/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16021649]

Is it possible to be life-affirming without being ego-affirming?

[Anonymous No.16021658]

No. The ego is part of life.

[Anonymous No.16021721]

>>16021649
Yes, I would say Daoism and Zen are very life affirming without being ego driven

[Anonymous No.16021728]

>>16021649
yes, take the schizopill

[Anonymous No.16021730]

>>16021649
No.

[Anonymous No.16021871]

Yes. Read Damascius.
>The ruler must do everything for the sake of those he rules. But Hegias maintained that the ruler should not merely take care of those whom he rules but of his own self in priority to them, since everyone desires the good for himself before others. Isidore on the other hand says that the ruler qua ruler looks after the ruled and for this reason they obey him; but if he looks after himself as well, he does so as one of the ruled who is in need of being cared for. The ruler in the strict sense of the word needs nothing, though in his capacity as a man he may have needs. In the same way the expert in his capacity as a man may have need of expertise, as a doctor needs medical skill if he falls ill, But medicine itself can never fall ill, nor can the doctor when defined in terms of the art of medicine nor the ruler when defined in terms of the science of ruling. If we attempt to put this in terms of logic, we would say that the connection between the two things is not only a matter of words but a reality too.Therefore the connection between ruler and ruled and that between ruled and ruler is both theoretical and real, so that if the act of ruling benefits the ruled it will also benefit those to whom it is assigned.

[Anonymous No.16021885]

>>16021649
Yes. Read Deleuze and Klossowski. Life as the abolition of the ego for the movement of pre-individual singularities..

[Anonymous No.16021940]

NOTHING IS POSSIBLE

[Anonymous No.16021960]

NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE

[Anonymous No.16022005]

>>16021649
Yes.