[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 86 KB, 907x1360, BB7E5818-5EC1-4D47-92DA-9C91EF30E686.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17132806 No.17132806 [Reply] [Original]

This is the logical conclusion of philosophy. He solved it

>> No.17132822

>>17132806
t. midwit

>> No.17132863

This actually true. Where do you go from there?

>> No.17132878

>>17132806
Yep. Imagine reading Neet-cha when Stirner exists, literally condensed and de-spooked all his ideas in one book, and before him too.

>> No.17132881

Morals arent real

>> No.17132895

the logical conclusion is a cartoon with a catchphrase?

>> No.17132905
File: 150 KB, 245x320, 1608287257753.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17132905

>> No.17132907

>>17132806
He gets talked about here too much; we don't need to keep reviving him. I like him, but we can talk about other things here

>> No.17132911

Is Stirner a sort of existentialist or nihilist? Would it be fair to say that he believes life has no inherent meaning, and all ascribed and assumed meanings of life are in reality elaborate social constructs meant to take over the individual's free will to be used for the ends of another? The individual's will, interest, and desire is what should come first?

>> No.17132913

I literally read him just because he is a drawing and now I imagine everything he says like a drawing

>> No.17132942

>>17132911
His nihilism is a crude form of positivism. So, he would be an existential nihilist.

>> No.17132954

>>17132911
I rec you reading his essay "art and religion".

>> No.17132956

>union of egoists
so would this be like voluntary anarcho syndicalism?

>> No.17132958

>>17132907
Well that is because he is like the cooler version of Nietzsche

>> No.17132980

>>17132956
i wouldnt call it syndicalism just because its a union. its more like free association of individuals. if the individual chooses to associate with others based on their own individual choice that they wish to do rather than being compelled to or influenced by a particular ideology

>> No.17132986

>>17132956
It could be, but its best thought of as a like group of friends doing things together. He wasn't big on making blueprints like socialist, liberal, or anarchist counterparts on what the future society looked like; believing it was up to the individuals involved. His critique of humanism is essentially showing the futility of figuring ideal system billions of unique human beings - seeing how revolutions, social decline makes prospects of this very bleak, and that one should not take the risk of sacrificing their life to these abstract causes.His book is more like a self help book, if anything. I highly recommend Welsh's "Dialectical Egoism" and Wolfi's follow up to it. And, don't take this stuff too seriously. Understand or read Stirner at your own pace

>> No.17133031

the first ancap

>> No.17133049

>>17132986
>>17132954
>>17132954
thanks for the recs

>> No.17133062

>>17132863
Stirner was on to something huge.
MORALS aren't a thing. It's evolutionary psychology that gives us the instincts for altruism and empathy. Not God or sone other such thing. Stirner knew in his bones that our morality is just genetic programming, and no act is immoral, because nothing is moral or immoral. It's like when the atomists deduced the existence of atoms through reason alone. Stirner deduced evopsych, then took the logic to an extreme to thoroughly demonstrate his point. He is not some silly extremist. It is a shame that Marx reacted to Stirner so poorly. Communism would greatly benefit from the application of evopsych principles, but they've internalized blank-slate nonsense so they continue to build unworkable social systems.

>> No.17133158

It's just a rejection of philosophy more than anything

>> No.17133167

>>17132956
It's a group of friends but Stirner was such an autist he had to give it a weird name

>> No.17133441

>>17132956
>>so would this be like voluntary anarcho syndicalism?
caring about and wanting a political system is 100% secular humanism

>> No.17133782

>>17133062
YES nice post

>> No.17133907

>>17132863
He starts where Hegel's PoS ends so already there it's hard to go further. I would say that Marx's capital and Althusser's cold reading of Marx is the next step.

>> No.17133929

>>17133062
Funny copypasta

>> No.17133948

>>17132806
Stirner didn't take spookery far enough as he couldn't conclude that both his corporeal and ethereal self was also a spook. He had no issue concluding this about others, just never himself.

>> No.17133949

>>17133441
It's in everyone's interest to have a distribution of labour to allow for some enjoyment of excess which the distribution provides. It is furthermore not in everyone's interest that the capitalist class has most of the excess, and since i am not a part of the capitalist class i want the distribution to be more in my favour and there are many more people that would like the same if they weren't spooked.

>> No.17133950

>I can't see morals so they aren't real and I don't like them so they are bad

>> No.17134001

>>17132806
stirner is just beavis & butthead for fucking nerds haha ... loosers,......

>> No.17134237

>>17133950
morals are merely social constructs, not actual real entities

>> No.17134333

>>17133949
How would this even work in practice, would you have the state decide what job should everyone be doing?

>> No.17134893

>>17132878
While this is correct, it should be rephrased to show just how disgusting and low of a creature Nietzsche is. Nietzsche PLAIGARISED Stirner, then injected spook-filled dualist nonsense (the will to power, master vs slave morality, the doctrine of the overman, etc.) into it, and then covered this vulgarization with colorful, flowery, and vague language, replacing Stirner's direct, to the point prose, all while larping as the greatest thinker to ever live, the beginner of a new era, the philosopher of the future, the man strong enough to split history into two, the world leader, even god after he snapped.

>> No.17134915

>>17132956
The "union of egoists" is literally just Spinoza's political theory applied. It is just a state without spooks, without dualist nonsense forced down the throats of the populus.

>> No.17134923

>>17132806
Strner is just some steam pussy philosofur

>> No.17134931

>>17134237
And?

>> No.17134937

>>17134237
if the individual chooses to follow some moral behavior because they wish to do so rather than by force or ideology that is different from what stirner is criticizing

>> No.17134995

>>17133948
Send me a million skeptics to criticize my thoughts, but not one will be able to convice me I don't exist, that I am not really experiencing anything. Do people like you just not know what is meant by the word "I"? That's the only way I could imagine people would believe such an absurdity. All "I" am is what is in my consciousness right now. When I define "I" like that, then I definitely exist, no matter how many philosophers you send my way. Nobody will be able to convince me I am not aware of anything.

>> No.17135109

To be completely honest, I agree. Although I do feel like Hegel and Nietzsche are compatible with Stirner. Though, to really understand Stirner, you should probably have read Hegel.

>> No.17135280

>>17134995
Hi microbiology and quantum dynamics would like a word

>> No.17135297

>>17134995
sir I think you forgot to shut the fuck up

>> No.17135333

>>17135280
Microbiology is nothing but another object in my consciousness, which yet again proves my point right. Science is empirical and so relies on consciousness to exist. Quantum dynamics is meant to show that I am experiencing nothing? But then how did I become aware of quantum dynamics? How did I read your comment? Shut the fuck up retarded child, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

>> No.17136154

>>17134995
Awareness exists, it is not you. There is no you cause you is a spook.

>> No.17136186

>>17132806
question, what would the egoist think if they had a clone of him/herself? would you treat it with the same sort of reverence you treat yourself or simply dismiss it as it's own person.

>> No.17136187

>This is the logical conclusion of philosophy. He solved it
Is there anyone else who this could truly be said for? Honestly unironically doubt it.

>> No.17136233

>>17136186
The latter of course. It is even questionable that they would form a social circle. Why would you hang out with someone that is exactly like you?