How do individualists reconcile the thraldom of the physical

>>7742830
wot

File: 1374693574518.png (317KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1024x576px

>>7742865
Heh. I guess this post might have been a bit too highbrow for 4chan.

>>7742830
>>7742876
>fantasm
>phantasm
>highbrow
Nope son. You're not put in thrall by biological necessities, that concept is a spook. Eating and Sleeping are spooks that you use to accomplish the will of the creative nothing to stay alive. The creative nothing could easily desire to not live and then use the spooks of food and sleep, or the lack thereof to accomplish its interest to die.

>>7742927
The discrimination between the Der Einzige and the self is in itself a spook and I shall inform you that your argument is preposterous, to say the least.

>>7743026
>no actual response because the wiki article didnt cover this
>I'll just post some pseud bullshit
eat shit prole

File: spooks.jpg (158KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1600x1071px

ITT

>>7743047
>I will employ circular reasoning and this ridiculously abstract concept, one which cannot even be put into words, as a means to never form a coherent argument
Glad we have you on board, captain.

>>7743069
>[citation needed]

>>7743085
>If one fixes it as a concept — and the opponents do this — one must attempt to give it a definition and will thus inevitably come upon something different from what was meant. It would be distinguished from other concepts and considered, for example, as "the sole complete individual," so that it becomes easy to show it as nonsense. But can you define yourself; are you a concept?

-- Stirner's Critics by Max Stirner

>>7743107
Where did I define the creative nothing? Nature and self and will are extensions and emergent from the creative nothing but they do not define it.

>>7743119
Here you go with the definitions again... Do you take me for a fool or some such?

>>7743124
What did I define?

>>7742830
>Surely the sole use of Individualism is to prove that freedom is an illusion and that only a fool would pursue such a fantasm
That's essentially what I got from it

File: x.png (881KB, 938x605px) Image search: [Google]

881KB, 938x605px

>>7742830
>>7743301
>Surely the sole use of Individualism is to prove that freedom is an illusion and that only a fool would pursue such a fantasm.

Let's take for granted "freedom is an illusion". Maybe that can be shown by arguing that "mens urges" remain. (Although, I think you pointed out that half of the population just because you relate. The same can be said about the craving of bearing a child. Have you ever seen a childless 33 woman switch to panic mode?)

If we accept that, than it's futile to pursue it. Let's call that freedom proper.

But if we point out all other things we need not put on our shoulders, then we can still free us from those and Individualism was also about showing you can go your way without those.

Thus those two bullet pointed weren't the sole use of Individualism, as you claim.

>>7742830
There's no thraldom, there's only an individuals might (physical or mental) to survive. Necessity is a spook, existence is not an imperative.