one.

[Anonymous No.16339903]

>>16336709
hegel

[Anonymous No.16339953]

>>16336717
>property
Inaccurate and bizarre translation

[Anonymous No.16340164]

>>16336691
Isn't it kinda pointless to bring up Stirner at next to every third or so thread on /lit/, when basically everyone who rejects unconditional and unreasonable self-sacrifice (and subscribes to some degree to the notion of "healthy" individualism) already holds the same views as Stirner? Literally what else is there when it comes to Stirner?

[Anonymous No.16340185]

>>16340164
denying morality in all of its forms

[Anonymous No.16340303]

>>16340185
>denying morality in all of its forms

No atheist/agnostic (both of which I would hold to be manifestations of healthy individualism, as neither can subscribe to "objective morality" with any tenable claims) would object to such rebuttals. Everyone has basic needs, be it helping the poor or keeping the relationship between you and your parter stable, and both of these are ultimately egoistic or self-serving. No moralizing, no unnecessary abstractions or idealizations. End of discussion.

[Anonymous No.16340305]

>>16340185
What if I'm not a literal nigger?

[Anonymous No.16340538]

>>16340303
>be it helping the poor or keeping the relationship between you and your parter stable
>no unnecessary abstractions
both of those things are abstractions from fulfilling ones ego though

[Anonymous No.16340567]

>>16340538
>both of those things are abstractions from fulfilling ones ego though
It doesn't exactly help the opposing position(s), now doest it? Even Kant could've told you that.

[Anonymous No.16340629]

>>16340567
extrapolate

[Anonymous No.16340643]

>>16340538
>both of those things are abstractions from fulfilling ones ego though
That doesn't exactly help the opposing position(s), now doest it? Besides, even Kant could've told you that.

[Anonymous No.16342319]

>>16340164
They key point is rejecting fixed ideas. Hence anytime someone is victim of one of those Stirner is a fitting (shit)post.

[Anonymous No.16342397]

>>16339398
10/10 post