Why did Socrates act like such an asshole at his trial? You're

>>8977881
wow you must be a women. Men have CONVICTIONS and ETHICAL BELIEFS and KNOWLEDGE and aren't going to throw it away just because of muh feels, like women do

>>8977881

Socrates was guilty of no crime. If he were to say sorry, that would be being dishonest with himself, which is intolerable to the philosopher.

Reading Crito might help you understand if you haven't read it yet.

>>8977895
How does pol do to always post the first post?

>>8977881
>he might still be alive
that's funny

>>8977907
You must have misunderstood my point. I agree that women are very much like dogs, and need a strong authoritarian disciplinary figure to correct them, like you'd shove a dog's nose in its shit if it had shit indoors.

Would I hit a woman? If she stepped out of line, absolutely. Sadly society has become too cucked for this to be viable

>>8977901
this, wtf

He wanted to be convicted, while passing an impression of wisdom and piety so the city felt guilty afterwards (which it did).

>>8977919
You didn't make a point, you posted shitheaded sarcasm you dumb cunt. Keep bringing Islam into the west, at least I'll be able to kill you with rocks for being such an uppity whore one day.

>>8977901

They don't have anything better to do so they can afford to jump on any new post and slather their crap onto it. It just pollutes the whole thread.

>>8977940
>defending Islam

time you left for /leftypol/ or tumblr, sweety

>>8977881
Why did Plato write his ideas through a character like him and not through himself?

>>8977881
all of those were based answers, what the fuck is this post

>>8977997
its called literary talent

>>8977881
>what was wrong with this guy?
He was guilty of innocence

They should have killed Plato instead desu

>>8977901
Maybe it's /lit/ and you're in denial

Stop trying to project your own modern attitude onto 2000 year old philosophers.

>hurr socrates was an asshole

>>8978005

Obviously the post is a troll but I don't really agree with the idea that Socrates was unassailable in his logic.

On the thing about gods Socrates was either misleading the judges or just playing it coy for no reason. He basically tries to set up a chain of logic whereby he will be interpreted as believing in the gods without him having to say so. So either: 1. He actually believes in the gods but won't say so, which is just dumb because saying so would get him off the hook and still not violate his conscience. 2. He doesn't believe in the gods. This meas that he's attempting to mislead the judges which doesn't really gel with his "follow your conscience" schtick. Also if his own logic were ironclad here and he really did not believe in the gods then he's kind of a crap philosopher because he is consciously living with internal contradictions. None of these possibilities are great for Socrates.

There was another part of the trial where Socrates basically says that he shouldn't be convicted because he didn't do any harm intentionally, only unintentionally. This isn't necessarily untrue but it's a bad argument for the court because Greece didn't really go for this mens rea stuff.

>>8977881
Why did Hitler act like such an asshole at Nurenberg trial?

yes I have seen evidence he was tried there, he was wearing a disguise

source: Vatican Library Archive S-2546THW55

before he went to Argentina

home of the true white master-race

>>8977881
Its strange that I can tell that you've apparently read it.

And yet misinterpreted the entire thing.

>>8977881
the original shit-poster

>>8977881
What was most revealing from this is how much of a shitty father Socrates was. He chose "principles" over his THREE kids, two of them being small children. He left poor Xanthippe all alone to raise the children, who never got to know their father, by herself. Aristotle remarks of how unremarkable Socrates' children turned out being. Well I wonder why? Kids need a father. Socrates was a nigger.

>>8977881
>>8977895
Official worst thread and first post on /lit/ in all the years I've been here, someone please cap this

File: screens cap.png (22KB, 642x93px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 642x93px

>>8979311
Nice dubs, anon.

>>8979311

cap it yourself, you dumb weirdo

do you not have snipping tool like the rest of us?

>>8978067
this is interesting. also, i always take socrates like a hard mode sophist.
the best in the game. not really serious with himself. muh, virtue everywhere.
like somebody put in one post. they should tell him why he is incapable of corrupting the youth. and his contrarian spirit will search a good argument to tell you his evilness behind.

>>8977881
He had autism

It is a good thing to stand by your convictions even if they cause you harm? That's something I think Socrates pondered as he awaited and performed at his trial, and one of the reasons I hold him in high regard.


In the way he argued, along with his refusal to run away from his sentence and decision to drink the hemlock, he demonstrated that dying was better than giving up one's beliefs if they are founded in logic.

