[ 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: 258 KB, 800x1200, TheUnique-Stirner-Landstreicher.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14922861 No.14922861 [Reply] [Original]

Are there any good refutations to the amoral, egoistical, Stirnerite way of thinking? I agree with its premises and its conclusions more or less, but I also find it incredibly disheartening and distressing. It was supposed to be empowering and I just feel like a mess since I read this trash. I feel surrounded, confounded, haunted by ghosts every fucking minute of every fucking hour of every fucking day of every fucking week. Day after day. It's killing me.

>> No.14922872

>>14922861
Girardian mimetic theory.

>> No.14922877

>>14922861
peripatetic-thomism

>> No.14923184

No. Marx tried and failed completely.

>> No.14923202

>>14923184
You mean the guy who wrote a book about how he wasn't able to grasp elementary differential calculus way AFTER Cauchy, who laid down completely rigorous foundations for the subject, had died?
Sure, if that genius Marx couldn't refute Stirner, no one can.

>> No.14923221
File: 71 KB, 500x478, 150641.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14923221

>>14922872
>>14922877
How are these not spooks? Specially Thomism.

>> No.14923258

refutations are a spook

>> No.14923318
File: 24 KB, 400x628, right_to_be_greedy_white.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14923318

>>14922861
Read pic related. Not a refutation but an interesting reformulation and application of Stirnerite principles in a communist framework.

>> No.14923323

>>14922861
this book is watered-down shitepot full of babbling, and yet it hasn't been refuted to this day.

>> No.14923331
File: 26 KB, 329x500, 41oOwRGynIL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14923331

>>14922861
Not a refutation but it will help you if you're honest about your post.

>> No.14923673

Holy Bible

>> No.14923684

>>14922861
Just accept pragmatism. Read James, then take the faithpill and read Pascal

>> No.14923691

>>14923331
This was a great book.

>> No.14923817

>>14923684
>Just accept pragmatism.
pragmatism is self-undermining
>Read James
James who?
>read Pascal
why would I, huh?

>> No.14923829

>>14923817
helpless

>> No.14924010

>>14923331
the amazon reviews utterly shit all over this book. doesn’t seem legit

>> No.14924120

>>14924010
>amazon reviews

>> No.14924327
File: 141 KB, 300x256, 236e17a73d0ae54a7fa423ee156c3dd5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14924327

>>14923318
>The perspective of communist egoism is the perspective of that selfishness which desires nothing so much as other selves, of that egoism which wants nothing so much as other egos; of that greed which is greedy to love — love being the “total appropriation” of man by man.

>> No.14924786

the ego is the biggest and most manifested spook

>> No.14925107

>>14924786
No.

>> No.14925201

>>14925107
Butterfly, tell us your secrets! How do you deal with the existential crisis that inevitably comes with the reading of The Unique and Its Property? That big-forehead idiot have ruined my life, he have murdered me.

>> No.14925315

>>14925107
then do me a favor and define ego, let's see if this is not the greatest spook of them

>> No.14925316
File: 321 KB, 1000x668, 8B72AAA2-2D2E-4488-A4A8-610452B264E8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14925316

>>14925201
I’m not sure how this book has given anyone an existential crisis. But I dealt with mine in two phases. My personal crises hung around me while a simple agnostic. Shopping around for something to believe in, I was mostly just trying to “make it” in the capitalist world and so made poor progress.
When you acknowledge your insignificance, you’re set free. Not even admitting to any level of Determinism dampens this sense of freedom for me. The eyes in the sky banished, I accepted me as my own savior. Later still I started to crunch on some of these numbers environmentalists where putting out and accepted the real chance that my species would end relatively soon if we didn’t do something.
So what’s this question about the meaninglessness to life? There’s a giant monster to slay, you sluggards. The following months are going to wound it some!

>> No.14925333

>>14925315
Who wrote that?
Who are you?
Russian bot!

Who or whatever you are from minute to minute, year to year, you are this ego, this ego is you. And it is Now.

>> No.14925337

>>14923221
Mimetic theory debunks it.

>> No.14925356

>>14922872
>>14922877
Based

>> No.14925363

>>14925333
yeah and it will not be in a few seconds; I am what I was not, I was what I am not nor will be. Whatever I used to want I no longer want.
What you deem to be an ''I'' is a mere product, a copy and completely conditioned. All this is either faced to get us to what is Real about Us or is embraced to weigh us more in our fall.
You cherish and nurture illusions.

>> No.14925377

>>14925333
the ego never is, it is always dissolving and emerging into new different ones, a never-ending cycle

>> No.14925382

>>14925337
How so?

>> No.14925402

>>14925363
Suicidal? Mere misanthrope?
Dance around the idea that all is “illusion”, whatever that means, all you like. It gets you nowhere.

