[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 28 KB, 388x333, stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15546677 No.15546677 [Reply] [Original]

How is he in any way different from Buddha?

>> No.15546744

>>15546677
bump

>> No.15546865

>>15546677
niggas

>> No.15546959

>>15546865
basically this, the buddha didn't call everything a spook like this racist cracka

>> No.15547000

>>15546959
Both Buddha and Stirner call everything a spook

>> No.15547042

>>15546677
Buddha is life denying, Stirner is life affirming

>> No.15547044

>>15546677
>>15547000
Stirner didn't say to follow the Eightfold Path.

>> No.15547058

>>15546677
He isn’t spooked.

>> No.15547061

>>15546677
He did everything in reverse

>> No.15547068

He might have been a Buddha, but no Buddha would call themselves a Buddha unless they want to get crucified

>> No.15547069

Buddah did not write anything down

>> No.15547125

>>15547042
Sooo the same methods but with different aims?

>> No.15547182

>>15546677
no, he knows nothing about conditionality

>> No.15547219

>>15547042
Basic bitch answer for anyhting that does not conform to my anarcho-communist beliefs.

>> No.15547246

>>15547219
what do you mean?

>> No.15547253

>>15547125
The method taught by Buddah was a physical technique. Stirner uses language to tell the reader

>> No.15547328

>>15547253
But they're the same thing at their core

>> No.15547347
File: 453 KB, 900x597, gautama stirner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15547347

he isn't, this is to be taken literally
>I have set my affair on nothing

>> No.15547363

>>15547347
ahahaha I didn't know that image existed. But one thing bugs me about Stirner and Buddha. They seem to disregard mental constraints like the problems don't exist, where do we draw the line between spook and actual problem?

>> No.15547417

>>15546677
>OP is a Leftist buddhist atheist
Why am I not surprised...

>> No.15547421

>>15547363
thats because I made that image
>actual problem
sorry I couldnt hear you speak up a little

>> No.15547526

>>15547421
>sorry I couldnt hear you speak up a little

There are no problems then?

>> No.15547587

>>15547417
Im not tho

>> No.15547597 [DELETED] 

>>15546677
discord . gg/mVNUytg

>> No.15547679

>>15547597
What is this?

>> No.15547884

>>15547597
Stop shilling this shit in every post

>> No.15547908

>>15547526
There are no problems, only solutions. The solutions are the only problem

>> No.15547984

>>15547908
Holt based

>> No.15547995

>>15547253
Buddha can't teach what he knows, Stirner would never have been able to write it.

>> No.15548044

>>15547679
its the "pol" discord where they IP log you

>> No.15548073

>>15546865
>>15546959
Where does this "Stirner is racist" trope come from? He's mocking Hegel for the whole history part and shitting on racialism and nationalism.

>> No.15548148

>>15548073
I think they were just memeing anon

>> No.15548154

>>15548073
spook is also a slur for blacks

>> No.15548210
File: 394 KB, 845x652, 1566301926366.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15548210

>>15548154
I did not know that. I thought it was just a way of describing the people in the van across the street.

>> No.15548239

>>15546677
Seriously though, I've never read zen stuff, just Stirner, and want to know what the other side thinks of anon's question. From an outside glance it looks like

>stirner declares everything is actually me
>budda declares me is actually everything

>> No.15548377

>>15548239
>>stirner declares everything is actually me
>>budda declares me is actually everything

thats pretty much it

>> No.15548950

>>15548239
>Stirner: the world is all mine to take
>Buddha: I must escape the world

>> No.15548972

>>15548210
It is, spook as a racial thing is limited to retarded Americans.

>> No.15549186

>>15548950
But how compulsory is the latter statement?

>> No.15549339

>>15549186
What do you mean?

>> No.15549381

>>15549339
How far off is "must" from "may" in this context?

