/lit/ - Literature

>>16763381
You are being dumb

It's completely okay to do those things if the moral judge in question is still God, but it isn't anymore, so now the one who determines whether it is okay or not is whoever holds power... which means nothing in society actually changes because it always worked that way anyway. The movement from objective morality to relative morality in theory is always lost in this hypothetical, as if you think that the origin of and very nature of morality didn't change in the process.

ngl this is p cringe bro

>>16763381
>humans are inherently violent monkeys
Incorrect. We are taught violence through the media, films and TV shows bombarding our young brains with images of murder.

correct

>>16763381
Yes, you are free to murder babies. Why don't you try this out, now?

>>16763420
Then why do the sentinelese shoot arrows at anyone who approaches and why did we kill and eat the neaderthals

>>16763420
Yeah I'm sure this guy did what he did because he played too much DOOM or something. What nonsense.

>>16763420
It's incorrect, but you have it the other way around. It's modern society that changes us from our natural disposition, which would just be for eating, shitting, fucking, and killing when we wanted to, into our modern disposition, which is more restrained and pragmatic, but also effeminate.

>>16763452
He did it because (1) the sultan raped him as a kid, and (2) Ottomans where the fucking biggest world power and he had to stop them somehow

>he hasn't read Beyond Good and Evil

cringe and bluepilled

>>16763409
>but it isn't anymore
What does this even mean? We stopped following the ten commandments? God stopped existing?

>>16763513
God became an untenable concept when modern intuition arrived on the scene.

>>16763420
Incorrect. Monkeys are violent, humans are not.

Are Nietzsche or Stirner arguing that society should operate without "slave morality" or "spooks"? They might talk about it or potentially suggest to the reader to escape those things, but are they really considering a society in their works? I've only lightly read both but this seems like a strawman.

>>16763381
The hypocrisy of these two fucks is immeasurable. Imagine writing a book called "Beyond Good and Evil" when the most evil thing you have done in your life (besides writing) is going to brothels. At least De Sade kidnapped kids in order to rape them in his dungeon, because he wasn't a hypocrite bourgeois pussy and lived according to his beliefs.

>>16763381
I've just recently spoken to someone about this on 4chan. Funny. You really badly misunderstand Nietzsche's theorems. His theory about 'slaves', 'last men' and 'higher men' are essentially aiming at a form of society in which we nurture and enlighten each other in order to create a society of higher men and to maximize human freedom in a sense that none of us should be hindered in our development to bring that nourishment and enlightenment to our fellow men. I mean yes, you could interpret it in the 'rape' way, but I'd like to assume that Nietzsche didn't intend it this way. His ideal societal structure is more or less benevolent anarchism.

>>16763420
What you're saying is true, yes. But let's not downplay the fact that children have an insane potential for unhinged violence in themselves from the start. Our culture facilitates and normalizes a violent root that is always there.

>>16763381
>So according to these two retards, it's completely okay to murder babies and rape if I want to.
>if I want to.
Thats the key part - and likewise you are forgetting that these decisions dont take place in a vacuum it also completely okay to jail and execute people who commit that act you describe.

Likewise have you stopped to consider the role played by spooks in the two most destructive wars in human history?

>>16763710
>I've only lightly read both but this seems like a strawman.
Because it is.

>>16763753
praying to someone take the bait

>>16763882
>morality is a "spook" dude
>noooooooo you cannot rape a child noooooooooo!!! my childerino!!!
What is wrong with you?
>BAIT BAIT BAIT

>>16763991
Not that anon but I answered that point in in >>16763819

>>16763381
BUT YOU WOULD BE THE UBERMAN BO THe uBERmAN !!!!11

no. don't talk shit about authors you clearly haven't read.

>>16763439
>Then why do the sentinelese shoot arrows at anyone who approaches
uh they didn't used to actually. they decided, in their culture, that it is safer for them after experiencing what others had to offer. and they're right moreorless, such societies do not fair well once the globohomo gets its claws in.

>>16763710
Stirner's writing is descriptive, not prescriptive

>>16763551
That implies that the modern man has any intuition to begin with. So yes, sight became an untenable concept when blindness arrived on the scene.

"Modern intuition"

>>16763991
any action is going to have a structure judging its value or morality. to suddenly drop what you are for some woooaahhh hdude nothing matters lets rape kids nonsense is far more forced.

>>16764214
Go back to school, kid.

>>16764094
So you're a moralfag clinging to a positivist enforcement of moralism? It would be matter of time for the children-rape gang to take over your social warrior justice squad and impose their own children-raping regime which you agreed to exist because -Thrasymachus said and Niche agreed- might is right and if you don't believe this you're a slave or something like that.

