I'm 15 and found someone edgier than Nietzsche

fuck anime

that's true because most people who say things against Stirner have never read the einzige and its property

...

I didn't say anything about Stirner tho. I'm insulting a portion of his followers.

...

k

me

seriously don't post that shit here
you may wake up in a gulag

...

Stirner's thought doesn't mean you have to be a mean, pointless asshole.

I got the impression that what he wanted is a reflection on thoughts and actions stripped naked of any transcendental or immanent justification outside your single existence, nothing less and nothing more.

If that for you means random and senseless violence, you're not that different from the people who say you can't be moral without religion. In fact, you're pulling up another wall of human nature that needs terror and lies to stay in line.

His altruist egoist seems vaguely familiar to the absurd in a way, despite being opposite in other points, but maybe it's because I read Der Einzige and Sickness unto Death in tandem.

if you don't like anime then you can visit a wide range of internet sites such as reddit or facebook which don't have anything to do with anime and where you'll find yourself more at home

Reddit is filled with neckbeard animefags
Facebook is shit

Why don't you go back to /a/?

d o n ' t
t e s t
m e
n e w f a g

because you cant shitpost about max stirner on /a/

Don't particularly agree with that interpretation, but yeah, there are good Stirnerites and I feel bad for that very tiny minority.

...

okay whatever.
here have a drink.

...

sorry i dont drink shampoo

no seriously plz go to Reddit or something already

I know you've been using them interchangeably, which is why you are wrong.

Modern Greek has a huge problem with that, because most languages use the latin and the greek-derived words for the same thing with slightly different meanings, and we only have the original word or its degeneration.

For example, you can't differentiate republic from democracy and so on.

it's not just shampoo
it's a traditional drink

k

Holy shit, you dumb fam

This
Post those pepes everywhere pls.

...

nice recorder

Which doesn't have any actual implication outside of theoretical debates regarding it, and even then de maistre pretty much refuted that shit.

I'm 21 actually

Fucking dropped.

Pick it up again.

I bet you have a trampling fetish

I have a sympathy for this kind of thing due to Chateaubriand, he was an aesthetic prodigy.

It's not seeking any theoretical debate, and in its way it disposes of the empiricist/rationalist dichotomy, as per the whole point of that 'existence precedes essence' that caused such a fuss a century later.

By understanding, in a experiential/deductive way that all the mental structures from past, present and future have been the creations of human minds when faced with certain material condition, you have a clear slate when you conduct your life.

Stirner doesn't bide you to follow anything, and you need a kind of depersonalization, for lack of a better world, to get rid of the insulting undertones in the book.

Side note: the French Royalists had an anguish and a passion similar to this board, at least tangentially.

Even though the crests and the facades went strong for a good few decades, they all knew that after its deposition the Ancien Regime or any of its permutations had no staying power or real ideological base.

In a way they fought their own fights and searched for their own leap of faith as they were getting swept away by liberalism, and their survival into 20th century reaction was more grotesque than anything.
They were the right wing of Romanticism, so to speak.

I reckon you've already read Mishima, he was the 20th century Chateaubriand, maybe even better. He elucidates the power structures as a whimsical and passionate search emanating out of himself, as something static that he had to reach on a transcendental move.

tl;dr : post-1789 reaction is romantic as fuck and more existential than Kierkegaard

ps: France has a knack for political necromancy, that was De Gaulle's whole purpose

What point exactly do you mean? About the base?

literally NOTHING wrong with having a trampling fetish

With his conclusion being the exact opposite.

Everytime monarchy is mentioned Holla Forums's collective anal fixation is triggered.

What's wrong with egoism?

monarchy isn't as bad as a lot of forms of government
There, I said it.

Sure, but if it translates to your politics, I'm going to have a giggle.

It would take me a while to find the exact quote, but I think it's around the part where he talks about "the hierarchy of thoughts".

I'm not hearing how he's wrong though.

