/lit/ - Literature

>>9607312
I would say that for Stirner the individual/self has an objective and autonomous existence that isnt something idealised or capable of being alienated - hence its inherently anti idealist.

To break down the creative nothing business.

He uses the term nothing because the self is no idea/category (ie *M*an, the *I*ndividual) as it is wholly unique there can be no other you.

>I am unique. Hence my wants too are unique, and my deeds; in short, everything about me is unique. And it is only as this unique I that I take everything for my own, as I set myself to work, and develop myself, only as this. I do not develop men, nor as man, but, as I, I develop — myself.

Now of course this does not mean there can never be any similarities/patterns/shared values only that these will always fall short of describing you.

The creative part comes in it being the source of values and ideas not that it creates itself.

>he reply being that human consciousness exists within real limits and shares intrinsic similar properties which we adhere to, which we cannot truly be "free" from, and that attempts at this kind of freedom are irrational and will lead to undue suffering.

Stirner is more about ownness - which requires the destruction of spooks and embracing your own interests - rather than the goal being total freedom. The Undue suffering you talk of in his argument is produced by people attempting to live for idealised notions ("Mankind", "The Ruggard Individual" "The Saint") rather than your own unique life.

Two examples both as spooked as each other:

The man who thinks individualism and being respected means being antisocial who tortures himself by distancing himself from family members despite being a passionate family man

The woman who grows resentful and bitter due to marrying and having children despite not wanting them or having any affection her husband because she thinks that a woman must obey the law of Genesis and be fruitful

>Not till I am certain of myself, and no longer seeking for myself, am I really my property; I have myself, therefore I use and enjoy myself. On the other hand, I can never take comfort in myself as long as I think that I have still to find my true self and that it must come to this, that not I but Christ or some other spiritual, i.e. ghostly, self (e.g. the true man, the essence of man, etc.) lives in me.

>A vast interval separates the two views. In the old I go toward myself, in the new I start from myself; in the former I long for myself, in the latter I have myself and do with myself as one does with any other property — I enjoy myself at my pleasure. I am no longer afraid for my life, but “squander” it.

>>9103412
>>9103458
>>9103461
You have to go back into the sack.

>>8907563
Clickety-clack get into my sack.

>>8863026
>popular
>cultural connections
Both sound like spooks desu.

>>8579550

SE / E here lads