>> No.15549517

>>15549381
I think its a very clear must

>> No.15549544
File: 247 KB, 358x274, max.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15549544

>>15546677

>> No.15549754

>>15549544
kek

>> No.15550131

>>15546677
He considers the Ego to be the unique component of being, while Buddha overcomes the Ego

>> No.15550609

>>15546865
niggers

>> No.15552601
File: 105 KB, 1024x575, EYhAPa9U0AAOI56.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15552601

>lacks beliefs in samsara/nirvana dichotomy
>slave to craving.
>nothing on karma
>nothing on reincarnation

>> No.15552621

>>15546677
he's german

>> No.15552638

>>15547042
Anti-ascetic cope

>> No.15553998

>>15546677
He isnt

>> No.15554033

>>15552601
And yet both him and buddha spotted the spooks

>> No.15554490

>>15550131
Ego is actually a bad translation of what Stirner is talking about, he's actually talking about "the thing that is" the "unique", the thing BEHIND the ego. The ego itself is a spook. So Buddha would agree with him here.

>> No.15554515

>>15546677
Both believed that all conceptual ideas are a spook, but Buddha's solution introspective, while Stirner was projective.

>> No.15554612

>>15554490
That sounds like you are projecting hardcore rationalist metaphysics on stirner

>> No.15554699

>>15554612
"einzig" doesn't mean ego

>> No.15555088

>>15547042
/thread

>> No.15555277
File: 21 KB, 196x257, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15555277

>>15546677
He is different from Buddha because Buddha got rekt by Adi Shankara while Stirner was spared from his wrath

>> No.15555292
File: 447 KB, 1630x1328, 1578682914183.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15555292

>>15555277
shankara is known by scholars and by hindus as a "cryptobuddhist" who stole almost all his ideas from medieval buddhists and passed them off as the philosophy of the upanishads

everybody since his own day has called him cryptobuddhist for it, even most of his own followers admit it

>> No.15555301

>>15555277
>valuing intellectual rambling

>> No.15555303

>>15555292
based

>> No.15555315
File: 102 KB, 503x500, 1590929525977.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15555315

>>15555301
>>15555292
cope

>"From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Sri Shankaracharya - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>> No.15555333
File: 2.21 MB, 1450x5947, 1579221983991.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15555333

>>15555315
for anyone wondering, shankara's commentary (bhasya) of the brahma sutras (written more than a thousand years before he lived) is widely considered by both hindus in india and western scholars to be imposing buddhist philosophy on a non-buddhist monist text

here's the full details if anyone really cares enough. guenonfag is a buddhist in denial, not even real advaita believers deny the shit he does, it's wild

>> No.15555782

>>15555277
faggot

>> No.15555997
File: 23 KB, 324x500, Hyperspookism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15555997

Buddhism has a radically expansive mythos of phantasms by incorporating every native god, demon and superstition it encounters into mental-realm pantheons, whilst Stirner is radically contractive of what mental entities ought to be acknowledged.

>> No.15556062

>>15548239
Buddha declares that everything is actually nothing. Stirnir still believed in the spook of self and materialism, he was just against ideas as phantasms/spooks. Buddha declares everything, material, ideas, self, to be a spook.

>> No.15556098

>>15548073
>Stirner would have believed in the spook of humanism, equality, and anti-racism.
Kek, how naively dumb could you be? We live in the spookiest age of spooks to have ever spooked. Stirner is radically opposed to every spook of the current spook world order, especially the spook of equality or common humanity or homo sapiens as a cohesive species description.

>> No.15556103

>>15546677
stirner isn't some yellow fat chinese man

>> No.15556120

>>15556062
Buddha actually says in the Pali Canon that the denial of the atman is a nihilist extreme and a heresy of his teachings, and that he neither affirms nor denies the existence of an atman, but all of later Buddhist philosophy and the "schools" of Buddhism nearly unanimously misunderstood Buddha as denying the existence of an atman, and they argue against the existence of an atman in their writings, contradicting Buddha, because Buddhist philosophy is mostly worthless garbage

>> No.15556169

>>15555997
isn´t Stirner a materialist?

>> No.15556252

>>15547042
no. the buddha is life-affirming. stirner leaves it up in the air giving to aimlessness, he doesn't commit to his line of thought.

really though they're not the same at all despite similarities you might draw, they have very specific contexts and backgrounds.

>> No.15556253

>>15556120
Maybe but the weight of Buddhist civilisation has a greater claim on Buddha than your particular quirky reading of him. Buddhism is nihilsm.