Funny how you go straight to anal instead of oral.

A neutered monarchy like in your country, maybe.

Good Job, you are a pro civ/status quo fag. Would you kindly leave the chinese forum of radical reform of a whole society and economuc system and take your society apologist crap with you?

We dont know stirner his thought of his philosophy at all but only his presentation (Oppossed to the Content) of his idea's wich we can only read by our interpitation. Knowing the TRUE (True as in the interpitations of the creator of the theory) content is impossible as that can only be done by dialogue in the present moment with the creator of the ideas presented. And those idea's have been (According to my interpitation) been disregarded by Stirner into playfull (Playing with idealism) nihilism.
(The whole Presentation/Content thing i came up with ss inspired by the criticism of Stirner by Lacan around the whole Speaking/Spoken concept. ''“the subject not insofar as it produces discourse but insofar as it is produced, cornered even, by discourse” )
lacanonline.com/index/2011/05/three-ways-to-understand-the-subject-of-the-statement-and-the-subject-of-the-enunciation/
(My interpitation could be missing the point but thats the problem of presentation of ideas wich all boil down to own interpitation without knowing the the true content of the creator of this idea's expressed in langauge.)

Ego and his Own begins with…
'I' have set my affair on 'nothing'.

What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the Good Cause, then God’s cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never to be my concern. “Shame on the 'egoist' who thinks only of 'himself!'”

[…]

The divine is God’s concern; the human, man’s. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is — 'unique', as 'I' am 'unique'.

'Nothing' is more to me than 'myself'!

He starts this part with the Egoist and then ends up with the Unique. Are they the same, no they are not. The Ego is the final spook to be abolished as the book presents (We cant know the actual content of Stirner his thought sadly so these are all mine interpitations.) in the end.

'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 set my affair on myself the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say: I have set my affair on nothing.'

The Unique one is Nothing, the egoist has dwelled his destroyed the last fixed idea wich is the ego and now only remains in the rhealm of nihilism. (Rhealm of idea's with not a single idea around)

This piece of an essay explains the rest nicely.
''Stirner writes: '“When Fichte says, ‘the ego is all,’ this seems to harmonize perfectly with my thesis. But it is not that the ego is all, but the ego destroys all, and only the self-dissolving ego, the never-being ego, the— finite ego is really I.' Fichte speaks of the ‘absolute’ ego, but I speak of me, 'the transitory ego.'” (1995, p. 163) Stirner’s ego is always in activity, never a principle of justification or axiom of a system; it is not one, but rather only 'named as one by its uniqueness as such'. By qualifying this account of the name ego/I, we come to a point at which we realize it’s purely 'functional character.'

''This is the fundamental ambiguity around which Stirner’s text revolves: what is the ego’s self-relation? In Marx’s terms, what is the proletariat’s relation to labor? At different points in the text, the ego posits itself, dissolves itself, consumes itself, creates itself, destroys itself, enjoys itself, swallows itself, empowers itself, reveals itself, uses itself, abuses itself, owns itself. What exactly is going on here?

Is the ego really anything at all? Is it ‘acting’? Specifically, what does it mean to “consume oneself” and exist only in consuming, in which “consuming my presuppositions,” I am? It seems as though consumption means to continually recycle the creations or positions of myself as myself. To recycle them, is to abuse their purpose, destroy their independence, dissolve their substantiality, and (re)use them for something again, anything at all. This is the perpetual cycle of consumption and creation, the logic of use and abuse which Stirner will call property''
(theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jacob-blumenfeld-all-things-are-nothing-to-me.html)

We see this back here.

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.

And

I want only to be careful to secure my property to myself; and, in order to secure it, I continually take it back into myself, annihilate in it every movement toward independence, and swallow it before it can fix itself and become a “fixed idea” or a “mania.