That's what I've always thought about it at least.

>>8979517
This. OP is the real douche in all of his ignorance and cowardice.

>>8977881
>If he had just said he was sorry he might still be alive.

I suggest reading it again since you clearly didn't understand shit.

>>8979710
What the fuck has been going on here? I keep seeing threads pop up about Socrates, especially, and Dostoyevsky lately where whoever the fuck is reading it clearly doesn't understand it at all.

>>8979517
This

Socrates knew that if he gave up everything he had worked for he would never be taken seriously again. He would always be Socrates the Hypocrite, Socrates the Eunuch, Socrates the Fool.

>>8979726
Yeah but now he's Socrates the deadbeat Dad. Family first, folks.

>>8979740
No, he taught his family and his pupils an important lesson of standing up for what you believe in.

>>8977881
It's called the Apo-logion
>which literally means back-talk
>and opie was expecting an apology...

>>8979718
people are starting with the greeks

they don't know the true axiom: start with a developed and open mind

>>8979754
>Remember kids, sometimes you have to take a stand and stick to the thing you believe in until the day you die.
>Good luck with this crazy fucking planet, I'm going on to the great hereafter. Tell your mom goodbye

>>8979740
>deadbeat
he was past his 70s

>>8979767
What's your point? Other than the fact that you're nothing more than a rat.

>>8977897
>Socrates was guilty of no crime
Corrupting the youth and atheism. Yes he was. You may disagree with the laws he was convicted of breaking, but he broke them and he was rightly convicted. He would've received leniency, however, if he hadn't acted like a dickhead determined to get the death penalty, but he exposed the hypocrisy of the state in so doing.

>>8979772
It was a joke dawg

>>8979764
>start with a developed and open mind
Well, that instantly negates most of 4chan

>>8979776
Sorry, I figured you were OP

>>8979754
Would you tell that to his THREE children? He was selfish, caring more about his legacy than the actual experience of raising and being there for his kids. He was so sanctimonious about the purity of his philosophizing that he literally left nothing for his wife and children to inherit. Gorgias' and Protogoras' kids probably had the nicest clothes in Athens while Socrates' were most likely walking around the agora in drab, hole-ridden rags. Probably bullied because of it too. Poor Xanthippe, she deserved so much better.

>>8979785
Nah, there have always been and always will be cucks like you to step in and play the role of the step-dad, never quite filling a real man's shoes.

>>8979785
If those kids didn't grow up realizing the importance of their father's work they deserve to be destitute.

>>8979785
I bet you are one of those types of people who cannot understand why Jesus would give himself to the cross either.

File: max stirner.jpg (47KB, 501x525px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 501x525px

>>8979517
>>8979654
>>8979726
>>8979754
>dying for your "convictions"
WHO YA GONNA CALL?

>>8979800
stirner posting needs to stop

File: 1359081813767.jpg (70KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x667px

>>8979800
>MFW Stirner renounces his entire philosophy because when faced with death, he realizes his whole life was a spook

>>8979791
So being a real man is putting your ego before your family? Are you black?

>>8979793
Are you heartless? They didn't chose to be born to some self-righteous hobo who spent his time playing semantic word games with the good, hardworking folk of Athens instead of getting a job and supporting his family.

>>8979799
JC didn't have any kids.

>>8979800
>not having convictions because some German faggot told you to be true to "your" "ego" which excludes belief systems for some reason

>>8979785
>Poor Xanthippe, she deserved so much better.
fuck off roasty

File: 1305920845397.gif (1MB, 350x262px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x262px

>>8979821
These thoughts belong on /adv/ or /r9k/. It is such obvious trolling that only a truly retarded person could believe what you have written.

>JC didn't have any kids.
LOL

>>8979821
Who cares? It wasn't your family and even his widow probably would have spit on you for being such a coward.

File: IMG_0630.jpg (58KB, 720x757px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 720x757px

>>8979821
>real masculinity is providing for your children
Protip: they're not yours

>>8979842
Stop picking on him, his dad went out for milk and smokes when he was only 3 years old and never returned and now here he is taking his anger out on Socrates.

>>8979829
>for some reason
Not read Stirner. Probably not even read the Apology. Fuck off back to whichever shithole board you came from, dumb cunt.

>>8979883
Not who you replied to, but you Stirner posters, like you, have done enough to make me not ever want to waste my time on anything he wrote.

