/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22341743]

Books that will help me deboonk him?

[Anonymous No.22341761]

>>22341743
you can't debunk the debunker.

[Anonymous No.22341765]

[Anonymous No.22341775]

>>22341765
Why does he look so sad?

[Anonymous No.22341794]

>>22341775
thinking does that to a mf

[Anonymous No.22341829]

Can’t be debunked
You can cope with it by reading Madhyamaka discourses

[Anonymous No.22341860]

>>22341743
You can't. This book fucked west into oblivion.

[Anonymous No.22342367]

>>22341743
yr just fucked anon

[Anonymous No.22343506]

He wasn't even a real person.

[Anonymous No.22343707]

Grab any thick 1000+ page book, and hit your head with it for multiple times. This way you can become retarded and forget about Stirner's philosophy. Basically ignorance is bliss.

[Anonymous No.22343712]

it's not as if the self-interest argument is objective. we observe collectivist behavior in lots of animals where individuals will sacrifice themselves to protect the gene pool even if they don't directly contribute to it. this is observed in humans all of the time. use that as a basis for ideology and there you go, it is not within my self-interest that I act, but the interest of my kin. this can be argued to be a superior mindset because a multi-creature group that puts their collective interest first may have significant advantages over individuals. his work isn't flawless but I don't remember if it even claims to be.

[Anonymous No.22343750]

>>22341743
The Holy Bible. All glory to the Lord of All, to the Father, the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.

Be guided by the Logos, be filled with the Spirit, and return to that which is eternal. A man can always lose what is of this world, and indeed he shall lose it all. But a man can never lose what has not begining nor end— the things of God. So repent, and then away from egoism. Turn towards God and pray that ye might be forgiven your sins and that ye might come to know the root of all good, beauty beyond beauty, gnosis beyond knowledge, peace that surpasses all understanding. Praise be to the Lord of Hosts, to the God that saves, forever and even and on to ages and ages, Amen!

[Anonymous No.22343789]

>>22343712
>we observe collectivist behavior in lots of animals where individuals will sacrifice themselves to protect the gene pool even if they don't directly contribute to it
This observation is extremely superficial and the conclusion simply wrong. I encourage you to give even one example in which "self-sacrificing" behavior cannot be explained by selfish gene theory.

[Anonymous No.22343794]

>>22343506
>commies eternally seething at Stirner
>commies seething at their own spooks
Pick one

[Anonymous No.22343814]

>>22343712
You could have just said you didn’t read it or better yet never replied at all.

[Anonymous No.22343852]

[Anonymous No.22344587]

>>22343506
Its okay he exists rent free in my head

[Anonymous No.22344747]

>>22343852
What part of the Boddhisatva path would debunk Stirner? It seems like Buddhism is very close to Stirner thought but with a change in how a person proceeds from the realization that all is spooky. The Boddhisatva would say to respond with compassion and try to awake everyone while Stirner would say it doesn't matter. Stirner might have been a Boddhisatva. Some of the great teachers were known for doing out of character things or saying things that were outlandish in an attempt to wake up their disciples.

[Anonymous No.22344937]

>>22341743
You can't debunk a nihilist - only nihilist can rebunk himself when he understand how retarded nihilism is.

[Anonymous No.22344960]

>>22344937
What makes him a nihilist?

[Anonymous No.22344976]

>>22341860
which book?

[Anonymous No.22345087]

>>22341743
One can't.
I am me, I know what I want. You don't.
Similarly, I don't know what you want. Only you truly do. Even if you explain it, I might not fully understand its depths and nuances. I have only seen my life, you only yours. We are mysteries to ourselves and eachother.
So why not accept these irrefutable statements and love eachother, not because of some commandment of love, but because love pleases our hearts? Or, at least it pleases mine. That I know.

[Anonymous No.22345110]

>>22341743
Read the Rigvedas
Clean your body
Go to a river or mountain far away from nature
Get naked
Meditate and try to commune with the Gods
If you can get them to respond, they'll tell you exactly what your values must be and you'll just forget about Stirner.

