[ 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: 107 KB, 1077x1107, ms-huge.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2818705 No.2818705[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Gender roles are treacherous spooks and false dichotomies as they deny an individual their individuality and are forced upon them from society with no option to choose what aspect they like of each role and incorporation of these aspects into their being.

Individuals that are insecure and lack their own will; will rejoice in gender roles.

>> No.2818721

>Individuals that are insecure and lack their own will; will rejoice in gender roles.

shouldn't it be a comma?

>> No.2818720
File: 173 KB, 745x541, 1342433708672.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2818720

I love you bro. Keep posting this stuff.

>> No.2818760

Not a stirnerite but I like his view on love

>"The beloved is an object that should be loved by me. He is not an object of my love on account of, because of, or by, my loving him, but is an object of love in and of himself. Not I make him an object of love, but he is such to begin with; for it is here irrelevant that he has become so by my choice, if so it be (as with fiancee, a spouse, and the like), since even so he has in any case, as the person once chosen, obtained a "right of his own to my love," and I, because I have loved him, am under obligation to love him forever. He is therefore not an object of MY love, but of love in general: an object that SHOULD be loved. Love appertains to him, is due to him, or is his RIGHT, while I am under obligation to love him. My love, the toll of love that I pay him, is in truth HIS love, which he only collects from me as toll."

>> No.2818765

stirner is what it IS
i've been a hxc stirnerite ever since i found out about dude (like 7 years ago)

>> No.2818769

>>2818721

actually, there shouldn't be anything there. breaking the subject from the verb is a fuck no unless certain conditions are met. e.g.

>haters, gonna hate
wrong

>haters, those perennials parasites, gonna hate
right

in op's sentence, there should be something before the "and" to justify punctuation later. like "inviduals that are insecure, and lack their own will, will rejoice..."

but maybe the problem here was the will will repetition. i think a valid way to solve it would be

>...are insecure and lack a will of their own will rejoice in genre roles.

>> No.2818766

muh spooks fuck morals muh spooks fuck gender roles

>> No.2818771
File: 67 KB, 600x620, 1342584180803.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2818771

Stirner philosophizes; not grammarizes

>> No.2818772

Skin color and height are treacherous spooks and false dichotomies as they deny an individual their individuality and are forced upon them from biology with no option to choose what aspect they like of each role and incorporation of these aspects into their being.

Individuals that are insecure and lack their own will; will rejoice in their height and skin color.

>> No.2818776

So I am unfamiliar with Stirner. What's his beef and how does this apply?

>> No.2818778

>>2818772
The hormonal differences (which are not great differences) between men and woman are molded into gender roles by society and enforced and therefore become spooks.

>> No.2818780

>>2818776
young hegelian who revolted against Marx et al's analysis of Hegel.

>> No.2818795

>>2818778

sure, but why aren't you crying about biological differences? they can't be changed at all

at least you can do mental tricks and ignore societal "roles"

you can't change your height, and according to your logic, anyone who is okay with their predetermined height is insecure

lol

>> No.2818810

>>2818795
The anglosphere's view of genders (yours) is a small-minded one as many cultures have had multiple genders and the hormonal differences between men and women are again not great at all.

The issue is not gender but gender roles and gender roles are spooks.

>> No.2818811

You are not interpreting Stirner the way I do. Stop it.

>> No.2818814

>>2818811
Your interpretation is a spook.

>> No.2818820

>>2818776
He's kind of like Nietzsche, except he was around 30 years earlier.. and more extreme..

>> No.2818822

>>2818820
that's a stupid post.

there's like 4 Nietzsches, so it's hard to know which one you're talking about.

>> No.2818825

>>2818820
So a pretentious, self-absorbed, ad hominem wielding piece of shit?

>> No.2818835

>>2818776

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner

It was so hard to find this page.

>> No.2818836
File: 36 KB, 349x348, there's that.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2818836

>>2818825
>pretentious

What exactly did Nietzsche do that related to a pretense? Oh, or are you using that word incorrectly again?

>> No.2818843

>>2818825

Actually, no.

>> No.2818839

>>2818760
That's actually pretty horrible. I would have figured he'd have a much more sensible take on love than that. How disappointing.

>> No.2818841

>>2818836
"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed."

See your own pic.

>> No.2818852

>>2818836
Oh, and correcting someone over the use of a word because you only know one of several definitions it carries, is pretentious.
How glorious the irony.

>> No.2818853

>>2818836

There:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1_2PJCA6FQ

>> No.2818854

>>2818841
Okay, so you use google to define your words. Am I supposed to be impressed?

If you take the word apart, the base is "pretense", which, if you use google like you did, means "An attempt to make something that is not the case appear true."

