In Brave New World what was Huxley afraid of.

[Anonymous No.6403367]

[Anonymous No.6403622]

You know that edgy pothead who had to repeat his senior? The one that couldn't cope with the idea of not living in the present and was in love with nostalgia.The one that hated "big-business". The one that was a democrat because he didn't understand politics. The one who'd incoherently ramble on about capitalism because he'd read a summery or two of Das Kapital. The one who didn't understand the necessity of a governing body. The one who had hope. The one who was dumber than a pile of mossy rocks. The the one who was an idealist. Imagine if that guy wrote a book.

[Anonymous No.6403630]

>>6403622
Project harder edge lord
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6403651]

>>6403622
>Imagine if that guy wrote a book.

One did

[Anonymous No.6403665]

>>6403651
>implying Hitler was a democrat.
How stupid are you?

[Anonymous No.6403670]

>>6403630
lol
>the MAN built a factory innda Garden of Eden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d39IDEw6lu0

[Anonymous No.6403679]

>>6403665
Aldous Huxley wasn't a democrat either

[Anonymous No.6403708]

>>6403622
Wow! You sure seem butthurt!

[Anonymous No.6403714]

>>6403679
Aldous Huxley was, though, a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.6403722]

[Anonymous No.6403723]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley#Association_with_Vedanta

[Anonymous No.6403741]

>>6403722
Haha, every fan of Huxley is a pretentious faggot

[Anonymous No.6403747]

>>6403714
so was hitler

[Anonymous No.6403751]

>>6403747
yes?

[Anonymous No.6403754]

>>6403747
>>6403741
>>6403708
>>6403714

What's with the /pol/-tier discourse here?

[Anonymous No.6403764]

>>6403754
Ever since moot broke /pol/ the quality of /lit/ has been ruined

It wasn't good before, but nowadays it's quite terrible

[Anonymous No.6403768]

>>6403367
the desires of the flesh.

[Anonymous No.6403769]

>>6403764
frog-pictures, 'cuck', 'SJW', racism, anti-feminism threads etc. have exploded

Things sure have gone to shit quickly

[Anonymous No.6403770]

>>6403754
not even /pol/, i've listened to his lectures and in context of his book, i realized he's a complete fucking retard who lacks all knowledge of science and wrote a book that's literally for pretentious idiots to feel good about who they are

[Anonymous No.6403774]

>>6403754
literally, 'nobody appreciates shakespeare i'm going to whip myself oh they're having an orgy i should kill myself'

could anyone write a more neckbeardy book? sware on me mum

[Anonymous No.6403776]

>>6403770
Why don't you lay out your arguments. That's probably more conducive to a decent and hence worthwhile discussion rather than 'hes a fucking retard lmao'-posts.

Or fuck off back to /b/ with the other 14-year-olds

[Anonymous No.6403777]

happiness

[Anonymous No.6403779]

>>6403774
I'M KILLING MYSELF BECAUSE SOCIETY IS SO PLEB UGH

[Anonymous No.6403790]

>>6403723
Interesting, anon. That certainly changes... some things.
You learn something new everyday, I guess.

[Anonymous No.6403794]

>>6403776
It's an entirely vapid criticism, what do you want me to say? "Oh, no one appreciates Shakespeare", "Oh, what a strumpet, women shouldn't be whores", "Oh, my, God, the proletariat is just so INTERESTING", "Oh my God, I live in a society where wanting to be alone is considered WEIRD! Extroverts are just plebs and introverts are le superior intellectuals," then LITERALLY killing yourself because society is so pleb, I mean really?

And in his lectures he displays a retarded, bad understanding of science even for his day. He's a behaviorist, if that helps clear up how outdated and stupid his views are

[Anonymous No.6403805]

>>6403794
If you don't have anything to say except 'hurr fucking retarded moron pseudo-intellectual fraud retard', why make a fucking thread?
Don't you have better things to do?

[Anonymous No.6403810]

>>6403805
i didn't make this thread, i'm just here to bash aldous "too patrician for you" huxley for being a faggot

[Anonymous No.6403814]

>>6403805
also, i did say something, how about you actually speak instead of repeatedly challenging

[Anonymous No.6403815]

>>6403810
Yeah, and you've done that brilliantly and with extraordinary eloquence.

