According to Zen, the ego is a spook.
How would Stirner's philosphy change with this realization?
>>7879498
What about you actually read Stirner.
>>7879498
>According to Zen, the ego is a spook.
>How would Stirner's philosphy change with this realization?
According to me, you're a majestic Canada goose.
How does your philosophy change with this realization?
I don't think you've read der einzige and his essay properly at all. Stirner understands that his own spook-casting-off methodology is itself spooky and that there isn't anything special about overcoming the spooks of others. He says that he must also be overcome, but he never implies that overcoming all spooks and then his own is some kind of transcendental humanist goal.
Zen is literally only good for meditation techniques
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAtUPfF1R_s
>>7879519
Do you realize that you look like a moron when you do this
>>7879511
>Canada goose
>philosophy
I must shit and the earth is my canvas.
>>7879538
s/shit/shitpost
s/earth/4chan
fixed that for you
I'm Austrian and when I read the last pages of Stirners Einzige und sein Eigentum I was kinda shocked that he does some funny things with the German language that just get lost in the translations.
Like Hegels "sublimation", 'Aufhebung,' has many meaning (amusignly somewhat going in opposite directions, from 'lifting' to 'keeping')
Stirner starts with, and soon repeats several times
"All things are nothing to me" (in the translation)
Which in the German version really is
'Ich hab mein Sach auf Nichts gestellt', or like some wiuld translate
"I put my cause ti nothing"
Here in the introduction he introduces his egoist and expresses that he discards all causes that are actually the causes of others - he cleaned up and put his cause to nothing.
However, "Etwas auf Etwas stellen" means to put something on something (like a glass on a table) and so at the end he comes back to the beginning,
"Ich hab mein Sach auf nichts gestellt"
but now uses the same words with different santics:
The ego, his "creative nothing" is Nichts (nothing) and, free from spooks, arrived at only working towards his own cause.
He says that others causes are like a weight on ones shoulders, and in "putting your cause on/to nothing", he makes a point about the creative nothing again, the nothing he puts his cause on (like a weight) is the strange self.
Probably explained this badly, but my point is that his end is his beginning in another reading of the words, and this is completely lost in the translations
>>7879642
I'm always shocked how far away translations are from the original text.
if you told him hed probably just pin you down and twist your arms back painfully until you admitted you were his property, and then assert ownership over the contents of your fridge
>>7879498
the ego isn't the ego. at least not the way in which you are thinking about it.
From wiki:
Stirner's Egoism is not a descriptive psychological egoism, in fact he believes that non-egoism is the most common way of thinking. Stirner also does not advocate a narrow prescriptive ethical egoism of self-interest. Stirner rejects for example, the actions of an avaricious individual whose only pursuit is material gain. For Stirner such a pursuit enslaves the individual to a single goal and this is incompatible with his idea of autonomy.[
>>7879498
Impossible.
How about you read the damned book?
"People have always supposed that they must give me a destiny lying outside myself, so that at last they demanded that I should lay claim to the human because I am – man. This is the Christian magic circle. Fichte’s ego too is the same essence outside me, for every one is ego; and, if only this ego has rights, then it is "the ego," it is not I. But I am not an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique. Hence my wants too are unique, and my deeds; in short, everything about me is unique. And it is only as this unique I that I take everything for my own, as I set myself to work, and develop myself, only as this. I do not develop men, nor as man, but, as I, I develop – myself.
"This is the meaning of the – unique one."
>>7880423
"They say of God, "Names name thee not." That holds good of me: no concept expresses me, nothing that is designated as my essence exhausts me; they are only names. Likewise they say of God that he is perfect and has no calling to strive after perfection. That too holds good of me alone.
"I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun of this consciousness. If I concern myself for myself, the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say:
"All things are nothing to me."
>>7879525
Do you realise you are stuck in Samsara when you don't do this?
>>7879498
I think Stirner is really cool in the ways he is portrayed. I like to think he'd be a pretty cool guy to hangout with, like that nerdy friend who isn't too off putting.
>>7879667
But I paid good money for that beer.
>>7879667
I respect this comment for it's content and authorship.
>>7879667
This is implying I wouldn't assert my will upon this spook and give him a right sexual indignation upon my bottom.
>>7879642
Which English translation would you recommend for the ego and it's own then?
Why do people take ching chong "philosophy" seriously? lol
plant and eat only rice your whole life, meditate so you don't realize your life is shit
this is Chinese life and thought in a nutshell
>>7881164
Higher people hear of the Tao
They diligently practice it
Average people hear of the Tao
They sometimes keep it and sometimes lose it
Lower people hear of the Tao
They laugh loudly at it
If they do not laugh, it would not be the Tao
- Lao Tsu
>>7881170
So basically "you're retarded if you don't agree with me"
>>7881170
"higher" people to the Chinese is any man over 5'2... Lao does not take into account the response of anyone taller than that (contemptuosly sneer at rice-eater gay philosophy)
The important thing to Forehead-chan was not letting those empty ideas rule over you. If you could use spooks to your own advantage then there is nothing stopping you
buddhism is a religion about a man so fat, all he did was eat rice and meditate
obviously, this went very well in China, where this kind of life seems like paradise
>>7881172
did you eve read the last line? here's the whole chapter, though.