>> No.14925406

>>14925333
>And it is Now.
Your precious "now" bears the trace of what is no longer and what is to come, of which are the conditions for the now. Read Derrida.

>> No.14925418
File: 110 KB, 611x491, 16B1C2A3-0923-4F9A-8D23-66BAF4CE3BC1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14925418

>>14925406
>Want to become as confused as I? Read Derrida.

>> No.14925451

>>14925382
An individual's desires and intentions, thoughts and actions, are conditioned by his mediator's desires and intentions, thoughts actions, that are conditioned by his mediator's, that are conditioned by his mediator's, so on and so forth.

>> No.14925462

>>14925418
Hi Jordan Peterson

>> No.14925571
File: 19 KB, 480x360, A95E1B54-F28D-4994-92F1-0443290AD3AE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14925571

>>14925462
Oh please.
Chomsky doesn’t buy his guff either, I believe.

>> No.14925600

>>14925402
are you even literate? that's not what i said, try rereading my post

>> No.14925616

>>14925571
>derrida is wrong because chomsky says so
seriously, has someone cracked this trip? butterfly at least tries to hide that it's a massive pseud

>> No.14925631

>>14925571
Have you even read "his guff"? He's one the most important philosophers of the 20th century, and many people, with more authority on the matter than Chomsky and Jordan Peterson, agree so. Imagine refusing to read him becuase you're scared you'll leave with a different political ideology of all things. So childish.

>> No.14925650

>>14925631
this board literally memed butterfly into reading stirner and becoming an "anarchist." she's an impressionable consumer par excellence. problem is she doesn't read, so there is a delay. as soon as she reads derrida she will pretend to understand with it and agree with it, but that could take years

>> No.14925659

>>14925616
All I’m committing to is that you’re wrong. You brought the guy up.

>>14925631
You seem to trying to prove that nothing is real and it’s all pointless. Like you’re looking for an excuse for a lifestyle of an antinatalist NEET.

>> No.14925673

>>14925650
No, I found anarchism on my own.
The 2016 election drove me from the Chomsky level. I would not describe myself as impressionable. I sample suggestions and Stirner was the one of the best.

>> No.14925679

>>14925659
>You seem to trying to prove that nothing is real and it’s all pointless.
You have to be trolling, no one is this stupid. This isn't what I'm saying and this isn't what Derrida is saying. Imagine being so invested in the concept of the self, that any critique of it is immediately interpreted as nihilism. Put down the Jordan Peterson videos and pick up a copy of Of Grammatology.

>> No.14925708

>>14925679
>drrr you readin jordan peterson drrrr
Just drop the other shoe and stop pretending I read washyerpeterson. You’re as clear as mud

>> No.14925721

>>14925708
he's calling you a pseud because you are willfully misinterpreting him without ever having read what he's referring to or even seeming to read his actual claim (something Jordan Peterson also does). you're no better than a Peterson acolyte and that's the stone cold truth

>> No.14925722

>>14925673
did you google ''what is anarchism''?

>> No.14925736

>>14925708
People will stop accusing you of reading Jordan Peterson is when you stop making critiques as rigorous as his (i.e. critiques with zero rigor). This will only happen if you actually READ the books you a priori pupport to be guff.

>> No.14925782

Just because you can read someone does not mean that you would understand them. We all have our perceptions even when we take it to something new. Derrida is not simply Derrida. Objectivity is in some ways a spook.

>> No.14925826

>>14925721
I am willfully slapping it around. Waiting.
You realize how much money Peterman got paid to be the dipshit he is? There’s no comparison.

>>14925722
It’s under “libertarianism” actually. No, I read books.

>> No.14925879

>>14925826
You haven't read Derrida, but you insist on making mistaken comments about him. That's all there is to it. Functionally, you're a Jordan Peterson acolyte.
>No, I read books.
Well, evidently not.

>> No.14925901

Your own desires are spooks as well. Disregard them.

>> No.14925931

>>14925879
>…I believe
You’re grasping at straws. I’m not up here debating Žižek, I’m waiting for you to drop the other shoe. Because it’s looking like you haven’t read him either.

>>14925901
Try reading the book

>> No.14925957

>>14925406
>Read Derrida.
Never.

>> No.14925970

>>14925616
>>14925631
Promoting Derrida makes you the biggest pseud in the room, poseur.

>> No.14925981

>>14925721
Derrida wrote literal nonsense, pseud.

>> No.14925990

>>14925931
You're trying to use this "drop the other shoe" as a means to save face, but it isn't working. If you genuinely wanted to engage in discussion, you would have. If you would like to try again, respond to my original comment in earnest.

