Why is egoism, self-centrism and the lack of morality so ridiculed

Pretend the beast doesn't exist and it won't bother you. Try to fight it and it might kill you.

>>8964361
>egoism
>lack of morality

I don't really get that line of thinking, I think egoism can be perfectly moral

File: 5_007a.jpg (42KB, 370x518px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 370x518px

>Is it so obvious why Stirner is wrong that they don't feel the need to explain why?

>The first is life’s losing its meaning. Man loses the center, weight, and connectedness of his own life, a fact life itself compels him to realize. The phenomenon has been known for a long time. Ibsen, in Peer Gynt, puts it into a striking little scene. The aging Peer Gynt is peeling off the layers of an onion, and playfully compares the single layers with the periods of his life, hoping at the end to come to the core of the onion and the core of his own personality. But layer follows layer, period after period of life; and no core is found.

>Everyone whom this experience has touched faces the question: How can my life become meaningful? The man who lives in the fetish-making world does not see that every life is rich, full, and meaningful to the extent that it is consciously linked in human relations with other lives. The isolated egoistic man who lives only for himself lives in an impoverished world. His experiences approach threateningly close to the unessential and begin to merge into nothingness the more exclusively they are his alone, and turned solely inward.

>The man of the fetishized world, who can cure his disgust with the world only in intoxication, seeks, like the morphine addict, to find a way out by heightening the intensity of the intoxicant rather than by a way of life that has no need of intoxication. He is not aware that the loss of communal life, the degradation and dehumanization of collective work as a result of capitalist division of labor, and the severance of human relations from social activity have stupefied him. He does not see this, and goes further and further along the fatal path, which tends to become a subjective need. For in capitalist society public life, work, and the system of human relations are under the spell of fetish making, reification and dehumanization. Only revolt against the actual foundations, as we can see in many authors of the time, leads to a clearer appreciation of these foundations, and thence to a new social perspective. Escape into inwardness is a tragic-comical blind alley.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/1949/existentialism.htm

TL;DR: Stirnerite egoism is just the philosophy of the alienated individual under capitalism.

Society is not made up of molecular individuals. Man is a political animal.

>>8964422
>man is a political animal
yeah tell that to every faggot that does not vote or read anything about politics at all and aren't even consciously apolitical to oppose dae syzdem

>>8964434
These people are still "consciously linked in human relations with other lives" as Lukács puts it. It's not even a matter of choice unless you go full Thoreau.

>>8964434
Bad hammers exist.

>>8964422
Trying to blame capitalism for humanity's despair and suffering is REALLY retarded anon.

But that's something I've been thinking about recently. Egoism is a sad and lonely way of life, it's not for everyone, it's not for me. I came to the conclusion that the best way of living (at least for me) is living like I used to, experiencing small pleasures from small things, being with other people, living a normal life. But when faced with hard moral decisions, I resort to egoism and choose whatever is better for me. I don't feel bad for that.

And the problem is materialism not capitalism, and no, capitalism doesn't lead to pure materialism in the same way communism doesn't lead to lack of materialism.

>>8964445
>Trying to blame capitalism for humanity's despair and suffering is REALLY retarded anon.
It's the leftist way of thinking and simplifying the world.

>>8964434
>>8964440
>opposing the system by doing nothing

love this meme

nietzschean philosophy is the epitome of pseudo-revolutionary

>>8964449
>>opposing the system by doing nothing
I didn't imply anything like that. I just tried to deny that argument from the leftard by mentioning how these people aren't doing it. They just don't care one way or another and aren't opposing it at all. They're cucks letting their lives get fucked

>>8964445
I'm blaming capitalism for the modern individual's despair which Stirnerism is an outgrowth of.

>>8964434
Political in this quote means 'of the polis' not political in the sense we understand it normally.

>>8964453
you were talking about being "consciously apolitical to oppose dae syzdem"

>>8964470
I was talkinga bout it in a ironic manner to mock anyone that actually tries to pass that bullshit as an argument >.>

>>8964361
Genuine question, have Stirner posters read any philosophy besides Stirners? I get this feeling that they read a wiki article on him just to shitpost about his doctrine

>>8964422
I enjoyed reading this, but in the same way I enjoy reading Christian philosophy. I don't even know waht truth is anymore.....................

