/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17232016]

Max Stirner refuted in four words:

Egoism. is. a. spook.

[Anonymous No.17232021]

refutation is a spook

[Anonymous No.17232029]

Redditors seem to have completely misinterpreted Stirner to the point that they have turned egoism into a spook. Their entire view is now "do the opposite of what other people do". It's angsty teen tier shit. Like apparently acting by your morals (even if it's what you want) is bad, and you must purposely be immoral.

[Anonymous No.17232061]

>>17232029
worst post I've seen today, thanks

[Anonymous No.17232071]

>>17232061
Go back and you won't see any more posts you don't like loser.

[Anonymous No.17232079]

>>17232071
your post was shit and you know it

[Anonymous No.17232096]

>>17232016
Egoism is a spook technically, but the things it describes are not, they are natural

[Anonymous No.17232099]

>>17232079
It was so shit that you can't think of a single response other than complain. You're clearly an underage retard.

[Anonymous No.17232204]

>>17232029
>>17232071
>>17232099
Egoists, everybody!

[Anonymous No.17232224]

[Anonymous No.17232252]

Is Ego and its Own actually worth reading for someone who is already beyond that type of rugged individualism?

[Anonymous No.17232268]

>>17232252
It is a fun read, it depends on what you make of it. It is not life advice. Read Unique and Its Property, it is known to be the better translation.

[Anonymous No.17232293]

>>17232268
I'm wondering actually if it has any interesting philosophical insights beyond mere life advice. Hopefully more than just fun too

[Anonymous No.17232394]

>>17232016
heh

[Anonymous No.17232409]

>>17232293
Understanding Stierners egoism helps to dispell stuff like morals, I'd say it has high philosophical use, but little to no life advice/use.

It's pointless since if you align with his views, you realise that yourself and every was already doing so, so nothing has changed. However you can easily spot people who don't realise it.

[Anonymous No.17232440]

>>17232409
I'm already beyond morality at a philosophical level. THe problem with the "dispelling" of practical morals I've noticed is that the result is generally either genuine sociopaths or people who pretend to be sociopaths, theoretically, yet still operate on moral principles without realising or admitting it. Anyway, I will try reading it.

[Anonymous No.17232457]

>>17232016
Stirner is nothing but abstract semantics, the most worthless kind of "philosophy".

[Anonymous No.17232470]

>>17232394
no if i just arbitrarily say what things mean and dont mean that means i win right?

[Anonymous No.17232477]

>>17232016
>read stirner
>see that everybody that ever post about him has not even read a single page, they just go off the memes they see

[Anonymous No.17232509]

>>17232477
maybe people should stop posting such crap retarded memes then?

[Anonymous No.17232512]

>>17232477
>read evola, the same
>read nietzsche, usually the same
>read buddha, the same (even memed by nietzsche/schopenhauer)
>read plato, usually the same (muh feathered biped)

[Anonymous No.17232533]

>>17232293
>>17232409
Currently reading the Unique and Its Property, didn't finish it yet but I'm currently in part 2. I do believe it has both philosophical merit and life advice in it. The first part of the book is mostly philosophical and I really liked the stuff about spirit and truth in the first part. The second part has to do with individual egoism and why you should pursue the things for your own sake. I feel like this book is making me more mindful in my decision making and pursuing what I ACTUALLY want to pursue instead of what I "should" be doing

[Anonymous No.17233358]

>>17232016
OP refuted in four words:

OP. is. a. fag.

[Anonymous No.17233362]

>>17232477
I'm almost finished reading the book.

I'm actually taking a break to read his biography and it's hilarious. Running around town to get away from debt collectors. His wife also hated him.

[Anonymous No.17233363]

>>17232477
I have never actually read, from a direct source, any of the philosophies that I follow lmao

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17233535]

>>17232016
OP refuted in three words:
Read. The. Book.

[Anonymous No.17233803]

>>17233535
I have. Still applies.

On a side note, I have literally never read a useful post from this trip. Completely worthless.

