Is this man worth reading /Leftypol(?
So far from a few quotes I have read from him and reading a little bit from wikipedia, he is picking my attention.
Diogenes of Sinope.
Is this man worth reading /Leftypol(?
You should, especially since there's not much to read by him. You get nearly the entire Diogenes experience when you read Diogenes Laertius's short biography.
You get nearly the entire Diogenes experience when you read Diogenes Laertius's short biography.
Does any one have it in PDF?
Preferably in Spanish(Castellano/Español preferentemente de latino América.)
ayy lmao fellow pirate is from latin america
He was ancient max stirner
Search this on library genesis:
Diogenes the Cynic: Sayings and Anecdotes
It has more testimonia than just Diogenes Laertius'.
I strip a chicken of its feathers and call it man
stirner didnt live what he preached
I read a book on sayings and anecdotes of him. He's interesting, by no means especially good at reasoning or wise. He's just a figure of interest more than any real philosopher.
He also lays a lot of sick burns on the other philosophers
That's a kind of silly thing to say, given that what Stirner preaches is essentially subjectivity.
This is what I read.
Behold, a spook!
what Stirner preaches is essentially subjectivity.
You realise that Marx took Stirner's rational self interest concept and ripped it straight out of Ego and Its Own in order to mix it with collectives and call it a day, right?
Why do you think Marx claims the state is acting in the interest of a class, or why he models classes as one? Because he claims they all have the same material interests.
what Stirner preaches is essentially subjectivity
what does that even mean?
The mature Marx barely (if at all) uses the term "individual" – his "science" takes as its starting point society as such. Read Althusser's For Marx
It means how it sounds. What does it sound like?
Stirner's book is an exercise in sarcasm, that is, it's a polemic against Hegelian logic and its claim to be able to unite the individual and universal.
Stirner rejects history and the notion of unification between universal and individual.
the (economic) individual is a starting point of classical and neo-classical economics
Marx's materialist dialectics doesn't need to account for it
"barely uses the term individual"
Yes because as I say, he rips it off and applies it to material relations. So he claims that Proles acting in their rational self interest overturn capitalism.
There's a really good essay here:
Why did you think he spent 400 pages of German Ideology on him? He took something from every person he criticised in that book, of *course* he took from Stirner as well.
German Ideology is trying to show Stirner that if proles act in their self interest, it necessarily leads to communism. And Stirner actually thought of himself as a communist, according to certain followers.
And so the response to Stirner, the majority of the manuscript of The German Ideology is an attempt to prove that egoism must immediately “change into communism”, that “egoistic man” is bound to become “communist” out of egoism alone. But not only this. Engels: “But we must also adopt such truth as there is in the principle. And it is certainly true that we must first make a cause our own, egoistic cause, before we can do anything to further it – and hence that in this sense, irrespective of any eventual material aspirations, we are communists out of egoism also…” (1982: 12) Not only does egoism lead to communism, but egoism is the first cause of communism, its ground and foundation, that “irrespective of any material aspirations” makes us communists. Again from Engels: “We must take our departure from the Ego, the empirical, flesh-and-blood individual.” (1982:12)
Hegelian logic and its claim to be able to unite the individual and universal
Hegel doesn't do this, btw
class interest =/= ind. interest
I agree with you, go tell Marx that.
Marx took shit from ppl he criticized
read althusser to understand Marx's epistemological break with Hegel & the Young Hegelians
Marx does not equate the two
Marx didn't, though. You need to re-read the wiki, rebel.
Fuck Althusser, no.
refer to that quote from Engels
Engels: “But we must also adopt such truth as there is in the principle. And it is certainly true that we must first make a cause our own, egoistic cause, before we can do anything to further it – and hence that in this sense, irrespective of any eventual material aspirations, we are communists out of egoism also…”
“We must take our departure from the Ego, the empirical, flesh-and-blood individual.” (1982:12)
No, he does conflate them when it comes to politics. Of course he's not saying they are the exact same, but he argues that everyone acting in rational self interest is the same as revolution to liberate the proletarians.
tfw nobody can suggest that I read something, but I can constantly tell others what to read constantly
I can at least argue for what I read. You don't seem capable of arguing.
told to read
furious google search session
google: marx individual
google: engels individual
tripfags will be the first to be gulag'd
Confirmed for not reading the essay I sent.
