The Lives of Other's, maybe. A man betrays his own fixed ideals to advance something that he himself finds worth in, something he makes his own affair. Kind of stretching it here.
I'm not an expert and I don't think he does good philosophy from the little I have read.
This guy basically argues you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit.
I think it is shallow when compared to good philosophers and doesn't tackle the interesting questions in the field of morality.
>This guy basically argues you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit.
That's just what most of people do
From some points of view, yes.
But some people do things they feel will not benefit themselves but others.
>from the little I have read >argues you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit
i too dont read things but then offer my incorrect interpretation of them
>argues you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit
3 months ago
Anonymous
That is absolutely what his philosphy is though, have you even read a paragraph of the guy?
3 months ago
Anonymous
as i said
>He can only laugh and suggest, by his actions and from what he mocks and prefer, a sociopathic way of living
and yet if you read him he mocks the empty lives of those sort >If you discerned what you did, you must have also seen how many of Stirner readers glorify the sociopathic way of living more than recognition of spooks
you are referring to other people who also havent read him, like yourself, but are equally encouraged to weigh in anyways and project what they want
if you had actually read him you'd see him mocking those who live to benefit no one but themself
if you think he argues to not consider others, you are just being willfully retarded or are yet again another person pretending to have read his work
3 months ago
Anonymous
bruh your fucking quote even acknowledges that he loves them because love makes him feel good. You're so fucking stupid
3 months ago
Anonymous
meant for
[...]
people who glorify sociopathic ways of living only know of Stirner through memes, it's why I posted [...] and didn't bother replying to the anon who (you)'d me, here have an excerpt from The ego & its own: >"I love men too – not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too..." >If I see the loved one suffer, I suffer with him, and I know no rest until I have tried everything to comfort and cheer him; if I see him glad, I too become glad over his joy. From this it does not follow that suffering or joy is caused in me by the same thing that brings out this effect in him, as is sufficiently proved by every bodily pain which I do not feel as he does; his tooth pains him, but his pain pains me.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>NOOOO LOVE IS ONLY LOVE WHEN YOU DONT FEEL THEIR PAIN OR ENJOY THEIR PLEASURE >GOOD LOVE IS THE KIND OF LOVE THAT YOU ARE TOLD TO HAVE AND DO OUT OF OBLIGATION TO IMAGINERY FORCES
3 months ago
Anonymous
that's beside the point, brainlet
3 months ago
Anonymous
you called that person stupid for quoting stirner for describing love
where was the point in that, exactly?
3 months ago
Anonymous
i didn't. the point is in the reply chain.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Well, in which way was I inaccurate?
you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit >That is absolutely what his philosphy is though, have you even read a paragraph of the guy?
[...]
people who glorify sociopathic ways of living only know of Stirner through memes, it's why I posted [...] and didn't bother replying to the anon who (you)'d me, here have an excerpt from The ego & its own: >"I love men too – not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too..." >If I see the loved one suffer, I suffer with him, and I know no rest until I have tried everything to comfort and cheer him; if I see him glad, I too become glad over his joy. From this it does not follow that suffering or joy is caused in me by the same thing that brings out this effect in him, as is sufficiently proved by every bodily pain which I do not feel as he does; his tooth pains him, but his pain pains me.
>bruh your fucking quote even acknowledges that he loves them because love makes him feel good. You're so fucking stupid
3 months ago
Anonymous
i didn't call him stupid for "for quoting stirner for describing love", how is that something so hard for you to grasp. That isn't even the point of discussion at all lol
3 months ago
Anonymous
don't bother, he's just coping his image of le edgy meme philosopher was a lie.
maybe on day he'll pick up a god damn book, but until then it's not our job to educate him.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Your quote was supposed to disprove that anon's understanding. Your quote only supported what
I'm not an expert and I don't think he does good philosophy from the little I have read.
This guy basically argues you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit.
I think it is shallow when compared to good philosophers and doesn't tackle the interesting questions in the field of morality.
said. it didn't disprove it. It's interesting that you supposedly read his giberish ramblings yet cannot comprehend the text of simple replies chain
3 months ago
Anonymous
>helping someone because you love them or enjoy helping strangers in need is bad >he is a sociopath because he isn't helping strangers in need because the teaching of a rabbi who died 2000 years ago told him he'll suffer if he doesnt
3 months ago
Anonymous
Nobody claimed it's bad you absolute mouthbreather. You claimed the other anon's understanding of Stirner is wrong you've failed to demonstrate how and just shift the discussion and cope
3 months ago
Anonymous
>no one's claiming it's bad, its just that it makes him a sociopath for helping others out of love and not obligations to spooks!
ok pal
How do you define what is a spook and what isn't?
My impression from Stirner fans on Cinemaphile is that everything is a spook.
If someone says "You shouldn't cheat on your wife because it will harm your family, besides the virtue of temperance is good for yourself since it makes your mind freer"
Which leads to Stirner fans claiming family, love and virtue are spooks and that cheating is to their benefit.