. . .
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 41
The wise student hears of the Tao and practises it diligently.
The average student hears of the Tao and gives it thought now and again.
The foolish student hears of the Tao and laughs aloud.
If there were no laughter, the Tao would not be what it is.
Hence it is said:
The bright path seems dim;
Going forward seems like retreat;
The easy way seems hard;
The highest Virtue seems empty;
Great purity seems sullied;
A wealth of Virtue seems inadequate;
The strength of Virtue seems frail;
Real Virtue seems unreal;
The perfect square has no corners;
Great talents ripen late;
The highest notes are hard to hear;
The greatest form has no shape.
The Tao is hidden and without name.
The Tao alone nourishes and brings everything to fulfillment.
>>7881181
you bet
>>7881151
There is only one complete translation mate
>>7880944
Considering Engels descrives him as being chill when the rest of the Young Hegelians were losing their shit, he'd probably be a bro.
>>7881172
No, it's "to be right someone needs to be wrong". There's no one conception which applies to everyone and if that weren't true discourse would not be possible or necessary (as per Zhuangzi).
>>7881188
Siddh was never fat, those are later representations. Before he tried the ascetic life he was pretty much a "chad", and after that he had no problem starving himself to near-death.
Taoism is more the religion you're looking to make fun of:
>The three men are dipping their fingers in a vat of vinegar and tasting it; one man reacts with a sour expression, one reacts with a bitter expression, and one reacts with a sweet expression. The three men are Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi, respectively. Each man's expression represents the predominant attitude of his philosophy: Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering; and Taoism saw life as fundamentally good in its natural state.
>>7881572
What do you need clarified?
>>7881582
This part here
>Fichte’s ego too is the same essence outside me, for every one is ego; and, if only this ego has rights, then it is "the ego," it is not I. But I am not an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique.
>>7881552
>>The three men are dipping their fingers in a vat of vinegar and tasting it; one man reacts with a sour expression, one reacts with a bitter expression, and one reacts with a sweet expression. The three men are Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi, respectively. Each man's expression represents the predominant attitude of his philosophy: Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering; and Taoism saw life as fundamentally good in its natural state.
Why do azns come up with these retarded parables every single time they want to make a point?
Stirner says we are all driven purely by the bodily (“the spirit, which is not regarded as the property of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a ghost”) pain and pleasure. We make idols of ourselves, and do everything in latria to them (idol + latria), however else we try to rationalize it. This actually is the Orthodox perspective. According to the Philokalia, the “knowledge” (used as synonymous with sexual intecourse in Hebrew) of “good and evil” is about carnal good and evil, which are pleasure and pain. These are not bad things per se, but we became enslaved to them. Christians are indeed involuntary egoists, because Christianity is about escaping these things as our masters. Here is Saint Maximos the Confessor, as quoted in the Philokalia: “Since man came into being composed of noetic soul and sentient body, one interpretation could be that the tree of life is the soul’s intellect, which is the seat of wisdom. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil would then be the body’s power of sensation, which is clearly the seat of mindless impulses. Man received the divine commandment not to involve himself actively and experientially with these impulses; but he did not keep the commandment. Both trees in Scripture symbolize the intellect and the senses. Thus the intellect has the power to discriminate between the spiritual and the sensible, between the eternal and the transitory. Or rather, as the soul’s discriminatory power, the intellect persuades the soul to cleave to the first and to transcend the second. The senses have the power to discriminate between pleasure and pain in the body. Or rather, as a power existing in a body endowed with soul and sense-perception, they persuade the body to embrace pleasure and reject pain.” God ordained us as absolute masters of the material (Hebrews 2:8), but we became enslaved by the deceit of hamartia, so that a veil is before our eyes, which can only be lifted by Christ, it can only be washed off by God’s Blood.
>>7881605
When are you going to realize you're furiously debating words that don't represent anything real?
>>7881592
That seems pretty obvious. He's saying "the ego" is a spook, a concept; it's not the same as the Ego, or the Unique, which is a no-thing, and shouldn't be described (at least not by the egoist themself), because to describe it is to make it a fixed idea (folly because it is nothing), and therefore make the rest of the world unfixed. To identify someone as "an ego" is to reduce them, to give them limits; however, the simple act of calling it my/your ego, exemplifies it isn't really the same as the Unique--because then whose ego is it? Is it the ego of the ego? That makes no sense, it needs someone to be an ego to. So the owner isn't what he owns, the knower isn't what he knows, just like fire doesn't burn itself, the relationship necessitates two for anything to exist.
I can't locate the specific passage presently, but there's one in wich he defines himself as everything that the rest of the world isn't; hopefully this one can help you see the thing better:
"I on my part start from a presupposition in presupposing myself; but my presupposition does not struggle for its perfection like "Man struggling for his perfection," but only serves me to enjoy it and consume it. I consume my presupposition, and nothing else, and exist only in consuming it. But that presupposition is therefore not a presupposition at all: for, as I am the Unique, I know nothing of the duality of a presupposing and a presupposed ego (an "incomplete" and a "complete" ego or man); but this, that I consume myself, means only that I am. I do not presuppose myself, because I am every moment just positing or creating myself, and am I only by being not presupposed but posited, and, again, posited only in the moment when I posit myself; i. e., I am creator and creature in one."