>>8964460
I understand your way of thinking, but I consider capitalism a way of pursuing an objective. Unless you're already rich, you will always pursue ways of getting money objects and fame. Think of it as the myth of sisyphus, at least it gives someone something to chase

File: F3.large.jpg (156KB, 1168x1280px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1168x1280px

>Why does morality exist?
Morals are the result of empathy and empathy exists because it gave humans evolutionary advantage over other humans and species that didn't have empathy
>Why """"should"""" we obey morality?
Because morality says so, duh.
>Why do we obey morality?
Because your brain restrain you from doing immoral acts by making you feel guilty(note that this is oversimplified)
pic probably related
t./sci/ shitposter

everything a human being can do is egoistic, thus it is pure and moral

File: 1463952131094.jpg (41KB, 492x800px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 492x800px

>>8964422
>marxists.org
>under capitalism

>>8964504
your to intelligent for me

>>8964460
define capitalism without superfluous meme terminology

>>8964504
>implying that the biological is an imperative

You don't read philosophy, do you? Empathy doesn't lead to morality, it is more a social contract thing. Besides, the morality we have in our society is beyond empathy already.

Empathy exists to prolong our chances of survival. If you can hurt someone without lessening your chances of survival, and you feel good when hurting that person, why wouldn't you?

>>8964504
Where does the human consciousness exist? You have a thousand of non-consciousness parts and then suddenly you form a consciousness?

I mean what the fuck, if I get enough electricity and biological parts in same spot will they suddenly start to think?

>>8964521
I think you don't read philosophy.

>If you can hurt someone without lessening your chances of survival, and you feel good when hurting that person, why wouldn't you?
Because the law enforcement would put me in jail.

>>8964485
But again the Myth of Sisyphus is an expression of the aimlessness of the alienated individual. Lukács would argue that if it wasn't for alienation ("severance of human relations from social activity") and "the loss of communal life, the degradation and dehumanization of collective work" man wouldn't find himself in the position to desperately long for meaning in life, for "something to chase".

>>8964522
It's like neuronal networks. At some point it just starts working on its own :^)

Besides the human mind doesn't seem to be *that* infinitely complex. It's just input from senses->output inner imagery->evaluation->action etc. Robots will replace us soon.

>>8964529
Then you don't have a morality, you're just afraid of going to jail. Morality is not doing something even if you'd like doing it and there would be no consequences.

>>8964536

it's post like these that i need to remind me that /lit/ is good for book recommendations and nothing else.

File: 13259600_545199748985623_1796201571_n.jpg (65KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x640px

>>8964422
Saying that man is a political animal to refute Stirner but then spouting shit like capitalism is pretty comical. Isn't it just a political equilibrium as we understand it?
Spooked.

>>8964539
>Then you don't have a morality
define morality

>>8964539
Morality is an echo of empathy. It doesn't make sense in the modern world, but an irrational fear of consequences, the result of being discipline din early life and an evolutionary remnant of universal love sometimes interferes with our rational thinking.

In a truly progressivist society we'll finally transcend morality for good. We just need to teach our children to think for themselves.

Having only come across Stirner and 'lelele spooks' through memes, can anyone give me a quick summary? From talking to people who like him it seems like absolute basic bitch 'morals ain't real maaaaan' teenager stuff but he wouldn't be so well known if that were the case surely.

>>8964530
That's an interesting thought, but communal activities aren't enough to fill a man's heart. And the common capitalist human doesn't chase money and objects because he feels the need to have a reason to live. He does simply because it gives him pleasure. The only people bothered by existentialist problems are us, people who read and depressed ones. The common man almost never has existential thoughts, and when he does they rapidly vanish because "there is a meaning: I live to wait for the afterlife with God".

By the way, I'm talking about the common christian family, not the millionaire who lives in big cities

Sometimes I think the real fools are us, who feel despair instead of accepting ignorance and living a blissful life where nothing is our fault.

>>8964548
>Isn't it just a political equilibrium as we understand it?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?

>>8964564
Read one of his books. Not too much to do.

>>8964530
Life without something to chase would be nightmarish.

File: 1472769279782.jpg (31KB, 382x535px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 382x535px

>>8964564
Edgy teenagers who based their edgy atheism and nihilism on nietzche actually started reading nietzche and found out that he wasn't about edgy atheism and nihilism at all. This new generation of edgy nihilistic teenage atheists have turned to a new (and obscure for the sake of special snowflake pseuodointellectual points) pseudointellectual pseuodophilosopher as a representative of their anger and resentment they hold deep down for their parents.

>>8964589
fedora memes were last permissible in 2013 at the latest

>>8964589
Where did the meme of Nietzsche even promoting/supporting nihilism come from?