>> No.15556280

>>15556252
>buddha is life-affirming

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>> No.15556287

>>15556169
Yes, so Stirner radically contracts the realm of mental entities. Buddhism, for all it's high talk of nothingness, radically expands the realm of mental entities to be "every supernatural creature exists in some apparently real way, but behind the appearance is nothing."

The problem with Buddhism is that it allows concepts and apparent-being to arise from nothing and be made from nothing, so everything that can be imagined can and does exist, in appearance at least, that same way material things apparently exist. Buddhism is the most demon haunted cosmology man has invented because every spook that can be imagined to exist does exist in the same apparent mode of being as material reality appears to exist. Buddhism is radically expansive spookism.

>> No.15556331

And let us take on the greatest Buddhist spook of all: dharma.

There is no justice is the universe. There is no wheel of fortune that rewards the good, punishes the evil, and that dictates a code of ethics to be obeyed. These are spooks par excellence, mental ghosts that try to dictate behaviour: "you can't eat meat because you'll have to serve 700 million years rebirthed in a hell realm of limb streching".

Dharma is infantile spookism, a prison of mental taboos enforced by empty threats of rebirth in convoluted tiers of hell-realms or as hungy ghost phantasms. It's primitive mans imagination building chains to bind his thoughts and actions with ghost stories. Buddhism is spookism.

>> No.15556409

>>15548073
It's a meme spread online by people who haven't read him or did but got filtered.

>>15556098
This. I noticed they tend to equate dismantling racialism and nationalism as support for their humanism, equality, and anti-racism. It's like 'yep, that's a point for me!' type of reasoning, not thinking, just parsing those points from any raw content. Their 'mental high' comes from reaffirmation, which they take to an almost exclusive extreme and optimisation.

Also, anti-racism comes from a place of racialism anyway, the racialism of anti-racism is much stronger than that of racism today- which barely exists beyond reaction to anti-racism's racialism. I wouldn't even say racism reinforces anti-racism as well, because most examples used to further it are fabricated, overblown, or misrepresented. Actual instances of racism mostly amounts to impotent internet scrawlings. I guess that's not grand and clickable enough. Anti-racists avow race more strictly than racists and force the terms for a racial battlefield.

>>15556280
Yes, you have read neither the Buddha's teachings nor Stirner's books.
Yes, you are an imageboardbrained, minimal attention span, minimal effort loser who will never spout a single word of value in his life.
Yes, a simple AI could replace your entire online output merely by reposting buzzwords according to frequency and context.

Really though, I don't know about life-affirming but explain exactly what you mean by life-denying. You can't? I know. You've heard the term so much you couldn't help but shout it.

>> No.15556417

>>15556331
>Dharma is some form of justice
Dharma is not justice. Dharma is the law that actions bear consequences which manifest themselves in ways that are not necessarily readily apparent and may seem unconnected. It's not some retarded story about how you stub your toe because you were mean to a stranger. It's that when you're mean to strangers you reinforce mental patterns of anger and violence, which are in and of themselves conducive to suffering, and so you suffer later-on because you are angry and throw yourself into emotional turmoil.

>>15556120
This is confusing to explain. In a strict sense, a Buddhist should not say there are gods but that there "are" gods. The concepts that underly the existence of gods are fundamental to reality itself. But the denial of their existence is ridiculous because in many senses the gods which represent concepts are key to the understanding and representation of those concepts. As a Buddhist, it's really kind of bizarre to say that God does not exist. God is in a sense the metaphysical representation of righteousness. He doesn't "have" to manifest physically for his existence as righteousness to still be important. So to deny that God exists is bizarre, because there's still a concept of righteousness that does exist, you're just denying its capacity to be represented in a one-ness, but you also might not suggest that it instead needs to be represented in multiple ways you might just say that it can't be represented but also has one-ness. The approach to deities in Buddhism is that they don't exist but they do "exist", which is essentially that I don't expect God to throw me into hell or strike me with a bolt of lightning for not worshiping him, but I also see his existence as a concept of metaphysical righteousness and justice to be obvious.

>> No.15556422

>>15556331
>"you can't eat meat because you'll have to serve 700 million years rebirthed in a hell realm of limb streching".
These are monastic rules to make enlightenment easier to come by, there's no justification that you describe. It is MORAL but not the silly understand of morality you peddle.