What the book presents is the egoistic act of taking all idea's from their owners (fixed idea's taking possession of other idea's meaning interpreting/critiqueing/supporting idea's with an idealogical lense for the sake/benefit/ownership of the idea wich its all about in the idealogy.) and bringing them to yourself to let you interpret existance (Rhealm of idea's so All Existance from the point of vieuw of Idealism.>inb4 Materialism (Materialism is a form of Idealism)) as it is. (Wich eventually is realized to be Nothing thus coming to the rhealm of Nihilism)

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

Want to read Ego and his Own in its best presentation? Then change Max Stirner with Anonymous and you will be mutch closer to the (My supposed) Intend of the creator wich is to read by means of self theory and take these idea's from the creator and to make them your own. Anonymous is (according to my interpitation) a playfull nihilist and his toys are called subjectivity and his house is called Nihilism.

uh, spooks dude. xd

if you have read the first chapther of Ego and his own then you see the explination of how we grow up. First become the realistic child and then we become the idealistic youth and THEN we become the mature egoist. We are all products of society and the egoist after its creation by society disregards it and creates himself and thanks society for creating its own demise. (In the mind of the Egoist wich eventually too will be destroyed by the creative nothing wich it came from)

Without doubt culture has made me powerful. It has given me power over all motives, over the impulses of my nature as well as over the exactions and violences of the world. I know, and have gained the force for it by culture, that I need not let myself be coerced by any of my appetites, pleasures, emotions, etc.; I am their — master; in like manner I become, through the sciences and arts, the master of the refractory world, whom sea and earth obey, and to whom even the stars must give an account of themselves. The spirit has made me master. — But I have no power over the spirit itself. From religion (culture) I do learn the means for the “vanquishing of the world,” but not how I am to subdue God too and become master of him; for God “is the spirit.” And this same spirit, of which I am unable to become master, may have the most manifold shapes; he may be called God or National Spirit, State, Family, Reason, also — Liberty, Humanity, Man.

I receive with thanks what the centuries of culture have acquired for me; I am not willing to throw away and give up anything of it: I have not lived in vain. The experience that I have power over my nature, and need not be the slave of my appetites, shall not be lost to me; the experience that I can subdue the world by culture’s means is too dear- bought for me to be able to forget it. But I want still more.

He is more on a pirate going to your island called ism's and taking all what he desires with his might. Individuals can exist on the islands of ism's but their self interest serve the interest of the fixed idea as they depend on the fixed idea. They unconciously use the fixed idea for their benefit and the fixed idea uses them to realize its own existance. The Possessed are only half egoists as they follow the idea in self interest but also defend the idea as they depend on their owner to exist. Like a slave being afraid to free himself and wandering on the wild sea's of nothingness alone. The slave of the fixed idea submits cause he is afraid whats beyond the island of the fixed idea with his fellow individuals, these individuals proudly proclaim their indentity/being as being Christian/Humanist. They say 'I' am a humanist or Communist! They mean their Individuality is partly defined by their island, by that wich they need and thus depend upon. An drugdealer once from isreal told me something interested wich is related to this.. If you want to Own and Controle people then make them depend on you meaning if you own what an other wants then they will submit to you for their own self interest and thus you can do what you want with them and the silly thing remains is that they say I am your slave.

The commonalty, because it proclaimed the freedom of Man only as to his birth, had to leave him in the claws of the un-human man (the egoist) for the rest of life. Hence under the regime of political liberalism egoism has an immense field for free utilization.

The laborer will utilize society for his egoistic ends as the commoner does the State. You have only an egoistic end after all, your welfare, is the humane liberal’s reproach to the Socialist; take up a purely human interest, then I will be your companion. “But to this there belongs a consciousness stronger, more comprehensive, than a laborer-consciousness”. “The laborer makes nothing, therefore he has nothing; but he makes nothing because his labor is always a labor that remains individual, calculated strictly for his own want, a labor day by day.”[39] In opposition to this one might, e.g., consider the fact that Gutenberg’s labor did not remain individual, but begot innumerable children, and still lives today; it was calculated for the want of humanity, and was an eternal, imperishable labor.