>>7881602
the poor peasant who hears them will be distracted by the simplistic analogy and his mind will be sated with thoughts of vinegar, if there was nothing for his mind to hold on to he might start learning things and the next thing you know there's another chinese civil war with 50 million dead
are spooks synonyms of fixed ideas?
>>7881602
i think parables are fun
>>7879498
Is holding the Ego to be something beyond defintions a cop out?
How can he justify this in the face of materalism?
>>7885079
Read his critique on body/spirit dichotomy, which is a response to Hegel's absolute idealism.
Essentially, Stirner does not care about justifications or the truth, because that would imply there is something to prove and prove to (something the creative nothing isn't); rather, to him saying "everything is matter" is the same as saying "everything is mind", because ultimately both are doing the same operation, which is to put one aspect of life above everything else, that is to say, to have a fixed idea (a spook).
It's not a cop out because he decided not to play the game--he's not avoiding duty, he's not taking it at as given and interacting with it on his own terms. Now if you're talking about material consequences, think again the Ego isn't a thing; whatever gain or loss of the mind or body is theirs, not the Ego's, and will only be the Ego's so long as It makes them their property, which he can stop making anytime It wishes to, given it has the might to.
Note that "might" in Stirner does not refer to power in the sense of dominance, but to power in the sense of capability. People do as they are capable of and it's simply a lack of capability, not a lack of virtue, which determines what they can do or not. So (for example) asking Luther not to be a Christian would be like asking fish to breathe out of water. And might imposed on others can work whatever way: a baby, a beggar, a politician, all of them compell people to do thing through their might, just not the physical kind.
As for property, it's not ownership in the legal sense, but rather in the qualitative sense; more like "a property of me" instead of "my property". And, it is always an active endeavor, a house belongs to those who live in it, instead of those that have the papers (of course that they are paying a rent is a matter of might).
>>7885398
Thanks for your response, is this critique in in the Ego and its Own or is it in one of his articles?
>>7886970
It's in the early parts of the Ego. He uses some ridiculous racialistic terminology to parody Hegel's view on history so you'll know whon you get there, plus the argument is built up through the rest of the book.
The final bits of it exemplify beautifully why Stirner's position isn't him attempting to excuse his behavior, but rather him looking for a way in which people don't do horrible things to each other or themselves--which is to found their causes on the one which is improvable, the self, which shows the actual scope of their actions. So he's really getting rid of any excuses for your actions, actually making everyone "responsible" for themselves (whatever that expanse might be), at the same time not shaming them for whatever they might do.
I also recommend listening to Goethe's Vanitas (the Lied Stirner references in the first chapter) to better get what his attitude towards the whole deal is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiK7C3wrKGU
Here's a translation by Swedish-Japanese Buddhist scholar Wm. Flygare:
My thoughts 'n' oughts are nothing fixed
Hooray!
for Joy's the world that's downed unmixed
this way!
and all who'd be good mates of mine
to clink 'n' drink just suit me fine
for lees of life and wine!
I'd trained my trade on gold 'n' gain
Hooray!
but so I sold my joy for pain;
I say,
the coins were rolling here and there,
but every time I chased a where
the here was over there.
To women then I gave my heart
O belles!
but how those damsels made me smart
o hells!
The false were true to others, true,
but true ones bored me through and through;
the best ... were not for woo.
Next, I thought I ought to roam
Hooray!
but then I lost my ways of home,
that way,
and nothing seemed to suit me quite,
the board was bad, the bed a fright,
and no one got me right.
I tuned my dream to name and fame
Excel!
but better men put me to shame
O hell!
or when I gave some good I had
they made me out to be a cad;
my good was worse than bad.
I sought the right in battle might
Hooray!
and often was our might so right
(hooray!)
the enemy's land was ours to run;
but still the score was won to none,
and a leg became undone.
So now I call my calling nought
So what!
The world's all mine that comes unsought
that's what!
Now that it's song and sup all day,
come clink 'n' drink me all the way
these lees to the last hooray!
>>7887077
Addendum: By chance, ı came into possession of the Bhagavad-Gītā as It Is, a translation and commentory of the Gita by the founder of the Hare Krishna; and as ı've slowly gone through the pages, ı've found the mental operations a Krishna devotee is supposed to undertake eerily and funnily similar to what Stirner proposes--to paraphrase a lot, one must never consider anything (matterial or mental) as themself or of their doing, but instead regard it all as Krishna and His doing, entering in a relationship with Him on an individual basis.
To draw more parallels between egoism and "oriental" sources, the Buddhist Sedaka Sutra comes to mind:
Once upon a time, monks, a bamboo acrobat, setting himself upon his bamboo pole, addressed his assistant Medakathalika: "Come you, my dear Medakathalika, and climbing up the bamboo pole, stand upon my shoulders." "Okay, master" the assistant Medakathalika replied to the bamboo acrobat; and climbing up the bamboo pole she stood on the master's shoulders. So then the bamboo acrobat said this to his assistant Medakathalika: "You look after me, my dear Medakathalika, and I'll look after you. Thus with us looking after one another, guarding one another, we'll show off our craft, receive some payment, and safely climb down the bamboo pole." This being said, the assistant Medakathalika said this to the bamboo acrobat: "That will not do at all, master! You look after yourself, master, and I will look after myself. Thus with each of us looking after ourselves, guarding ourselves, we'll show off our craft, receive some payment, and safely climb down from the bamboo pole. That's the right way to do it!"