>> No.14925993

>>14925931
what you have done is erect a strawman. you saw someone mentioning derrida and (despite not having read him) you took a cheap shot -- you told him he was looking for an excuse to be a NEET. what that has to do with either derrida or nihilism, I don't know, but you can't expect people to take you seriously when all you do is make weak attacks based on what you presume the people they read write about. you think you know what you're talking about, and that's why people don't want to take you seriously? no, it's because you want to have a playschool debate without doing your homework or replying in good faith. you're a troll, a pseud, and a failure. philosophy doesn't stop with what you read, much less what you see Chomsky talk about on youtube. this is the psychology of a Petersonian, so you might as well get used to getting called one

>> No.14925998

>>14925957
>>14925970
>>14925981
Hello fellow lobsters. Have we all washed our penises today?

>> No.14926003

>>14925981
>>14925970
derrida isn't even that hard. I'm sorry you didn't study philosophy in school and it's too late for you to start getting it now, but don't be the ghost at the feast

>> No.14926005

>>14925998
You're the only one talking about pseuds like Peterson and Derrida, brainlet.

>> No.14926014

>>14926003
Derrida isn't a philosopher, dumbass.

>> No.14926024

>>14926014
>Derrida isn't a philosopher, dumbass
keep listening to Joe Rogan big boy

>> No.14926040
File: 680 KB, 1900x1766, Sri-yantra-Mandala.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14926040

>>14922861
Stirnerism is made perfect if you replace the ego with the Higher Self. "You" are an aggregate of spooks, created by the true Self's power of Maya.

>> No.14926058

Sure is lame in here

>> No.14926067

>>14925993
No, I’m ignoring a strawman. “Cheap shot!” Oh the horror. “Muh most important philofofer of 20th century”
So boring

>> No.14926070

>>14926014
>implying that's a bad thing even if it was true
Derrida would have loved to move past that label, but understood the impossibility of such a thing.

>> No.14926077

>>14926024
Who?

>> No.14926083

>>14926070
Oh start a thread.

>> No.14926087

>>14926067
bitch, those comments were made only after you decided to pseud-out Jordan Peterson style. just stop posting already.

>> No.14926095

>>14926070
He didn't "move past" shit. He was a charlatan from day one.

>> No.14926098

>>14926067
i'm going to take this as an apology for having absolutely nothing to say. Keep posting here for four hours a day for the rest of your life, derrida is a waste of time

>> No.14926102

>>14926087
You're the only Peterson fan in this thread, shitbird.

>> No.14926107

>>14926040
OP here. Any book rec about it?

>> No.14926110

>>14926102
>taking your trip off to insult anons who actually read philosophy
could butterfly be any more hypocritical

>> No.14926112

>>14926098
>derrida is a waste of time
Finally, a consensus.

>> No.14926114

>>14926095
Read the comment again reading comprehensionlet. I never said he moved passed anything.

>> No.14926116

the translator wolfi is openly a pedophile like most anarchists

>> No.14926122

>>14926110
You're starting to get paranoid, turbo-pseud.

>> No.14926131

>I’m waiting for you to says something
>I’ll take that as apology
Okay.
>[D]errida is a waste of time
Mm-hm. What I’m sussing out.

>> No.14926132

>>14926114
He was never a philosopher.

>> No.14926133

>>14926131
>linguistically retarded

>> No.14926138

>>14926133
honestly think she's ESL

>> No.14926148

>read derrida
>derrida is stupid. chomsky-kun said so
>derrida is an influential and serious philosopher
>no he isn't
>yes he is
>no he isn't
ad infinitum for the rest of this thread. fuck anon and FUCK butterfly

>> No.14926149

>>14926138
What does he mean?

>> No.14926151

>>14926132
That's actually based. Historically, philosophers were do-nothing faggots

>> No.14926156

>>14926151
What did Derrida do except write utter nonsense?

>> No.14926158

>>14926102
did derrida personally untidy your room or something? why does he make peterson faggots like yourself seethe so much?

>> No.14926166

>>14926149
To communicate his ideas, the interlocutor would need a philological background in the classical languages, which you obviously lack. It would be lack explaining physics to a farmer.

>> No.14926172

>>14926148
Tbf, the initial Derrida-anon was contributing to the thread. The thread only went to shit after butters got her hands on it.

>> No.14926174

>>14926156
Explain why you think Derrida wrote nonsense or stop spamming the thread

>> No.14926175

>>14926158
>untidy your room
It sparks joy to make pseuds like you seethe.

>> No.14926179

>>14926156
>utter nonsense
Filtered. Not everyone is as dumb as you, anon.

>> No.14926189

>>14926172
Once you engage with her at all, all bets are off. Derrida anon was completely reasonable and Butterfly basically just called him a retard. It's just trolling, but because she has a trip everyone has to pile on to the (You)-wagon. She wins again

>> No.14926191

>>14926179
Derrida was the dumbest "writer" of his generation. And that's saying a lot considering all the other French morons writing at the same time.

