/lit/ - Literature

>>22345320
Careful, you might get spooked

>today I will remind them

>the ghost of Stirner keeps calling everything I do a spook
I don't think I can take it for much longer bros

>>12238912
>there exists chinkness

really gets spooky in here

>>11497269
put me in the screencap

>>11269796
The shame you intend to evoke in me by associating an author I like with the -Pseud- spook is in itself a spook, Shame has no power over me, property.

>>11262798

>>11101096
The cluelessity of presence bares only the mystery. Here the speculator enacts a milking machine technique whereby utters are dehumanized, though obviously this term is unsuitable. The mystery is suckled, as were the breasts of Liberity during the French revolution. I however pull away to expose only the lack of utters and the presence of a prostate with a propensity to engorge and need prodding while the testicles are cupped - and given the lucky circumstance of a third individual, the shaft is engaged either by hand or tittiefucking. The clothing is not important, but the black and white patches do seem to produce a mist over the operation that makes the watcher think of the evidence mounting against of for mass suicide.

>>11101097
Thanks. CND is with you.

>>10961866
What was meal time like for you growing up? Were you particular about foods? Did you have any allergies? What are you favourite metaphors for describing the world? How do you feel about germs? What is your view on self assessment in psychology? Give that your rule abiding character smacks of predictability, what cases would you say fit the parameters for rule breaking here, within the group, and what parameters fit for rule breaking that only effects you individually?

You don't have to answer these obviously. But I'd like for you think about them, but not from a critical point of view. Answer them after your reaction has settled into calm disdain so that it becomes nothing to you, so that you have power over it. Once you are in control, answer as openly as you can and tell no one the answers here unless you see why that might be helpful.

---

>>10896447

>>10876880
This is the quote that I half remember from years back when I first read this. It stuck with me because of a tough financial situation I was in regarding University.

>I asked because you don't seem overly fond of money, I replied. That is generally true of those who didn't make it themselves; those who did are twice as fond of it as other people. Even as poets love their own poems and fathers their children, so businessmen care about money as a work of their own, and of course for it usefulness, as others do too. <they are hard to associate with, because they refuse to praise anything but wealth.

Pretty interesting to read this level of disdain for hanging out with self-made men, at least if you're a Socratic type the likes to question things.

I guess I want to know how difficult it is to nurture ambition in yourself. Aren't we just like yo-yo dieters on a new trend that doesn't pay off when we try to remake ourselves as ambitious types?

Are there any good Greek works on achieving rather than duty? I never come across much other than how to cope with your life as an ambitious person. To me it seems the Greek took people to have innately determined characters.

And, yes, I've read Sterner. But I'm looking for something practical that might be older. Or is this just a contemporary problem of western societies?

(Do I ask too many questions?)

>>10848048

>>10828369
Every isolated person who ever thought like a philosopher thought profoundly stupid and shallow until they met others who argued with them. The only difference in some people are those that can argue and accept being humbled, and those that cannot accept. The best method is the middle path where you take the humble root and you rip apart their argument until you have something that will make you even stupider and more puddle like than before. You can then achieve the ultimate secret that everyone has to defend not only their arguments, or premise, but also the facts and logic. That facts and logic have to be defended is itself reason to delight in communication with the inept, the close-readers-without-self-reflection-or-relation-to-this-being-in-the-world-ness

>>10827790
Woody Allen as a kid not doing his homework and being taken into a shrink by his mother???

>>10690426
>implying

>>10690442
Inertia. It hugely influenced western thought for centuries even if it did it in a largely negative way imo. it will help you have an understanding of many later philosophers as well as the historical course of influential organizations like the Roman Catholic Church.

>>10293694

>>9366507
>opressed
>dignity
>insane

>>9224124
>>9224172
>Patriotism, religion, the Empire, the family, the sanctity of marriage, the Old School Tie, birth, breeding, honour, discipline
>values

So if I want to get into philosophy, would it make sense to purchase a book that Max Striner wrote and start with that?

Do you actually read the books written by philosophers or do you just get summaries of what they expressed?

egoism, i get it. is the whole thing him interpreting shit through egoism? do i have to keep reading? wouldnt that be a spook? but seriously, should i finish?

>>8582327
>What ideologies would you consider yourself?

>>8156177
Only correct answer itt