/lit/ - Literature

>>23060388
>Any writers like him that are not political? I don't want to change the world I just want to get away from it all
Being totally concerned just about yourself and a pure egoist is inherently a nihilistic political project if you want it to be or not.

>>23063406
>Teds story is about what happens when bright people recognize legitimate problems in the world, and then fuck it up by believing that they are God and must perform and act of divine intervention
His writings are just CHUD ramble, not "bright" or you think /pol/ is filled with geniuses and every school shooter must just be psychotic and not acting on the same sort of wave length

>>19233978
Stirner really completed classical german philosophy

>>17851223
Literally no one knows who Max Stirner is but everyone knows who Marx is

>>16903186
The left has always been about freedom. Statism, stalinism and such aren't left but right. Any politics that boils down to austerity and promoting virtue or whatever for some theoretical future social benefit that never materializes is conservative

>>13977550
>Material is reality.
>Implying *only* the material constitutes reality.
>Being this much of a brainlet

Shouldn't expect anything less from some dumb fuck who believes his preferred ideology is reality, instead of just another metanarrative.

>Spooks

Pic related. Also learn what a Spook is before using it incorrectly.

>>13970725
>dignity
>society
>obligations

>>13367906
Have you considered Egoism?

>>13263557
imagine asking a spook about a spook

>>12305678

>>11872877
It's Stirner, anything grounded in scientism or economism doesn't represent a radical break from modernity and romanticism and primitivism are inherently right wing

>>11819833
Liberty granted by any external authority, either "the rule of law" or goodwill, is worse than coercion from a perspective of genuine autonomy. Meaning itself doesn't have any sort of autonomous reality, it's just created by actual real living thinkers. Liberalism provides the promise of "freedom from" but "freedom to" must be taken with force with actual real material power. Stirner's just articulating an edgy reaction against Feuerbachs humanism.

Excerpts from "The Nihilistic Egoist: Max Stirner":
>Like Hegel, in the first chapter of Da Einzige Stimer illustrates this dialectical movement from the span of a human life, the child being the 'realist', the youth the 'idealist', and the grown man the mature egoist. Also like Hegel (although with considerably less erudition and historical sophistication), he applies the triadic scheme to human history: the world-outlook of the Ancients disintegrates and yields to the cultures, religions, and philosophies of the Moderns, including and culminating in the Young Hegelians, themselves eventually to be superseded by the egoistic consciousness which, as an entirely new mode of being, transfigures and dominates all those which have gone before. Whereas for Hegel the terminus and consummation of history is signified by the self fulfillment of sovereign Spirit in absolute freedom, for Stirner it is the self-realization of The Unique One in and through his property which constitutes the natural denouement of philosophical thought.

>Stirner criticizes the Critics for having elevated 'Criticism', in the form of pure thought. to the quasi-religious status of a transcendent absolute, and to it he opposes the concrete, incommensurable reality of The Unique One, ceaselessly perishing and re-emerging from the 'creative nothingness' in which it is rootlessly rooted. From Bauer's Criticism he is determined to eradicate the last vestiges of idealistic substance, or of any kind of identification of being with thought, and to re-appropriate, in face of this last desperate attempt at his alienation, the self-centered and therefore indefeasible being of the private, solitary individual in all his self-justifying immanence. As in Hegel's idealism, so in Bauer's Criticism, it is ultimately a deified consciousness which waits to be revealed as the omnipresent and indefatigable enemy of the self. But The Unique One needs no gods, and his very existence is thus an affront to any candidate for Olympus, even indeed particularly-when his campaign, like Bauer's, is based on a critical exposure of all the other candidates. Stirner was prepared to side with Bauer in the joyful work of deposing the gods, but he would not hesitate to destroy him the moment he aspired to usurp their vacant throne.

>>11514479
Stirner

>>11339919
Why not try pretending you're more powerful than God?