>> No.14926194

>>14926191
Care to explain?

>> No.14926206
File: 635 KB, 1500x1100, 05918EDF-A3CC-452F-95CB-CFA4F376C59D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14926206

>>14926172
>Tbf
That isn’t fair at all. It was all aimed at me originally
>>14925406
It made no sense then as Now. He’s trolling it seems.

>> No.14926219

>>14926191
Just because he didn't stick to undergraduate writing conventions doesn't mean he was a bad writer. You were filtered. Love Derrida. Simple as.

>> No.14926221
File: 386 KB, 1692x2374, ps.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14926221

>>14926206
>it made no sense because I don't understand it and refuse to even try
t.

>> No.14926227

>>14926189
>Derrida anon was completely reasonable
You don't understand Derrida if you think he would regard "reasonable" as a compliment.

>> No.14926235

>>14926206
>It made no sense then as Now.
I haven't even even read Voice and Phenomenon and it made sense to me. You're just not familiar enough with the source material.

>> No.14926237

>>14926227
Yeah, I know he's hard to read anon, but not everything can be Lord of the Rings, OK? Sometimes you have to make an effort

>> No.14926238

>>14926221
>refuse to even try
I wait for your introductory statements still, psued-boy

>> No.14926243

>>14926235
Go ahead and explain it, then.

>> No.14926247

This is an absolutely based thread. Gotta say.

>> No.14926253

>>14926237
>Derrida is "hard"
In your dreams, pseud.

>> No.14926257

>>14926238
I'm not him, but you've given him no reason to engage. Go back to his first post and try to read it again. Look up "trace" on SEP if you have to. Consider the possibility that you often badly misinterpret what you read (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).). Then make a reply that is more than a vague insult

>> No.14926268

>>14926257
Start a new thread if you want to discuss pseuds like Peterson and Derrida. Just make it on /his/, not /lit/.

>> No.14926273

>>14926268
No

>> No.14926279

OP here again. Shoo shoo Butterfly!

>> No.14926281

>>14926243
Explain what?

>> No.14926284

> the absolute state of this thread
No ideas being engaged, just name calling pseuds and citing philosophers without actually explaining the positions of the philosophers.

>> No.14926291

>>14926281
Explain what Derrida has to say regarding the topic of this thread.

>> No.14926299

>>14926284
>citing philosophers
Derrida and Peterson are not philosophers.

>> No.14926306

>>14926299
Call them what you want to obfuscate around my point

>> No.14926315

>>14926257
I’m not a philosophy student.
If a pseud following philosophy student wants me to understand his pseud lingo, he’s ought to translate it if he wants to try to “engage” with me.
He did want to engage with me though. He wanted troll. It’s not even clear he has read the man in any detail

>> No.14926325
File: 18 KB, 480x360, 0711942E-AA81-401A-BCD9-0A4A5987C70F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14926325

>>14926279
This is a joke right?
Anon ruins the thread topic for trolling sake and “anonymous” wants to claim the thread is his

>> No.14926327

>>14926306
"Obfuscate" is certainly the key word here. Derrida was a charlatan who used empty obfuscatory rhetoric to hook in vulnerable pseudo-intellectual brainlets.

>> No.14926347

1. Click Settings (bottom/top of page)

2. Click Filters & Post Hiding

3. Toggle and Edit "Filter and highlight specific threads/posts"

4. Toggle "On", "Auto", and "Hide". Leave "Boards" empty. Then enter a pattern:

For namefags, like Killy for example, add this (as type "Name"):

Killy

For tripfags utilizing ordinary tripcodes, like Eliza !METS.GNIWQ for example, add this (as type "Tripcode"):

!METS.GNIWQ

For tripfags utilizing secure tripcodes, like STHLM !!6Gk3cvqPqbL for example, add this (as type "Tripcode"):

!!6Gk3cvqPqbL

You can also filter tripfags on a name-basis. This will allow your filter to persist even though they switch username passwords.

5. Click "Save" and "Save Settings".

Only stubs will be left of comments made by these users.

---

You can also filter comments containing specific words, like "cuck", by using a comment type filter.

Complete threads containing specific words can can also be filtered, through the "Filters" menu in Catalog.

If you use 4chan X, then you can also filter the stubs of the comments.

>> No.14926358

>>14926315
>pseud following philosophy student wants me to understand his pseud lingo
this is childish. you're like 45 years old

>> No.14926433

>>14926291
Retention and protention, as conditions of possibility for the primal impression -- the living present, the now, whatever you wan't to call it -- is an admission of non-presence into presence (specifically, the repeatability of the primal impression in retention as memory, and in protention as anticipation). This trace is the groundless ground, absent presence and non-originary origin of experience. The "now" only is what it is buy virtue of this trace (i.e. by what it isn't).