Mind the fucking fedora

[Anonymous No.6403820]

>>6403794
>Oh my God
I think you may mean, O my Ford. :^)

[Anonymous No.6403822]

>>6403815
Oh, so I'm just being trolled then?

[Anonymous No.6403825]

>>6403822
>>>/b/
>>>/r9k/
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6403836]

>>6403622
the shame of it is...the ones who throw around gross generalizations and a string of one-liners like this are the most idiotic. the reality is you live on the internet and watch too much tv. because if you were out getting to know real people you wouldn't say such trite drivel.

you absolutely can't be over 30. and if you are that is some sad shit.

[Anonymous No.6403842]

>>6403836
NICE POLEMIC LOL SURE GOT HIM

[Anonymous No.6403847]

>>6403622
>I'm proud to know nothing about Huxley!

[Anonymous No.6403849]

>>6403836
This.

[Anonymous No.6403854]

Huxley fears the materialism and scientific advancement that was going on in his day. It's industry, technology, commercialization that he's afraid of. The devaluing of human lives and the commoditization of everything, including sentimental human qualities like "love." (replaced with reproduction labs and mass orgies) Like his good friend DH Lawrence, Huxley is a quasi-proto-fascist. He would never admit to sympathizing with fascism or believing in fascism, but I do see a lot of /pol/ in both Huxley and Lawrence. They fear degeneracy. They fear chaos. They fear a change in culture, tradition, social norms. If pleasure is everything and we admit to being flesh and bone (as materialists do), then we are admitting to our own mortality, our own insignificance as atoms that want to be stirred, not a soul thinking about things. He feared the mobs of stupid masses and the mind numbing culture of pleasure above all.

His fear was unfounded but his conclusions were correct.

[Anonymous No.6403856]

>>6403770
>what's with all this pol-tier discourse?
Posts /b/ tier discourse

[Anonymous No.6403866]

>>6403854
>Huxley fears the materialism and scientific advancement that was going on in his day. It's industry, technology, commercialization that he's afraid of. The devaluing of human lives and the commoditization of everything, including sentimental human qualities like "love."

That's basically the Frankfurt School and socially conservative Adorno, i.e. their critique of capitalism and the culture industry.

Stop saying 'degeneracy' unironically btw.

[Anonymous No.6403873]

>>6403769
hey anti-feminism is all right though

[Anonymous No.6403881]

>>6403873
It could be alright if it were defended alright - but the level of "anti-feminism" idiots on /lit/ display doesn't really develop past conspiracy theories, hearsay, and name-calling.
There are never any arguments to be found, or data, that could suggest that feminism is a effort not worthy of consideration.

[Anonymous No.6403883]

>>6403873
yeah all women are whores and they can't be ethical

[Anonymous No.6403891]

>>6403881
Women have smaller brains and can't write.

Oh you disagree?

BACK 2 TUMBLR FEMINIST WHORE

[Anonymous No.6403892]

>>6403836
lol What a rude and hurtful thing to say.

Huxley did a half-assed and hokey job on what he was trying to do in NewWorld. I think he could have done much better in commenting on alienation and >>6403854. What he gave to the world isn't as relevant or insightful as he thought it to be.

[Anonymous No.6403909]

>>6403866
Stop saying "unironically" like it means anything. By "degeneracy" I meant what Huxley and others like him felt was degeneracy (i.e mindless preoccupation with pleasures that distract us from philosophical thinking). This doesn't mean I personally believe in degeneracy or that it's necessarily a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.6403911]

>>6403856
>replying to the wrong person

[Anonymous No.6403914]

>>6403881
I'm antifeminist and I never talk about it on /lit/ because I find people like you to be terrible at debate. Maybe the problem is you, not them.

[Anonymous No.6403921]

>>6403914
He's right, though.

[Anonymous No.6403922]

>>6403914
>Maybe the problem is you
Nah

[Anonymous No.6403928]

>>6403911
>implying

[Anonymous No.6403935]

>>6403922
admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery

[Anonymous No.6403940]

>>6403921
no he's not

[Anonymous No.6403948]

>>6403892
>What he gave to the world isn't as relevant or insightful as he thought it to be.
on the generous side, you are. it's not really relevant or insightful at all

[Anonymous No.6403954]

>>6403914
>I'm scared of being banned

[Anonymous No.6403960]

>>6403954
i've been banned like 20 times from /lit/, faggot. you're really just that boring

[Anonymous No.6403968]

>>6403954
or maybe this?

