/lit/ - Literature

Is there any relation between modernity and hyper-individualistic mindset? What I mean by hyper-individualistic mindset is the prevalence of a cocktail of loose ideas such as "live and let live" attitude and a growing ethics of "leaving things that are out of one's control (which is none than other individuals)"

>>20374753
real butters? since when r u back???

They are afraid, in fact very fucking afraid

>Stirner, [Klages] says, is the reason why Nietzsche is of paramount importance, because “the day on which Stirner’s program becomes the will-guiding conviction of all, this alone would suffice for it to be the ‘doomsday’ of mankind.”

>A philosopher of completely different intellectual background, the Marxist Hans Heinz Holz, expressed a quite similar view. He warned that “Stirner’s egoism, if practically realized, would lead to the self-destruction of mankind.” The ex-Marxist Leszek Kolakowski develops a similar apocalyptic vision when confronted by ‘The Ego’.

>The “destruction of alienation”, that Stirner aims for, he says, amounts to “the return to authenticity”, and this would be “nothing else than the destruction of culture, the return to animality […] the return to the pre-human status.” Even Nietzsche appears, according to Kolakowski, “weak and inconsistent compared to him [Stirner].

>And Roberto Calasso, laureate of the “Premio Nietzsche” of 1989, writes: “From certain quarters is to be heard, that it goes without saying that a professional philosopher does not deal with such a matter as Stirner […] from the realm of culture Stirner still remains sequestered […] Stirner’s presence is particularly perceptible […] in authors who are completely silent about him or who talk about him in unpublished texts, which is to say, in Nietzsche and Marx.” Calasso too regards Stirner’s “Egoist” or rather “Owner” as an “artificial barbarian”, an “anthropological monster” etc.. ‘The Egoist’ is the “writing on the wall”, signalling the doom of occidental culture.

>In some authors who worked more carefully and were more disciplined, mention of Stirner looks like a (Freudian) slip. For example, Edmund Husserl does not name him in any of his texts, letters etc.; this, however, not on grounds that he did not know Stirner’s ideas or that he considered them insignificant. No, the intrinsic reason, which was passed down probably by accident, was that he wanted to protect his students (and perhaps himself?) against their “temptational power”.

>Another case is that of Carl Schmitt, who was ready to disclose something of his secretive relationship to Stirner, kept since his youth, only after being detained in 1946 in a prison of the Allies (which he experienced as an existential affliction). Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had “let the cat out of the bag”. However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner’s name.

>>18345547
Ebola advised against having children because they would never be your children. Biologically yes but spiritually they would be adopted by the globohomo agenda and made a prop. True defeatism would be saying "just have kids anyways bro and raise them conservative!!" Doesn't work like that. As for commies yes they believe that communism is inevitable and capitalism will collapse blah blah blah. The problem is that there is no evidence to support this. If anything we've seen that capitalism is in fact inevitable -- in communist nations in the 20th century there were plenty of underground markets to address demand. On the contrary, we have observed instances throughout history of degenerate cultures collapsing and getting replaced by more conservative regimes.

>>17859344

I think the main aspect of his thinking to consider here is the Creative Nothing, the Unique the is always in the act of becoming by re-producing itself. Maybe also to be contrasted with a renewal, in that the production is a free assembly.
In that light, an ingredient to not be spooked by X would be the ability to actually let X be and no be attached to it. The capability to re-assemble oneself without X.
I don't know if that's possible at all - this letting go.

>the place I'm staying doesn't allow smoking indoors
FUCK! HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO READ WITHOUT A CIGAR OR PIPE? IF I SMOKE THOSE OUTSIDE PEOPLE WILL LAUGH!

>>16438858

>>15853722
there is (little) anime girl stirner, there's no anime girl marx
check mate

>>15572646
The ego and it's own.
Kill the idealized body in your head.

>>15095447
wrong, i wrote it for myself and how other people use it is nothing to me

>race
>real
lol. It's just a historical determination bro. Don't get THAT attached to it. Think about it, there was no such thing as a "white race" just a few hundred years ago. Europeans were in fierce competition with each other, and because their world hardly extended past the borders of their continent, they had no reason to consider themselves as "one people." Scandinavians to a a saxon in the 11th century were niggers. As colonialism gripped the world, the idea of the white race was invented, because it had a utility; banding together to enslave everyone that wasn't part of one of the colonial powers. Now that the age of colonialism is pretty much over, there is no use for this idea anymore. The world is inevitably going to be globalized either by capitalist economics, or by a liberational internationalist communism. Race is a spook in the face of real power.

>>14325174
Day of the net is upon us. Remember to go to http://www.4chan.org/feedback to report buttercunt for using his janitorial status to silence criticism. Let's make /lit/ great again!