Here's an example of pretentious used properly:

I walked into the room with a pretentious thought that I would not like those who suddenly surrounded me.

>> No.2818857

>>2818795
>sure, but why aren't you crying about biological differences? they can't be changed at all

The importance of the biological difference between men and women and how it affects various aspects of social life are too unknown as of now for it to be a crutch of any argument.

Evolutionary psychology is not science.

>> No.2818865

>>2818810

you missed the point. they are spooks because they "deny an individual their individuality"

so anything that denies your individuality is a spook

things that deny your individuality are things that are "forced upon you" and don't respect your desires

well then things like skin color and height are denying your individuality--

get it? so now what are you gonna do? the logic used to support your argument eats itself

in the end people who accept anything that is predetermined, whether by biology or society, are insecure and lost using your logic---so anyone who is comfortable with their gender role is just as "insecure" and unfree as someone who is comfortable with their HEIGHT

get the absurdity?

>> No.2818873

>>2818854
No, I use google to pull up the exact dictionary definition. It wasn't an attempt to impress, I was merely proving that you were wrong.

So, by your definition a word cannot be ambiguous, it can only mean one set thing? This is English, not some homo-erectus proto-language

>> No.2818881

>>2818873
We're walking precariously close to a Prescriptivist vs. Descriptivist lexicography war. You really wanna start this?

>> No.2818891

No individual has an identity. One hardly understands oneself, and to others we are simply a string of signs and associations. Identity is a myth perpetrated by capitalism and consumer culture.

>> No.2818902

>>2818891
Says you.
you're wrong and stupid.

fag prove it bet you cant marx and eastern thought are wrong

>> No.2818905

>>2818865

Sounds like High School philosophy

>> No.2818909
File: 3 KB, 203x219, well.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2818909

>>2818902
this is a good post. it's a funny post. i like this post.

>> No.2818911

>>2818881
Whats the point? Tell me why I used the word incorrectly, and if I genuinely did, I'll apologize.

The only problem is that I used the word with a definition clearly in the English dictionary. And I'm pretty sure I'm speaking English.

>> No.2818915

HURR BIOLOGY SAYS SO

You know what I say? Death to society. And death to you too.
I'd rather follow the rules of a higher being than something so despicable as nature.

>> No.2818929

>>2818902
>well it's late and im bored let's go on /lit/
>oh cool something resembling a discussion!
>im gonna post this here, i dont believe it entirely, but ive read enough Lacan to argue it thoroughly
>hopefully someone will respond earnestly, and then we can have a real conversation!
>fag prove it bet you cant marx and eastern thought are wrong

>> No.2818931

>>2818911
Alright, I'm just sick of people using the word "pretentious". Usually it's used similarly to "pseudo-intellectual" and people just use it to attack things they, primarily, don't understand, and thus don't like. If you don't like something because you don't understand it, you call it pretentious, though that has nothing to do with the root of the word "pretentious" in "pretense". There's no pretense involved at all when using the word pretentious to describe something you simply don't like or don't understand.

Google's dictionary's definition is more rooted in natural usage, it's more Descriptivist as it doesn't give a real etymological reason as to why YOU can simply use it to describe something you don't like or don't understand.

>> No.2818933

>>2818929
Why? you're just a string of signs and associations.

If I knew you I'd kill you just because. That's how dangerous your belief is.

>> No.2818935

>>2818905

you only read a couple sentences?

ya OP's idea is basically high-school philosophy, read my whole post you'll see I'm arguing against it

>> No.2818936

>>2818933
>Dangerous
>Belief

>> No.2818942

>>2818721
Yes, OP doesn't know shit about clauses.

>> No.2818943

>>2818933
>im gonna post this here, i dont believe it entirely, but ive read enough Lacan to argue it thoroughly
>i dont believe it entirely

also i think you're misinterpreting something somewhere because it seems like you have no idea what you are talking about

>> No.2818945

Op here; I have never read any stirner or philosophical work and simply made an argument (a well reasoned one) based on what I've about stirner on /lit/.

Looks like I was successful at deconstructing your spooks.

>> No.2818952

>>2818945
They're not really arguing about what you said though.
>implying OP isn't Stirnerguy

>> No.2818955

>>2818931
Well we are clearly at an impasse, but if you like I'll start using ostentatious instead. I suppose I understand your dislike of the over-use of pretentious.

To clarify, I do understand Nietzsche, but you have to admit he is a pompous, self-loving prick (regardless of how valid or fallacious his philosophies are).

>> No.2818961

>>2818778
>sex is gender

>> No.2818964

>>2818955
Alright, that's fine.

What I hate is people using pretentious to describe Tree of Life or Ulysses or ambient music or even (I'm in High School) Shakespeare. When THEY use it, it's almost always out of a lack of understanding.