>I'm scared that someone might poke a hole into my flimsy building of personal beliefs

>Select all soup below

[Anonymous No.6403972]

>>6403714
Explain yourself faggot

[Anonymous No.6403973]

>>6403854
I thought the protagonist wants a degree of chaos. he wants a degree of autonomy. the lack of this is the degeneracy. the fact that life is neatly wrapped as it is in bnw is why he kills himself. it's like...if he can't live freely outside of the this box they've built he'd rather not live.

I agree with a lot of your post but fearing both what he considered degeneracy and chaos seems to be contradictory in the way I interpreted the story.

[Anonymous No.6403983]

>>6403960
>calling people "faggot" on the internet makes me look cool and tough and totally not like a complete retard

[Anonymous No.6403990]

>>6403973
>'degeneracy' is now /lit/ lingo

Back in the day we used to call it 'mindless entertainment', 'mindless consumption', or 'standardization of culture' etc. You've totally degenerated its meaning with your Hitler vocabulary

[Anonymous No.6403998]

>>6403972
1. his book implies people who like to be alone (aka introverts) are looked down upon in this "dystopian" society. AKA, all extroverts are vapid people. this is actually the major theme of the book, and is literally middle-school tier
2. cringiest shit with the "strumpet", clearly totally not aldous huxley's demented narcissistic fantasy
3. "OH MY GOD LOOK HOW PROFOUND SHAKESPEARE IS WHY AREN'T YOU JERKING OFF TOO?"
4. flagellating yourself is the mark of the superior man
5. literally suiciding about all of this

it's literally ressentiment: the book, it's almost as disgusting as christianity

[Anonymous No.6404001]

>>6403983
faggot, as if your view of the world bothers me

[Anonymous No.6404005]

>>6403998
You sound very angry. Calm down.

[Anonymous No.6404009]

>>6404005
He doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6404017]

>>6403990
when I used degeneracy it was to infer the way it was used by the anon I replied to.

I don't care about your back in the day or you getting more explicit with what is already implied and understood and I don't know what "hitler vocabulary" means because I speak plainly and am not fluent in faggotspeak.

[Anonymous No.6404026]

>>6404009
his post clearly IMPLIES some anger AKA he mad, literally like a pleb-tier four year old kindergarden-tier retard.
It's so fucking cringy, like, "LOOK HOW FUCKING UPSET I AM, I TAKE THE INTERNET SO SERIOUSLY, AM I RILING YOU UP YET FAGGOTS?"

Literally full of anger, an impotent child, almost as disgusting as cuckery

[Anonymous No.6404033]

>>6403973
Yes, because chaos and struggle are a good thing (in the minds of people like Huxley). It's what life is worth living for-- self-development, autonomy, contemplation and problem-solving. With society degenerating (yes, degenerating) the way it did in BNW, society enslaves itself by ending this need to struggle, by being apathetic to philosophical questions and deeper emotions (rather than shallow sexual reciprocity). Huxley wasn't a prude, he did drugs and he took his share of pleasure. I think he makes a valid point but I don't think he goes to the root of the problem correctly. People didn't just suddenly start becoming like this because of cultural shifts that came out of nowhere. There's a historical-material reason why the people in Brave New World would act the way they did and create a society as vile as it was.

[Anonymous No.6404039]

>>6403960

[Anonymous No.6404048]

>>6403881
>There are never any arguments to be found, or data, that could suggest that feminism is a effort not worthy of consideration.

[Anonymous No.6404067]

>>6404048
HERE COME THE /POL/-JPG-TRAIN!

[Anonymous No.6404070]

>>6404033
hey thanks for the reply. it's interesting to consider.

it's kind of ironic that the technologically advanced society is more hedonistic than the protagonist's more primitive world, right?

[Anonymous No.6404082]

>>6404067
You asked for data faggot.

Let it be shown that when people ask for data and get it served, they quietly resort to ad hominem, and return to their pure ideology.

[Anonymous No.6404086]

>>6403998
You have a lot to learn young faggot!

