I try to be the least spooked as I possibly can be

it's precisely these passages which cause me to find marx idealist. mankind. the universal. These are abstractions, ambiguous and found only in the mind of the individual.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that as an egoist, I should make the best out of what is actually present instead of longing for spooks that only bring promises.

but the future is ambiguous. if you can live freer of spooks in the current society than you should oppose revolutions which would impose more on you. that is not to say there are not many spooks now, its just that you have to do some cross benefit analysis

You think there exists anything outside of the mind of the individual?

Guys.

This guy is not arguing in good faith.
He got butthurt by a Stirnerite and came to shitpost.

When I look at people who are successful in fulfilling their ego's, they're mostly moderate liberals, with communists tending to be miserable and there being no sign of their spook rewarding them with it's promises.

"Man is a species-being, not only because he practically and theoretically makes the species – both his own and those of other things – his object, but also – and this is simply another way of saying the same thing – because he looks upon himself as the present, living species, because he looks upon himself as a universal and therefore free being." – Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

The material world. But that which is material and does not relate to me is irrelevant and thus nothing.

Marx is once again incorrect here, and has begun to use a sort of circular logic. He already refers to "Man" as a universal subject before saying he is a species being. Rather instead, individual men view themselves as related to a universal idea of mankind. To them, mankind is only an idea. But this is an illusion in all cases except one. When a man realizes that there is no universal, only the particular, and that all that is particular to him, IS HIM!

What makes you think the material world exists?

Because it relates to me. If it does not, and I only have the idea of the material world, it matters not, for I find more pleasing to my ego to act in a manner in which it does exist than if I believed and acted as if it did not.

"In the particular is contained the universal." – James Joyce

youtube.com/watch?v=LpZXRaZtL-g

I'll listen to it, but I'd appreciate a summary or a point

There isn't really a summary of it.

From what I can tell so far Lacan was trying to say that there were universal sexual differences in the world/human action because human psychology was predisposed to see it so. For example, finding perversion in acts were there is no logical reason to suppose perversion. And then defends this as reality by saying reality is incomplete without fiction (which I agree with). But I disagree with the chaining of this logic.

Lacan and Zizek's project here is not to psychoanalyze the individual, but to psychoanalyze society. All of their claims about society may indeed be true in the correspnosive and coherent sense. But the individual, and indeed the egoist, has no concern for this beyond its immediate usefulness and what is already a part of him (which cannot be the purely universal). For what is a societal conception of something need not be my conception of something, nor does it make that view on reality my view on reality.

Reality, the universal, and even sexual difference is only real so much as it is real to me. Zizek himself talks of the exception to categorization, and how hegel sees that everything is an exception, because examples will always contain more contain than the ideas that represent them. He and Marx solve this by saying that there is an exception to exception, that this gives birth to universality. Stirner and I choose to solve this by putting in in the context of being. All things are nothing to me, for all that relates to me is already me. I am the form and the object. There is no exception, and there is no rule. There is only me. There is, after all, no context besides being.

also
top kek

I just don't care and fuck you got mine can be a response to literally everything. It's just the deadest of dead ends.

Also

There is no such thing as private language.

I find it disappointing that that's what you got out of that. I assure you that I do care, because what is mine is quite expansive. Using stirner's definition of property, you'd find it is impossible to care about that which is not yours.

but that's precisely what hegel and zizek imply. language itself cannot be universal, because each instance of language engages in more than universal conceptions. there are minute differences between how I communicate and how everyone else communicates, and indeed, I have noticed that much gets lost in translation. universal elements could conceivably exist due to the exception to the exception existing in concrete reality, but for individuals existing as particular individuals, these are nothing to us.

It's what comes out through the phrases; I am all and nothing, everything is mine, ying and yang, all in me.. the usual way in which stirnerites talk. It remains the dead end, from which an escape is then made by giving the terms an all-encompassing meaning that makes them become either a truism or a nothingness.

There not being private language does not imply a static universal, it means that the universal needs particularity. The lack in the universality of language does not undermine it's universality, it's exactly because of it's universality.

