Dubtrack Thread

That's just a boy in a wig.
In other words, the thinking man's wife.

I used to be a regular in the dubtrack room, but it just became too unpleasant. the room has next to nothing to do with leftypol, I think it's mostly run by Holla Forums users who want to troll leftists. I don't know why we allow this thread. One of the regulars in the room is named pepezefrog. no suprise, he identifies with pepe, but the anti-social edgy kind. always tries to act like a toughguy, it's kind of sad the extent of his delusion. now he might be a Holla Forumstard, but what's worse is that he's a literal cuckold. I don't mean that as an insult, everyone has kinks, but he's always bringing it up. One time there was EXTREMELY light banter going on, and he just loses it and flies off the handle: 'cuck this, cuck that', he starts rattling off the elaborate fantasies he has about 'chad' and jocks in highschool. I'm guessing he thinks the absurd spiel he is giving feels damaging, because that's what he's vulnerable to, but all of us are just confused. every day he says something about cuckolding, and it is never related to the discussion. just out of no where "cuck, cuck, cuck" we were all telling him to calm down, but he didn't wouldn't going. eventually I guess he realized how much he was embarressing himself, and his cuck insults weren't having the desired effect, so he ragequit, but the whole situation left a bad taste in my mouth. I hardly go there anymore.

thats funny because my kink is yuri femdom but whatever tickles your pickles, my projecting friend.

...

pehpehsefag has shit taste in music too

I want Nico to dominate me.

so why do you call everyone a cuck on dubtrack every day?

i hope to god everybody in the leftypol discord dies of cancer

He's like 12 years old give him a break.

i see a correlation

well that explains why he always acts so immature, and why he's so insecure about highschool bullies and girls.
I'm not absurdity btw.

What was your username when you were in the Dubtrack room?

Do not take it seriously.

It needs to be a sort of joke.

The person who posted this is known.

they used 767's retard

GET IN HERE, ZIZEK + ASSANGE THE DOGE ARE ON LIVE!

are you offended?

thx

tru

idk where you got that from but ppl tend to project their own experience onto people they dont like so good for you

It's Fremen, you water-fat so and so

That's what he's saying: that you call everyone who makes you mad a cuck because you are a cuck. I don't know if he's correct about you being a cuck, but I agree, you do cuck-post way to often in the dubtrack room. for your own sake, stop. Not posting this is the room because I don't want to stir shit, just know othere people feel this way. generally, you are my least favorite part about the room.

Umi best grill tbqh fam

People take this room far too seriously!
Shall we bomb it?

DEAD ROOM

BUMP

owo what's this???

who is this ugly donkeyfaced homo?

who is that fluid druid?

it's me!

How is Stirner ahistorical?

There's a reason he can't define ego. Because the nature of ego is that it changes irreversibly based on social interaction. So-called fixed ideas cannot exist logically for this reason, because we *are* our obsessions in a sense.

Also Kierkegaard kinda BTFO's all aestheticism in Either/Or. Aesthetes fall into despair, one need only look at Epicurean art and poetry (including Lucretius) to know such things. The ethical life is the better life, even though it in itself is still arbitrary and based on cultural universals.

(Universal is a generally held truth which has exceptions, and is usually based on time period. It goes without saying that Stirner denies it).

Pic related is an example of Epicurean art

What do you think of this quote?

That's the problem of my reading of Ego, is that it's considered a "singularity" which is a backing up of the obsessive-esque phrase of "man is an island".

When Stirner says that he needs his property, that's a lot better than what other egoists (E.G., Rand) do because it can allow for ethical behaviour because of the individual wanting to do it. But it never addresses conflicts in that sense. Consequently you still have a model of unique one that flip flops on things based on a whim and never holds to that historical ego.

People naturally are given family values for example, but when Stirner says disregard these fixed ideas and search for that "immalleable" part which is a "creative nothing" what he's implying is that there's some part to a person that lives on through that indoctrination with family values, but in fact people are moulded by their social interaction, is what I mean. So that person who now holds up their family's values *becomes* a person who wants to hold up family values, because the so-called fixed idea is now a part of themselves.

So yes, the fact that the unique one and property are dependent on each other is an improvement, but still doesn't work.