>>16764223
>it's impossible for a structure to judge child-rape positively
OH OH you're not gonna believe it but it has already happened.

>>16763753
Isn't modern metal music the same? Especially black/death metal. The artists are especially meek yet they are really good at depicting evil and debating it.

>>16763574
fucking imbecile we're hands down the most violent animal to date

>>16763381
>Under no circumstance would a normal society function like this and it would be absolute chaos.
It already does. You could literally go across the street and do this right now If you wanted too. If you WANTED TO. You don't have to, and seemingly, you don't want to.

How hard is it to understand that philosophical work is not necessarily making some kind of regimented proscriptions for how a society manages itself? It's just a logical examination of behaviour and life.

>>16763381
Nope, read them. You gotta start with the Greeks tho.

>>16763434
Not op, but mostly because I would draw no satisfaction from doing those things

>>16763574
say that to my face and see what happens

>>16763381
t. Emotionally undeveloped Christian teenager

>>16764384
Modern metal is just autistic and always was.

>>16764256
>So you're a moralfag clinging to a positivist enforcement of moralism?
No Im acknowledging that other people have different moral inclinations that are not spooky.

Think about the people who punish the person who commits that crime do not do so out of pure obligation to the law or tradition but out of a genuine moral conviction that transcends all imposed obligations. Its for this reason that people lynch and abuse child rapists despite it being illegal to do so.

Morality isnt intrinsically spooky.

>>16764384
I feel like I'm in the minority when I read into the lyrics of metal
I'm a big fan of The Dillinger Escape Plan for a lot of reasons, and one of theme is how their lyrical subject matter almost always revolves around dysfunctional relationships, of all types, and from all perspectives.

>>16764926
Kek

>>16763812
>but I'd like to assume that Nietzsche didn't intend it this way
Retard, nobody gives a fuck about your liking

>They return to the innocent conscience of the wild beast, as exultant monsters, who perhaps go away having committed a hideous succession of murder, arson, rape and torture, in a mood of bravado and spiritual equilibrium as though they had simply played a student’s prank, [...] At the centre of all these noble races [...] the beast must out again, must return to the wild. It was the noble races which left the concept of ‘barbarian’ in their traces wherever they went; even their highest culture betrays the fact that they were conscious of this and indeed proud of it

>>16764558
This reply made me giggle.

Marginally related note
What if examination causes an effect. Like the uncertainty principle. A blind child trying to understand a cake by touching it. A philospher describes what they observe and an entire system of thought develops and so forth

>>16765447
Can one observe an eletron using an electron? Can a man observe man using man? Can one examine morality using morality?

>>16763381
What is immoral is more the propensity to let a children be abused than to abuse it.
Anyways fuck neetcheese and spookman

>>16763420
Wrong, it's the other way around actually. We are born violent, and aggression is innate in all species. We as humans are socialized to restrain our aggression and violent tendencies.

>>16763420
the tv didnt told me to pull limb from insects for fun

>>16763381
if you want to in an immediate senses yes, but can you endure the pressure of normalization from us without crying for a horse in the end?

>>16765463
Probably, yes, I don't think so

>>16764763
So you wouldn't do it. And if you would, it would mean you draw satisfaction from killing babies, and the people surrounding you will shun you, as they prefer their children unharmed and will act to further dangers from them.

>>16765794
Obviously I won't because I have no desire to. Ya, that's why you have gay people in the closet even today.

>>16764763
But someone would, clever man.

>>16765803
... And if you had a desire to, it would conflict with the desire of not wanting to be shun by society, which is the amalgamation of the general desires. If this basic instinctual desire would not suffice to stop you from killing babies, other members will form up, and maybe say 'huh, maybe we should promise to kill everyone who harms our babies', and 'maybe we should pay this guy so he makes sure no one harms our babies' and you basically has law enforcement.
The 'spook' part is recognizing that all of this, and other derivatives, like morality, is born out of desires of peoples, and nothing else. Carrying the morality judge in your head rent free is a spook - you're letting other people desires take a ride on your own, and not obeying out of your own desire to fit in the society.
You can recognise that morality is a spook and still adhere to it, as you recognize the consequences of ignoring it.

>>16765811
>man
TwT

>>16763381
you're straight up retarded if you think Nietzsche said anything like that. I've never read Stirner but he seems like a faggot so im not interested.

>>16764271
i didn't say that. i guarantee for most people doing so would be completely forced and if one of those people were suddenly placed in a time where it is the norm and not forced, it would still be forced for them.

also i'm aware we are ruled by pot bellied vampire pedos. what of it?

