/lit/ - Literature

>>9897646
Why do you think Hitler is my waifu?

He is a spooked bitch, his followers are also spooked holier than thu bitches

>>9885740
>>9885736
>>9885753
>>9885756
>>9885759
But where is the best girl?

Is there value in reading the ego and it's own entirely? Or is valuing ideas a spook

>>9811196
he is like a babby

>>9768193
>He is not his own favorite Author.

Because I delight in doing so

>>9703551
nevermind found it

I write porn for beer money. I've tried longer stuff but I lack the attention span to come up with a full novel outline, even just a ~25k word romance novelette.

>>9391003
3DPD is a spook.

>>9390869
See? You're learning.

>>9367489
>people must instantly gratify my wants
>this person doesn't understand that he need to upload this instantly when asked by me
>how dare he believe he has a life other than subservience to me

>>9357496
Pepe is a spook.

>>9343218
People generally get angry when they see someone argue for egoism because it reminds them how spooked they are and causes uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

>>9281333
>The creative nothing is a spook.

How can you subjugate yourself to yourself? If its something your are interested in though check out the small article Stirners critics where he responds himself to this challenge.

>Literally a reification of the ego.

Not really its just a way that defines something as unique as the self without being contradictory. If anything it escapes reification.

>>9282010
Ill clarify it for you.


Your Question: "Why was this cuck so hung up on concepts such as 'Self' and 'Ego'?"

Premise 1: Stirner's central philosophical view is that the concepts of ego and self are the foundation of human experience and life

Premise 2: Stirner wrote down his philosophical views

Conclusion: Therefore his writings focus on the self and ego.

>>9235729
Is there a term for the fusion of neckbeard and numale? Nu-Beard?

Whenever I think of those writers who suddenly get famous without having published anything else before, the word edgy comes to my mind. The topic of their writing must trigger a general hotspot of our time.

But when I think of popular people outside of this packaged format of a book, there are some who just formulate ideas well. E.g. on youtube. No nobody is gonna get famous for famous for writing a good safe book clearly expressing clear cut conservative ideas. Why can't writing be an entrance to an audience?
And why are people shamed for putting themselves out there on social media (think of feminist poet girls) if there is no other way to get an audience. You can't just write a good book to make it, it seems, unless it's edgy. Or better, you do both. Be DANGEROUS.

How edgy is your writing?

>>9153311
spooked as fuck bro

Since we are on the topic of Individualism and Egoism.
Are there any philosophers who expanded on that field properly?

While I'm interested in Stirners ideas his one book he wrote on that matter is an absolute shitshow.
Ego and its own is a good 200 pages too long for what its worth.

>>9113111
>my head
>my lovely world

>>9060556
>Philosophy that treats people as completely discrete individual "selves" are complete bullshit. Society itself is an organism,

A society without individuals is akin to a forest with no trees or plants.

> the people around us are as important in shaping us as our own wills and desires. Which is why, Stirner's obsession with the "self" is a spook. Stirner fails to realize we need other people, that you CAN'T be an egoist, it's a contradiction, a philosophical thought experiment, but not a reality.

Reading this it really doesnt seem like youve read Stirner given that you seem to be conflating his egoism with Rands.

You cannot embrace your own wills and desires by dogmatically being a "ruggard individualist who dont need no community" just as you cant embrace your own wills and desires be being a dogmatic collectivist.

>It explains why his 2nd wife hated him and he died alone and in debt.

His second wife hated him because 1. she blamed him for consequences of her youthful immaturity as if he tricked her into playing the role of the "degenerate" radical 2. because she lost a lot of her inheritance on his business which meant she couldn't easily turn back the clock.

All of which is part of the challenge of being an individual - our wills and desires arent set in stone - what makes us happy one day may cease doing so the very next day.

>you CAN'T be an egoist,

Here is a poem of his to help understand why you are wrong here

I sing as the bird sings

That on the bough alights;

The song that from me springs

Is pay that well requites.

"I sing because — I am a singer. But I use[gebrauche] you for it because I — need [brauche] ears." - the same applies for love and community.

> He was a nobody, was hostile to everyone around him and enjoyed no fame or recognition.

He was never hostile to anyone from what we have in his biography however your second point is certainly true.

>The only reason we still talk about him is the same autistic, lonely, ill lifestyle that produced him has produced more people who think like him.

Or because in him we find that same purity in Parmenides or Heraclitus and a man who destroyed the left Hegelians and provided an uncompromising and uncontradictory refutation of humanism.

>>8976000
>Anyone here ever been part of a Union of Egoists?

I have not, the closest I have come is having a free association with a few friends and family members who whilst they arent familiar with him effectively practice the thought in this respect.

>I have been in quite the few
Interesting, can you share your experiences of how you found these as well as how they formed?

>once one begins to suffer within the Union and cannot reap the rewards of his property, he has condemned the Union to disrepute and it becomes a party like figure, a sham.

The difficulty I find with this is the question of long term vs short term suffering. Gym membership and networking with others is something that I loathe doing, however the end product ultimately servers my interests enough to justify it in the short term.

>Something I notice about such Unions is that the moment they begin to have rules or a structure they begin to fall apart.

Which is why Stirners thought will never become a "popular" reality, people are far too unique for large unions to be feasible.

>How would one break down Academic establishments in order to form their polar opposite, the Union?

Destroy the state and copyright laws would probably help.

>>8954769
only if giving fucks brings you pleasure

my property

>>8776831
>How are people supposed to live if there's no way to tell if anything they do is "right"?
holy spooks batman