Are Cinemaphile Stirner fans being idiotic or is it that his philosophy leads to this?
>is Cinemaphile retarded?
yes of course
a spook like patriotism might get you to die for your country
now you might die because your country, the people and way of life, are all threatened and they mean a lot to you and you go into danger willingly in defense of the real state of affairs
or you might be heavily indoctrinated in a social circle where "patriotism" is a convenient spook to get you to go die in iraq for the benefit of israel
spooks are social/political/religious/etc ideas that subjugate your behavior and interests to abstract ones, often conveniently promoted and controlled by major societal centers of power
3 months ago
Anonymous
you're the only one using the word sociopath, so fucking stupid. How do you even pretend to understand his philosophical giberish with this absolute naggerish reading comprehension
3 months ago
Anonymous
>you're the only one using the word sociopath, so fucking stupid
The thing is, Stirner is merely saying this but not suggesting you should follow it or anything because that would be spooky, and this leads to, for me, an important conclusion of his philosophy: you can't escape spooks. He can only laugh and suggest, by his actions and from what he mocks and prefer, a sociopathic way of living. If you discerned what you did, you must have also seen how many of Stirner readers glorify the sociopathic way of living more than recognition of spooks.
It's why this is a good suggestion [...] or any other movie with sociopath/psychopath type character.
>He can only laugh and suggest, by his actions and from what he mocks and prefer, a sociopathic way of living. If you discerned what you did, you must have also seen how many of Stirner readers glorify the sociopathic way of living more than recognition of spooks. >It's why this is a good suggestion
Nightcrawler or any other movie with sociopath/psychopath type character.
i assume you'll get tired of being publically retarded eventually, but i might be overestimating you
3 months ago
Anonymous
You can't even follow a simple reply chain all you can do is quote some other person in another reply chain as proof. How stupid are you truly? You cannot demonstrate how the anon's understanding is wrong all you can do is deflect and strawman.
3 months ago
Anonymous
dang i keep citing relevant widely quoted replies in the comment chain but somehow you haven't divulged this secret reply hidden in it, with all the understanding?
must be a mystery 😉
3 months ago
Anonymous
It's not relevant as neither me nor the other anon have used the word "sociopath". I see you can't show how anon's understanding of Stirner is wrong seeing as you yourself are too stupid to even understand the discussion at hand and instead seem to have began talking about some other topics in a pathetic attempt to not lose the "debate".
3 months ago
Anonymous
oooo another reference to this mysterious post, containing all the meaning of the comment chain, that cant be >
3 months ago
Anonymous
it's this
I'm not an expert and I don't think he does good philosophy from the little I have read.
This guy basically argues you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit.
I think it is shallow when compared to good philosophers and doesn't tackle the interesting questions in the field of morality.
this is the second time i point you to it. it's literally a linear reply chain. You have the memory of a pidgeon it seems.
3 months ago
Anonymous
that sure took you a long time >stirner says not to consider others and dont do things that dont benefit you
not true, whew that was easy
3 months ago
Anonymous
don't bother replying anymore i probably won't see it. plus it's likely gonna be some cope or deflection
3 months ago
Anonymous
he's saying he has empathy for people and acts accordingly, which is very different than the sociopathic behavior you claimed he was promoting
>from the little I have read >argues you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit
i too dont read things but then offer my incorrect interpretation of them
I suppose he can be a little hard to parse if you don't often read above a certain level. He does not write gibberish. I don't think (good translations) of Stirner are any harder to understand than Dickens. The one posted here
The Lives of Other's, maybe. A man betrays his own fixed ideals to advance something that he himself finds worth in, something he makes his own affair. Kind of stretching it here.
is perfectly legible. He does often get playful though and is frequently mocking the people who he is writing (sort of) in response too (eg Feuerbach).
A hidden life by Terrence Malick
however this would only be apparent to you if you actually understood the nature of Stirner's egoism, if you think of him as just le edgy milkman then you'll never get it
Ever notice how stirnerposters are often anarchosyndicalist trannies who don't understand that liberalism, feminism and the rights of minorities are also spooks? Weird stuff.
Stirner's ideas are so vague they lend themselves to whatever your so called "creative nothing" wishes to latch onto.
you could probably justify any single action you want using his reasoning as long as it's something you're doing for yourself and not because of some external cause you've pledged yourself to.
>Stirner's ideas are so vague they lend themselves to whatever your so called "creative nothing" wishes to latch onto.
You can't really be a "stirnerian" if you start to pick and choose what things are spooks and what aren't. A stirnerposting social justice activist us just like a nihilist teen who is so clueless that he thinks Nietzsche is on his side philosophically
>You can't really be a "stirnerian" if you start to pick and choose what things are spooks and what aren't.
being "stirnerian" is itself a very spooky term but I'll humor you, Stirner's point is for you to simply recognize the spooks, he's not giving you any imperative on how to act around spooks.
you can think of spooks as social constructs, doing something thinking it's the natural state of affairs is different from doing the same thing while recognizing how it's just made up.
one is aware of the nature of the things he follows and can thus discard them when they become an inconvenience to himself.