>>16765851
He did say >everything is permissible.

>>16764926
i don't like metal because i can't hear the lyrics properly and i don't like loud noises so make me no happy

>society
>Spooks are needed
>Muh babies
Top zoozle.

>>16763381
>So according to these two retards, it's completely okay to murder babies and rape if I want to.
Yes, if you want to.
>Under no circumstance would a normal society function like this and it would be absolute chaos.
You shouldn't care about society at all, be aware of the spooks and live a fulfilling life for yourself while you're still alive. Nothing will matter after that since you won't experience it.

I would argue people just respect children enough to a point to not bother them. Think about a time when you thought about punching a child? I can't think of a time unless I was a child myself. I've grown enough that I don't want to bother children as long as they don't bother me. This isn't a spook or w.e. This all derived from me analyzing if it is worth commiting my might onto others. The only reason why I don't hurt everyone is because I'm lazy. And I think the majority of people out there are too lazy to hurt children or torture/mutilate people. Only people who are committed to those things will do it. Although eventually people will gather in associations and destroy those who oppose their values.

>>16764656
I would reckon that for Nietzsche starting with the Greeks is the way to go. However to truly understand Stirner and Nietzsche's influences from Schopenhauer. You have to read into the Hindus and Chinese as well. I would think Stirner's conception of The Unique is similar to the Daoist concept of The Dao. Also there was a Chinese Thinker very similar to Stirner named Yang Zhu from the Liezi.

>>16766517
You can read Hindu or Chinese literature for sure, but ultimately Schopenhauer is much more "gee I came up with something kinda mystic sounding like those Eastern guys". Imo you'd be better off having a look at Timaeus, i.e. Plato before the Renaissance and Enlightenment, tho for sure looking at similar thinkers from other traditions and comparing doesn't hurt at all and is beneficial even.

>OP too stupid to read even simple works of political theory
>Still have the exact same shitposting thread as every other
Do you seriously have nothing to do with your lives?

>>16763381

That's where you're wrong
Human's have created far greater chaos than any wild animal could ever dream not that they would
Slave morality itself is what creates and propagates evil not what cures it

>>16763381
>it's completely okay to murder babies and rape if I want to
That's a normative claim, bucko. Entirely refuted by Stirner and his clearly superior forehead. Stirner moves beyond normative claims in the following, but very intelligence and subtle manner of reason:
>do you intend to murder babies?
>no?
>then you do not murder babies
I understand if you don't get it, it being so subtle and all. Just mull over it for a few days and let it settle in, maybe it'll start to make sense.

>>16763381
That's not what they said. Open a book

>>16763420
When you see a group of young boys playing what are they doing? Chances are they’re playing out some kind of war or battle

Stirner was correct but he doesn't take it far enough, the spookery goes even further than his life of low tier societal rebellion.

Nietzsche was also correct but everybody ends up trying to apply Nietzsche to inherently incorrect modes of thinking and wonders why it backfires.

>>16767066
Maybe if you're a fucking nerd.

>>16763381
Excellent bait

>>16767042
But if one wants to murder babies and reads it, he is encouraged.

>>16767148
I'd argue that such a person is going to try doing it regardless of what they read.

>>16767148
What about "you ought not to murder babies" would prevent a man intent on murdering babies from doing so? Normative claims are inconsequential.

>>16767148
Stirner said he liked being nice because it felt good.

>>16763381
>So according to these two retards, it's completely okay to murder babies and rape if I want to
Might is right

>>16763381
It's not okay because I say so, and if you try I will stop you.

>>16767094
Who goes further than stirner in this direction? I'm interested

>>16763381
Why do you want to murder babies and rape people?

>>16768836
If you weren't raised under a Christian, moral society you would absolutely rape and kill babies. This is how the human naturally works.

>>16763381
1. "Okay" is opinion. It's more like these things will happen and there is greater meaning or reason for it
2. It's not chaos, we don't understand it. Regardless, this "chaos" prevents stagnation and allows the tides of change that allow for diversity of thought or action, and prevents totalitarianism.
Societal structure isn't the total measure of existence. Towers come and go.
3. Necessary to enact your will or opinion, which is all just your conditioning and the positive stimuli you receive via your preconditioning

Your position reveals plenty about you though

>>16768842
Lots of people raised in Christian 'moral' societies do rape and kill babies anon. A lot of priests in fact.

>>16768887
Yes but they're not encouraged to and society rightfully gets them in prison. In a moral-free society they'd be free to do it.

>>16768899
I disagree. I believe moral laws and systems are invented and codified on top of 'natural' human patterns of behaviour. People are free to do it and do continue to do it, clearly morals aren't stopping them.