Thread Theme
youtu.be/0RXomI65nek

What have you then when you have freedom, viz., — for I will not speak here of your piecemeal bits of freedom — complete freedom? Then you are rid of everything that embarrasses you, everything, and there is probably nothing that does not once in your life embarrass you and cause you inconvenience. And for whose sake, then, did you want to be rid of it? Doubtless for your sake, because it is in your way! But, if something were not inconvenient to you; if, on the contrary, it were quite to your mind (e.g. the gently but irresistibly commanding look of your loved one) — then you would not want to be rid of it and free from it. Why not? For your sake again! So you take yourselves as measure and judge over all. You gladly let freedom go when unfreedom, the “sweet service of love,” suits you; and you take up your freedom again on occasion when it begins to suit you better — i. e., supposing, which is not the point here, that you are not afraid of such a Repeal of the Union for other (perhaps religious) reasons.

Bruno Bauer states (e.g. Judenfrage, p. 84) that the truth of criticism is the final truth, and in fact the truth sought for by Christianity itself — to wit, “Man.” He says, “The history of the Christian world is the history of the supreme fight for truth, for in it — and in it only! — the thing at issue is the discovery of the final or the primal truth — man and freedom.”

All right, let us accept this gain, and let us take man as the ultimately found result of Christian history and of the religious or ideal efforts of man in general. Now, who is Man? I am! Man, the end and outcome of Christianity, is, as I, the beginning and raw material of the new history, a history of enjoyment after the history of sacrifices, a history not of man or humanity, but of — me. Man ranks as the general. Now then, I and the egoistic are the really general, since every one is an egoist and of paramount importance to himself. The Jewish is not the purely egoistic, because the Jew still devotes himself to Jehovah; the Christian is not, because the Christian lives on the grace of God and subjects himself to him. As Jew and as Christian alike a man satisfies only certain of his wants, only a certain need, not himself: a half-egoism, because the egoism of a half-man, who is half he, half Jew, or half his own proprietor, half a slave. Therefore, too, Jew and Christian always half-way exclude each other; i.e. as men they recognize each other, as slaves they exclude each other, because they are servants of two different masters. If they could be complete egoists, they would exclude each other wholly and hold together so much the more firmly. Their ignominy is not that they exclude each other, but that this is done only half-way. Bruno Bauer, on the contrary, thinks Jews and Christians cannot regard and treat each other as “men” till they give up the separate essence which parts them and obligates them to eternal separation, recognize the general essence of “Man,” and regard this as their “true essence.”

Also the first chapther is called I. A Human Life anyone who still holds the product of society argument has clearly skipped this chapter.

Also anyone who calls himself an Egoist or an Stirnerite has missed the point so hard that they should be laughted at. And anyone who refutes Stirner (Who doesnt exist) is only refuting their own interpitations inspired by the WORDS of Stirner. The point (by my interpitation) of the ego and his own is self theory in the rhealm of nihilism and not to be an egoist or something stupid like that (The Ego is self-dissolving, the never-being, the— finite ego thus can never be set in past or future but only is the present wich dissolves itself as its a creative nothing). Only post-left theorists and some anarcho-individualists like Wolfi Landstreicher, Renzo Novatore, Jason McQuinn and Lawrence S. Stepelevich understand this and expanded on it. Revolutionary Self Theory even came from the people who pre-supposed post left anarchy with the group called For Ourselfs'' .
lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/SelfTheory/SelfTheory.htm

There is no anarcho-egoism or stirnerite's or egoists, there is only that wich is nothing wich creates (Creative Nothing/The Unique that creates self theory).

Everyone their interpitation is wrong and my interpitation is right.

Subjectivity Wins Again!

How do we deal with the anime problem?

(you)
By going to more normie friendly places like facebook. Also Bump :^)

Apu is the only solution

What problem?