The true dead end is allowing yourself to be taken in by notions that you are somehow a universal in the ultimate sense, that you are nothing more than a social agent moving along a historical path. Where has that gotten us? The deification of history and society, that's where.

The universality of the ego masks the truth that I am who I am, you are who you are, and it is impossible to say we are anything else. I will live my life as I see fit, ruling it by the principles I choose, and breaking those principles if I so desire. I serve no higher purpose because no higher purpose exists. I support an end to capitalism on these grounds, radical egalitarianism, societal institutions all individuals have credible sway in as well.

Yes the universal as a concept needs the particular, but how can you say the universal, in this supreme form, exists to begin with? You cannot point to the universal and say "there it is!" You point to particular actions instead.

Liberalism is a spook.

The deadness of predestination does not give any liveliness to the stirnerite cliché's.

This is exactly the dead end which I spoke of, in which all that remains is a marketplace. We are amoral agents whose only consideration is game theory strategy in fulfilling desires, whatever they are. It's practical implication would be an absurdity collapsing on itself, proclaiming to be authentic to our truest being, while resulting in an alienated sterility that couldn't be further from it. It is fundamentalism at it's purest.

I am what I am I do what I do, I want what I want.. all of those are simply statements, dead, final.

Because I wouldn't be able to converse with you without this universality. That language is incapable of some sort of ultimate meta-explanation does not mean that we cannot deduct that there is no private language.

Then why do you imbibe in it so?

for those with little imagination, I suppose.

On the contrary, those statements and the sterility of their descriptions mask the complexity and contradictions of the ego. The ego is unique in the ultimate sense of the word, to describe it would be pointless. It can only be observed.

But that's not true! You confuse universality with commonality! Indeed, this language is "ours" not the universe's. Show the conversation to an outsider who does not understand the implication of meme arrows or post numbers and they would be rather confused. Our conversation and our language here is one filled with idiosyncrasies relating to psychoanalysis, the english language, chan culture, and even the formatting of the website. If it was truly universal it would be understood by all, but instead some of it is only understood by some, and indeed, the content of the language cannot even be known in its entirety for even between us there is likely some misunderstanding.

I never did, not in the absolute sense you imply,

Imagining away the conclusions of your positions, otherwise so certainly proclaimed when those who don't abide to this game theory principle are being called spooked, is imagination too, I suppose.

Here we go again.. the ego is everything, infinite, absolute and therefor describing it in a string of simple statements is an answer to everything, because it actually contains all there is. It's "god works in mysterious ways", the dead end.

With the universality of language I'd obviously didn't refer to a language that is spoken by all, instead to the principle that it isn't private, that language itself requires the element of universality, not a universal language as such. This is one of those gaps in language, you interpret what I say in a very black/white manner.

Then you are doing what you do for egoistic reasons.

Lest you forget, emotions are a part of one's ego, and they do not abide by game theory. Egoism isn't the same as randian autism about ""rational"" self interest.

All there is to me. I don't see why anything else would be relevant. If you want to draw a bigger lesson from this, realize that egos make up society and not the other way around. There is an ontology, and it begins with being.

Then you are still only speaking of commonality, and even then, commonality is made up of and transformed by individual actions.

I am merely expecting you to speak in an oft accepted manner. Universality btfo once again I suppose.

thats it

It doesn't make an intrinsic difference as it subjects emotions to the non-spooked, game theory, confines of egoism, as egoists constantly do. To solve this , this ego is made up once again to contain everything, so that simply saying "ego" is both reason and answer for everything. The dead end, the mysterious ways.

There is no lesson to be drawn from this, it's an aphorism from which nothing follows. Like I said before, I could proclaim the whole of christianity to be true in the same manner by claiming god works in mysterious ways, it simply places the ultimate frame of reference into unarguable nothingness.

Individual but not private, big difference.

Then stop using ego and egoism outside of their common meaning.

In case you didn't know this, egoism makes no claim of being a philosophy of truth. it is a philosophy of action.