[Anonymous No.22345117]

>>22341794
Fr fr

[Anonymous No.22345320]

I am going to start reading The Ego and Its Own. Is there any precautions you want to tell me bros?

[Anonymous No.22345401]

>>22343750
But anon, the human is only human due to his mortal body. The eternal is not a whole property of myself, but of the consciousness alone, and consciousness alone is not me. If anything I owe more to the body my existence and should identify with it

[Anonymous No.22345437]

>>22345110
>Does god look out for your particular interests?
>He does not, he looks out for his own interests
>If one is to be more godly then should one not do as god does, follow their own interests?

[Anonymous No.22345440]

>>22345320
Careful, you might get spooked

[Anonymous No.22345488]

His philosophy can't justify itself without resorting to metaphysical abstractions like "logic".
He stops just short of jumping into the stream of becoming, coyishly remaining on the banks of Greco-Scholastic metaphysics, if only implicitly.

Marx (his Russian heirs explicitly) and Nietzsche at least had the balls to go full Heraclitan and state that A is not and can never be A. The Buddhists, already brought up in this thread, go even further denying not just A but even Not-A, and then both, and then neither.
Stirner on the other hand goes as far as one can go without having to go far.

[Anonymous No.22345718]

>>22341743
>just do whatever lol! I’m le based meme man!
Egoism is debunked by common sense. If you go around robbing people the little guys are going to gang up against you as a mutual threat to them. It’s in your self interest to follow a set of rules like “don’t murder and don’t steal” if you don’t want your shit kicked in even if those rules are spooks or not physically real.

[Anonymous No.22345730]

>>22345087
You miss the point that the 10 commandments weren’t just laws to be obeyed but rules that were in everyone’s interest to follow for a long and happy life. So Jews loved their neighbors BOTH because it made them happy AND because god commanded it and saw it was good.

[Anonymous No.22346445]

>>22345730
They erased their neighboring tribes and killed them whenever they had the chance

[Anonymous No.22346452]

>>22341743
There aren’t any. That’s why people try to obscure it.

[Anonymous No.22346521]

>>22341743
You need to debunk your false understanding of him, at which point you won't need him anymore. He's mainly useful for making fun of marxists.

[Anonymous No.22346540]

>>22345320
>precautions
Yeah read the new translation instead

[Anonymous No.22346579]

>>22344747
I think your interpretation has merit but another way to read Stirner is that he is making the same arguments as the Buddha et al just from a positive (the Unique, creative nothing) rather than negative (no-self, emptiness) perspective.
Rather than extinguishing desire, he accepts that all there is is desire.
>Stirner would say it doesn't matter
I disagree with you here. Why would he write the book in the first place AND a response to criticism of it if he didn’t think it was important to make the push to achieve the Union of Egoists?
>attempt to wake up their disciples
I think this is exactly what he did. The book is satirical, funny, timely, and immediately reduced his opponents’ humanist liberalism to rubble. To this day it causes people discomfort with its bizarre structure, wordplay, and extreme statements and subject matter.
>>22343506
Who cares?
>>22345488
What?

[Anonymous No.22346677]

>>22346540
Which translation do you mean? The one by Leopold or the even newer one by Landstreicher?

[Anonymous No.22346687]

>>22346677
Landstreicher
I was not aware there was a third by Leopold

[Anonymous No.22346694]

>>22343794
Both are true though

[Anonymous No.22346696]

>>22346687
>>22346677
Oh, the Byington 1907 translation was edited by Leopold.
There are only two translations and Landstreicher’s appears to be far clearer and more faithful to the original’s tone.
In any case, it’s available for free so you may as well check it out first before reading the ancient one.

[Anonymous No.22346830]

>>22341743
It is a method, a lens to look at the world. A model to use. A suggestion. If you don't like the suggestion, don't take it. If the method or model doesn't apply for what you're doing, don't use it. Simple as. The only issue is that Stirner would agree.

[Anonymous No.22346853]

>>22346694
So the second possibility.

[Anonymous No.22347394]

>>22345488
Literally none of this makes sense, stop vagueposting.