>>8979909
Abloo bloo bloo.

>>8979829
>excludes belief systems for some reason
>for some reason
>reason
^This is exactly why they exclude belief systems.

>>8979914
>reason is a spook
>look I can meme like max!

This whole thread is a disgrace. OP makes an obvious troll thread about Socrates and suddenly people are arguing about Stirner and giving "put grandpa in the nursing home already, mom"-tier rants about how blacks have no "family" values.

Socrates didn't die for this shit.

>>8979925
>My "reasoning" has lead me to believe that everything is out of my control and nothing happens for any discernible or rational reason
I sure do love zealots

>>8979930
I just want Stirner posters to go and stop shitting up every thread

>>8979925
Reason is a tool to be used to further our self-interest - to become the property of the ego. If reason is elevated above the ego, above self-interest, as its own good to which we are to subordinate our egos, our self-interest, it becomes a spook, yes.

>look I can meme like max!
You can try, mon frere, but you're too idiotic.

>>8979937
I love the dichotomies that some of you guys seem to build inside of your heads.

>>8978067
RE: Socratic atheism, part of the reason for him to downplay it, get a conviction based on the temporary disgust of the many, and allow himself to remain in Athens to be executed, was to protect philosophy as an activity from the hostility of political life, being an activity with a precarious existence. But more on that later.

With respect to his belief or lack thereof in the gods, we have plenty of peculiarities, not just in the quote unquote early dialogues, but up to the Republic and Symposium. What would have to be clarified first, however, is what the ancient view of atheism was in contrast with how we take it largely today, which is a lack of belief in gods, usually explained as the literal meaning of the word atheist itself (lit. "without-god/s"). The ancient view is summarized in the accusation put against Socrates: "...Socrates does injustice...by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes..." (24b-c)

Belief in the city's gods was thoroughly political, since the city's authority was thought to be established by gods, with the ancestral laws themselves being handed down by gods, let alone the understanding of justice and injustice tied up with such theology. What should be understood carefully here is the occasional Socratic claim about his belief in some god or deity, and the astounding neutrality of those passages whenever they appear in the dialogues. What such deity might be, sometimes is seems to be one of the forms (as the Idea of the Good manifests itself in the Republic), but this would be little different than to say that the big bang is a god. Ontological principles are sketchy things to call gods, and are evidently distinct from the civic deities in not being interested in individual fates. The claim made by Socrates is often that his god is eternal and unchanging and good, which need not be a willful deity.

Now, Socrates in the Apology does hedge quite a bit; the important passages about what the oracle said of him and his testing of it comes alongside a claim to be worshipping Apollo. Of course, what's evidently strange about this is his admitted attempt to refute the oracle, which already looks atheistic.

(cont.)

>>8979399
No i don't

nice dubs btw,

>>8979961
There are other passages in dialogues suggesting this ambivalent or heterodox approach to the gods, such as in the Euthyphro, wherein the famous "Euthyphro's Dilemma" is itself actually an appeal to the Forms over the gods (because if the Pious is such because the gods love it, it is unintelligible and chaotic nothingness, and if it is loved by the gods because it is Pious, then it must be some Form, in which case, fuck the gods, we can worship and model ourselves after the Forms directly). In the Symposium, we have another instance of Socratic atheism in his outrageous claim that Eros is not a god (and that we should understand this to be outrageous is indicated by that dialogue's many dramatic relationships with the crime of blasphemy leveled at several of the people present before the start of Athen's Sicilian expedition.). What's more, he claims that Eros is instead a daimon, which leads to the next matter to consider.

The Socratic daimon on display in the dialogue is the same as his philosophical Eros. Socrates on several occasions claims to be an expert in the erotic arts (he makes such claims definitely in the Symposium, Phaedrus, and Theages; if my memory is correct, I think he claims such at the beginning of the Lysis as well.) The erotic arts are discussed in detail in both the Symposium and Phaedrus, but especially in connection with what is "daimonic" in the former dialogue. A more direct connection can be found in the Theages, wherein he speaks about both topics, his expertise in erotics, and his daimon, side-by-side, suggesting the relation between them. So Plato seems to give us reason in his other dialogues to suspect that the daimon spoken of in the Apology is the same expertise in erotics spoken of elsewhere.