[Anonymous No.6404090]

>>6404082
CHOO CHOO

[Anonymous No.6404097]

>>6404090
Where's Foucault when you need him? Surely he would have a great fedora pick to share right now.

[Anonymous No.6404113]

>>6404082
Not that guy, but that "data" isn't nearly enough to make the conclusion more sexual partners is a bad thing. Have you considered maybe people who are depressed seek out sexual partners to cope? And how is this weak confirmation justification for demonizing people?

[Anonymous No.6404114]

>>6404070
yes, definitely! Though I think that pleasure-seeking is a fundamental part of human nature (as defined by biology, not philosophy). Primitive humans were just as perverted, used drugs, gorged themselves when they could, played games/sports, and did basically everything we're still doing. We do this more because as a whole we have more leisure time because of technology. The desire for pleasure is still there and will probably always be there. It's the ease in which we are able to do it that distinguishes a wholesome society that has struggle and knowledge or a lazy, decadent society that has already solved everything and know enough to live comfortably in superficial pleasure.

[Anonymous No.6404123]

>>6403622
>>6403774
What's this then.

I believe the usual knee-jerk reaction against BNW was to call Huxley a primitivist hippie. Which is wrong, unless you think he's paying a compliment to Native Americans in his gruesome description of the reservation. It's such a short, simple novel, finished in a hurry, and still I see people get that shit wrong.

Huxley was afraid of americanization and of people being reduced to mindless farm animals. Yet during his first draft, he also realized that primitivism is bullshit and that Native Americans are fucked anyway, already reduced to tourist attractions during Huxley's time. If you look at the world today, and at kids addicted to the internet, and at how much everyone hates America, it may start to dawn on you that Huxley had a point. When America infects the entire planet save for some third world shitholes, it means there's nowhere to run. Having nowhere to go is what drives John insane in the end.

But that's okay, don't let me keep you from having fun and screaming about Huxley being a neckbeard. The future is now, and you get to be a fat, pampered, scatterbrained child all day long, never realizing the irony.

[Anonymous No.6404132]

>>6404048
This graph is very confusing - do you have the actual first source?

I don't see how happiness is even asked in the NSFG

Plus there's much newer data, I wonder why the author of that graph just used the one study from 1995, not the others from 2002, 2006-2010, it reeks of nitpicking

I also don't see what your graph has to do with feminism as a whole, it seems to try and link "less happiness" with "more sexual freedom", but again, happiness isn't on y- or x-axis, and the NSFG doesn't seem to ask for generic levels of "happiness"

So all in all this is a shit graph and not a source. Do you have a PDF or something instead? Something with data one can verify? That isn't ripped out of context and possibly falsified?

[Anonymous No.6404146]

>>6404005
nice avoidance of the topic in favor of petty, nietzsche-esque psychologisms

literally, if you wanna get psychological you should stop and look at how you choose to attack your intellectual foes, it will say alot about you

[Anonymous No.6404154]

>>6404039
awesome may-may image xD

[Anonymous No.6404156]

>>6404113
>Not that guy, but that "data" isn't nearly enough to make the conclusion more sexual partners is a bad thing

It seems to imply it.

>Have you considered maybe people who are depressed seek out sexual partners to cope?

And you would recommend this as a good coping strategy?

>And how is this weak confirmation justification for demonizing people?

First of all, it's not about demonizing. Nobody is talking about jailing or shaming anyone, in fact, fucking everything and everyone is literally socially acceptable on a retarded scale, not only socially acceptable in fact, infidelity is apparently a "good" thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCb0XZY6S44

[Anonymous No.6404160]

>>6403820
>I think you may mean, O my Ford. :^)
A valiant and whimsical yet ultimately quixotic attempt to steer the discussion back to something resembling OP's question

[Anonymous No.6404169]

>>6404123
i like how you have to make up a spook to fill me in, in order to preserve your opinions about an author

just admit it, you're wrong and all you have on your side is psychologism

[Anonymous No.6404192]

>>6404048
Could it be that there is primarily, a need to cure, treat and prevent sexually transmitted diseases, rather than repress and shame people?

Could it be that marriage fails so often in a non-feudal society because marriage has become outdated and incompatible with the modern world and human nature?