As far as religions come, he seems to be rather interested about their concepts, like the saint, but at least I don't get outright "atheism" stance

File: im79tgh492.jpg (6KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 259x194px

>>8964601
>Where did the meme of Nietzsche even promoting/supporting nihilism come from?
First I ever saw it was from some turbo autist CoD youtuber named Obviously Jesus about 7 years ago.

>>8964598
>

>>8964422
>it's another "Marxist is too butthurt to adequately sit through Stirner and completely misunderstands him" post

>>8964361
Most philosophers that Anglos are likely to meet are analytics, or more accurately nowadays merely utterly influenced by analytic philosophy. These people cannot stand the thought of not striking to the heart of objective reality. These are the kinds of people who would rather have conviction and be wrong than be uncertain and right. They dismiss Stirner as bankrupt, or a dead-end, because he halts their progress.

Simply put, he doesn't fit into modern fashion. Why should they argue against him? He's obviously wrong.

>>8964548
markets aren't free, and even if they were that would still be shit

>muh voluntary exchange of services from a thai ladyboy to a disgusting farang

File: How to fry your brain.jpg (75KB, 720x364px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 720x364px

>>8964522
consciousness is poorly defined,
most neuroscientists define consciousness as the awareness of your surroundings, if we follow this definition then our consciousness exist in our prefrontal cortex.

>if I get enough electricity and biological parts in same spot will they suddenly start to think?
I think you're talking about neurostimulation, and yes it is possible, one kind of neurostimulation is tDCS(Transcranial direct current stimulation) which is basically using electricity to stimulate your brain like in pic but don't do it unless you're trained professional or you'll fry your brain.

I think the mistake that a lot of egoists make is that they think being spooked and trying to be moral is a source of unhappiness, and that they should instead follow what they think is their self interest. Being a good guy would probably make them happier.

>>8964434
Though, when thinking about politics, if the first word you're thinking about is "vote", you clearly didn't read enough yet

>>8964749
Have you read Stirner?

Happiness is not the goal of egoism. In fact, there is no goal to egoism. "Self-interest" doesn't mean "lol gimme material goods and power", it literally means whatever it is you, the self, want. If being what *you* call a good guy is what they want to do, then yes, they should (inasmuch as egoism has a should) do it. The point is that there is no such thing as a good guy.

I think people wouldn't devote themselves to concepts if it wasn't also in their own self interest, so to purposely dismantle these concepts is ironically against one's personal benefit.

>>8964783
>I think people wouldn't devote themselves to concepts if it wasn't also in their own self interest
Why.

>>8964783
Unless people devote themselves to the concept of objectivity and correctness and change their subordinate belief structures upon receiving new information.

>>8964800
Certainly not.

>>8964800
If I know one thing about people, it is that they do not seek out correctness.

File: carlos195.png (100KB, 241x310px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 241x310px

>>8964809
>f I know one thing about people, it is that they do not seek out correctness
Most people attempt to know and believe truth. Biases get in the way sometimes, but you're not above anyone with your unfounded pessimism.

>>8964511
an economic a system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners, rather than by the state.

File: 1481794879706.png (241KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 700x700px

>>8964818
you're too good for this world
dont get broken by it

>>8964819
So the right to own property and free enterprise is the root of all suffering in the world today?

Because they're fucking faggots.

>>8964827
Capitalism on it's own is not flawed. It is when it becomes abused and corrupted by individual greed who forget that while they are the buissness owner and do deserve a lot of money for their management they forget they are still an employer who holds hundreds of peoples lives in their hands and push that away for their own personal gain.

>>8964361
because most people aren't egoistic and immoral

stirner's philosophy is literal autism that ignores everything outside the self

>>8964818
I can understand why you, a NEET or as near as makes no difference, could think that. But it's not the truth. Truth is, most people just don't care.

>>8964827
Nah, just a lot of it.

>>8964839
>that ignores everything outside the self
Like what?

>>8964852
people who aren't egoistic and immoral for one

>>8964868
I might be remembering wrongly, but I'm pretty certain 80% of the book is dedicated to those people.

>>8964849
Elaborate on how my ability to own farmland and invest in my towns businesses has contributed to your suffering?

>>8964361

Any philosophy which doesn't promote unfalsifiable and neverending mental masturbation is selected out of academic philosophy and then ridiculed by the academics who pretty much by definition don't believe in these philosophies

>>8964714
Free from what?