ALSO HOLY SHIT CHECK OUT THIS CAPTCHA I JUST GOT

Does he say to search for the creative nothing or is it always there as a kind of backdrop for the fixed ideas?

pretty much yeah, it's like the creative nothing is to a person, and then the person has the fixed ideas. But such a model makes no sense. The obsessions and the ego are inseparable, the ego takes the obsessions into itself and is changed, but also influences the obsessions. Which is just a long winded way of saying Stirner is de facto wrong from a psychological standpoint

(that is, it is the latter option, it is a backdrop for stirner and is therefore a cop out to say he can't define it)

Its because the Ego itself is nothing in itself, it creates itself by the creative nothing as a vehicle for the self. And the ego itself depends on the self for what it is and desires and yes it can be active egoist under the fixed idea and embody the ego and the fixed idea itself. The Self reconizes itself in the fixed idea and precieves itself as the true of the fixed idea cause it is the fixed idea and identifies itself too as being the fixed idea. As a Christian, Humanist or Communist. The Self and the Ego are the Fixed idea under the fixed idea, you use the fixed idea for you and the fixed idea uses you while you and the fixed idea both are the same. (Cause it all exists in your head)

So mutch good life that you cut yourself and take external supplements for experimentation and not cause of happyness or anything. :^)
Buddhahood>>Tranquility>>Projectual Life>>>classcuck life>>shit>>Virtues Life

Truth and History dont exist tho read nietzsche or ask n1x

Have you ever maybe thought about that the Ego Depends on Property as the Ego is Property?

You can not search for the creative nothing as itself is nothing and has no conception in time to get (Future) or to have gotten.(Past) Its always in the present to whom it can realise the non existance of the rhealm of idea's.

Your interpretation is a terrible misreading Rebel, thats what you get if you read and not study.

But saying that the creative nothing is a certain part of a person that can be brought out in its own light seems like turning it into something fixed.

If that were true there'd be no praxis at all to stirner. And I never said I lived the ethical life. And you shouldn't make things personal, Lewd. Not cool.

I'm aware that truth doesn't exist, but it is generally held as truth at some point in time. I'm not sure so much where you get that history doesn't exist.

What's the relevance?

That just sounds like word salad IMO. All I get from that is that you reject historicism which we already talked about. But where is the praxis?

This has yet to be seen tbh

I'm not saying it is a certain part of a person, I'm saying this idea that you can focus on a certain part of a person is a silly way to look at ego, so I'm doing the opposite. A person is not gelatinous, but that doesn't mean that they are just a bunch of solid structures.

I don't think Stirner saw the creative nothing as a certain part in contrast to the fixed ideas, he saw fixed ideas as his property and like with the Bonanno thing from before there's no real way to separate the unique one from his property.

I know this, that is why it is called a nothing, because it's not a part. The fixed ideas for Stirner can be adopted, but they never form a part of the ego. But this is false. The nothing takes the ideas into itself, as was saying.

So i'm not saying the ego is a part, I'm saying the fixed ideas are not-a-part.

As far as I can tell the fixed ideas do form a part of the ego as property, and he doesn't have dominion over them as something separate but owns them in owning himself.

If that interpretation is correct, then it begs the question of how one own's one's self, because as far as I know Stirner advocates freeing one's self from the fixed idea.

There is Praxis allright, and its hidden in plain sight. A study on all the people influenced by Stirner can you get clear notich on what the praxis is and good interpitation of stirner. (tbh a good interpitation doesnt exist cause its subjective and based on self theory) [Spoiler] Just enternally post-ironicly butthurt that feeding you some stuff on Stirner and expecting new insights and good criticism hasnt payd off thus not learning anything new that allready have been presented by other critics. I only have heard echo's and nothing new sadly. [/spoiler]

Ideas that there was something before and will something come next and our controle over sutch or knowledge over sutch.

It only sounds like word salad if if i dont use your philosophical 'langauge' on speaking about sutch subjects.

In your own interpitation, if there isnt any praxis in your interpitation of my interpitation (Wich can only be Presented without your actual knowledge of my content of what i actually mean with the boundary of langauge, presentation and its interpitation by your perspective and interpitation) then there is no praxis.

Tbh we can not know what true or good or bad interpitation is of stirner, we can only know by the content and that is impossible to grasp. We only have the presentation of idea's in Ego and His Own and his other works wich are ONLY up to interpitation.

So you agree that it's a waste of time then.
Either that or Stirner has become scripture to some postmodern theology.

Well be kind for a fool like me so that I may understand.

So again, what's the point in his writing?

Self-ownership implies there's an owner and a thing owned, but self-liberation also implies there's a liberator and a liberated. The term Stirner uses is ownness or eigenheit, but people have called it self-ownership and that could be wrong but I'm not sure.

and how does one carry out "ownness" in life?

I suppose by using it up.

using what up?

Not much dog

Life
I'm watching that atm

eh….ehhhhhhhhh?

Come back to me after you watch it and I'll give you a lecture on how Shiina is the most Kierkegaardian character in animu except maybe Asuka

Ok

Everything is a waste of time so you arnt making any point here.

You always can set it up and present it as sutch.

Not a fool on your part but my langauge isnt good enought to explain you on a good level on what i want you to mean. You can get to the content of my idea's by dialogue but it will take a while. But we cant get to the content of Stirner as we cant have a dialoguo with him to find out what he really ment or what his true intent is. thats the flaw of writing a book and dying is that its all up to interpitation what it eally means. And even so if someone claims the true interpitation (like i do) i still can be wrong in the sense of another interpitation.