And I don't think feminism as it's established in the modern day 1st world is good either. They're mostly prudes and ugly women who want to end "objectification" because they don't want attractive women to hog all the attention while they die alone with their cats and their cobweb vaginas.

[Anonymous No.6404197]

>>6404160
I'm glad someone noticed.

[Anonymous No.6404205]

>>6404192
>Could it be that there is primarily, a need to cure, treat and prevent sexually transmitted diseases, rather than repress and shame people?
spooks

>Could it be that marriage fails so often in a non-feudal society because marriage has become outdated and incompatible with the modern world and human nature?
spooks, also human nature is something feminists argue explicitly against, you faggotron loser

>And I don't think feminism as it's established in the modern day 1st world is good either. They're mostly prudes and ugly women who want to end "objectification" because they don't want attractive women to hog all the attention while they die alone with their cats and their cobweb vaginas.
spooks

[Anonymous No.6404212]

>>6404192
>Could it be that there is primarily, a need to cure, treat and prevent sexually transmitted diseases, rather than repress and shame people?

Or maybe people can take responsibility for their actions and use a condom?

>Could it be that marriage fails so often in a non-feudal society because marriage has become outdated and incompatible with the modern world and human nature?

I think it's more that there has been a political campaign for a long time to devalue marriage's symbolic value for people.

[Anonymous No.6404215]

>>6404212
>women
>take responsibility

[Anonymous No.6404221]

>>6404212
>I think it's more that there has been a political campaign for a long time to devalue marriage's symbolic value for people.

Are you alluding to a Jewish plot to subvert Western civilization and enslave us all? lel

[Anonymous No.6404223]

>>6404205
>you cure and treat diseases for yourself
>you profit from these cures and treatments instead of letting people (or yourself) suffer and/or die.
>implying I'm a feminist or support them
>implying human nature isn't specifically tied to human biology, which makes people cheaters, sluts, etc
>I think I described it well

[Anonymous No.6404224]

>>6404221
are you referring to the myth that jews don't exist???!?!?!?

[Anonymous No.6404225]

>>6404156
>would recommend this as a good coping strategy?
Certainly not, but that doesn't mean feminism as a whole hasn't produced works worth examining. Feminism is about a lot more than sexual freedoms.

>>6404212
>Or maybe people can take responsibility for their actions and use a condom?
This is why sexual education is important.

[Anonymous No.6404230]

>>6404223
>implying human nature isn't specifically tied to human biology, which makes people cheaters, sluts, etc

If this is so, then sexism and oppression are perfectly human and natural and there's no point in opposing them

feminism is a patently anti-human activity

READ STIRNER

[Anonymous No.6404232]

>>6404225
>This is why sexual education is important.
spooks

>Feminism is about a lot more than sexual freedoms.
Yeah, it has a whole troupe of spooks

[Anonymous No.6404236]

>>6404212
condoms aren't 100% effective, they aren't available to everyone and they take a lot of the pleasure out of it. But yes, point taken.

Marriage hasn't always existed. Marriage could someday come to an end. Who cares?

[Anonymous No.6404238]

>>6404221
>Are you alluding to a Jewish plot to subvert Western civilization and enslave us all?

No, I am alluding to a conscious political initiative by the Left from the 1960s on to equate marriage tantamount to slavery for women, and that they are better of fucking 3000 random guys during their life time and being single mothers getting checks from their sugar daddy, the State.

[Anonymous No.6404242]

>>6404238
daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn

[Anonymous No.6404243]

and after a ton of shitposts, everything named in
>>6403881
came to pass

[Anonymous No.6404249]

>>6404114
I agree that we have a natural pleasure-seeking aspect of ourselves. but many have a natural desire to sacrifice some of that for other purposes. I think we relate to the savage because he's the one who is torn when he sees how this balance is way off...as we're torn by it. we understand that society but feel it as an extreme thing too. a part of me wants to say this understanding of extreme is a natural thing but more likely intellectual. hard to say for me.

