/lit/ - Literature

>>22860393

I've seen some serious misreadings of Stirner itt. If what you're getting out of his book is something resembling "psychological "egoism" where everyone actually does everything out of self-interest, then you're reading it wrong. Not even "selfish" people like some Scrooge-type capitalist are necessarily egoists. Marx did some critique of Stirner but I find his later writings are kind of a try at constructing a "spook-free" analysis of economic/sociopolitical relations, so I wouldn't throw them out of a window as fast as some posters do when it comes to comparing both philosophies. Remember Stirner talks about workers' self-interest and what that would entail, or that some of the better known egoists, like Renzo Novatore, advocated for some sort of social revolution. The anarchist experiment in Spain has some stirnerian roots which deserve being looked into. Godspeed my fellow egoists anons.

>>14353684 (retard numbers for retards)
10-4, dinosaur

>>14192536
Get fucked.

>>13289111
Read Marx AND Stirner.

>>13289177
>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement.
>This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege.
>It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored.
>Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on.
>To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875

>>12613670
Nice bot, but it's still spooked as fuck.

Go full Striner or go home

Go full Striner or go home

>>10620002
>Marx tried to empower people while stirner was just stroking his own cock all along
Shit point based on bourgeois privacy biopolitics. The Unique isn't limited to the person and doesn't exclude experiental transcendence.

And trying to terminally empower people is ridiculous from an egoist PoV, since everyone is already an egoist.

You're criticizing Stirner for not doing things which he isn't interested in doing. He's not a philosopher of what is to be, but of what is.

The Zero Books podcast.
I used to listen to Joe Frank's radio shows too, I don't think you can make better audio fiction than this.

>>10179009
see pic

>>10181180
Rights are a spook.

>>9872981
Why is he sitting like that? Why does his mouth look like it's trynig to escape his head?

>>9664564
>>later read Ayn Rand for a few hours
Go Striner or go back. Sometimes i wonder if /fitlit/ was a mistake

>>9267324
No i have an issue with people taking wealth away from those people using the shit to make money and give them a flat sum just because he 'owns' the shit. Ownership is a very spooky concept, and it being used to extract a very unspooky wealth from others is bullshit.

>>9256982
>respecting property rights
Where do you think we are?

>>8962935
just read around this board for a little while
the posters here are concerned with making it, with finding purpose, with finding truth
this is what every artist, philosopher or scientist ever does
women don't usually talk like this
i know this due to talking to women
in fact i prefer talking to women because they're purposeless when they do it
they're simply not as ambitious as men
you talk to a man and they're going to ask why, how, etc etc
women let themselves be entertained more easily
the self-awareness comes because of them being this way not the other way around
it comes due to the fact men can't get what they want as easily
men don't get to pick and choose *unless* they have power

>You may be a closeted homosexual to be honest.
no, i'm pretty honest about my sexuality
i've never felt as attracted to men's bodies as to women's
if you're detecting some effiminacy it comes from my father being absent and my being a writer

what you don't understand is that i don't have any stakes on this
i'm just describing what i see
i'm not saying men are better
i'm saying women think they have have something they don't
not just a penis or sperm
women will try to get what men have and they don't no matter what it is
knowledge, passion, wealth, anything
they'll use the fact that women make up society to make men give them that
it doesn't matter how patriarchal a society is, it's foundated on their women
the men might make the values but it's the women that take them and pass them on
i don't care how many fist, guns or swords you say men have, if half your population refuses to take part in society the society dies
more so if that half takes the children -the future of the society- with them

regardless, men have always wanted powerful women
just look at all the moeshit on /a/ or all the war or death goddesses in mythology or all the powerful queens or military leaders in history
men don't mind powerful women at all
poweful women are a relief to men because they can take care of their damn selves
men have always wanted women to be interesting
it's men's disappointment in women that created this power play
give a man a woman that is as intelligent, strong, etc as them and that isn't trying to use her own rarity as a vantage point and he will fall to his feet in reverence

>>8927570
>mfw /lit/ used to ban randposting

>>8798200

>>8578412
"Spooked out"? Your post leaks prejudice on every sentence. Your problem is fixation, my property. And also opposition. You are still defining yourself as not being this or that, not understanding this isn't something you "do", but something you "are" by just existing; you still cling to the idea that there are solid "things", that there is literature, philosophy, mathematics, et cetera.

Nothing but a bunch of fetishes! You see yourself free from the spirit? How can you lack a mirage? And be proud of it at that!

Off with ye and yer love of essences! Quit asking artifacts to not be fake! All the things you reduce are made great by the loving vision of those who enjoy them. You say some superstition for the "hard" sciences still remains in you: precisely because they require care (which you can't bring yourself to give) to enjoy.

Stop comparing yourself to others. Imagine what fools they must be if thou'st wiser than them, thou dolt! Be happy than any joy can come out of this chaos instead. But be not proud, for the only illusion in this world is that it could be in another way. Enjoy those illusion consciously when they come, instead of abusing yourself for being a man and not Man!

Follow your inclinations without pushing or pulling, and shape yourself as you will. Be not a slave to want nor wont. Do not face away from the mirror, Yaldabaoth. Contain and be not contained. There's no creation, no creator, no creature. Everything is in place, everything is necessary and needn't be justified.

Go read the The False Principle of Our Education too.

>>8204752

>>7977533