We have a further peculiarity in the Apology with respect to how belief in the gods is spoken of; Socrates, throughout the vast majority of the dialogue uses the verb "nomizein" to discuss belief in the gods, and this verb is related to the word for custom/law, "nomos", and so this term suggests belief that is in accordance with law/custom. In the middle of his back-and-forth with Meletus, he suddenly uses another term for belief when they argue over Socratic atheism, "hegeomai" (which can also mean to lead and rule). Suddenly, after a large cluster of uses of "nomizein", "hegeomai" shows up and "nomizein" disappears almost completely. I'm not sure what a clearer account of the meaning of this is, but it does seem to indicate additional Socratic peculiarities with respect to his view of the gods.

(cont.)

>>8979940
The sad thing is that at least some of you actually believe Stirner, beyond just using him to meme and memeing to justify your memes

>>8979941
Can you prove that your belief system is any more rational than the Stirner ideal?

If you could, why haven't you posted a single thing that actually argued for it?

>>8979965
So, why does he seem to dissemble on the subject of the gods? I think a clear sign can be seen in how many arguments have been had (in scholarship, between philosophers, between theologians, and even among members of this board) over whether or not Socrates was an atheist at all; Socrates, as per the charge put against him, was in all likelihood guilty of the charge of atheism, but his dissembling has since given the deep and abiding impression that he wasn't an atheist, and what's more, that neither were the many philosophers working within the mold of philosophizing that he had fashioned (such as Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle, let alone their many students). The Socratic apology for himself is an abject failure, in part because he was arguably more occupied with making an apology on behalf of philosophy that would vindicate the latter after the former's death, protecting the activity that he was persuaded was the only life worth living. His bad arguments about his beliefs persuaded the citizens that philosophizing wasn't the threat to the city that they had thought it was, nor that it was corrupting to the youth (youths like Critias, Charmides, and Alcibiades, all Socratic associates who somehow became monstrous through Socratic skepticism).

>>8979939

Agreed. I think if Stirner had used any word other than "spook" (or it was translated differently) to describe his ideas we wouldn't even be a known name. As it is the texts sound funny and that was the foothold for people to use him as the ultimate iconoclast. Just because he think all other philosophers are crap doesn't mean your philosophy is actually good.

Also, it'd be forgivable as a meme if it were still funny, which it's not. It's too old and too overused to have any punch of surprise or novelty anymore.

>>8979998
Stirner posting is the bane posting of /lit/

>>8977901
I guess that's why they call it...pol position.

>>8979961
>>8979965
>>8979976

I don't really disagree with this passage. Largely it seems to be saying the same thing I am (that is, Socrates argument on atheism is weak), it's just justifying that on the grounds that Socrates's true goal was to legitimize philosophy. I think that that's mostly correct. I just don't want people to think that "Socrates's Apology is good" means that "Socrates made good arguments." The work can be interpreted in multiple ways and within its specific judicial context Socrates didn't do a good job.

>>8979998
Stirner marks the difference between a person and the ideas which occupy and drive the person. This thread was rife with people talking of dying for your convictions, of integrity, and is there an honest refutation to Stirner in his criticisms of such thinking? Your subjectivity, your ongoing experience of life, is you; a conviction for which you die will take no enjoyment once you are gone, and hollow satisfaction it is to you that you changed some minds, influenced the course of events, when you're dead. But oh, to be manly! Is there a better word than spook for such wrongheadedness?

And as a meme, it's still funny because it still causes people like you to get buttblasted.

>>8980026
Granted, but if his goal isn't to acquit himself of the charges, how could it be said that he didn't "do a good job", as it were? His goal is achieved; he doesn't have to make good arguments from that vantage point.

>>8979998
So you think that the ONLY reason Stirner has stayed relevant is because of the use of the word "spook" and how that evolved into DANK MEMES?

How about you actually read some of his work and hold your own ideology to his fire?

>>8977881

>>8980043
>you die will take no enjoyment once you are gone, and hollow satisfaction it is to you that you changed some minds, influenced the course of events, when you're dead

The problem is you are still too focused on the "self" which does not exist, you haven't yet figured it out. Neither did Stirner.

>>8980046

Yes, that's fair. I think I didn't word my last sentence very well.

>>8980065
We are all one consciousness, dude.

Pass the reefer, my man!

>>8980075
Where did you get that from? Like I said before, I really love these dichotomies you create for other people. It's either "this" or it's "that."