>>16763420
wrong and retarded

>>16763420
Recent studies show that most of the apes we are related too, like most animals, are all violent and cruel and do hurt each other for the fun of it, alongside the fight for power of the herd.

So no. You’re wrong.

>>16763381
You didn't understand what they were saying.

>>16768842
>the human
No such thing.

>>16763753
Based degenerate noble.

>>16763753
>knowing the path =/= walking the path

>>16763381
>because humans are inherently violent monkeys.
Proofs?

>>16763420
False, it is due to resource scarcity and an inability to manage stressors.

>>16768820
Nietzsche, unironically

>>16763381
It is okay as long as the baby isn't mine, or the baby of anyone I care about.
the real thing holding society together is the want for it. most people don't get satisfaction from killing/raping a baby, so they don't need to.
as much as we are selfish creatures, we are still intelligent creatures. we only do something because we perceive it as the best option available.
we live by the average and die by the average.

>>16763381
Daily reminder the idea that the ego must be pleased, that emotional desires must be satisfied and that we ever had a choice in doing either of the above are the biggest spooks of them all.

>>16763381
Alright, so as far as I can understand Nietzsche advocates for creating your own morality if you can.

Didn't he still die freaking out over someone shipping a horse and having syphilis from going to brothels? He seemed more to write about yearning for freedom. For room for expansion and exerting your will. I didn't get so much of eating babies and shoving horse dildos up your ass because of nihilism. There are keys in his writings to escape nihilism. God is dead was more of an affirmation that people will be directionless without god and that the super man was a character with the intellect to create his own system to navigate the world.

>>16763420
>Man as noble savage
ok dipshit

>>16767094
> the spookery goes even further than his life of low tier societal rebellion
Can you expand on this?

>t. read part of the ego and its own because Nietzsche was too hard but never finished

>>16763381
retardedandflippant/pilled

>>16766854
Yeah that was my original intention with how I was applying eastern mysticism to this. I also wanted to state that in the introduction in The Unique and Its Property Landstreicher demonstrated that for sure Stirner had access to German translations of Eastern texts such as The Dhammapadda and Dao de Jing. You can find this introduction at the anarchist archive. And ofc I know that Schopenhauer's conception of Buddhism was downright wrong and he was LARPing on it. Although you can't discredit the man entirely. His conception and interpretation of The Uppanishads is needed. Hell, the man is known to read it always before bed. It was his Bible basically. Also thanks for Timaeus recommendation. I'll look into him. Obviously reading Plato's Dialogues, Greek Myths/Poetry/Plays are a guaranteed must read for Nietzsche. Especially the Pre-Socratics are definitely a must to understand Nietzsche's Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks.

>>16763381
I think all your problems can be solved by this quote from Stirner's Critics.

>It would be another thing indeed, if Hess wanted to see egoistic unions not on paper, but in life. Faust finds himself in the midst of such a union when he cries: “Here I am human, here I can be human” — Goethe says it in black and white. If Hess attentively observed real life, to which he holds so much, he will see hundreds of such egoistic unions, some passing quickly, others lasting. Perhaps at this very moment, some children have come together just outside his window in a friendly game. If he looks at them, he will see a playful egoistic union. Perhaps Hess has a friend or a beloved; then he knows how one heart finds another, as their two hearts unite egoistically to delight (enjoy) each other, and how no one “comes up short” in this. Perhaps he meets a few good friends on the street and they ask him to accompany them to a tavern for wine; does he go along as a favor to them, or does he “unite” with them because it promises pleasure? Should they thank him heartily for the “sacrifice,” or do they know that all together they form an “egoistic union” for a little while?

>>16771621
>Marx seethed in the background to passages like this
Pretty sad when you think about it

>>16771748
Marx didn’t seethe over stirner at all. He knew egoism was nothing more than fun philosophical word play, Marx was interested in actually changing the world you see.

>>16771785
>even Marxists seethe over Stirner
kek

>>16763488
Based Hellsing bro

>>16771785
Wtf does it mean to "change the world". Marx always had these grand humanist plans to find the purely idealistic realm through materialistic history, but it always backfires because his ideas enforce an idea that reality or "humanity" needs to be saved or something.

>>16770042
>recent studies

>>16763381
way to not get nietzsche at all

>>16771785
>Marx didn’t seethe over stirner at all.

>>16763452
>The middle ages had no violent imagery

>>16772861
Have you read it?

>>16772861
mocking =/= seething

>>16763381
>it's completely okay to murder babies
according to peter singer too

>>16770918
This. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

>>16763381
>This is the kind of person you discuss philosophy with on a daily basis.
That would explain everything.