[Anonymous No.17233849]

>>17232016
Egoism is a philosophical concept that has no obligations and no commandments, thus those who study it truly study themselves. It's not capable of spooking I unless I create obligations where there are none and usurp myself with them. One great example are the illegalists, who took ideas from Stirner and decided what was best was to break laws... Even if it was against their personal desires. Basically, creating an illegal system when there is no legality.

[Anonymous No.17233855]

>>17232394
Ego IS a spook, but some spooks are necessary

[Anonymous No.17233863]

>>17233849
You can't immunise yourself from criticism by making exceptions like that. It's like saying "I don't have an ideology". Telling people to ignore their morality or traditions IS a commandment.

[Anonymous No.17233876]

he cut down every single one of hegels tentacles

[Anonymous No.17233887]

>>17233855
The Ego is just describing the nameless. I could name 'it" ( I ) sheryl, but it would be the same. I cannot be defined and any descriptions are about the inability to define or limit I.
>Quote
“What am I?” each of you asks himself. An abyss of lawless and unregulated impulses, desires, wishes, passions, a chaos without light or guiding star!

[Anonymous No.17233894]

>>17233863
I don't IGNORE my morality or my ideology. They exist, they are MINE, but they are not above I. I can say something is morally good, but I am beyond good. I can also erase the idea of morality, as it is below me.

[Anonymous No.17233908]

>>17233887
"The nameless" is part of the mind just as is "the named" though and so it has the same tendency as everything else to become a spook for it.

[Anonymous No.17233925]

>>17233908
Yes, you can be spooked by defining yourself by any concrete measure. This is a common thing by readers of Stirner, where they take the descriptions of Stirner's Ego as definitions of Their Ego. They believe loving everyone MUST be a part of themselves, as Stirner did while he wrote. However, it does not mean he will always love all men, only that he did when he wrote.

[Anonymous No.17233932]

>>17233894
But you see if pressed enough this turned into a platitude. If traditions, morals, etc. are MINE, then what exactly is the problem with people uniting for some abstract goal like 'humanity' or 'science'? Stirner criticises all of these things for being abstractions that one should not get involved in, but he is missing the point: humans, as social animals, WANT to work together for these goals.

[Anonymous No.17233962]

>>17233932
There's no reason to NOT do those things, either. Stirner does not say you are not allowed to do... Anything you want if it pleases you.
>Quote
Whether what I think and do is Christian, what do I care? Whether it is human, liberal, humane, whether unhuman, illiberal, inhuman, what do I ask about that? If only it accomplishes what I want, if only I satisfy myself in it, then overlay it with predicates as you will; it is all alike to me.

Perhaps I too, in the very next moment, defend myself against my former thoughts; I too am likely to change suddenly my mode of action; but not on account of its not corresponding to Christianity, not on account of its running counter to the eternal rights of man, not on account of its affronting the idea of mankind, humanity, and humanitarianism, but — because I am no longer all in it, because it no longer furnishes me any full enjoyment, because I doubt the earlier thought or no longer please myself in the mode of action just now practiced.

[Anonymous No.17234248]

>>17233855
Necessity is a spook.

[Anonymous No.17234339]

>>17233803
What, you don’t like having a village idiot around to point fingers and laugh at?

[Anonymous No.17234538]

>>17232016
This whole thread and Stirnerfags still not presenting a single legit point and just shitposting and calling everything they don't like a spook
The absolute state

[Anonymous No.17234546]

>>17232016
A spook is something that controls you from outside as if you were a puppet. Egoism is self-control therefore it cannot be a spook.

[Anonymous No.17234548]

>>17233894
>they are MINE
>implying

>>17233962
>do whatever brings you enjoyment and motivation
>do because you want to do something, not because others don't want you to do something
Changes nothing

[Anonymous No.17234558]

>>17234546
> Allowing the outside world to influence how you act = you're wrong

[Anonymous No.17234564]

>>17234546
Unless you are not truly self-controlled but rather controlled by exterior influences. You do your will, but why is your will as it is? How did it come to be like that? I am talking about your telos, not the amount of energy or motivation you have.

[Anonymous No.17234572]

>>17234558
An egoist is influenced by the outside world but not controlled by external values. Egoism is selecting ego, which is internal, as the highest value.