Hell, you don't even understand the "conscious."

>>8980052

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion.

>>8980085
If the "self" does not exist, then what is each human body? Where does "consciousness" begin and end?

>>8980085
To state "you haven't yet figured it out. Neither did Stirner" flatly without expanding or explanation is faggotry par excellence. Why bother replying at all? It's just an unnecessary show of smugness.

>>8980093
The conscious cannot be without matter, mind, perception, and sensation. All of those are in a constant state of flux, ergo your conscious is never the same from one moment to the next. There is no constant self and even life is a construct. So, even if we were to agree that Stirner was right, even your life is a spook so why cling to it if your convictions are challenged. Does one spook outweigh another spook or are they two equal spooks?

As for your human body, it is nothing but flesh and bone, a vehicle for which the conscious can exist. Without the body there would be no sensory organs, no mind, no conscious.

>>8980050
>So you think that the ONLY reason Stirner has stayed relevant is because of the use of the word "spook" and how that evolved into DANK MEMES?

Yes. To be honest I'm not buttblasted about arguing with egoists but I am tired of them exerting an incredibly outsized influence on this board. Stirner is not recognized outside of this board but for some reason he shows up in every thread. Even disregarding the actual arguments about the merits of his philosophy it's just slightly obnoxious. The other anon put it very well when he said that Stirnerposting is the Baneposting of /lit/.

Regarding your clamoring for me to disprove Stirner I just don't care. Stirner isn't respected by nearly anyone anymore and plenty of ink has already been spilled about why his crypo-solipsism isn't a satisfying philosophy. You keep shouting "prove me wrong!" and take the silence as proof everyone's scared of your intellectual prowress but really it's because you're obnoxious and no one wants to talk to you.

I don't hate you or anything but I don't find you amusing either.

>>8980114
>even your life is a spook
>Does one spook outweigh another spook or are they two equal spooks?
>your human body, it is nothing but flesh and bone, a vehicle for which the conscious can exist. Without the body there would be no sensory organs, no mind, no conscious.
You have obviously never read any of Stirner outside of Wikipedia and /lit/ shitposting. He isn't the definitive philosopher, but you insist on making him some sort of meme pepe frogposter because I believe you have never even tried to read his works. You think you can reduce him to a 10 word greentext, whereas you believe in nothing but irony and facetious jokes.

>>8980125
>Regarding your clamoring for me to disprove Stirner I just don't care...
So you admit to not reading Stirner, not because you disagree with him, but simply because you think he is an internet meme? Wow, you are so smart and revolutionary to believe that you are automatically right without proving anyone else wrong.

>>8977901
"first post best post" and "pol is always right" are a potent combination

>>8979940
How do Stirner posters raise children?

>>8980146
>You think you can reduce him to a 10 word greentext
Yes, because he was an Egoist

>>8980151
children are spooks, parenting is a spook

>>8980146
>slams others for not elaborating
>HURR YOU JUST HAVEN'T READ HIM, I DON'T HAVE TO BACK UP WHAT I'M SAYING

>>8980152
Why don't you reason that out a little?

>>8980163
>Green
>Text

>>8980146
>Wow, you are so smart and revolutionary to believe that you are automatically right without proving anyone else wrong.
Oh, the irony here.

>>8980165
Again, the irony

>>8980151

they don't have kids because there are only 10 of them and all they do is patrol /lit/ for philosophy threads to invade

>>8980177
sex is spooky procreation is spooky women are spooky

>>8980171
Did you make a single point in all of your greentext?

>>8980181
>Stirnerposters are too slow to see the irony in themselves and their own statements

>>8980194
So no... You did not make a single point in your shitposting.

>>8980203
Oh boy, this is rich. Stick to Stirner and self-contradictory egoism, kid. You'll get far :^)

>>8980208
>self-contradictory egoism
Yep, you've never read Stirner.

>>8980146

> So you admit to not reading Stirner

Please point out to me where I said that I didn't read Stirner. The part you quoted is the most relevant and doesn't even imply that. Also you conveniently chose to ignore the rest of my post which was the real point about Stirnerposting being lame and played out.

> Wow, you are so smart and revolutionary to believe that you are automatically right without proving anyone else wrong.