>> No.15556441

>>15556409
>>15556417
Bronze age fakirs are not fit to shine Stirner's boots. Spook yourself somewhere else dharma-golems

>> No.15556494 [DELETED] 

>>15556098
>Stirner is opposed to
>cohesive species description.
Understanding that "everybody" is not someone whose hand you can shake is not the same as him telling anybody to fuck off, or to not shake hands. The point is more to distinguish between group and alliance

If you'd even read the opening handful of pages in E&E you would know he doesn't affirm all ideas are bad and that you should only think about material or that all material is bad and that you should only think of ideas; he regards both those mindsets as immaturity.

>>15556409
>Anti-racists avow race more strictly than racists
No, racists are simply at more a loss to getting caught working in these terms. The degree to which an anti affirms race is an accusation on the opposing party. What you're saying is akin to "black people say nigger, so they're the real racists." It is beneath the intelligence of the average fox news anchor.

>> No.15556503

>>15556098
>Stirner is opposed to
>cohesive species description.
Understanding that "everybody" is not someone whose hand you can shake is not the same as him telling anybody to fuck off, or to not shake hands. The point is more to distinguish between group and alliance

If you'd even read the opening handful of pages in E&E you would know he doesn't affirm all ideas are bad and that you should only think about material or that all material is bad and that you should only think of ideas; he regards both those mindsets as immaturity.

>>15556409
>Anti-racists avow race more strictly than racists
No, racists are simply at more a loss for getting caught working in these terms. The degree to which an anti affirms race is merely an accusation on the opposing party. What you're saying is akin to "black people say nigger, so they're the real racists." It is beneath the intelligence of the average fox news anchor.

>> No.15556552

>>15556098
>spooked straw-man argument arguing that if you shit on racialism and nationalism, you're arguing for equality mumbo jumbo

The opposite of racism is not anti-racism, it's no racism.

>> No.15556569

>>15556552
>equality
Spook
>human rights
Spook
>Homo Sapiens as a species extending to Africans
Spook

Why read Stirner and choose to live in the same mental spook prisons as the elite world order?

>> No.15556588

>>15556409
>Yes, you have read neither the Buddha's teachings nor Stirner's books.
>Yes, you are an imageboardbrained, minimal attention span, minimal effort loser who will never spout a single word of value in his life.
>Yes, a simple AI could replace your entire online output merely by reposting buzzwords according to frequency and context.
>Really though, I don't know about life-affirming but explain exactly what you mean by life-denying. You can't? I know. You've heard the term so much you couldn't help but shout it.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
THIS NIGGA THIBK BUDDHA IS LIFE AFFIRMING AHAHAHAHAHAH

>> No.15556602

>>15556252
>no. the buddha is life-affirming

Please read genealogy of morals before spewing retardes shit like this

>> No.15556626

>>15556569
>Why read Stirner and choose
Because choosing is the one thing you're expected to do after reading Stirner, not avoiding ideas because "ideas=spooks!" or anything like that. The first mindset Stirner critiques is that of the materialist, addicted to things. The second step is the idealist, addicted to concepts. The third and what he recommends is the man, who can make the journey between the previous two steps as he pleases rather than merely hoarding material or stockpiling detached thoughts.

>> No.15556697

>>15556417
>This is confusing to explain. In a strict sense, a Buddhist should not say there are gods but that there "are" gods.
that whole paragraph has nothing to do with my post, which was about the atman, not 'gods'

>> No.15557252

>>15556697
Whats the atman. Im a newfag

>> No.15557278

>>15557252
Psyche
Soul
Self

>> No.15557395

>>15557278
Danke

>> No.15557419

>>15547995
this. the only worthwhile reply in this thread. stirner is buddha literally, and so are you.

>> No.15557430

>>15556331
>Dharma is Empty
Yes, like all things. Most wise. I see you've read the Heart Sutra.

>>15557252
Take a table. What makes it a table? Nothing, it's a lump of matter that we humans arbitrarily say is a table. Why is a table separate from the plate on it? Because we say it is. There's no one single atomic bit that will make it a table if present, not-a-table if not. This is Emptiness.