[Anonymous No.17234638]

>>17234572
And you suppose your ego and the values it "produces" (appraises/chooses, rather) are entirely under your control?

[Anonymous No.17234639]

>>17234572
>An egoist is influenced by the outside world but not controlled by external values. Egoism is selecting ego, which is internal, as the highest value.
But they're not making a point as to why making yourself the highest value is more valuable/"rational" than everything else.
Unless there is a strong point that values are worthless compared to personal pleasure, it's just narcissism with fancy terminology.

[Anonymous No.17234647]

>>17234639
Is it similar to Nietzsche in that regard?

[Anonymous No.17234672]

>>17234638
I am a determinist, as far as that all goes. However I have read Stirner and, I believe, understood him, so I'm answering OP's and these followup questions. If there is to be proposed a locus of control, then surely the ego, which is internal, is going to be inside it, whereas externals like "mankind," "society," and so on are not. Those external values to which you're implored to subordinate yourself are what spooks are. By contrast egoism is subordinating the self to the self.
>>17234639
Stirner's argument for not subordinating yourself to external values is that those values will instrumentalize you for their own ends, use you up, and be done with you. Many people have sacrificed themselves for Mankind or Society but there has been no reciprocal reward for them. Stirner rejects all these things by saying that his life being his own is all the argument he needs not to put anything else first before him.

[Anonymous No.17234727]

>>17234647
Nietzsche shares similar flaws with Stirner, he's insanely quick to generalize and toss asides the opposition, and to make huge claims with little to back them up but purple prose aphorisms and ad hominem.

>>17234672
>Stirner's argument for not subordinating yourself to external values is that those values will instrumentalize you for their own ends, use you up, and be done with you. Many people have sacrificed themselves for Mankind or Society but there has been no reciprocal reward for them. Stirner rejects all these things by saying that his life being his own is all the argument he needs not to put anything else first before him.

This line of thinking is widespread but destructive, individuals who self-sacrifice to external values do it because they seek meaning and betterment of the world, they don't want to be just animals clashing for max self-gratification.
If the only personal value and meaning anyone has is themselves, they can't unite on anything without backstabbing and shitty systems that create rich get richer cycles like the corporate ladder.

[Anonymous No.17234732]

>>17232016
I can trim it down.
>egoism spooky

[Anonymous No.17234739]

>>17234672
>Stirner rejects all these things by saying that his life being his own is all the argument he needs not to put anything else first before him.
This is funny because Stirner was a failure down to the personal level.

[Anonymous No.17234778]

>>17234727
>individuals who self-sacrifice to external values do it because they seek meaning and betterment of the world
There is a little qualification to make though, the difference between doing something because you want to do it, and doing something because of compulsion based on a supposed external value. Consider that there are very many people who do things they dont want to do, only because it has been put to them that it's the "right" thing to do. That someone else might simply choose to do those same things of their own volition is where the subtle distinction comes in.

[Anonymous No.17234786]

>>17232016
Yeah, so? I'll take advantage of spooks if they are in my self interest.

[Anonymous No.17234797]

>>17234778
>There is a little qualification to make though, the difference between doing something because you want to do it, and doing something because of compulsion based on a supposed external value. Consider that there are very many people who do things they dont want to do, only because it has been put to them that it's the "right" thing to do. That someone else might simply choose to do those same things of their own volition is where the subtle distinction comes in.

That's just semantics
You can't do anything you don't want to do, that much is obvious, and generally doing something you think is right will bring atleast some gratification; the distinction is that you can't accurately label something that isn't done entirely to increase your pleasure/power as "egoistic" without No True Scotsman

[Anonymous No.17234808]

>>17232533
This. I really like it for that. Reading it simply makes you more aware of these mindtraps.

[Anonymous No.17234829]

>>17234797
I don't agree that you cant do anything you dont want to do. People are coerced into things every day. Slaves exist, drafts for war exist, payments and contracts brought about through threats, there are so many examples that I cant let you get away with saying the opposite is somehow obvious.