[Anonymous No.6404253]

>>6404192
Like what? Modern day feminism is all about "muh right to be a slut" and "your tv show needs to have more gay pairings because MORALITY"

[Anonymous No.6404260]

>>6404253
>"your tv show needs to have more gay pairings because MORALITY"
kek everyone is scared of ghosts

[Anonymous No.6404268]

>>6404230
but sexism and oppression aren't the default state of humanity. There was a time and place (pre-industry, pre-capitalism, pre-feudalism, pre-tribalism), where men and women did more or less equal work and had more or less equal value in society (e.g there were an equal amount of goddess figures than paternal gods like Jehova or Allah). It was when men started becoming the bread-winners and women stayed at home that men began becoming considered superior. This doesn't mean the SJW feminists are correct or that they understand even a little bit of actual feminist theory. They are liberal feminists, not Marxist feminists. This mindset of "if it happened, it's correct" is wrong. Human nature, if it's oppressive can still be considered wrong, even if it's "natural" to be a sexist, racist, homophobe (it's not).

READ MARX
READ ENGELS

[Anonymous No.6404284]

>>6404253
>Modern day feminism is all about "muh right to be a slut"
No, it's not. Perhaps in the media and on the internet, but there are all sorts of "feminist" studies happening that have nothing to do with sexual freedoms. For example in Political Science there is a lot of research going on about the effects of funding education for young girls and lowering birth rates in developing countries on international relations and the spreading of democracy.

[Anonymous No.6404288]

>>6404268
>but sexism and oppression aren't the default state of humanity
only when you invent a narrative (cf: spook)

>There was a time and place (pre-industry, pre-capitalism, pre-feudalism, pre-tribalism), where men and women did more or less equal work and had more or less equal value in society (e.g there were an equal amount of goddess figures than paternal gods like Jehova or Allah).
only when you invent a narrative (cf: spook)

>It was when men started becoming the bread-winners and women stayed at home that men began becoming considered superior.
only when you invent a narrative (cf: spook)

>This doesn't mean the SJW feminists are correct or that they understand even a little bit of actual feminist theory.
Actual feminist theory? I bet none of them are scotsmen, either (or anything that isn't a spook)

>They are liberal feminists, not Marxist feminists.
spooks are spooks, anon, it doesn't matter what sort they are.

>This mindset of "if it happened, it's correct" is wrong.
This is 100% EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID THOUGH. Humans used to be polysexual and whatever, so it's okay. You're using the same faulty reasoning you're tearing down the opposite with. Once you destroy positivity as a source for normativity, you can't go back, it's just gone and we're left with nihilism, which is just power, and power is oppression (just a kind you may not like, or maybe you will)

>Human nature, if it's oppressive can still be considered wrong, even if it's "natural" to be a sexist, racist, homophobe (it's not).
If human nature can be wrong, then having sex with multiple partners can be wrong.

Marx and Engels took what they wanted from Stirner and Marx tried frantically to eliminate stirner. Marx is a hack and literally made up stories about how things work.

[Anonymous No.6404291]

>>6404284
>For example in Political Science there is a lot of research going on about the effects of funding education for young girls and lowering birth rates in developing countries on international relations and the spreading of democracy.
For example, in spooky activities there is alot of spook-stirring going on about exerting power over young girls and spooking developing countries into spookocracy.

[Anonymous No.6404298]

>>6404253
http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2014/9/emma-watson-gender-equality-is-your-issue-too

[Anonymous No.6404301]

>>6404298
>equality
>liberty
>fraternity

SPOKED

[Anonymous No.6404305]

>>6404301
the concept of a spook is a spook

[Anonymous No.6404316]

>>6404253
Exactly! But no, feminists aren't really asking for the "right to be a slut." They slut shame all the time because they're "giving men what they want" and "letting themselves be treated like a piece of meat."

There are 3 types of 1st world 3rd Wave feminists.
>the ugly cat lady = men only like WHORES. Men are PIGS for having sexual desire and not looking at the beauty within me! They objectify me and treat women like objects!

>the dyke = all sex is rape, women should only be having sex with me cause dick is painful and unnatural. Burn your bras.

>the pretty intellectual = men think I'm just some pretty face! I have a mind too! I will liberate myself and these evil bourgeois norms by having tons of sex and being just as douchebagy as they are! Men will hate me, and other feminists will hate me but I'll be free!!! (to suck dick) also: check your privilege.

