Does anyone have recommendations for a philosopher who said we

>>1589240
Max Stirner. He doesn't say we should reject all laws and morals for the sake of rejecting all laws and morals, but he absolutely asserts that laws and morals themselves should not be held sacred, and choosing whether or not to abide them should be a matter of personal preference.

>>1589860
Man, what a spook.

>>1589240
Evola: Thinks that in the current age, man must create all his own morals, because society is so fucked. Though he'd reccomend you follow the rule, purely for practical reasons

>>1589240
Aaah! So you're looking for a TWISTED FUCKING PSYCHOPATH philosophy?

Stirner, his copycat NEETche, maybe some other fag, idk. Take your pick.

File: novatore04.jpg (331KB, 1269x1786px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1269x1786px

>>1591638
>evola
>radical and sociopathic
Surely you jest.

>>1589860
This is the correct answer. Individualist anarchists writing after WWI, like Stirner and Renzo Novatore, are the closest thing you'll get to "fuck laws and shit lmao". The trenches turned a lot of people into edgelords.

If you also accept religious philosophy, branches of gnosticism advocated "depravity" to escape what they basically envisioned as an abrahamic samsara. If you try everything once, including baby-eating necro-scat, your eternal soul will no longer yearn to reincarnate in this sinful and limiting material prison.
Sabbatean-Frankists were a short-lived apocalyptic offshoot of Judaism who thought similarly, violating all of their halakha to entropically speed up the arrival of the "World to Come".

>>1591658
>after WWI, like Stirner

>>1591661
Shit, there goes my street cred