[Anonymous No.17234855]

>>17234829
>I don't agree that you cant do anything you dont want to do. People are coerced into things every day. Slaves exist, drafts for war exist, payments and contracts brought about through threats, there are so many examples that I cant let you get away with saying the opposite is somehow obvious.
The terms got confused
You can't do anything you don't will minus involuntary body reactions rather
But that's not the point, the point is labeling egoistic acts as "free", but acts done in the name of values, as "not something you want to do" is just pure semantics.

[Anonymous No.17234908]

>>17234855
Let's say a tithe is going around.
Say giving money makes me feel good, or it wins me influence that I desire, so I do it. This is in line with egoism.
But say I dont like giving, or it just really wouldnt be convenient for me right now because I'm short on cash, or whatever. But I'm essentially bullied into it by paeans to what the tithe is for—church, mankind, the poor, whatever. This is being spooked.
The act is the same either way, the subtlety is the reasoning in the causation.

[Anonymous No.17234943]

>>17234739
He lived a fairly quiet and average life.

[Anonymous No.17234964]

>>17234908
>Say giving money makes me feel good, or it wins me influence that I desire, so I do it. This is in line with egoism.
Then it is a meaningless philosophy, as all it tells you is to do what makes you feel good.
The logical endpoint, upon popularization, is selfish hedonism.
Believe it or not, not all that can be argued to be right, or to be valuable, feels better than the alternative.
"It just feels good" is a shitty justification, because it can justify literally anything, and at that point, with everyone just doing what makes you feel the best, rich get richer, constant betrayal and complete degeneracy intensify more and more.
Egoistic thinking makes society a jungle, you can discern repercussions of its' effects in how much of a badly ran and badly thought out madhouse the US is devolving into.

[Anonymous No.17234988]

>>17234964
>Egoistic thinking makes society a jungle, you can discern repercussions of its' effects in how much of a badly ran and badly thought out madhouse the US is devolving into.
The US is much less egoistic and much more guided by Puritan and protestant thought. Stirner's Egoism actually would do some good there.

[Anonymous No.17235037]

>>17234964
Hmm, all I see is spooks in the USA:
Social Justice
Progress
Tradition
My Racial, Sexual, or Political Identity Group
etc.

Where's the egoists?

Egoism really isn't hedonism, an egoist could be perfectly cynical or stoical... best to treat separate concepts as they are, and come to terms with them, not try to reduce them to other concepts. Gets in the way of understanding.

[Anonymous No.17235043]

>>17234988
>The US is much less egoistic and much more guided by Puritan and protestant thought. Stirner's Egoism actually would do some good there.
You'd have to be a fool to think the greed, manipulation and repression of the powerful still originate primarily from religion, in a country that is more and more secularized.
These people trample everyone else because they themselves are their only value, leaving no reason to care about the consequences. In many ways, puritanism/calvinism is very similar to egoism, primarily a difference in semantics.

[Anonymous No.17235052]

>>17234964
>Then it is a meaningless philosophy, as all it tells you is to do what makes you feel good.
It is just very pragmatic. Why concern yourself with causes that are devoid of meaning or utility other than providing benefit to the power trying to impose a rule onto you? If you see someone jaywalking, would you report them? Why or why not? Technically, they are violating a law.

[Anonymous No.17235096]

>>17235052
>Why concern yourself with causes that are devoid of meaning or utility other than providing benefit to the power trying to impose a rule onto you? If you see someone jaywalking, would you report them? Why or why not? Technically, they are violating a law.
Complete strawman.
The law IS an example of a power that seeks to exploit you meaninglessly, basic morality beyond, perhaps, the "morality" of a virtue signalling celebrity who donates an infinitesimal amount of their wealth, however, is not meaningless, despite its' inability to maximize most's self-gratification when doing good gets rough.
To reiterate, "rich get richer" and backstabbing are perfectly in line with egoism as well, as any and all actions can be justified by merely "feeling good", making it a meaningless justification.

[Anonymous No.17235104]

>>17235043
>You'd have to be a fool to think the greed, manipulation and repression of the powerful still originate primarily from religion, in a country that is more and more secularized.