>>8964878
In terms you would understand: I make less money than I otherwise would. For me, that's actually not a huge deal because I'm middle class af. But it's a pretty big deal in the places with the most suffering.

Most people don't disagree with that. From what I've seen, the disagreement comes from whether the places are shit because capitalism or whether capitalism there is shit because the places are shit.

File: 66d.jpg (35KB, 480x375px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x375px

>>8964837
If the average business owner really was vampiring that much wealth away from the average worker, everyone would seek to become a business owner. The truth is that being a business owner takes startup, management skills, networking skills, actuary and logistic skills, and significant risk-taking. The average person isn't able to put forward these qualities and provide the societal service that a business owner typically does, and therefore doesn't deserve as much capital in compensation.

Capitalism is system that works in line with evolution. It establishes right to own property and threatens the behavior of theft with force at the hand of the state to create an environment where intelligence is highly prioritized and rewarded. A crippled astrophysicist like Stephen Hawking can compete with a 350lb 6'6 half-retarded black man in a capitalist environment, whereas in an anarchist environment he couldn't.

Suffering is intrinsic in our existence, but if you want to know what the predominant source of unnecessary suffering in our modern world is, watch the third act of Zeitgeist. It's jew banks and government corruption.

>>8964575
To make perfectly clear what I mean, I will say this. A communist system is a capitalist system. What I mean by this is...
>a capitalist system is one that is totally free
>this freedom must then include the capacity to fund a 'communist' system
Aren't these labels meaningless then? And rest assured capitalism is just a label, modified and inched along here and there as is needed. It's more than meaningless.

Everyone exists in the same reality, the only that is true is what is, what happens. Anyone can do anything they can do. That's all I subscribe to, thinking in any other terms is ideological spookery.

>>8964869
>I'm pretty certain 80% of the book is dedicated to those property.
fixed

it's the textboox definition of autism to treat thinking people as if they're objects

>>8964504

>empathy exists because it gave humans evolutionary advantage over other humans and species that didn't have empathy

That doesn't explain how or why empathy came into existence.

That only explains why empathy continued to exist. Persisted, if you will.

>Because your brain restrain you from doing immoral acts by making you feel guilty

And yet people feel guilty over different things. What might torture the mind of someone might not be given so much as a second thought by someone else.

How do you account for this? Guilt cannot be the consequence of something objective - that is to say, morality is subjective.

>>8964889
What is your occupation?

I understand on world suffering and my heart goes out to them. As a champagne socialist I try my best to assist the middle class in any way I can. As for the suffering of these countries I feel it is a mixture of corruption, lack of education and a different political soceity.

>>8964893
Stephen Hawking's machinations and influence in the societal structure are just as valid than the retarded black man's, in fact more so since they are more weighty. Everything is competition, every act is a violent one. Seeking to undermine the will of one through the will of a collective, as you seek, is valid...or it would were it successful. You are the outlier, you are the loser, win if you want to win, else die.

>>8964901
I agree. That's why I'm an egoist.

For Christ's sake I'm starting to hope God does exist so he can just smite the fuckers who shitpost about Stirner without having read him.

This includes spookposters.

When Stirner says "property", he is making a pun. First he is saying everything is yours, as in you own it. Secondly he is saying everything is a quality of *you yourself* -- similar to how we say "a property of steel is hardness". He isn't saying they're objects you unparalleled mongoose.
>>8964908
My friend perhaps it would be better to read books instead of shitposting on /lit/. I mean this apolitically. There are plenty of conservative views I would not say this to. Your views are simply pleb.

In any case the basic idea is that corruption, lack of education and "a different political society" stem from the environment and how it's divvied up.

File: 1483735966189.jpg (506KB, 1600x1033px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1600x1033px

>>8964914
This is the problem with debating communists. They're all fucking stupid.

>>8964923
>he is saying everything is a quality of *you yourself* -- similar to how we say "a property of steel is hardness".
where does agency come into this
>He isn't saying they're objects you unparalleled mongoose.
he's definitely not talking about them as if they're people

>>8964929
>where does agency come into this
You tell me. Where *does* agency come into this?
>he's definitely not talking about them as if they're people
Of course he is. It's not his fault your conception of "people" is entirely made-up.

>>8964943
>You tell me. Where *does* agency come into this?
all people have the ability to think and make decisions
>It's not his fault your conception of "people" is entirely made-up.
it is also not his fault that he's literally autistic

other people exist apart from me and they have their own perception of the world

this is a fact

>>8964950
>all people have the ability to think and make decisions
That didn't answer my question. Where does that come into this?
>other people exist apart from me and they have their own perception of the world
Stirner literally never says otherwise. He's never a solipsist, surprisingly.