>>10174806
Jung was a kook in a long line of German idealist psychopaths, he was also on the payroll of the OSS [most likely like Peterson who's on the payroll of the CIA, he's totally MKUltra 2.0 fyi]. Also Solzhenitsyn's work is a pure work of fiction

Read "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martens and "The Destruction of Reason" by Georg Lukacs

Who here /hatestirner/? His book was so trashy in content, I had to throw it away. If it was "philosophy" he was trying to impress upon me, the reader, he has failed utterly in this half-witted attempt. Would've burned the 'Ego and Its Own' but I was too lazy and apathetic to even give it a proper funeral.

>>9353481
>Anybody else likes his stuff on psychology but thinks his blatant ideological agenda is fucking bullshit?
Psychologizing is an ideologicalizing process, don't try to filter shit through any categories just take a pure operational approach to what is

>>9353502
>You're probably a troll but while I agree on psychology for the most part you can't deny the human condition.
I can question if humans actually really exist in any meaningful sense today
HYPOTHESIS: the symbiotic relationship humans have developed with technology has already reached a critical point... a qualitative shift has occurred and individual men no longer exist but collective cyborgs have emerged in their place... since man and machine form one effective unit today all traditional theories of mind cannot effectively deal with the new race of cyborgs

not a /lit/ meme perse, but there's like a college version of that "FRIDAY NIGHT" picture but it's like advocating for partying on thursday like it's friday...

College bros have their classes scheduled Monday-Thursday

and it is just so presumptuous...

>>8985531
>>the erosion of pair-bonding
>>all these other posts
You'd think it was the task of the youth to question the ideas of their parents, not to copy-paste them

In order to fully understand the individualist anarchism you have to have flexible mind

AND BACK *BADUMTSSH*

>>8526643
You're making a fundamental mistake with Stirner: his philosophy isn't one of possibility and generality, but of reality and particularity. You use his terminology to compare individuals and societies when not doing that is precisely his point.

Say you poor that tomato juice. You have interacted with the ocean. In that stuation, you have dirtied its waters, let's assume that was your intention, and as such have made the water your Own. Then you find the water becomes blue again. Does that mean you have lost ownership of the ocean? No, the view of the blue water is still *your* view, still your Own. But because you compare the red and the blue; then you imagine the ocean has an agency of its own, which is more powerful than yours. From this to sacrificing virgins there's only a few steps.

The problem arises because there's a fixation. You have two memories which you compare, in order to extract some sort of abstraction or truth. You are thinking in terms of possibilities and generalities. That's not how Stirner works. His ownership is an *active* ownership; things are only your Own so long as you can interact with them: he doesn't think you can lay claim forever to anything by just touching it once--unless you make others deluded, and then only so far as you can keep up the play. His might is not a matter of authority, it's not ownership in legal, ad futurum terms. The point is to quit equating your sensory perceptions to abstractions and inferations, and treat them as they come along.

As for the savages, they don't philosophize in the same way they don't speak English like we do, and don't have wings like birds do--so really your issue with them is that they're not more like your Own. A stupid issue: you only have your own petceptions of them to compare to. Likewise with society: saying the individual finds *himself* weaker than society, is based on *his* assesment.

Lastly, Stirner really isn't against society at all. He only speaks to perpetuate his ideas, which can only happen upon others hearing them and propagating them, ideas which are based on self-aware and self-honest interchange. It's pretty much the complete opposite of being autonomous in the traditional sense, the boundaries typically assigned to the individual don't exist in a fixed state to him.

>>8209712
>Advice is only given to those whom you think are in some way incorrect, and therefore 'wrong'.

Why? Can't you give advice just for the sake of it? Are you seriously this spooked?

Why is man so inclined to find and internalize spooks? Do these ghosts present to us our deep longing for something immortal? Something unchanging? Why do we find our own egotistic desires so inherently empty that we voluntarily seek something to cage them?

If spooks are so contrary to our own self interest why is our entire history devoted to their evolution?

Did he ever touch on free will and whether or not that was a spook?

So I invited a female who seems to be living a literary lifestyle to exorcize spooks at the grave of none other than the infamous Max "My name is not really Max" Stirner. I have yet to receive a reply. Is that something a sane person would do? Will people think of me as a massive fucking autist? And most importantly, how do I proceed if she is actually enough of a sperg to agree?

Do /lit/ dates even work?