>> No.14926439

>>14926433
Lmao. This post speaks for itself.

>> No.14926450

>>14926439
This is why no one bothers trying to explain Derrida on this board. Retards expect to be able to just effortlessly get it and take their own incomprehension as proof of its meaninglessness

>> No.14926452

>>14926327
Care to share an example?

>> No.14926457
File: 15 KB, 150x387, 9295E1D4-A99E-41E9-B24B-0AE9B956B21E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14926457

>>14926433
>the living present, the now, whatever you wan't to call it -- is an admission of non-presence into presence
>Dude, actually living is proof there’s no such thing!
Either you’re not good at explaining him, or he’s shit to begin with.
Get off my thread

>> No.14926467

>>14926450
That post was complete and utter gibberish. Pseuds like you who pretend otherwise need to stop lying to themselves.

>> No.14926472

>>14926439
>>14926450
>>14926457
All filtered.

>> No.14926476

>>14926472
Holy...based...

>> No.14926491

>>14926457
I agree :3

*slides cock up and down muscled asscrack*

*slaps asschecks so you clench my dick*

What did you read today sweetie? See you at 9?

>> No.14926494

>>14926467
It really wasn't. Then again I've ACTUALLY READ Husserl and Derrida.

>> No.14926505

>>14926494
Yet you can't explain it because it is nonsense.

>> No.14926506

>>14926467
What don't you understand about it? I can't really work with "it's gibberish." Like I said, posters like >>14926457 this will just get it wrong, not think about it, and not accept that they could learn something no matter how hard you try.

>> No.14926525

>>14926505
>the present isn't a thing, it's actually a differential relation between the past and the future
It really isn't that hard, faggot.

>> No.14926534

>>14926506
For starters, strip out all the jargon and contradictory expressions like "groundless ground" and explain it in language that people outside your cult can understand. You can't, because there's no "there there" underneath the bullshit.

>> No.14926539

>>14926525
That doesn't make any sense either.

>> No.14926546
File: 2.02 MB, 450x337, EAB368A3-2C4A-4212-89A6-17FF9FD0EE05.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14926546

>>14926506
>HA. Really? Seems so simple to me! How much more can I dumb it down?

>> No.14926551

>>14926534
Not going to continue to spoonfeed plebs when they have already decided something is bullshit. I encourage you to read Derrida if you want to learn more about him

>> No.14926557

>>14926546
So that's a yes? :3

>> No.14926559

>>14926539
You might be an actual retard then. An analogy: try reading a word on a page without remembering the word that came before or anticipating the word that comes after it. That word is the "now".

>> No.14926565

>>14926551
Pseud gets called out, so takes his ball and goes home. Typical.

>> No.14926574

>>14926546
I'm not saying it isn't somewhat difficult, I'm just saying you're both somewhat stupid and you also have an incentive to act like whatever Derrida says is meaningless. You got it wrong in a way that's horrendously bad, which isn't surprising considering how you don't even really seem to understand philosophers you like and have actually read (like Nietzsche). You're replying in bad faith, i.e. trolling. Filtered

>> No.14926589

>>14926551
Don’t be like that anon quit being a pussy

>> No.14926591

>>14926559
What on earth are you blathering about? There are volumes of legitimate philosophy of time. What you are doing is not that. It's just pseud word salad. You think nobody can tell the difference because you can't tell the difference.

>> No.14926596

>>14926591
>Husserl isn't real philosophy of time
Damn son, you a fag

>> No.14926602

>>14926596
Husserl didn't write that post, permapseud.

>> No.14926614

>>14926602
>he hasn't read Derrida AND Husserl
You're digging yourself a deeper hole, lobster man

>> No.14926626

>>14926565
>>14926589
The meaning of words/concepts bear within them the trace of what they are not, opposing or orthogonal concepts, which is actually what allows them to acquire any meaning at all. The trace is invisible in this sense.
Derrida can use this idea to attack the idea of essence. If the meaning of a signifier is not manifested by itself (within it) but by what it is not then the meaning of language is constituted by way of this difference.

>> No.14926633

>>14926626
Good explanation, anon.

>> No.14926651
File: 28 KB, 400x600, conspiracylig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14926651

>>14922861
The only place to go is even deeper.

>> No.14926658

>>14926626
Sounds interesting

>> No.14926660

>>14922861
Learn to think for yourself. There is no cookie-cutter refutation to any system of thought other than the ability to think for yourself. There's no gotcha one-liner, single sentence or proposition that can't be met with another one. People think they need 'knowledge' to stand up to arguments. No, you need the ability to reason and the ability to put that together convincingly.