From an outsider perspective that seems to be the case to me. Secularization does not mean anything. In fact, I would give Stirner a reread and try to apply his thoughts to the current political landscape in the US. It is quite nice.
Egoism does not mean "trampling over anyone else". It just means to reflect on every action you take and decide if it makes sense for your personal value system. This can have different meaning to a different person.

[Anonymous No.17235115]

>>17235096
>To reiterate, "rich get richer" and backstabbing are perfectly in line with egoism as well,
Why do you concern with "the rich getting richer". Who is backstabbing whom according to you? Does it have big personal impact on you? If so, what are you doing about it?

[Anonymous No.17235170]

>>17234964
>selfish hedonism.
That is not too bad. Hedonism is actually a good life philosophy by its Epicurean definition.

[Anonymous No.17235210]

>>17235104
>From an outsider perspective that seems to be the case to me. Secularization does not mean anything. In fact, I would give Stirner a reread and try to apply his thoughts to the current political landscape in the US. It is quite nice.
> Egoism does not mean "trampling over anyone else". It just means to reflect on every action you take and decide if it makes sense for your personal value system. This can have different meaning to a different person.
By your definitions of egoism given, it indeed does not mean that, because it does not mean anything.
Just doing what makes you feel good is a nonsensical justification, since it aimlessly leads you literally wherever you feel like.

> It just means to reflect on every action you take and decide if it makes sense for your personal value system.

This meanwhile, is not a normative, and so evidently contradicts what the vast majority associate "egoism" with, even the egoists in this thread, examining your own motivations to see if they make sense is far too obvious and baseline to be considered a normative or really a personal philosophy of its' own, as most egoists would claim it is both.

It seems we are using vastly different meanings of the term, however, the term i'm using is the one that circulates the most by far, and was the one i defaulted to.

> Why do you concern with "the rich getting richer"
Increasing power over every aspect of our lives from selfish aristocrats is intuitively likely to lead to dystopic surveillance states such as China.
> Who is backstabbing whom according to you?
Are individual examples necessary? The seeming confusion of definitions of "egoism" threw a curveball in this discussion but i was merely pointing out how much of a natural act backstabbing at opportunities is for one who is only concerned with his gratification.

> Does it have big personal impact on you? If so, what are you doing about it?
Very, very few individuals can impact the system, my inability to change it is irrelevant to these arguments.

[Anonymous No.17235366]

Is spook supposed to be a reference to Hegel and his geist?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17235394]

>>17233803
>I can’t understand the book
>therefore you are the idiot
If you’re the OP, you have posted one of the most worthless kinds of threads.
If you didn’t understand it, maybe you should read Stirner’s Critics.

[Anonymous No.17235479]

>>17235394

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17235490]

>>17235479

[Anonymous No.17235510]

>>17235490
>accuses someone of not reading books
>arguments consists of posting book covers with punchy titles
pathetic

[Anonymous No.17235519]

>>17235490
Okay, now this has to be bait.

[Anonymous No.17235522]

What does he have against black people?

[Anonymous No.17235537]

>>17235490
That book isn't about what you think it is dumbass

[Anonymous No.17235562]

>>17235490
Either you're baiting or Stirnerfags are bigger retards than anticipated
Also >>17235537 this
The book is about females' immune system superiority, not intellect, dumbass

[Anonymous No.17235585]

>>17235394
People in this thread are engaging with each other and debating or explaining the merits of Stirner's ideas.
You are telling people "read a book" and kicking up shit. The rest of this thread will probably be all about You now.
See the difference?

[Anonymous No.17235610]

>>17232252
>beyond
You wouldn't learn anything reading any book that doesn't agree with you and your contingent life trajectory.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17235623]

>>17235537
Oh brother. I know genetics isn’t “intellect”, you complete boob

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17235635]

>>17235585
OP is wrong and approached this thread all wrong.
Has anyone shown him the error of his inferior brain yet?