You're a lazy pseud.
Did you really just write that though.
paying attention to that attention-dependent piece of shit
That's because I'm criticizing you as a person. I'm not trying to criticize your views. Grow a thick skin faggot
Why should he read something you suggest when you refuse to read what others suggest to you? Get your head out of ass.
You do understand that a class acting in its interests isn't the same as a group of individuals acting in their self-interests, no?
Yo tenía el libro complete de las biografias de filosofos de Laertus pero era antiquísimo entonses escribian mugger en vez de mujer
Can we do something about these fucking faggots pissing and moaning about trips in every thread? They're worse than the fucking tripfags at this point.
Mods, check if they post exclusively about trips and if they do ban them as pol trying to slide the board.
Start arguing any time.
NO SHIT READ GERMAN IDEOLOGY
Marx says class interest is the same as individual interest
get called out for being a moron
Well of course he didn't say they were the same!!!
I know how to fix that ban the trip fags and we'll stop complaining
IDIOT FOOL MORON
A. Class. Working. Entirely. In. Their. Rational. Self. Interest. Leads. To. Communism. Due. To. Material. Interests.
I know we're being whiny bitches but please give us what we want waaaaahhhh
committing error, associating it with X
u realize u r error & the association too?
'haha, read X, haha
class =/= individual
Yeah. The class is working in it's rational self interest. He's not talking about individuals.
How does it feel to be offended at anybody who criticizes you as a person?
Wahhhhhh people on Holla Forums aren't nice to me especially when I start acting like a pseudo intellectual attention whore on Holla Forums
Go back to reddit and/or tumblr if you want people to love you and circle jerk around you faggot
Yes, of course, I just said that Engels wrote that they needed to move away from ego. But the idea that Marx didn't just repackage Stirner after getting triggered by him in order to try and save his ideas is nonsense.
in what way marx repackaged stirner?
how do you read this paragraph by Stirner:
"Not till one has fallen in love with his corporeal self, and takes a pleasure in himself as a living
flesh-and-blood person — but it is in mature years, in the man, that we find it so — not till then has
one a personal or egoistic interest, i.e. an interest not only of our spirit, e.g., but of total satisfaction,
satisfaction of the whole chap, a selfish interest. Just compare a man with a youth, and see if he will
not appear to you harder, less magnanimous, more selfish. Is he therefore worse? No, you say; he has
only become more definite, or, as you also call it, more “practical.” But the main point is this, that he
makes himself more the center than does the youth, who is infatuated about other things, e.g. God,
Not till one has fallen in love with his corporeal self
Absolutely disgusting bastardization of love.
Love is a truth-procedure in which two individuals create the means through which the two experience themselves as one.
How can you love if you dont love yourself.
I think it's based, and very similar to Works of Love (if you interpret Stirner correctly as the self being directly related to property)
Sorry I wanna do philosophy but I'm drunk and about to get high so night night
I hope you die
I am invulnerable to your insults during my Drunk Empathy Boost so ha!
Like seriously user, I really love you though.
One's relation to oneself (name it consciousness, self-reflection, whatever) is not the same as one's relation to a significant other with whom he constructs a common life.
"Self-love" imo is bourg ideology, taking the "economic individual" and raising it to the level of the sacred (as an absolutely distinguished something).
That actually makes me hope you die even more
There's self-love (of which erotic love is a part) and then there's love of the absolute which I want for everyone.
But I love you so much…..
Well I'm going to make you cry by abusing you even more you piece of shit. I hope you fucking kill yourself. Just end your miserable life you attention whore.
rebel's reaction to this thread
Well I'm going to make you cry by abusing you even more you piece of shit.
What's worse is the petty attention you give him, looking out for his Twitter and Dubtrack messages and posting them here.
You're bigger cancer.
I get the general sentiment but wtf can you do with his presence? Until he has some kind of break from his self-imposed faggotry he'll be around.
Why is she so spooked
Thank you man I will look it up.
Yo tenía el libro complete de las biografias de filosofos de Laertus.
Dime el Nombre del libro man, yo conozco unas librerías que huelen a orina de gato, pero te puedes encontrar de todo.
mfw my thread is high jacked by Rebel.
Was not my intention my pirate friend, sorry.
Lea "refranes y anecdotas".
Si a ud no le molesta leer en pantalla digital ha de ser muy facil de conseguir