[Anonymous No.6404325]

>>6404305
Best response 2015 super intellectual response there buddy

[Anonymous No.6404333]

>>6404305
The very idea of concept is a spook.
Check mate

[Anonymous No.6404339]

>TFW if /lit/ finally got off its ass and read Stirner all of these problems would vanish

[Anonymous No.6404343]

>>6404316
There is one type of anti-feminist

>the fat permavirgin= all women are SLUTS. Only I prevail with my chivalrous behavior. I hope someone will love me one day.

See what we're both doing here? Hearsay and conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous No.6404346]

>>6404325
>Best spook 2015 super intellectual spook there buddy

[Anonymous No.6404365]

>>6404343
Did you even watch this video?
>>6404156

It's a video that makes me wonder why we differentiate the word "woman" from "prostitute".

[Anonymous No.6404368]

>>6404365
>why we differentiate the word "woman" from "prostitute".
*tips Fedora into outer space*

[Anonymous No.6404370]

>>6404346
NICE EPIK RESPONSE BRUH but for real, if only you knew how often people appeal to completely made-up constructs in debate

Stirner is a preconceptial phenomenologists, for you to say "spooks are spooks" is probably actually true, or not, it doesn't really matter. What does matter though is that there are only two sorts of control: physical control, and imagined control.

For instance, when referring to the naturalistic fallacy, it's both a spook to appeal to what is natural (as you're giving your stupid and subjective ideas about what is natural) as a concept higher than you, and pure rejection is also a spook (holding the antithesis as a concept higher than you).

The debate has no material implications here so it's all just spooks. We are launching ghosts at each other trying to haunt each other. In the end we're all just using each other as material for entertainment.

Get on board and shut up

[Anonymous No.6404374]

>>6404288
yes, as a human I'll look for patterns. BUT THIS ONE IS CLEARLY THERE. It's not me "inventing a narrative." There are facts based on historical / archeological evidence and there are logical conclusions we can infer based on this evidence. We need to put things in context. Context matters. The Self isn't some holy soul conceived of by some divine mind. So what is it? It's the result of historical progression and environmental, genetic and cultural conditions. Are all of these spooks?

What I meant was "just because it's natural doesn't mean it's correct." It's true! Drug use (opium) was common. It doesn't mean it's beneficial. Most natural actions like sex are natural and have no negative consequences if precautions are taken and diseases are eradicated. The action in itself is not morally wrong (is this also a spook?) because it hurts no one. The man-made bubble of social conditions creates the illusion that marriage, monogamy, and culture is innate. It is not. It has its basis on the economy.

It depends what wrong is. To you, it's a spook, right?

[Anonymous No.6404375]

>>6404368
*throws out razors and rubs rogain on legs*

[Anonymous No.6404377]

>>6404368
Guess you didn't watch the video then yeah.

[Anonymous No.6404384]

>>6404370
>NICE EPIK RESPONSE BRUH but for real, if only you knew how often people appeal to completely made-up constructs in debate
>
>Stirner is a spookish spook, for you to say "spooks are spooks" is probably actually spook, or not, it doesn't really spook. What does spook though is that there are only two sorts of spooks: physical spooks, and imagined spooks.
>
>For instance, when referring to the naturalistic spook, it's both a spook to appeal to what is spook (as you're giving your stupid and spookish ideas about what is spook) as a spook higher than you, and pure rejection is also a spook (holding the spook as a spook higher than you).
>The debate has no material spooks here so it's all just spooks. We are launching spooks at each other trying to spook each other. In the end we're all just using each other as material for spooks.
>
>Get on spook and spook up

[Anonymous No.6404388]

>>6404374
>BUT THIS ONE IS CLEARLY THERE.
THIS GHOST IS CLEARLY NOT A GHOST

>There are facts based on historical / archeological evidence and there are logical conclusions we can infer based on this evidence.
They are not facts, and they are not necessary conclusions.

>We need to put things in context. Context matters.
Yes, put all your dumbass thoughts back into imagination-land where they came from

>The Self isn't some holy soul conceived of by some divine mind. So what is it? It's the result of historical progression and environmental, genetic and cultural conditions. Are all of these spooks?
Yes, Mr. Wannabe Hegel, the geist accompanying is a fucking spook because it doesn't exist.