>> No.14926678

>>14926660
True, I've met dozens of people who have extensively read and studied the idealists and turn around to spew some orange man bad babble they heard from a actor hired by an oligarch. Not that orange man is good but anyone who finds themselves caught is such a nexus of ideology and propaganda clearly didn't understand any of the philosophy they studied and read and fundamentally lack the faculties of reason.

>> No.14926697

>>14926614
Have you been drinking?

>> No.14926701

>>14926626
Horseshit. None of that makes any sense.

>> No.14926703

>>14926701
Not an argument, old boy

>> No.14926710

>>14926660
>There is no cookie-cutter refutation to any system of thought
You can't refute something that is not refutable in principle. Examples: the output of a monkey mashing the keys of a typewriter, or the 'works' of Derrida.

>> No.14926711

>>14926701
When did you discover that you had a low IQ?

>> No.14926715

>>14926703
Indeed, it is a straightforward observation.

>> No.14926718

>>14926711
Unintentionally ironic post of the day.

>> No.14926719

>>14926710
>write someting so complicated that plebs can't understand it or refute it
That's actually based. This thread is warming me up to Derrida.

>> No.14926722

>>14926715
When a book and a head collide and a hollow sound is heard, must it always have come from the book?

>> No.14926724

>>14926710
Well no the simplest refutation to Stirner was just to deny his creative nothing, argue that he constructed nothing more than another novel spook and the parameters he defines for it make him happy in a completely arbitrary way indicating a underlying set of equally arbitrary psychological preferences that want to avoid other spooks.

>> No.14926725

>>14926719
No, it's even more diabolical than that. Write something so nonsensical that *only* self-deluding pleb pseuds think they understand it.

>> No.14926733
File: 61 KB, 700x465, emmanuel-levinas-0101-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14926733

>>14922861
Levinas' critique of Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical would be apply just as same as Stirner.

>> No.14926741

>>14926710
In the strictest logical sense of refutation that distinguishes between the refutable and the non-refutable, sure. But in the widest English sense of 'prove wrong', anything can be proven wrong, false, not on its own standards, but by the erection of any set of standards and any type of argument, if done convincingly. Even this post itself is subject to that logic, and on and on, ad infinitum...

>> No.14926743

>>14926724
>the simplest refutation to Stirner
What does that have to do with what I wrote? Stirner wrote intelligibly, so his assertions are refutable in principle, unlike pseuds like Derrida.

>> No.14926748

>>14926725
Well yeah, of course the plebs would deem it "nonsensical".
>Our loftiest insights must - and should!- ring out like foolishness, under some circumstances like crimes, when in some forbidden way they come to the ears of those for whom they are not suitable and who are not predestined to hear them. The exoteric and the esoteric views, as people earlier differentiated them among philosophers, with Indians as with Greeks, Persians, and Muslims, in short, wherever people believed in a hierarchy and not in equality and equal rights - this differentiation does not arise so much from the fact that the exoteric view stands outside and looks, assesses, measures, and judges from the outside, not from the inside: the more essential point is that the exoteric view sees the matter looking up from underneath, but the esoteric sees it looking down from above! There are heights of the soul viewed from which even tragedy ceases to work its tragic effect, and if we gathered all the sorrow of the world into one sorrow, who could dare to decide if a glance at it would necessarily seduce and compel us to pity and thus to a doubling of that sorrow? . . . What serves the higher kind of men as nourishment or refreshment must be almost poison to a very different and lower kind of man. The virtues of the common man would perhaps amount to vices and weaknesses in a philosopher; it could be possible that a higher kind of person, if he is degenerating and nearing his end, only then acquires characteristics for whose sake people in the lower world, into which he has sunk, would find it necessary to honour him as a saint from now on. There are books which have an opposite value for the soul and for health, depending on whether the lower soul, the lower vitality, or the higher and more powerful soul makes use of them: with the first group, the books are dangerous, shattering, disintegrating; with the second group, they are a herald’s summons which provokes the bravest to show their courage. Books for the whole world always smell foul: the stink of small people clings to them. Where the folk eat and drink, even where they worship, the place usually stinks. One should not go into churches if one wants to breathe clean air.

>> No.14926756

He's in his own world. Most 'refutations' of any philosopher just posit an entirely different set of premises and discredit or attack their opponents. You could study his entire system of thought if you like and prove it wrong by its own standards. But here's what I think of doing that: you only have such and such time alotted you in life, a study like that is going to take 1000s of hours, so you need to justify the investment of time from the outcome. I honestly don't think you can justify it. Why Stirner? Why not Confucius? Why not Sartre? Why not go to the pub?

>> No.14926761

>>14926743
Ah since you were replying to a post directed at the OP I thought you were claiming Stirner was irrefutable as was the OP's original problem. I totally agree and wish there was a movement to lower the importance of philosophers who were too fundamentally shit at writing to be taken seriously.