But the thing about Ego and His own isnt really to follow everything what stirner says, no its to take it all by property. make it all your idea's and see what you do with it may it be to consume or the utilize.

An Attack on Idealism (Against the Young Hegelians and their Hegelian idealistic Structures) with Subjectivism, like an anarchist revolution against idealistic structures to destroy them all to leave no authority left anymore so that you are left with nothing to create and destroy whatever is in your authority. (Subjectivism in Nihilism like the child of the ubermensch playing and destroying idea's)

And further to let those take property of his presented idea's and make it their idea's by means of self theory.

Should I just kms?

Ya I kinda got that part, he rejects the concept of the universal is my core thing against him.

Tfw it doesn't matter to you on a pragmatic level whether the universal exists because you a Kierkegaardian

feels good.

What are you a fucking egoist? Suicide is the most selfish act you can do! The most virtues way is to liberate everyone of life with a nuclear holocaust tbh fam.

>tfw Lewd doesn't realise that virtue ethics is inherently individualistic though perhaps not egoistic because happiness and the ethical life are one and the same for Aristotle and Kierkegaard both.

The only way one could conclude that the ethical life was anti-egoistic would be if you assumed deontological ethics was the only branch of ethics.

...

I will soon realise tho, my disgust for your drinking (Alcohol and not Milk) and not liking the Milk Man and cows wont make me not study >le ironic christian man
I will make a post on leftypol and call you a sophist and even make a podcast dedicated to rambling about you faggot.

Desert Religions are shit tier tho, you cant refute me.

I haven't drank in over a week and don't plan to.
Love ya

...

Spoiler Alert Faggot

kek you are like a little baby, watch this

historyguide.org/europe/present_age.html

bump dis

read this too

*sip*

OK tell me now!

don't join this
it's just a tripfag circlejerk

Why am i shadowbanned in that room tho ?

Kierkegaard's aesthetics, laid out in Either/Or, are essentially what Shiina goes through. It's no mistake that she's an artist. She is initially within the aesthetic sphere, trying to create good pieces of art. That is her one obsession, art, the aesthetic in some form. By the end of the show, she moves from obsession with creating art, to seeing herself as art to be worked on.

You see it in her personality as the show goes on. She is initially in an aesthetic despair, the first stage of despair not knowing that she is even in despair, and then as she begins to find herself, through events, and her despair intensifies (this is the confusion she experiences with herself, since she finds herself much more involved in the world and doesn't know what it is that is causing her despair). So it is too in Sickness Unto Death, one's despair must be made worse before it can be made better to become aware of said despair.

She is still not at this stage in despair of not being herself, but is at the stage of knowing she is in despair alone.

The point at which she finally realises (truly, because though it was in the back of her mind since overhearing about the closing down of Sakurasou she chose to ignore it) that she is in despair of not being herself is, ironically, the same point at which Sorata brings out to the surface that he really truly believes that hard work amounts to nothing.

For Shiina, Sakurasou is the infinite (what it represents, not merely the place itself). It's her personal relationships that bind her to Sakurasou. She at this point realises that she has to make decision; she resigns herself to losing Sakurasou, (the temporary building and the relationships, the finite), and so runs away, but ends up winning the infinite (Sakurasou ends up not being demolished and so remains, she wins her love etc etc).

It's also no mistake that Shiina is so bad with language, it's a prime example of how one's true self can never be in an inkling communicated to another, and so is a slight against the (strict) Hegelian doctrine that the rational is the real, as the self is too dense to be known through these means.

So this begs the question of what is the relevance of Sorata's sadboy-ness. Sorata is a prime example of the concept of anxiety. He's too dizzy to act, because he has unlimited freedom. It overwhelms him and he pretends his anxiety doesn't exist. Sometimes he can act over his anxiety, sometimes he can't. It's the shameless non-anxious action of Shiina that really draws him to her. He's secretly extremely jealous of her non-anxiety, so much so that he feels happy when she fails.

Wew.

Name?

you were muted idkwhy

Oh also, the reason bad shit keeps happening and they don't succeed is to show that happy stories r gei, and that the only happiness is an inward happiness free of externalities, that the destiny of a living being is to live up to world-weariness and beyond basically life sucks because it's a test

bumpity bump

I know that chans are Autistic, but even by chan standards this post is still pure autism.

NOT

MY

COMRADE

Oh.

i dont even remember the last time i called someone a cuck on the room, and the only people who get mad from being called a cuck is an actual cuck

Oh?

punp

This place is shit DO NOT EVER enter that slump
It is the gayest shit you will ever see

You must be enjoying that gayness as evidenced by your presence, cranky person.

nigga homosexuality is a meme, it is false there is nothing "gay" in real life

Lacan i fucking love you

bump.

You are actually selecting pleasant pieces.

Good.

YOOOOOOO

Bumping the thread with a picture of Rebel's rape face.

Up