Just like the assistant Medakathalika said to her master: "I will look after myself," so should you, monks, practice the establishment of mindfulness. You should (also) practice the establishment of mindfulness (by saying) "I will look after others." Looking after oneself, one looks after others. Looking after others, one looks after oneself. And how does one look after others by looking after oneself? By practicing (mindfulness), by developing (it), by doing (it) a lot. And how does one look after oneself by looking after others? By patience, by non-harming, by loving kindness, by caring (for others). (Thus) looking after oneself, one looks after others; and looking after others, one looks after oneself.
____________
And here we have Bodhidharma (legendary founder of Zen and kung fu) koaning the emperor:
Emperor Wu: "How much karmic merit have I earned for ordaining Buddhist monks, building monasteries, having sutras copied, and commissioning Buddha images?"
Bodhidharma: "None. Good deeds done with worldly intent bring good karma, but no merit."
W: "So what is the highest meaning of noble truth?"
B: "There is no noble truth, there is only emptiness."
W: "Then, who is standing before me?"
B: "I know not, Your Majesty."
(So one can see why the Marx bros nicknamed his Saint Max.)
>>7887077
Thank you again, what would some other books,authors,concepts,lectures ect be worthwhile to read before having a re-read of the ego and its own?
I read it once but I feel like i missed out a fair bit. Is that Bauer figure important to get?
>>7887077
>It's in the early parts of the Ego. He uses some ridiculous racialistic terminology to parody Hegel's view on history so you'll know whon you get there.
Thats one of the challenges I had there, when I read that part and the whole child-adult comparision I could not tell it was satire
>>7879498
What an asinine question
"According to Nietzsche, God isn't an even alive guy
How would Aquinas's philosophy change with this realization?"
>>7887077
>>7887144
That Goethe 'translation' is clearly a very liberal paraphrase just as the Stirner being quoted here seems like a far cry from the Reclam Stirner I read
Anyway, whatever similarities between Stirner and 'oriental' sources, whatever that may be, seem to be to be a consequence of Stirner's consistent nominalism and radical philosophical autopoesis. On top of that he was a lot of things but never a utopian, which is why he was never fully appropriated by Bakunin or the likes (Stirner was partially appropriated by Bakunin and subsequently 'diluted' with Proudhon and so 'anarchism' was born, according to Engels), and I'll never believe any Buddhist telling me that he isn't at the end of the day a utopian.
>>7887147
Frankly ı'm not well read on the authors he cites, so ı can't tell, but it can't be a bad thing to have read a bit more about the context of the book. You could also read his autobiography if you haven't.
>>7888466
>clearly a very liberal paraphrase
Of course.
>whatever similarities between Stirner and 'oriental' sources, whatever that may be, seem to be to be a consequence of Stirner's consistent nominalism and radical philosophical autopoesis.
I was talking of parallel evolution, not shared origination, so as to explain a meme.
>he was a lot of things but never a utopian
I'm sorry if ı seemed to imply that, what ı was attempting to explain was that when he talks about "egoism", he's not being thoughtlesssy petty but rather has waged his options and come to the conclusion this way of thinking is likely the best not only for himself, but for everyone.
>I'll never believe any Buddhist telling me that he isn't at the end of the day a utopian.
And why would they given Buddhism isn't utopian either?
>>7888917
*convergent, not parallel evolution.
I am my own property.
I am nothing.
Everything is nothing.
I am everything.
Everything is my property.
>>7881713
>So the owner isn't what he owns, the knower isn't what he knows, just like fire doesn't burn itself, the relationship necessitates two for anything to exist.
This is completely wrong, once you realize that everything you posit is You, the Unique one; that in your positing you are in fact creating your Ownness, your property, that you are your property and that your property is you, you in fact "own the world." Everything is mine, I own it, I own all my ideas, concepts; fuck, I own you. I am constantly positing, I am always creating, but in virtue of my new creations I am thus also seemingly and paradoxically "destorying," thus I am consuming every one of my creations. Think of it as someone who keeps saying "one, one, one, one, one, one, one." But each forgoing "one" is getting quieter (getting destroyed) and each new "one" is written in intense bold letters. Obviously though, each forgoing one is actually getting completely annihilated, but I just want to trenchantly emphasize my point with figurative language.
o n e , o n e, o n e, o n e, one, ONE
I am always asymptotically approaching describing who the self is, though language always fails in describing my ineffability. Each "I" that I attach to each thing I am in the present moment is indeed me, I am what I own, except that my Ownness can always go to something else, it's precariously attached to the predicates that I attach myself to. It's sort of like Kant's idea of logical unity in the transcendental ego. Yes, even though I attach a logical unity "I," doesn't mean I am actually metaphysically a substance, a "thing," a "soul" outside of my logical categories I use to make me have an experience at all. The proverbial "you are what you eat," comes out making sense in the context of the discussion.