>What I meant was "just because it's natural doesn't mean it's correct." It's true! Drug use (opium) was common. It doesn't mean it's beneficial. Most natural actions like sex are natural and have no negative consequences if precautions are taken and diseases are eradicated. The action in itself is not morally wrong (is this also a spook?) because it hurts no one. The man-made bubble of social conditions creates the illusion that marriage, monogamy, and culture is innate. It is not. It has its basis on the economy.

>It depends what wrong is. To you, it's a spook, right?
Fine, you can be consistent in that point (and I'm sure you value consistency higher than your individual), but you can't fucking use "it's natural" as any sort of justification for ANYTHING then, including sexual desire. It's a complete nonissue and can't ever be brought up in any context ever as a justification for anything, because it's a fallacy to you.

If you're going to make a ghost establishing what is "right" and "wrong", then you're on another spooky track, but at least you're self-consistent in your spooks.

I'd like to see you suggest that everything you believe is "right" in the ghostly world your mind lives

[Anonymous No.6404447]

>>6404384
whatever man, i really honestly don't give 2 shits what you think or believe, you're just self-arranging text online

[Anonymous No.6404498]

>>6404388
>facts don't exist
>truth is a spook

Wow. Really?

>says "spook" and "ghost" almost as much as I say "revisionist" and "liberal"

>CONTEXT MATTERS

you totally ignored this, but it does. I get how as an egoist, you'd like to be in control of who you are and what you do and you probably can't stand determinism or materialism, let alone dialectical materialism, but here I am to tell you that CONTEXT MATTERS. You would be an entirely different **spook** if you were born into a different society with different modes of production, different cultures, different material conditions. The Self is not a thing in itself and necessarily connects to other selves and to inanimate matter. This is why Striner fails. He cannot justify his egoism because it logically is inconsistent with REALITY.

You haven't disproved anything that I say. You just get mad and call it a spook. Just like Striner! This is why you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.6404914]

>>6404498
It's nothing to do with facts, what you're saying isn't a "fact" you idiot

[Anonymous No.6404926]

>>6404498
>He cannot justify his egoism because it logically is inconsistent with REALITY.

Reality is always a made up construct you idiot. If not, I'd like you to defend Kant's noumena

You can get all pouty and try to psychoanalyze me all you want, it doesn't mean you're doing anything but asserting "this is reality and I'm right so I'm right"

[Anonymous No.6404928]

>>6404156
Correlation != causation.

[Anonymous No.6405080]

>>6404498
Lol you sound like a /pol/-tard right now "but nigger inferiority is just reality"

[Anonymous No.6405575]

>>6405080
>didn't say a single racist thing
>pol/tard?

Because we both accept that some things are real and some are not? Because we look past the farce and sophism of relativity? Alright then.

[Anonymous No.6405606]

>>6404926
Reality is real. The idea of reality. The general gist of what is actually there, beyond our limited human perception. Can you say for certain our perception exists? Certainly a sky isn't OBJECTIVELY blue, but there has to be a reason you're perceiving it in that specific way and not in another way, right? Thus, things EXIST. Therefore, some things are true (or real) and some things are not. Now to put my statement in context, I was referring to Striner's philosophy being inconsistent with reality. Because it is. Why? Because for the most part, humans are social animals. Because we are a part of a society and have a history and are dependent on each other. We do not live in a void.

I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you, but I have seen a tendency with individualist/egoist/liberal people I speak to. They become fearful when you point out we have no free will.

[Anonymous No.6405623]

>>6404914
it's my "opinion" that social systems have changed, modes of production have changed, culture and gender relations have changed?

This is what I was saying!
This is what I decried as a factual observation of the patterns of history and society. But nope, I guess there are no such thing as facts? Good Assassin's Creed philosophy, bad actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6406002]

>>6403914
>i'm an antifeminist
>pic related

Also you are probably new here as bashing feminists is pretty much 4chan's favorite pastime.

[Anonymous No.6407146]

>>6404215
>condoms on women
you what mate?

[Anonymous No.6407153]

>>6404238
the state is the same sugar daddy that charges you money and changes the status of your property, just to get married

[Anonymous No.6407191]

>>6403367

PUNS!

[Anonymous No.6407206]

>>6403990
its so degenerate, its a declension of culturally active vocabulary

[The cats No.6407239]

>>6403960
Be careful m9