Clearly you have the high ground in this department. >>8980163 said it in a more concise way than I could. You're doing the exact same thing but just on the axiom that Stirner is self-evidently right. Next time you're in philosophy class explain Stirner to everyone and sees how it goes down. I seriously doubt a philosophy prop is going to be impressed with you.

Let's say that tomorrow I invent a new philosophy which says that the essence of consciousness is the desire to eat meat and that all other cognition arises from this. Now I start posting this on anime imageboards all the time and calling people out to prove me wrong but I just get called an idiot. Was I insulted because they were in denial about my amazing philosophy, or because I was derailing conversations and making repetitive idiotic statements?

>>8977881
>If he had just said he was sorry he might still be alive.
Gee, ya think?

>>8980114
>"All of those are in a constant state of flux, ergo your conscious is never the same from one moment to the next. There is no constant self and even life is a construct."
Worse than I anticipated in assuming you were a weed smoking hippy, to be honest. Shoot yourself in the head, then, my man, because, after all, consciousness is in flux and there is no true self, correct? But no, you won't, because you intuitively recognise there is a subjectivity that sits at the centre, the thing which experiences the experiences, and although existing in flux, remains your personal subjectivity. And that is no spook, my friend, because that is you. At least I understand now why you held off on elabourating why you thought Stirner wrong.

>>8980216
>YOU ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT I DID
>Except I actually never read Stirner and will argue that you didn't understand him since I didn't.

>Let's say that tomorrow I invent a new philosophy which says that the essence of consciousness is the desire to eat meat and that all other cognition arises from this.
Well, you'd first have to prove that your philosophy is at least coherent and start writing several published books that share your idea and prove that it can develop and evolve society. But seeing as nothing you've ever written has been worth a shit, I highly doubt that you could ever do such a thing.

>>8980229
Stick to Stirner, because that's about the only philosophy your mind can handle apparently.

>>8980229
>remains your personal subjectivity
Does it?

>>8980245
You can't be posting this because you don't believe you exist.

>>8980251
My self is the receptacle of the experiences I experience. I only stop being receptacle of experiences upon death. In short, yes.

>>8980235

You can call me a wimp or whatever but I am going to bed now. I don't have the energy to carry on this argument where I have to supply all the good will. So please, chalk this one up as another win for the great invincible Stirner.

Just do me a favor, okay? Call up or email your local college and ask to speak to the philosophy department. Bring in your copy of The Ego and Its Own and have a nice chat with a prof. If you want you can even bring a transcript of this discussion as an example of your work in action. Better yet, write a paper of your own and submit it to a journal. I'm sure with how powerful Stirner is you'll receive little resistance as you restore egoism to its proper place as a respectable, consistent, and robust worldview.

I'm really just trying to help you out because your ideas are so great they shouldn't be confined to this imageboard filled with green frog pictures and Bane quotes. You should be out spreading the word, man. I look forward to hearing from you.

>>8980269
>I have to supply all the good will
>proceeds to make resentful, snide, sarcastic post
You don't have to be self-aware when you don't have a self!

>>8980257
Again, you see the world in black and white... You see things as they are either "A" or they are "B." You fail to see that "A" is not equal to "A."

I'm going to take from your fervent Sternerposting that you believe that the philosophy of egoism is good, am I correct in assuming that? Because, afterall, why choose egoism if it is not good for you? Now, could you imagine a world full of egoists, if everyone were to be an egoist? What type of society would that be, not one that any of us would want to live in, that is for certain. Yet, here you are, promoting the benefit of egoism yet feasting on the spoils of societal moral constructs like a fucking rat that slinks back off to its hole in the floorboards. In fact, the rat has more decency than even you. As an egoist, I'm sure your actions are bound to cause tensions and even negative repercussions if you always work in the self-interest in it's most accepted term. How is that beneficial to one's own life? Or is it something that you just convince yourself that you are better off without because, after all, as an egoist you don't need to worry about self-contradiction because in the end you decide it's better for you to just write anything off that you don't agree with.

>>8980278
>gets mad at others for being able to create a summation of Stirner and Stirnerposters with simple greentexting
>green texts 'not-an-arguments' for his own replies

>>8980269
>I don't have a real point to make
>I'll just see how many memes I can fit into one post!

>>8980294
kys, you have absolutely contributed nothing

>>8980298
I'm sorry, I never meant to hurt your feelies. Maybe you should just stick to /v/ or whatever cesspool you originate from.