But if there IS some single discrete non-composite bit that cannot be broken down further, that is a Self, a Soul (note the capital S, soul=/=Soul, self=/=Self). That is Atman. Think of it as a Platonic Form, but for the individual thing rather than the category of all things (although Platonic Forms can be viewed as a variant of Atman, this is a separate discussion).

>>15556602
Why do you recommend books that you haven't read?

>> No.15557443

>>15556602
>>15556588
What does it mean for something to be "Life Affirming"? In your own words.

>> No.15557563

>>15557443
Doesn't try to get rid of his most animal impulses (envy, sex, rage, etc)

>> No.15557567

>>15557563
So those are what define you? You want to be angrier, hornier, hungrier, more envious?

>> No.15557586

>>15557567
>You want to be angrier, hornier, hungrier, more envious?

Of course, but channel them towards building something for you. Not destroying someone elses, and much less deny those emotions

>> No.15557611

>>15557586
So you don't actually want to be hornier, hungrier, more envious, you just want to use those as fuel, as energy. If you could get away with having the energy without the unpleasant emotion (because lets face it, no one likes being horny, you like the good-feels that horniness motivates you to find), you wouldn't need the hunger, the envy, the horniness, etc, right?

>> No.15557638

>>15557611
Yes. I agree with you that an ideal brings more energy than any emotion. But what makes you think people don't like being horny? Or angry?

I'm not saying life-affirming is superior to life-denying, I'm just trying to present the meaning of the terms

>> No.15557724

>>15557638
Oh, I think that people do like being hungry, horny, etc. I think people very often derive pleasure from these negative feelings, if only in self pity, or as using them as excuses to indulge in whatever alleviates that negative feeling, etc. I also think that people very often dislike these negative emotions, and dislike that they make them feel good (many men, particularly ones on 4chan with weird fetishes, hate their own sexuality).

My point is that if the presence of these negative emotions is what makes something life-affirming, and a greater intensity makes something more life-affirming, then that's not really life affirming, or rather it demotes life to such a sorry state that I wouldn't want to affirm it. There's more to life than just being an animal scurrying around trying to get food and cummies. If this is about Will to Power (for lack of a better term here) and the like, yes, I would agree, and that Will is present in Buddhism. There have been numerous looks at Buddhism from a Nietzschean perspective, and vice versa, that see that Emptiness and the Will to Power go hand in hand.

The "Buddhism is life-denying" critique often comes with the implication that the point of Buddhism is just to be a dead rock that sits there and dies, but that's not it at all. I see the freeing of yourself from the fetters of these negative emotions as freeing you to truly experience life as it is (and should be). If the point of life is to just be hungry and horny all the time, then yeah, it's life denying, and you'll be happier for it. But I think there's more to life than just that.

>> No.15557883

>>15557724
Based response anon

>> No.15557945

>>15557724
Nietzsche wasn't against asceticism (as he even mentions on OTGM, that they have their place in the world) what he really hated was asceticism masqueraded as virtue. Thats why he says buddhism (although also bad for the conscience) is much more honest than Christianity.

Nietzsche saw honest asceticism as the correct path for weak people

>> No.15558078

>>15557945
>Nietzsche saw honest asceticism as the correct path for weak people
I don't disagree, I'd just argue that no one is strong enough to boldly summon up the Will to Power and withstand Samsara forever. I would also say that not only are there things that you just cannot be strong enough to do, but there are also things that you frankly should not be strong enough to do.

>> No.15558131
File: 86 KB, 640x332, tom_sawyer_01_-_pocket.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15558131

>the buddha isn't life-denying
nigga he literally went around bothering and moralfagging children that was having a nice time down by the pond fishing because of muh first precept

>> No.15558133

>>15557430
>Think of it as a Platonic Form, but for the individual thing rather than the category of all things (although Platonic Forms can be viewed as a variant of Atman, this is a separate discussion).

I still need to read plato but good explanation

>> No.15558205

>>15547995
If he can't teach what he knows then so much for him knowing it.

>> No.15558615

>>15556569
>elite world order

Spook.