Their thoughts can be useful and interesting but they need to be put into a pop-philosophy or art-philosophy category because they were simply too shit at articulating language in a useful manner leading to nothing but a endless nexus of word salad interpretations.

>> No.14926769

>>14926748
>plebs would deem it "nonsensical"
You're not getting it. Only plebs lack a functioning bullshit-detector to the extent that they embrace sheer nonsense as profound thought.

>> No.14926774

>>14926107

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

>> No.14926776

>>14926769
>I know it when I see it
imagine being this pleb

>> No.14926780

>>14926769
>Only plebs lack a functioning bullshit-detector to the extent that they embrace sheer nonsense as profound thought.
Well yes, of course the *real* plebs would think this when befuddled by profound wisdom

>> No.14926782

Has anyone read this? Can't find it online anywhere, also how does Landstreicher translation compare to the older Byington translation?

>> No.14926789
File: 350 KB, 533x810, 1562731465428.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14926789

>>14926782
Forgot picture

>> No.14926794

>>14926780
That's not how it works, pseud. Low-IQ plebs are more susceptible to pseudo-deep bullshit. There are reams of experimental evidence establishing this.

>> No.14926797

>>14922861
embrace the ghosts

>> No.14926798

>>14926794
>That's not how it works, pseud. Low-IQ plebs are more susceptible to pseudo-deep bullshit. There are reams of experimental evidence establishing this.
Yes, this IS what a real pleb would claim when confronted with something he doesn't understand.

>> No.14926806

>>14926798
[citation needed]

>> No.14926811

>>14926806
Revelation.

>> No.14926824

>>14926774
Isn't this crypto-Buddhism?

>> No.14926825

>>14926806
Flat Earth, Homeopathy, Astrology, Acupuncture , Chiropractors and so on and so forth. All you need is the appearance of some sort of "system" and normies assume it must be based off something.

>> No.14926827

>>14926724
>deny his creative nothing
This is the best attack vector imo. Point out the historical contingency of the idea and its existence within language. Post structuralism is especially good fit for this. Someone already mentioned Girard who I think is especially useful.

>> No.14926834

>>14926825
why are you capitalizing those terms? are you ESL? that may explain your problem with reading dense philosophy in English

>> No.14926843

>>14926834
Because they are brand names and not real terms even if they are old and common brands of snake oil. Also I liked that Derrida quote you posted, I'm not the other anon. Derrida just liked to have fun, which is fine.

>> No.14926852

You're all pseuds and I hate all of you vapid fucks.

>> No.14926855

>>14926843
my mistake, I was confused by the reply chain :^)

>> No.14926860

>>14926834
Derrida was certainly an ESL who wrote in French. But just because he was a brainlet doesn't mean all ESL speakers are brainlets.

>> No.14926866

>>14926827
"Post-structuralism" is pseud garbage.

>> No.14926868

>>14926860
the point obviously was that you're likely not going to understand Derrida in English translation if you're a non-fluent ESL. Should I take this to mean you're ESL?

>> No.14926873

>>14926843
>Derrida just liked to have fun, which is fine.
The real redpill is that all philsophers are like this. Also that quote is from Nietzsche.

>> No.14926876

>>14926866
If pseud garbage is able to dunk on Stirner, then Stirner must be weak as fuck.

>> No.14926882

>>14926868
Are you listening to yourself?

>> No.14926883

>>14926882
Huh?

>> No.14926889

>>14926876
There are tons of legit critiques of Stirner. Pseud nonsense does nothing but warm the air.

>> No.14926891

>>14926876
There isn't anything dunking about philosophical refutations, especially not post structuralists ones. If someone writes their metaphysics -> epistemology -> ethics properly of course it can be refuted or denied. But if you were to really press the denier to assemble those three things they would be just as empty and vulnerable, so it really only comes down to preference of what brand of quietism you want to use.

>> No.14926895

>>14926883
Reread what you posted when you're sober.

>> No.14926898

>>14926895
Reread what I posted when you complete your next English module on Duolingo

>> No.14926900

>>14926873
Only pseudo-philosophers. They have nothing to say, so they just shitpost.

>> No.14926904

>>14926898
Why would you learn English just to read Derrida in translation? Are you clinically retarded?

>> No.14926908

>>14926900
imagine thinking that Plato wasn't having fun in the dialogues

>> No.14926913

>>14926900
Who are the real philsophers in your opinion?

>> No.14926915

>>14926904
>reading comprehension
Maybe someone on /int/ could help you bro

>> No.14926918

>>14926889
Filtered.

>> No.14926922

>>14926915
Derrida wrote in French, pseud. You don't even know what language your pseud heroes wrote in. Hilarious.

>> No.14926927

>>14926922
Holy shit stop embarrassing yourselves you pseuds, actually read the posts you're replying to before posting you imbeciles.