[Anonymous No.17235646]

>anon posts a catchy OP to engage /lit/
>other anons join the discussion
>thread is going swimmingly
>dumb fucking cunt starts whining and attention seeking
>thread dies
>her face when

well done, another one bites the dust

[Anonymous No.17235651]

>>17235490
holy fucking based

[Anonymous No.17235667]

>>17235646
We really just need to stop responding to her at this point. Simply don’t engage. If we starve her of attention she’ll either get so desperate she spergs out and gets banned or leaves. Either way we win.

[Anonymous No.17235677]

>>17235667
based

[Anonymous No.17235687]

>>17235490
> starting to look suspicious and possibly unironic
> search posts with "Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ" in the username
> attention whore who flooded the board with the same cunty narcissism fishing for horndogs and self-aggrandizing, unironically posted this same shitty book loads of times to "prove" superiority for having a hole in her legs
> this post was actually unironic
Ignore her

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17235691]

>catchy [bait/attention whore]
>engage [troll]
>discussion/swimmingly [shitpost]
>threads dies [refuted]

[Anonymous No.17235699]

>>17235687
I'm in an IRC channel with a confirmed /lit/ janny and it's an inside joke that most of the replies to her posts are just her removing the name/tripcode and not even bothering to VPN. People still get baited constantly by it.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17235714]

>>17235687
“Same books” like how am I to have read different books, IE the books you want me to have read? Fucking stupid frog posters. Always bitching.m

[Anonymous No.17235720]

>>17232029
Aren't Christcucks just egoists who are acting in their own self interest by trying to avoid hell?

[Anonymous No.17235724]

>>17235714
You've been on /lit/ for a long fucking time. I don't know if you're jaded but you've turned into a cunt lately. You were never this bad.

[Anonymous No.17235732]

>>17235720
universalism doesn't get you into islamic heaven

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17235761]

>>17235724
I know. I am not allowed to fight back. In any way.

OP, like hundreds before him, thinks it’s funny to say “ego” is a “spook”, and anons pretend it’s a deep conversation and that just by my mere existence I am seeking their attention.
The room has gotten extremely juvenile recently. I’d say the average age is 17 now.

[Anonymous No.17235787]

>>17235720
>Aren't Christcucks just egoists who are acting in their own self interest by trying to avoid hell?
Yes, we are. Though avoiding hell is a secondary thing and could just as well not be here, salvation is the important thing. Desiring salvation must and can only be "self interested".
Hope is mandatory, denial of this makes you a heretic.

[Anonymous No.17235795]

>>17235761
Tell me how your feet smell.

[Anonymous No.17235797]

>>17235761
It's okay to start a thread with simple question or statement. I've seen threads with nothing but "was he based?" turn into decent conversations. Posting a wall of text in the OP is guarantee nobody reads it.

Also, as you can see, people WERE actually discussing the book here. You came into the thread after these conversations and started complaining without adding anything. If you don't like the sound of the thread just hide it, no need to post in it.

It doesn't help that your mere presence derails almost every thread on /lit/ these days. Why do you even need a trip?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » oI3er5KKetj No.17235819]

>>17235795
Provolone

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » oI3er5KKetj No.17235834]

>>17235797
I'm a goddess and I require the maximum amount of (You)s to fuel my existence. For you see, I'm a middle aged man and everyone passes me by without a second look so I need virtual recognition to fulfill myself with inflammatory one liners.

[Anonymous No.17235840]

>>17235819
Damn boi you selling socks?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17235874]

>>17235797
>people WERE actually discussing the book here
Fine and dandy.
> your mere presence derails almost every thread
Look here >>17235795 that’s not me asking about feet. Or responding with a variety cheese.

[Anonymous No.17235884]

>>17235699
Can you lift my global 1 ban? I moved into a new house and it has a ban from a /tv/ shitposter and I can’t seem to convince jannies to unban my IP range.

[Anonymous No.17235959]

>>17235874
>Look here >>17235795 that’s not me asking about feet. Or responding with a variety cheese.
You still derailed the fuck out of the thread and you know it

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17235985]

>>17235959
>OP refuted in three words:
>Read. The. Book.
>nu-uh!
>really? You must have missed something.
>Read Stirner’s Critics

>DUDE. YOU JUST DERAILED THE THREAD

Provolone is nice, but I’ve been eating mostly mozzarella lately