>> No.15558701

>>15558131
based

>> No.15558801

>>15557567
>You want to be hornier?
That's just how horny I am

>> No.15559008

>>15558801
I'm very horny rn

>> No.15559109
File: 41 KB, 780x520, 1587565080591.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15559109

>>15558131
Gautama, Siddhārtha. Dislike him. A cheap nihilist, insipid and foolhardy. A pied piper, pathological narcissist and a cloying moralist. Some of his modern disciples are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his claims about remembering past lives seriously.
Majjhima Nikāya. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Yājñavalkya's "Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad"
Dīgha Nikāya. Dislike it intensely.
Dhammapada. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.

>> No.15559308
File: 1.65 MB, 1950x1600, 1586393217014.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15559308

>>15546677
>>15547042
Both the Buddha and Stirner preach life affirming philosophies, they just accomplish it in opposite ways.

The Buddha reaches enlightenment by realizing that all the problems an individual has are caused by their fabricated subjective reality, in which they are the center. Individuals suffer because they do not realize that their egos force them to only see a tiny fraction of reality. The Buddha became enlightened by realizing that his ego made him feel separate from the outside world, while he in fact was a part of the external world and relied on it for his existence. So a feeling of disconnection from reality is an illusion because all living people are a just piece of the universe. The Buddha drew spiritual strength from this connection.This is life-affirming because an individuals suffering is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, yet important subjectively to the individual.

Whereas Stirner had a similar realization to that of Buddha. That individuals are in fact the masters of their subjective realities. Meaning a man only feels oppressed by reality when he conceives that his will is being oppressed in some way. Stirner did not champion being a part of external reality like Buddha did, but instead realized that each individual can reshape their own ego. In doing so an individual can reshape their values in that what they desire is morally correct. This is life affirming because it allows the individual to identity with and shape their entire being. In a sense humans are free from the idea of "sin-nature."

>> No.15559332

>>15559308
/thread

>> No.15559354

>>15559308
I'm not sure I like the description of Stirner as what's essentialy a lucid dreamer, but I feel like I'm overstating how you've put it.

>> No.15559358

I used to think Stirner was just a meme, but he TLDR'ed marx, reich, nietzsche, deleuze and lacan

>> No.15559371

Imagine reading Stirner and remain a spooked racist lmao
No other animal is spooked enough to be racist

>> No.15559390

How is he in any way different from Laozi?

>> No.15559402

Read Wolfi Landstreicher's translation

>> No.15559411

>>15559308
You only mention his intellectual/spiritual realization as proof of him being life affirming but then ofc forget about all the precepts and rules that are severely life denying moralizing.

You're a Buddhist and follower of the Buddha by following his life denying doctrines and rules, not by measuring some spiritual realization.

>> No.15559429

>>15559371
One can not go beyond being a spook without being racist.

>> No.15559441

>>15559371
dogs are racist

>> No.15559516

>>15559354
Yeah, its been a long time since I read Stirner. If you agree with some of what I said, what key aspect did I leave out?

>> No.15559526

>>15546677
Stirner is a spook

>> No.15559537

>>15559390
The Dao is a literal spook.

>> No.15559541

>>15559537
Hmm, I think Taoism is special because the Tao is a spook. But it's the only spook.

>> No.15559548

>>15559541
The only spooks are the ones you allow to exist. Assuming that their even is a “way” is peak spook

>> No.15559658

>>15559371
races are pretty real

>> No.15559736

>>15559658
No. The contemporary understandings of race and gender are spooks. Anything that you take for granted from basic culture is a spook. If you think Christianity, Capitalism, or Conservatism are at all credible then you are spooked.

>> No.15559801

>>15559736
I don't care if they are spooks, they are MY spooks now because I like to have them

>> No.15560094

>>15559548
>Assuming that their even is a “way” is peak spook
It isn't as if Stirner recommends all options equally.

>> No.15560125

>>15560094
Options are spooks

>> No.15560155

>>15559516
Roughly >>15560094.

I have a hard tome remembering where Stirner stops and Nietzsche begins, but it's worth thinking of as something like a book. Regarding >>15556626, what Stirner advocates is less just picking one or the other early steps for step three, but constantly completing your laps. There have been a few threads on fiction lately, so using that, it's like how good fiction is good insofar as it relates to nonfiction--but that to not be plain and complacent with reality, nonfiction similarly is only good as it relates to your dreams. The latter part is probably what makes him not a monk.