>>8964956
>Secondly he is saying everything is a quality of *you yourself*
if something is defined entirely by its relation to me then how does it exist independently
>Stirner literally never says otherwise.
stirner literally only says this about other egoists

>>8964968
>if something is defined entirely by its relation to me then how does it exist independently
And now you're getting into solipsism.
>stirner literally only says this about other egoists
He doesn't say people suddenly pop up out of thin nothingness as soon as they develop egoism.

>>8964950
Wrong, agency comes from the universal agency.

>>8964971
>And now you're getting into solipsism.
that is not the definition of solipsism

stirner accepts that other people exist but they are objects and do not have agency
>He doesn't say people suddenly pop up out of thin nothingness as soon as they develop egoism.
so what

is this what stirnerites do, they mention ridiculous things that stirner DOESN'T believe as opposed to the ridiculous things he does believe

>>8964986
i don't even know what this means

what is the universal agency

>>8964994
It is the ideal form that all agency emulates, and from whence agency emanates.

>>8964988
People exist independently of you but you only get to see them in relation to you. That's why they're your property. Explain how that turns them into objects.
>is this what stirnerites do, they mention ridiculous things that stirner DOESN'T believe as opposed to the ridiculous things he does believe
That's what happens when you say he believes in ridiculous things that he, in the real world, doesn't.

>>8965005
>platonism
lol
>>8965006
>People exist independently of you but you only get to see them in relation to you.
that's wrong

if you can know that they exist independently of you then you can perceive them in ways that aren't related to you

>Explain how that turns them into objects.
i mean maybe i can drop that line of inquiry because it turns out that stirner, or at least your version of him, isn't even consistent in his autism

>>8965021
>if you can know that they exist independently of you then you can perceive them in ways that aren't related to you
That's wrong. You are the only one who can perceive them. That's what makes them related to you.

Also IMO you can't know that, and I'm not sure why Stirner thinks it's worth assuming.

>>8965027
>That's wrong. You are the only one who can perceive them. That's what makes them related to you.
that doesn't contradict what i said

but anyway you can perceive them as being independent of you right

>>8964924
The idea of anything as un-earned is fucking incredible, it literally goes in the face of the laws of physics.

>>8965034
>that doesn't contradict what i said
Obviously I think it does, so if you want to get anywhere it'd probably be a good idea to explain yourself.

>>8965038
you are saying that i am the only one that can perceive them

i am saying
>you can perceive them in ways that aren't related to you

answer this, can you perceive them as being independent of you?

>>8964907
I think you don't understand how evolution works, empathy is a genetic trait and like any genetic trait it's likely to first formed due to a random mutation, the first group to have empathy from the mutation reproduced more and had better survival chance than individuals and that's how empathy spreaded.
However as you said
>What might torture the mind of someone might not be given so much as a second thought by someone else.
evolution is working all the time even today random mutations sometimes disable some traits such as empathy and that's when you get ASPD(Anti-Social Personality Disorder) which is genetic but sometimes other things can cause it, you probably heard of psychopathy which is a kind of ASPD and is mostly genetic trait it's basically the absence of empathy, if you have a healthy brain guilt has some objectivity into it, if i made you kill your most beloved ones you would of course feel guilty about it unless you're have ASPD or brain damage or some mental illness.

What if you look at someone and they don't know you're observing them?

Check

a
n
d

Mate.

>>8965048
Stirner BTFO

>>8965042
obviously i meant

i can perceive them in ways that aren't related to me

can i perceive them as being independent of me?

i'm tired

>>8965042
And I am saying that being the only one that can perceive them means you cannot perceive them in ways that are unrelated to you.
>answer this, can you perceive them as being independent of you?
What do you mean by this? Can I think of it, or imagine it? Yes.

>>8965061
>being the only one that can perceive them means you cannot perceive them in ways that are unrelated to you.
only if by unrelated to me you mean "in ways that i have no concept of"

i can imagine a real person eating a real cake even if i have no connection to eating said cake

>Can I think of it, or imagine it? Yes.
but can you think or imagine it having happened in the real world

can you know that people think independently of you

>>8965080
>i can imagine a real person eating a real cake even if i have no connection to eating said cake
But *you* are imagining them, thus they are your property. In other words your perception is the connection.