When you realize your own nothingness within yourself you actually end up owning everything, everything is Yours, you OWN it, it's a part of your nothingness that you now get to consume like you do "yourself." Don't forget that Stirner believes that "I AM." That is in and of itself existence, he only uses metaphorical language to describe it, never actually reaching it. Even in your own quote " ... but this, that I consume myself, means only that I am. " Using the categories, indeed, I can't describe your uniqueness, but you DO in fact exist even outside these categories. Space-time, your life, your throwness, the fact that you are thrown into this narrative as protagonist, with family, a history, a culture, etc. only points more to the fact You are none of these things the existence has thrown over you. Go walk outside, like I did (as pretentious as this sounds) and yell out at the grass and people you see "THIS IS NOT ME, THIS IS A LIE, I OWN YOU, YOU DON'T OWN ME. " Your whole life is a fucking spook, it's a chain thrown over you to make you believe that that is who You are, but in fact, you are the one who owns it. Your life doesn't encapsulate you.
>>7890053
cont. Your life itself is a fixed idea slowly being created. Once you die, people will see how you lived, they will post judgments on how you lived. Was this man virtuous? how did he live? who was this man? what people will do is try to create a character out of you, they're trying to be platonic. If you want to truly understand Stirner's philosophy as a qualia, go outside, walk around on the street and start pretend force choking everyone. Start singing opera and trying to get other people to sing with you. With Stirner's philosophy you get a guy who force chokes reality and fucks it in the ass, so free in his being, that everyone is lagging behind trying to catch up to their power-level-liberation.
>>7885398
>whatever gain or loss of the mind or body is theirs, not the Ego's, and will only be the Ego's so long as It makes them their property, which he can stop making anytime It wishes to, given it has the might to.
But can it, in practice?
Can anybody? Do I need the ego death on mushrooms?
>>7890053
Sounds intriguing, if confusing.
But I have major problems with the whole spiel. Or questions.
- Firstly, what is time and evolution of things and how important is it for the things you say.
- Aren't we all severely limited by what we physically can do. This turns the whole "I own this and that (or everything)" into empty words
- Even if some are better at it than other, and one can improve this, being unspooked is too much work. It's unpractical
- and I don't know if thiking about this makes me happier in the end anyway
- What you say, and also Stirners "you can't capture the self with words" sounds extremely like the logicists conclusion of the first Wittgenstein book.
>>7890159
>- Firstly, what is time and evolution of things and how important is it for the things you say.
They're things thrown over onto you. See Heidegger's "Thrownness."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness
>>7890159
>- Aren't we all severely limited by what we physically can do. This turns the whole "I own this and that (or everything)" into empty words
Whatever your name is, is severely limited by his physicality. Yes, but the philosophy is supposed to alter your perception of yourself, "what ever your name is." In doing so you can achieve some liberation and power over your existence as "human" even whilst knowing you're limited by space-time and your biology. I mean, if you truly experience the experience of "owning" the world, then you will know. Philosophizing about it is useless, analyzing the concepts is useless, discursively anatomizing it is useless. What we're doing now is an analytic activity. Kant talks about the difference between mathematics and philosophy as being the difference between the synthetic method and the analytic method, respectively. Mathematics, in essence, "constructs" its objects. Philosophy only gets to play around with its objects/concepts. I also remember Terrence Malick just up and dropping his lectures on "anxiety" when talking about Heidegger because he quote (and I paraphrase here) didn't ever "experience" anxiety. I think Stirner's philosophy should be taken in the same Heideggerean sense. Stirner isn't talking about intentionality, he's talking about experience of existence in my opinion. This is why analytics hate continentals. They're talking about things that can only be experienced. Hell they're not even talking about concepts, since talking about them entails talking about Higher and Lower concepts (in the Kantian sense) which requires a consciousness ABOUT something, a consciousness that is generalizing, when in fact pure experience is never consciousness of objects since that presupposes subject/object in your language which is precisely THE THING HEIDEGGER IS TRYING TO GET RID OF! sorry for caps, just wanted to emphasize.
>- Even if some are better at it than other, and one can improve this, being unspooked is too much work. It's unpractical
See above. Its not unpractical if it gives you liberation over yourself. And when I mean "yourself" I mean the Freudian ego, the protagonist in the narrative.
>- and I don't know if thiking about this makes me happier in the end anyway
Well, when you can fuck in the life in the ass, it sure makes me happy. I guess you just haven't experienced a philosophy that is meant to be experienced.
>- What you say, and also Stirners "you can't capture the self with words" sounds extremely like the logicists conclusion of the first Wittgenstein book.
Ok.
>>7890209
What a load of horseshit.
>>7890248
I mean, it's fucking continental philosophy. What do you want me to do? lol? DEFINE MYSELF AND MY TERMS!?
lmao fuck off
>>7890209
You say I should read Stirner with the idea in mind that it's about mentally distancing yourself from your physical self?
>Its not unpractical if it gives you liberation over yourself.
I mean unpractical in that I don't think one can actually realize it. Not practically possible, you'll always fall back to the self you lived for the last 25 years.