But that is precisely the only way christianity has logical consistency. I'd much rather critique christianity for when it uses God in its big otherness to interpret the world clearly and take action on it, usually in a reactionary manner.

The concept or privateness is a spook anyway.

On no, I was quite content to be surprised. In case you haven't noticed, I am very comfortable with the particular being unique.

Regardless, what are you trying to gain from this argument. To convince me to throw myself at creating a communist revolution and abandon all other worldly pleasures? Now who's peddling in zealotry and religious devotion. Communism will never win if it doesn't appeal to people's egoist desires directly, and attempting to invoke history or society as your new Big Other will only serve to alienate people from your cause.

Not that other user.
In advance, sorry for typing so casually, I'm sleepy.

What if "creating a communist revolution" is another "wordly pleasure"? Maybe it isn't for you yet; maybe it will never be, but, to imply Egoist-Communists do not exist is a delusional meme at best. Of all the people here it's only you who see no appeal on working towards communism, and that's OK, I guess, but "wordly pleasures" are not total, they depend of you, to some, working towards communism happens to be one of them, just like some others could enjoy sucking forks. If you want some hot rhetoric on why you should be a communist then read a book, lad.

I of course don't mean that people won't find pleasure in changing society for the better. But rather that you can't expect everyone to lay down their whole life. For most people there are many pleasures in life, things they find valuable, and it's a generally unhealthy thing for one single pleasure or idea to dominate all the others of an ego.

I'm a communist, I'm also here, behind a computer, having fun, both of those things are not mutually exclusive. I also happen to be into tea, fashion, philosophy, art and, to a lesser degree, shitposting. For one single pleasure to dominate you is only your fault, don't let other lads tell you what should dominate you either, you do you, but you're an Egoist so that goes without saying, right? Haha.

Stirner conceived of Egoism in a methodical sense, it was a process of reorienting oneself by the "forgetting" of prior notions picked up by habit and conditioning, by synthetic experiences. It is was a reminder to draw everything back to the transcendental ego, similar to the Husserlian "epoche". Who notably attempted to reconstruct the social in the context of embodiment, one's lifeworld and meaning can be recovered through examination of intersubjective coconstitution.

This is extremely advanced however, and was still automatically the position of the muh privileged, ivory tower "absent minded" professor, who is detatched from the existence of everyday life, even as war is waged around them. Other people are withdrawn into the noumenal background, as sitting quietly at their desk lost in rational contemplation. This is, too, the perspective of the cold and distant bureaucrat, the regime functionary, the social engineer, who perceives people as functional aggregates, hindrances to the "better" society rather than individuals worth consideration.

Which if taken further to bracket out all such prior notions as "subjective consciousness", "human nature", and the long-buried mistake of treating being itself as a being, one recovers again ones connection to the laborer, the people…

To the Black Forrest, to the Reichsfuhrer.

But that's the thing, I already said I'm anti-capitalist. I'm the head of my uni's socialist club, and I do plenty of debating and shitposting about this crap. I know you can have fun and be a communist. But how are you supposed to reconcile that with the view that man is a universal subject and we are living in hard historical determinism (and that the end goal of history is our utmost objective). Everyone I know who's held that view has been an unfun asshole more concerned with circle jerking about theory than actually get shit down.

Woah good job for completely missing all his points.

I think I got the gist of it.

Really? Because you're post says otherwise.

Not a refutation. You may need to be expelled from the rectorate.

Oops, sorry, I must've missed that.

Just don't. That's, quite literally, a spook, and you hate those, no need to reconcile, except if faking so in front of others, while low-key recognizing it as a meme, would help you get things done. Not like not being a historical determinist blocks you from being a communist anyways.

Same here, kind of a bummer, honestly, but that won't turn me down from my interest: communism, if I must join the circle jerk for the sake of challenging their inactivy/ views, I will, and I do, it's going fairly decently, I guess, though I'd much rather be around people more into getting stuff done, really, I do am working on it, and you should do too.

kek

+10 for FLCL posting.