>but can you think or imagine it having happened in the real world
Yes, I can imagine you being a real perceiving person just like me, with me to you as you are to me. In other words I only know you through your posts and what I imagine of you, but I can still imagine another, real person creating the things that I know you for.
>can you know
No.

>>8965088
>But *you* are imagining them, thus they are your property. In other words your perception is the connection.
oh so stirnerism is a language game, gotcha
>Yes, I can imagine you being a real perceiving person just like me, with me to you as you are to me. In other words I only know you through your posts and what I imagine of you, but I can still imagine another, real person creating the things that I know you for.
so how is stirnerism different from thinking normally with some edgy buzzwords thrown in

>>8965099
>oh so stirnerism is a language game, gotcha
Yeah, that's exactly what anything you don't like is.
>so how is stirnerism different from thinking normally with some edgy buzzwords thrown in
What do you mean by "thinking normally"? You should know that Stirner's own conception of thinking normally, i.e. the creative nothing, is pretty key to this.

If you mean "not being an egoist", then the differences are many and blindingly obvious, and I can't begin to explain them to you unless you get more specific.

It just sounds like you don't want egoism to be right, honestly.

>>8964361
Same with the existence of other minds: I've never seen a decent argument for it.

>>8965128
Nothing has a good argument, not even nothing.

>>8964434
wtf how can people on the "literature" board misinterpret something this badly?

I'll chime in on the property debate, at least what I've intuited from my conception of it. Just as Stormer refers to fixed ideas, spooks etc, our idea of other people is the same. They might be other autonomous entities, but we cannot know them through through entirety. Therefore we are left with a ghost of 'them'. We see a facet of their autonomy. They present a side/sides to us, and we perceive only that, more or less. We cannot grasp their entirety.

And in the same way, this happens in reverse. We present aspects of ourself to others. To John I am any multitude of things. To Jim I am any multitude of things. But those images they hold of me are ephemeral, they are not "me". Only "I" am "me". All fun else is a ghost of me, or you, a glimmer.

As far as property, we own our images of others and objects, because that object is OUR OWN. It does not have an objective basis. However, if you acknowledge the limits of our subjectivity, those ghosts can seemingly become objective, in the sense there is nothing else. We only have our unique conception of the world around us. Nothing else exists. It's the latex glove over the hand of objective reality that we cannot peel off.

>>8964899
>Anyone can do anything they can do.
The question then, is how would you change the current sociopolitical organization if you could ?
Youn can't deny that our current organization is closely similiar to what people have called "capitalism".

Also:
>>a capitalist system is one that is totally free
Wrong

>>8965260
>fundamentally misunderstanding everything you replied to
jesus communists really are fucking stupid

>>8964361
They are scared of the implications. When you get rid of all the spooks, the world becomes a very inhumane and comfortless place, much like what Lovecraft tried to describe as his cosmic horrors beyond human comprehension. Except even worse, because these were somewhat personified.

>>8965168
Pretty much.
>>8965157
Repeated crosslinking to /pol/ and reddit.
>>8964899
>Aren't these labels meaningless then?
No, that doesn't even begin to make sense. Capitalism refers to a specific spook-maintained system of property. You are yourself looking at capitalism as if it were a spook -- it's just the name we give to how people currently (normally) deal with each other.
>>8965283
Not comfortless, or inhumane. We are irrational and find comfort and humanity wherever we happen to find it, even if we think we shouldn't. No; the world is confusing. It is hard to grasp purposelessness. Most people make something for themselves without realising it.

File: joseph-de-maistre-diplomat-quote-a-constitution-that-is-made-for-all.jpg (14KB, 289x289px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 289x289px

>>8964422
This unquestioned chase for meaning is based on our society being *incapable* of dealing with the transcendental, not on supporting it. It's the result of a society that just cannot *stand* non-participation. A society which fashions itself to be for all humans everywhere. So it is then the task of every single person to search for meaning, i.e. importance, to answer to the ever-hungry humanist project. Every human must utopially be the best it can be and society is obligated to give it the best it can.

The truly transcendental is necessarily beyond plain meaning. The truly essential could never be used by Man's petty hands. All you want is the womb of death, a world that is never displeasing, never changes, is never tiring. Capitalism has done more for meaning than Marxism ever wishes it could.

>Only revolt against the actual foundations, as we can see in many authors of the time, leads to a clearer appreciation of these foundations, and thence to a new social perspective.
And once again Stirner is proven correct. Bunch of silver tongued barbarians.

>>8964819
Wrong. State control of industry is still capitalism.