PS:I never get the subject/object thing. Moreover, so many different theories that are all hard to grasp (say if we add Schopenhauer/Nietzsche here), including the ideas that are so old (Kant) that I think people who thought about them probably overcame them completely.
PPS: I'm reading philosophy most to find a good action plan, to get on a journey that I enjoy.
>>7879498
Stirner agreed.
>What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable.
>Stirner speaks of the Unique and says immediately: Names name you not. He articulates the word, so long as he calls it the Unique, but adds nonetheless that the Unique is only a name. He thus means something different from what he says, as perhaps someone who calls you Ludwig does not mean a Ludwig in general, but means You, for which he has no word. (...) It is the end point of our phrase world, of this world in whose "beginning was the Word."
>By bringing the essence into prominence one degrades the hitherto misapprehended appearance to a bare semblance, a deception. The essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for him who looks to the bottom of it — emptiness; emptiness is — world's essence (world's doings). ...."
Sunyata and all, babykeks, Stirner is a smuglord of higher mahayana realisations of the spinning wheel of samsara
>>7890316
>PPS: I'm reading philosophy most to find a good action plan, to get on a journey that I enjoy.
Try reading philosophers who actually write coherently - like Derek Parfit, Thomas Nagel, Peter Singer, etc.
philosophy is talking a lot about nothing
fuck off mate
>>7890323
FYI: No one has any clue what you are rambling about.
>>7890356
all talk is
>>7890316
Just read what ever the fuck you want. I'm trying to talk about things that language can't come close to talking about, obviously it will make some analytics butthurt. I don't take any sides, I just like philosophy. If anyone gets butthurt over the "obfuscating" language I use, like this guy
>>7890339
>>7890248
then you'd probably hate reading Plato's Parmiendes dialogue too. But in that case, we'd be able to figure out if you're really that into philosophy after all.
>>7890339
I feel reading post WWII people writing on what borders cognitive science, or who give their ideas about ethics, is the last thing I need.
Beside, I think I generally read with the premise that everybody got it wrong (or even that there can't be a right), and so fuzzy non-analytical ideas can be a plus. I can think about it and forge my own perspective.
I'm a physicist PhD, if that's relevant, AxiomsOfChoice.org
(I say that mostly to discard the idea that I want to reject sound presentations in favor of fuzzy stuff because I'm lazy or find it fascinating. I started With formal logic and then entered philosophy via the 1900'th formal considerations - I really think the logical mode of thinking doesn't help with those our human concerns. That which I called an "action plan")
>>7890408
>I'm a physicist PhD
0.o
may I ask where?
Apologies for posting in this thread, it was at the top. Can anyone give me the infographic that had alternatives to the GoT series?
Many thanks,
J
>>7890323
i actually DO have a clue of what you're rambling about
nice to meet another soul hermit at the mumonkan
let's look at our faces on this side because Beyond we'll have none
>>7890445
>>7890323
Again, this "I talk about something of which I actually want to argue can't be captured by words" sounds exactly like the Tractatus.
Will reading into Eastern stuff actually help me?
Like with the suggestions in >>7890339, I'm afraid that as soon as I read from authors who write for academic publications, they must censor themselves for politics and political correctness, and fashion of their subject, and what they write is no actually what they necessarily believe in. That's why I like old dead people who seem like they actually wanted to get their thoughts out - it feels more honest.
>>7890419
PhD from the German Aerospace Agency, now I job at Siemens and a research facility in central Europe
>>7890535
>PhD from the German Aerospace Agency, now I job at Siemens and a research facility in central Europe
Is it ok if I add you on skype to talk philosophy and physics and other stuffs anon-kun?
I like smart people. I'll use the skype that you provided on your site
>>7879498
According to Zen, the ego is a spook.
How would Stirner's philosphy change with this realization?
Everyone has always taken me to be an egoistical being, but I have extended my self to the world, so that, as both a god and a man, cannot escape self-devotion.
The Ego to Stirner is the Creative Nothing; that which, when all attachments have become self-liberated, remains as the sole attachment. If Stirner grounds his belief in the Unattainable - that which you remained attached to when all attachments are gone - then Stirner was a zennist.
>>7890445
well met metta mate
>>7890535
>Again, this "I talk about something of which I actually want to argue can't be captured by words" sounds exactly like the Tractatus.
>Will reading into Eastern stuff actually help me?
help you with what, arhat?
>>7890386
>I'm trying to talk about things that language can't come close to talking about, obviously it will make some analytics butthurt.
You certainly spew out a lot of words for someone who claims to concern himself with "things that language can't come close to talking about".
>>7890785
>well met metta mate
very Javes Voyce of you
i'll give you this one:
when caoshan took leave of dongshan, dongshan asked, "where are you going? caoshan replied, "i am going to an unchanging place". dongshan said, "if it is an unchanging place, how could there be any going?"
and caoshan retorted, "this going is also unchanging"
>>7890826
i thank you for the gift, sounds like parmenides and heraclitus united at last, ch'an-chan.
>>7881170
What you just called the Tao is not the Tao.
>>7890053
Uh, property? I was describing the spook-ego, not the Ego.
>To identify someone as "an ego" is to reduce them, to give them limits; however, the simple act of calling it my/your ego, exemplifies it isn't really the same as the Unique--because then whose ego is it?
