/lit/ - Literature

>>18802013
Every thread is an egoist thread. Its just that these retards are duped egoists who take themselves way too seriously. There's a strong mental illness in the world, called humanism, that infects a lot of people here - it makes them have really foolish assumptions about human nature - as if one ought to care about others or what happens to them. This faggot, this loser, made a thread on 4chan crying about his kids being harmed. Nigga, kids die everything and are born every day. Deal with it. Crying like a bitch isn't going to stop anything. Coming to /lit/ to vent, like a bitch, isn't going change anything. So, why do it? Nigger is clearly angry at people, but too sacred to do anything. So, being based like I'm, I call him out on it - he's a bitch. Simple as.
I will shit all over his thread - fuck the sacredness of thoughts and beliefs. I have no respect for the OP, or the degenerates who sympathize with them. Only my opinion matters; this thread is my property. It will discuss the topics I want to discuss. OP is my bitch - he talks about the things I want him to talk about. He responds to me because he KNOWS I own him.

It amazes me that people can actually interpret Stirner as some sort of treatise on the merit of voluntary anarchist cooperation. There is no reason why a true "egoist" in Stirner's sense would care about the supposed ethical implications of the voluntary or involuntary cooperation of others in relation to the structuring of a given society. A union of egoists is in no way meant to provide the ethical basis for social structures it's only ever a "ethical tool" (if you can even call it that when talking about Stirner) for individual cooperation on a limited interpersonal scale. An egoist shouldn't care whether he subjugates others under his own will whether they consent of it or not. Obsession over consent in "egoist social structuring" is one of the most retarded things you could possibly pull from his work. Would it not benefit the egoist most to live then in something that more closely resembles a fascist society? Would this not this not be based on an egoist conception of the amoral subjugation of will?

>>17437103
No systems exist. It is all an illusion created to blind you and bind your hands. Within yourself, there is enough might to tear down any system. All you need to do is find it or find a way to express it. Or, if you wish, become the system itself and use it as it uses you.

>>17403411
The individual can only have a part in the founding of the Kingdom of God, or, according to the modern notion of the same thing, in the development and history of humanity; and only so far as he has a part in it does a Christian, or according to the modern expression human, value pertain to him; for the rest he is dust and a worm-bag. That the individual is of himself a world’s history, and possesses his property in the rest of the world’s history, goes beyond what is Christian. To the Christian the world’s history is the higher thing, because it is the history of Christ or “man”; to the egoist only his history has value, because he wants to develop only himself not the mankind-idea, not God’s plan, not the purposes of Providence, not liberty, etc. He does not look upon himself as a tool of the idea or a vessel of God, he recognizes no calling, he does not fancy that he exists for the further development of mankind and that he must contribute his mite to it, but he lives himself out, careless of how well or ill humanity may fare thereby. If it were not open to confusion with the idea that a state of nature is to be praised, one might recall Lenau’s “Three Gypsies.”- What, am I in the world to realize ideas? To do my part by my citizenship, say, toward the realization of the idea “State,” or by marriage, as husband and father, to bring the idea of the family into an existence? What does such a calling concern me! I live after a calling as little as the flower grows and gives fragrance after a calling.

The ideal “Man” is realized when the Christian apprehension turns about and becomes the proposition, “I, this unique one, am man.” The conceptual question, “what is man?” — has then changed into the personal question, “who is man?” With “what” the concept was sought for, in order to realize it; with “who” it is no longer any question at all, but the answer is personally on hand at once in the asker: the question answers itself.

They say of God, “Names name thee not.” That holds good of me: no concept expresses me, nothing that is designated as my essence exhausts me; they are only names. Likewise they say of God that he is perfect and has no calling to strive after perfection. That too holds good of me alone.

I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun of this consciousness. If I concern myself for myself,[Stell’ Ich auf Mich meine Sache. Literally, “if I set my affair on myself”] the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say:

All things are nothing to me.

I have read 50 pages today of a novel. And a complete chapter (about 10 or 20 pages) of Stirner's The ego and its own.

Still spooked? Why?

>>16956145
I understand that the current system in charge of America is generally in my favor, but there are times when it is not. During those times, I break laws and manipulate my peers into getting myself a more comfortable life. This does not mean an entirely 'me' centered life, as I would not be pleased if my friends suffered. Nepotism is fun. Though, to be honest, my life is a bit boring for my taste.

All philosophy is egoism.

>>16759930
Read whatever you want. It won't change the fact that you are only yourself and all other Higher Causes are mere illusions in your mind.

>>16715582
Everyone is my property.

>>16699120
I usually just take my books from Barnes without paying.

Write what's on my mind? I'll write what's on my mind. I'll do what I must because only I can do as such.

Daily reminder to do whatever you want.

>>12250638
>Ayn Rand
Nice spooks kid

Is "torture" a spook?

>>11880309
who do ya think? Blows him out at the beginning of the book.

How Spooked was he^

What the hell is a "heroic death" and why is it inherently something you should strive for in life? Why is getting old and dying in your bed inherently a bad thing?

Haven't been on /lit/ in years. You guys still suck Stirners dick?

>>11656602
Engels drew max stirner! /lit/'s ol' favorite meme.

>>11488169
None.

redpill me on meta ethics /lit/

>>11262309
i pick (myself)

>>11153703
Basically just Stirner

>>11084386

The cave is no concern of mine. Merely my property which I enjoy in whatever manner I please.