>>14172451
Being "led astray" by mere words only happens if you are a dumbass. Sorry.

>>14102749
Ugly little cunt, isn't she? All filth, inside and out. I want to slap her while she chokes on my monster cock. "STOP TRYING TO REPLACE SHAKESPEARE WITH A BUNCH OF TALENTLESS NIGGERS AND WOMEN, YOU STUPID WHORE," I shout as I punch her throat, "YEAH, FUCK YEAH SLUT, SWALLOW MY CUM, THEN SWALLOW MELVILLE'S MOBY DICK YOU DUMB WHORE!"

Where would Stirner and an edgy teen nihilist probably disagree?

>Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had "let the cat out of the bag". However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner's name.
>penguin takes all mention of Stirner out of Camus' Rebel
>Nietzsche's closest friends and other people near to him were perplexed. No one could remember ever having heard the name of Stirner from Nietzsche's mouth. There are dozens of letters in the archives that bear witness to the confusion of his friends. They understood well enough why Nietzsche had been publicly silent about Stirner, but why did he, given his "habitual communicativeness" (Overbeck), never mention him even in the most familiar circles? Only Overbeck's wife Ida remembered in 1899 a discussion she had with Nietzsche about twenty years earlier, during which he unintentionally let escape the remark that he felt a mental kinship to Stirner. "This was accompanied by a solemn facial expression. While I attentively observed his features, these changed again, and he made something like a dispelling, dismissive movement with his hand, and spoke under breath: 'Well, now I have told you, even though I did not want to speak of it. Forget about it. They would talk about a plagiarism, but you will not do that, I'm sure.
>Edmund Husserl does not name him in any of his texts, letters etc.; this, however, not on grounds that he did not know Stirner's ideas or that he considered them insignificant. No, the intrinsic reason, which was passed down probably by accident, was that he wanted to protect his students (and perhaps himself?) against their "temptational power"
>Another case is that of Carl Schmitt, who was ready to disclose something of his secretive relationship to Stirner, kept since his youth, only after being detained in 1946 in a prison of the Allies

DO NOT READ STIRNER; HE IS DANGEROUS.

>>13152279
>I can't take anyone who hates capitalism seriously, it's the most diplomatic structure for a country to exist in and the only one that correctly exploits humanities darker sides.
Spooky

>>13095649
>Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had "let the cat out of the bag". However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner's name.
>penguin takes all mention of Stirner out of Camus' Rebel
>Nietzsche's closest friends and other people near to him were perplexed. No one could remember ever having heard the name of Stirner from Nietzsche's mouth. There are dozens of letters in the archives that bear witness to the confusion of his friends. They understood well enough why Nietzsche had been publicly silent about Stirner, but why did he, given his "habitual communicativeness" (Overbeck), never mention him even in the most familiar circles? Only Overbeck's wife Ida remembered in 1899 a discussion she had with Nietzsche about twenty years earlier, during which he unintentionally let escape the remark that he felt a mental kinship to Stirner. "This was accompanied by a solemn facial expression. While I attentively observed his features, these changed again, and he made something like a dispelling, dismissive movement with his hand, and spoke under breath: 'Well, now I have told you, even though I did not want to speak of it. Forget about it. They would talk about a plagiarism, but you will not do that, I'm sure.
>Edmund Husserl does not name him in any of his texts, letters etc.; this, however, not on grounds that he did not know Stirner's ideas or that he considered them insignificant. No, the intrinsic reason, which was passed down probably by accident, was that he wanted to protect his students (and perhaps himself?) against their "temptational power"
>Another case is that of Carl Schmitt, who was ready to disclose something of his secretive relationship to Stirner, kept since his youth, only after being detained in 1946 in a prison of the Allies

>implyign there is an unspoken conspiracy to hide Stirner as much as possible

All my properties, I can - by Stirner's definition of what it means to truly owning something - discard at any moment.
The unique is defined by how it ruthlessly consumes and then produces itself.

Has this completely universal argument which, in particular, champions the notion of gender-fluidity, ever being picked up by the trans-community?

I'm reading Capital now and i'm pretty convinced...

Who is the best critique of Marx? (i don't just want books based on other schools of economic though but books which specifically critique and tackle Marx/Capital)

>>12195047
>be eurofag
>want to collect welfare but don't want to partake in bullshit job training programs
>get diagnosed as mentally ill
>don't take meds but see a shrink once a month for 1 hour instead of being a wageslave for 160 hours so that it looks convincing for the state
>just shoot the shit with shrink and talk about literature and psychology and philosophy and stuff
>we both get paid for not working

>race
>nation