>>7879519
He has got a boatload of misconceptions about Buddhism, and as a result reaches a lot of false conclusions. Is there some reason people take this guy seriously?
>>7890159
>Do I need the ego death on mushrooms?
Ego-death is just as useful to this as lung-death or arm-death. Do you cry uncontrolably every time you lose a hair or break a nail? It's simply a matter of not being attached.
>>7890535
Why does it matter if they're sincere or not? Are you afraid you'll end up being convinced by lies, or that you'll waste your time? Why would that matter given no one can get it right? Plus people have always fashioned themselves due to their circumstances, our time is no different.
>>7891049
It's a time questions - is someone censors himself, I bet there's someone more free writing similar but more valuable stuff.
>>7890368
read siddhartha
Hey ive seen the following posted on /his/ and other Stirner threads by an Orthodox Christian. How correct is this understanding of Stirner is it accurate in how it states his views and arguments?
>Q5: Concerning Stirner's case for the irrelevance of God.
>A5: Stirner says we are all driven purely by the bodily (“the spirit, which is not regarded as the property of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a ghost”) pain and pleasure. We make idols of ourselves, and do everything in latria to them (idol + latria), however else we try to rationalize it. This actually is the Orthodox perspective. According to the Philokalia, the “knowledge” (used as synonymous with sexual intecourse in Hebrew) of “good and evil” is about carnal good and evil, which are pleasure and pain. These are not bad things per se, but we became enslaved to them. Christians are indeed involuntary egoists, because Christianity is about escaping these things as our masters. Here is Saint Maximos the Confessor, as quoted in the Philokalia: “Since man came into being composed of noetic soul and sentient body, one interpretation could be that the tree of life is the soul’s intellect, which is the seat of wisdom. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil would then be the body’s power of sensation, which is clearly the seat of mindless impulses. Man received the divine commandment not to involve himself actively and experientially with these impulses; but he did not keep the commandment. Both trees in Scripture symbolize the intellect and the senses. Thus the intellect has the power to discriminate between the spiritual and the sensible, between the eternal and the transitory. Or rather, as the soul’s discriminatory power, the intellect persuades the soul to cleave to the first and to transcend the second. The senses have the power to discriminate between pleasure and pain in the body. Or rather, as a power existing in a body endowed with soul and sense-perception, they persuade the body to embrace pleasure and reject pain.” God ordained us as absolute masters of the material (Hebrews 2:8), but we became enslaved by the deceit of hamartia, so that a veil is before our eyes, which can only be lifted by Christ, it can only be washed off by God’s Blood. See A6h of this FAQ for more on the post-fall material world.
>>7892486
you cannot reconcile christcuck shit with stirner, stop trying to force it
>>7892497
Where are the errors if any in this comment?
>>7892486
yeah most religions are about escaping hedonism of the body, the problem is that most religions remain on the level of the hedonism of the soul [aka the states of contemplations] and, in the dhamma, even these states (jhanas) are not meant to be the goal. In the dhamma, the hedonism of the body supports the hedonism of the soul/spirit/consciousness which support nibanna.
The problem of the religions is that
-they do not have a clear manual to go into spiritual hedonism and leave material hedonism
-these doctrines want to regulate people 'life through some structure and it always fail, since most humans love material hedonism far too much and even when they manage to reach the spiritual hedonism, they still cling to at least one hedonism. most people are to hedonistic to even think of leaving hedonism.
It is not wrong nor right.
>>7892486
>Stirner says we are all driven purely by the bodily
Firt line and he's already wrong. The rest is pure mongolism.
>>7892589
This.
>>7892486
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>7890972
>Uh, property? I was describing the spook-ego, not the Ego.
Indeed. But the Ego is its property that it "eats."
What ever.
>>7893498
Is that why the spooks itself, so that it can eat itself?
>>7893498
The one that can be named, is not the Unique one.
>>7893975
Part of its Owning "things" is part of its "ownness."When "it" eats things its participating in its ownness.
It's a non-categorical character trait
>>7892589
Then what is meant by that quote mentioned there?
>>7894167
Only that spirit isn't the proper ego, as it is subordinate to the bodily ego.
>philosopher so unimportant that there’s not even a real picture of him
Why won’t faggots on /lit/ shut up about this guy?
>>7894022
I'm only trying to make you see the Ego should only be spoken of negatively, and even then understood not to be the negation. Everything else is reduction.
>>7894180
Typical cuck frog, he will only recognize only the things imposed on him and not what he possesses, thinking he needs to rely on the might of others because his will not do.
>>7894186
It shouldn't be spoken of negatively or positively, because it transcends the duality of language. The only thing that we can say is that it exists, that's it (that's what Stirner himself said anyway). I know it can't be categorized, but I'm trying to hold a conversation with you
>>7894197
>The only thing that we can say is that it exists
Are we to deny it inexistence?
>>7894201
>" ... but this, that I consume myself, means only that I am. "
>that I am
>I AM
>AM
>>7894203
I'm asking you, not the book.
>>7894205
Yes. I think it exists. It's outside of space-time, Kant's categories, etc.