>> No.14926933

>>14926927
Yeah, and if you're French, make sure you learn English so you can read Derrida in translation. Otherwise you won't understand it.

>> No.14926937

What I've got from this thread: Derrida is based and makes pseuds seethe.

>> No.14926949

>>14926937
You sound like the type that will love Derrida.

>> No.14926951

>>14926933
Read the reply chain one more time. It shouldn't take you three tries, but here we are

>> No.14926958

>>14926951
>the point obviously was that you're likely not going to understand Derrida in English translation if you're a non-fluent ESL. Should I take this to mean you're ESL?
Wew.

>> No.14926959

>>14926951
Without reading him in English, even if you can read the original French, it will be harder to decipher.

>> No.14926962

>>14926958
What do you think this post means? Take your time.

>> No.14926963
File: 442 KB, 930x526, getwtg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14926963

>>14922861

>> No.14926964

>>14926949
The based type? Yes.

>> No.14926966

>>14926962
Why would an ESL speaker read Derrida in English, you moron?

>> No.14926973

>>14926963
GTFO. Stop spamming this shit.
You didn't read any of these books.

>> No.14926986

>>14926966
I assumed the anon I was actually replying to was ragging on Derrida based on what he had seen in this thread. You inserted yourself into the reply chain to call Derrida a pseud or something to that effect. I rolled with it and pretended you were an ESL retard, when really you are just an English-speaking retard. But to answer your question, if your native language isn't French or another major European language and you are ESL, your best bet if you want to read Derrida is probably to read him in English translation. But don't take this to mean that I actually implied that someone would want to learn English just to read Derrida in it -- that's your own poor reading comprehension.

>> No.14926993

>>14926986
Woah, that's a whole lot of cope.

>> No.14927001

>>14926993
Cope

>> No.14927055

>217 replies
>32 posters

>> No.14927098
File: 2.21 MB, 1450x5947, 1580747138531.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14927098

>>14926824
you bet

>> No.14927145

>>14922861
TEEEEEEST

>> No.14927205
File: 110 KB, 771x1037, 1571692669768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14927205

>>14927055
>221 replies
>34 posters
>30 pseuds
>2 ESL pseuds arguing about Derrida
>1 baby's first existential crisis (OP)
>1 person who has actually read The Unique and Its Property (me)

>> No.14927226

>>14926748
Who wrote this based quote? Ty.

>> No.14927261

>>14927226
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil. He would've thought Derrida was based. At least in terms of his writing style, and his ontology too (of which he was a major influence).

>> No.14927606

>>14927205
>1 person who has actually read The Unique and Its Property (me)
Naw, man. I did too.

>> No.14928056

>>14926491
I feel like you're making a very profound criticism about the desires of that woman here? Am I just reading too much into it?

>> No.14928063

>>14927261
Lol, no.

>> No.14928068

>>14927606
No, you didn't.

>> No.14928074

>>14928063
Shut the fuck up

>> No.14928076

>>14928074
Go back to /b/, pseud.

>> No.14928078

>>14928076
Shut the fuck up

>> No.14928100

>>14928078
>seething pseud.
Yikes.

>> No.14928129

>>14928100
Shut the fuck up

>> No.14928139

so what's the deal with buttercunt, she is what, over 40, yet the thinking patterns she constantly displays in this shithole are that of a child, someone could make a bot based on her and everyone would be none the wiser

>> No.14928149

>>14928139
Yeah, I tend to dissociate or just rage when I see her posts but really it's depressing. Posts here for hours every day, is alone, will continue to be alone, and can't even find solace in art because she's both stupid and clearly addicted to 4chan. How do you fuck up that badly?

>> No.14928195

Ok, let me join. I have read Unique 3 times and I'm currently through my 4th read. I can't say it has caused a crisis.
I have been lately thinking if even the very act of thinking (and writing) is itself a spook since you right away enter the realm of ideas and the mere usage of words self-alienates you. Trying to call something expressionless is still an expression, so you never really free yourself from expressions, ideas, spooks.
What seems to be the solution for me is to try to "follow your heart", since the contents of your heart are inexplicable - are truly word/idea/spook free.

Sorry for broken language but english is my second and these are difficult terms.

>> No.14928301

stirner's proposition itself is defeated by inconstancy, he doesn't posit full nihilistic solipsism, but creates egoism to be just another spook. so if you want to defeat the real egoism of this sort, you need to "solve" nihilism and relativism, ie. post-constructivism which I find highly doubtful.

>> No.14928795

>>14928195
>Trying to call something expressionless is still an expression, so you never really free yourself from expressions, ideas, spooks.
Zerzan was right.

>> No.14928801

>>14928795

>> No.14929448

>>14928139
Do you actually believe this? This board is full of immature twits, you included. You sincerely think I'm Childish?
How outlandish. You people are nuts.