>> No.15561075

>>15559736
>Anything that you take for granted from basic culture is a spook
What about the cultural values of the current western culture? Equality, antiracism, feminism, leftism, diversity and multiculturalism are spooks as well?

>> No.15561615

>>15546677
The real question is how do I reach the lofty heights of smugness and handsomeness as this man did?

>> No.15562069

>>15546677
Hes more based

>> No.15562548

>>15561615
Through un-spooking yourself my friend

>> No.15562712

>>15559658
The last objective biological classification is species. Everything under it is arbitrary. You could say you and your sister are different races, even with the same parents, if you wanted to. Though no one would see use in this classification.
>>15559441
Dogs perceive difference is size, smell. Different biologies generate different responses. But dogs don't have morals, they are not racist.

>> No.15562716
File: 222 KB, 1280x720, 1554108674965.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15562716

>>15561075
Who cares

>> No.15562756

>>15561075
Yes

>> No.15562967

>>15547219
gay and cringe

>> No.15563091

>racists see themselves like dogs
unsurprising how many of them here are not actually white

>> No.15563266

>>15549517
Is it a "must" for him personally or is it a "must" for everyone?

>> No.15563604

>>15558131
based

>> No.15563706

>>15562716
Then they are spooks indeed

>> No.15563752

>>15562716
I should care. You called conservative values spooks, but what about the liberal values? They should be spooks. Unless you are hypocrite that defends those values and call anything that you don't like spooks.

>> No.15563768

>>15562712
>The last objective biological classification is species
Retard. Learn biology first.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

>> No.15563872
File: 93 KB, 600x600, R-6323958-1465988229-3712.jpeg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15563872

>>15546865
WHITEYS

>> No.15564274

>>15563872
We waz kangz

>> No.15565004

>>15560125
spooks are spooks

>> No.15565779

>>15546865
Niggas

>> No.15565959

>>15547042
>Renounced asceticism for being completely unnecessary for spiritual attainment and knowledge.
>Life denying
When will this meme die?

>> No.15566080

>>15565959
Buddha denied asceticism?

>> No.15566095

Was wollen Sie essen?

>> No.15566114

>>15566095
Seiner pussy mit eine bisschen cock

>> No.15566116

>>15566080
The Buddha started out as an ascetic but after reaching some level of attainment he turned his back on that way of living and claimed it wasn't necessary. His ascetic contemporaries even derided him for this as they believed he was turning his back on the truth in exchange for luxury (The luxury of eating regular meals and shit that is.)

>> No.15566197

>>15566080
It's the entire point of the Middle Way: A midpoint between luxurious hedonism and intentionally beating yourself up. After giving up on the palace life, the Buddha hung out with Proto-Jains, who starved themselves, ate inedible things, mortified their flesh, bathed in ashes and the like, and "sat in uncomfortable positions" (basically held uncomfortably distorted poses on rough surfaces for long periods of time).

If a monk is hungry, he eats. If he's tired, he sleeps. If he's cold, he wears a coat. If his eyesight is poor, he wears glasses.

>>15559411
If life is just about Avengers movies and funk pops and drinking s()y then yes, Buddhism denies that "life", although truly that's not living at all. Buddhism very much affirms the life of an actual human, however.

>> No.15566284

>>15547042
Monks are living far better than stirnerite autists

>> No.15566698
File: 56 KB, 620x350, 1481148454233.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15566698

Egoism is nihilist

Buddhism is everything but

>> No.15567694

>>15566080
Everyone who tells you that he wasn't an ascetic is lying or is a moron, the instructions that he gave to bhikkus to abandon posessions, the obtain food from alms, to always be traveling, to not eat after the mid-day meal, etc all these are undoubtedly asceticism

>w-w-Well it's not.. EXTREME asceticism like Jainism so therefore it's not asceticsm but is instead the midd-
no, Buddha taught asceticism, many people are unable to cope with this though and come up with convoluted explanations to avoid facing it

>> No.15567796

>>15567694
>You're an ascetic say the non-ascetics
>You're not an ascetic say the ascetics
Truly sublime is this Middle Way. BASED Gotama