>>7894176
How does that defeat his argument if the spirit is subordinate?
Does Stirner mean something different by spirit?
>>7894222
The body isn't the proper ego either.
>>7894210
I see. To me even existence isn't enough for it.
>>7894295
What is the spirit?
>>7894439
Mostly what you would call the mind.
>>7879498
How do you decide what to do if you have no concept of your values, goals, dreams, etc? Not all of us are content to sit around meditating our lives away.
>>7894600
>How do you decide what to do if you have no concept of your values, goals, dreams, etc?
Ask a dog.
>>7894600
Cynicism is for you. Follow the path of the Dog.
>>7894941
People who apparently think dogs are like monks. Why a person would think this is impossible to say, but the people here repeating it probably have never actually thought about it, so its plausibility is not very important.
>>7894945
considering dogs lose all composure the moment they spot a rabbit or squirrel I don't think that's a very apt comparison either
>>7894945
Dogs have no concept of values, goals, dreams etc yet they manage to do things all the time.
>>7879667
how would he do that when he's a cuckold who gets humiliated by his own wife fucking other men?
>>7895900
>cuckold
More like golddigger who didn't give a fuck. While she was fucking around he was spending her fortune on designer milk shops.
>>7894941
Sources on the Cynics:
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/cynics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/cynics/
http://www.mediafire.com/?zp2ppnxjwj28c
Arranged in order of complexity. The latter contains academic works on Cynicism, to my knowledge most important works written about the subject.
>>7895915
Truly the pinnacle of Man. No wonder he didn't have a family.
>>7896673
his babby died desu
So correct me if I'm wrong but is Stirner's whole deal that everything is made up and we can do whatever we want?
>>7897130
Pretty much in the sense that he dismissed the reasons why we couldn't do what we want.
Ive read the ego and its own once however looking over this thread realized I remembered or misunderstood a lot of it. What would be some good books/essays to read before having a re read?
hard bop
>>7894945
The idea isn't to view Dogs as monks but to view Dogs and how they behave and live. Its taking qualities from Dogs that would help make your life easier. Dogs don't need much to be happy and there is a lot to take from studying their natural life.
>>7899501
>Dogs don't need much to be happy and there is a lot to take from studying their natural life.
>Laughing Wittgenstein
>>7899501
Natural life is one of the biggest spooks there is
>>7897880
do you read german?
>>7899700
Unfortunately nothing beyond a preschool level.
>>7899682
Does it really bother you that much seeing people being fine with being themselves?
>>7897880
"Stirner's Critics" by Stirner. It's his response to the responses to his work.
>start reading the ego and his own
>expect to get memed on with autistic ranting about socialism
>genealogical account of the spook legitimately disturbs me
FUCK YOU /lit/
Somebody should start a petition to dig up his skull in order to do that facial reconstruction thing... So that we could finally see the real Max
>>7879519
whats this guys deal, hes always twtichy and stuttery, has he got a disorder?
>>7881188
the fat buddah your thinking of is "budai" which is a man from chineese folk story who carrys and hempen bag which is translated to "budai" which supposadly had sweets in for children, which is not the buddah
>>7899802
'The revival of Stirner' (1974) by Stepelevich is neat in that it touches mostly on the reception of Stirner. It's old but mentions a lot of Stirner's key critics and key studies done on Stirner.
Other than that, Palgrave Macmillan recently published a collection of essays on him, edited by Saul Newman. Among other things, it contains a translation of a text written under a presumed pen name of Stirner's in response to his critics, so that's cool.
>>7902653
Thank you this is the kind of stuff Ive been looking for
>>7902403
No meme is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every meme is a piece of the internet,
A part of the world.
If a board be washed away by the mods,
4chan is the less.
As well as if a dl site were.
As well as if an email of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any meme's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in memery,
And therefore never send to know for whom the fire rises;
He's big for you.
>>7895915
Designer milk??
>>7897130
He doesn't ask whether a coin, a mother or 4chan is made up.
He's concerned with notions that people use as guides for doing things.
Nationalism, freedom, veganism, human rights, god, rigor, class struggle, the pay gap, traffic laws, Christianity, the /lit/ life, your health, the American way of life, society ... those can be spooks.
>>7903224
i like this
>>7903350
Name of book?
>>7890826
The wind is blowing in a most pleasant way today.
>>7890889
You're holding onto words too much.
>>7903581
what thread do you think you're in?
>>7895931
Thank you for this.
no amount of pop philosophers will bringe you peace ot your soul
accept god and start asking for wisdom, or you will erase yourself trying to prove that you exist
>>7903620
>accept god and start asking for wisdom
This is much easier said then done given that we are in an age where atheism and agnosticism is no longer people revolting Jesus but people with almost no knowledge of him at all. The modern athiest rebels against Christ as much as he does Allah or Krishna
How would Stirner refute the position that we are all involuntary egoists? hence can never act against our interests
artsy Stacey(that's actually her name)just made tinder useful to me
>>7906806
If you had read his book you would've known that he supports that position.
>>7908192
But from the psychological egoist viewpoint spooks and fixed ideas are not external to us which goes against his views
>>7902431
He suffers from a pure case of ideology
bomp
>>7908143
I'd wear one tbqh