Nietzsche's core philosophy (pre-breakdown) is clearly polarizing, and I think he meant for it to be. I understand someone disliking his philosophy.

And I'm not even a "Nietzscheite", the guy's just interesting as hell.

I'll also add that I haven't read the OP's post, so I don't know what the core of the discussion is about. I just dropped in with the quote about love.

>> No.2818970

>>2818964
Haha, I have no idea what this topic is about either. Twilight of the Idols is his only book I've read, I do have a couple of his other ones on my reading list (although they've dropped down a bit).

Nice to see a discussion end in a civilized manner anyway.

>> No.2818972

>>2818964
but Tree of Life WAS pretentious.

>> No.2818976

>>2818964

how would you pronounce nietzscheite? neat shit?

>> No.2818978

>>2818976
Neat Shiite (as in the branch of Islam)

>> No.2818981
File: 4 KB, 133x200, em.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2818981

>>2818972
>goes over my head
>must be pretentious

>> No.2818987

>>2818970
I see more civilized discussions here on lit than most of the internet.

>>2818972
>he still doesn't understand the beautiful metaphorical aspects of Malick's masterpiece

I'll admit that sounded cheesy as fuck, but really, it was a good movie.

>> No.2818992

Human nature is a fallacy as you can simply look at how a human is acting and say that is human nature.

>> No.2819009

wot

>> No.2819343

I verb in the noun of those who would verb against me! May their nouns go adjective and verb!

>> No.2819370

>are forced upon them from society

Gender roles are, to some degree, heredity.

>> No.2819372

>>2819370
>doesn't understand what gender roles are
fuck off fuck back to /pol/ with you never come back
spook you are a spook take your spooks to /pol/

>> No.2819374

>>2819372
If something is biological in nature it is part of the "ownness" or "self" of the being and cannot, by definition, be a spook.

>> No.2819375

>>2819374
But gender roles aren't biological in nature.
evo psych is not a science either.

>> No.2819391

>>2819375
Gender, however, is biological. There is as of yet no certain knowledge of what aspects of behavior are genetically determined and what aren't.

>> No.2819394

>>2819391
sex is not equal to gender

>> No.2819407

>>2819394

Sex is male and female.

Gender is noun-classes.

For
Fuck's
Sake

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gender&allowed_in_frame=0

>> No.2819408

If somebody uses "gender" for "sex" one more time I'm gonna jump out my window.

>> No.2819409

>implying the 50s view of gender is inherit in biology
deal with it or go back to the 50s

>> No.2819435

GET YOUR SPOOKS
THE FUCK
OUT OF THIS THREAD

>> No.2819438

what is a spook

>> No.2819440

other than like a ghost

>> No.2819445

One has a cunt, the other has a dick, you idiots.

>> No.2819449

>>2819445
that doesn't tell me what a spook is

>> No.2819452

>>2819449

No, I was referring to the po-mo fucktards that refuse to recognise that genders exist.

>> No.2819454

>>2819452
ok then can you tell me what a spook is

>> No.2819458

>>2819454

I assume a spook is something that isn't necessary in nature but which society pretends matters. Fashion, for example.

>> No.2819459

>>2819458
thanks, that makes sense

>> No.2819474

>>2819408
Pretentious git.

>> No.2819486

Stirner is awesome. So are Sartre and Camus.

>> No.2819713
File: 182 KB, 1668x2487, Gloria_Steinem(woman).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819713

>>2818705
"Sex and race--because they are easy, visible differences-- have been the primary ways of organizing human beings into superior and inferior groups and into the cheap labor on which this system still depends. We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned. We are really talking about humanism." ~ A woman.

>> No.2819723

>>2819713
>and into the cheap labor on which this system still depends

And which sex do you think does the brunt of the cheap labour, and for which sex?

Men, for women.

What a blind cunt.

>> No.2819781

>>2819459
>>2819458
>>2819454
>>2819452
>>2819449
>>2819440
>>2819438
that's wrong

>with the aim of concerning himself purely with his own interests, he attacks all "higher beings," regarding them as a variety of what he calls "spooks," or ideas to which individuals sacrifice themselves and by which they are dominated. Among the "spooks" Stirner attacks are such notable aspects of capitalist life as private property, the division of labour, the state, religion, and society itself.
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secG6.html

additionally, you're using gender when you mean sex

>> No.2819914
File: 32 KB, 608x480, Skiz-hegel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819914

CHILL AS FUCK

>> No.2819959

>>2819914
>>mfw this picture of a meeting of Die Freien looks just like the kind of ragefest that Stirnerthreads on /lit/ turn into.

>> No.2820008

>read through this thread
>no one disagrees with OP
>just argue about whether individuals exist or not
I like it here.