>>8980284
Nothing has betrayed your misreading or complete lack of reading of Stirner than this post. "Now, could you imagine a world full of egoists, if everyone were to be an egoist? What type of society would that be, not one that any of us would want to live in, that is for certain." Self-interest is not so shortsighted as to be about screwing people over to get what you want in the short term. Egotism involves decency, working together, fair play as long as benefiting the other person also benefits you, in a Union of Egoists. And in fact, Stirner's egoism in a large part humanitarian because it's certain spooky conceptions imposed on workers by society that allow capitalists to ruthlessly exploit people. If people recognised what was in their self-interest and acted accordingly, such exploitation could not take place and society would be a better place.

>>8980304
You have not argued a single case as to why you believe that Sterner, or Egoism, for that matter is correct

>>8980316
Have you argued a single case that proves Stirner or Egoism is incorrect?

>>8980314
Except for that to happen it would require the cessation of the human condition if we were to argue against societal morals because they are spooks.

Or we would have to accept the codes of morality that you have denounced and work within the confines of such a construct to achieve what is best for us within the construct's limits.

What a glorious thread

File: download.jpg (7KB, 290x174px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 290x174px

>>8977881

> smack talk thread about Socrates
> let's check it out
> 100 replies about some German solipsist
> one dude who OD'd on memes and now takes Stirner seriously
> five guys who keep falling for the bait

>>8980350
>we can´t live peacefully because human condition

>>8981659
that's why you need an ethnostate :^)

>>8980046
>>8979976
why you said the citizens think that philosophizing is not a threat to the city?. because he philosophize wrong in the trial?.

>>8979517
fuck that, id honestly sell out my own mother if it got me more time on earth, id rather live in complete unhappiness than live in the nothingness

>>8977897

>Socrates was guilty of no crime.

He was suspected of fomenting/instigating/suporting an oligarchic revolt against the democracy. The "young men" who followed him were almost to a man aristocrats with anti-democratic, pro-Spartan sympathies. And if you read the dialogues Socrates' skepticism of democracy comes up again and again from the dialogues classified as "early" all the way to the Laws.

You have to understand the historical context. The 30 had only just been overthrown, democracy was fragile.

I'm not saying Socrates deserved to die but he wasn't just executed for being a pest. Most greek people are pests generally speaking.

>>8981762

You seem to be pretty sure about what the afterlife is like. What do you base this on?

>>8980284
>society
>>8980350
>human condition
Holy fuck

>>8980316
>>8980322
How do you keep falling for his bait? This question coming from someone who's actually read and appreciated Stirner.

I'm willing to advocate for Stirner, but it will have to be later tonight (around 7 EST) as I'm at work right now. You'll probably find I'm not the most well-read, but the the experience could be educational for me if you'll allow it.

File: Hey kid.jpg (593KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 900x900px

>tfw ugly Socrates was actually guilty of the crimes for which he was charged
>tfw he died in the name of his stubborn pride

>>8979800
I really fucking hate Stirnerposting

File: DontCryForMeArgentina.png (558KB, 680x541px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 680x541px

>>8978983

>>8981720
A big part of the reason Socrates "loses" at his trial is because he provokes his judges in ways more noticeable than his cautious discussions of his religious beliefs. Again, because he discusses those beliefs so circumspectly, he's able to present himself as some whose activity isn't possibly dangerous to the city; he ends up looking like the holiest or most devout of Athenians even! Nonetheless, he insults the Athenian's both explicitly and implicitly over and over, which seems to be the real cause of his being voted guilty. If it were because of his impiety, the city wouldn't have come to regret executing him so soon afterwards; scholars don't really know what happens to Socrates's accusers after the execution, but some accounts years and years after the trial say that Meletus was himself executed because of the trial, and Anytus was exiled. Even if that account isn't true, it is true that the city ends up tolerating both Plato and Aristotle, who each in their own ways radical critics of the city and especially of civic piety. The city's tolerance of them is related to the city's reflection on Socrates after his death.

Does all that help to make sense of it?

>>8977881
I may not agree with the man, but sacrificing your beliefs is for plebs.

I think that to be a slight misrepresentation.

>>8979785
>waaaah he cared more about having a real legacy than some shit kids

>>8979940
>tfw to idiotic too be insane

>>8979930
Well then what did Socrates die for?! Hmmmm? Perhaps by the dog you will bring forth an adequate explanation for I do not know of one.