>Stirner's point is for you to simply recognize the spooks, he's not giving you any imperative on how to act around spooks
Yeah, but the oversocialized idiots I'm talking about always gloss over the fact that their morality is full of spooks too. Their tiny baby brains are like haunted houses. For example, human rights are 100% a spook but to these retards it's like the ten commandments which cannot be questioned under any condition.
The thing is, Stirner is merely saying this but not suggesting you should follow it or anything because that would be spooky, and this leads to, for me, an important conclusion of his philosophy: you can't escape spooks. He can only laugh and suggest, by his actions and from what he mocks and prefer, a sociopathic way of living. If you discerned what you did, you must have also seen how many of Stirner readers glorify the sociopathic way of living more than recognition of spooks.
It's why this is a good suggestion
Nightcrawler
or any other movie with sociopath/psychopath type character.
>He can only laugh and suggest, by his actions and from what he mocks and prefer, a sociopathic way of living
and yet if you read him he mocks the empty lives of those sort >If you discerned what you did, you must have also seen how many of Stirner readers glorify the sociopathic way of living more than recognition of spooks
you are referring to other people who also havent read him, like yourself, but are equally encouraged to weigh in anyways and project what they want
That is absolutely what his philosphy is though, have you even read a paragraph of the guy?
people who glorify sociopathic ways of living only know of Stirner through memes, it's why I posted
A hidden life by Terrence Malick
however this would only be apparent to you if you actually understood the nature of Stirner's egoism, if you think of him as just le edgy milkman then you'll never get it
and didn't bother replying to the anon who (you)'d me, here have an excerpt from The ego & its own: >"I love men too – not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too..." >If I see the loved one suffer, I suffer with him, and I know no rest until I have tried everything to comfort and cheer him; if I see him glad, I too become glad over his joy. From this it does not follow that suffering or joy is caused in me by the same thing that brings out this effect in him, as is sufficiently proved by every bodily pain which I do not feel as he does; his tooth pains him, but his pain pains me.
The images exist. The film reel exists.
Even the digital files exist.
How do you observe something that doesn't exist?
Objectively, they exist.
Cope and seethe for all time
I'd say Fight Club is more Nietzschean. People raised as herd animals wanting to break free and become something heroic, life affirming, great (wisely or not).
Ever notice how stirnerposters are often anarchosyndicalist trannies who don't understand that liberalism, feminism and the rights of minorities are also spooks? Weird stuff.
Indeed. His takedown of liberalism is the best part of the book imo. Seen in part here:
The Lives of Other's, maybe. A man betrays his own fixed ideals to advance something that he himself finds worth in, something he makes his own affair. Kind of stretching it here.
Based. If there was any character I wanted to live as, it would be Vincent. Rich, ultra capable and connected assassin who can live in whichever way he wants and is not bound to anything. God, I wish that were me.
What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the Good Cause, then God's cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never to be my concern. "Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!"
How do you define what is a spook and what isn't?
My impression from Stirner fans on Cinemaphile is that everything is a spook.
If someone says "You shouldn't cheat on your wife because it will harm your family, besides the virtue of temperance is good for yourself since it makes your mind freer"
Which leads to Stirner fans claiming family, love and virtue are spooks and that cheating is to their benefit.
Are Cinemaphile Stirner fans being idiotic or is it that his philosophy leads to this?
>Which leads to Stirner fans claiming family, love and virtue are spooks
Yes. >and that cheating is to their benefit
Maybe, maybe not. Hurting my family would be very unpleasant for me, I would not cheat on my wife.
The way I understand is that you not cheating on your wife shouldn't be amoral obligation because someone's god or government says it's bad. You don't cheat on your wife because you love her. You don't cheat on her because making her suffer is causing yourself suffering.
Stirner unironically helped me during my teenage years, I was spooked by this notion of "masculinity" and used to be very emotionally distant, I dropped that act once I've read his book and became comfortable in expressing my love to my dad.
he passed away a few years later and I'm glad I didn't stick to my cold persona during what little time he had left with me.
so thanks Stirner
I don't know who this is nor do I care.
Stirner, the avatar of childless spergs
Yeah that embody him perfectly.
I love when Max says It’s stirning time and he just starts stirning all over the damn place lol good times KWAB
The Lives of Other's, maybe. A man betrays his own fixed ideals to advance something that he himself finds worth in, something he makes his own affair. Kind of stretching it here.
Does this guy write incomprehensible gibbrish or am I just too retarded? I don't understand what he's trying to say
the latter
>adhd zoomie tries to read a paragraph for the first time
I'm not an expert and I don't think he does good philosophy from the little I have read.
This guy basically argues you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit.
I think it is shallow when compared to good philosophers and doesn't tackle the interesting questions in the field of morality.
>This guy basically argues you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit.
That's just what most of people do
From some points of view, yes.
But some people do things they feel will not benefit themselves but others.
Well, in which way was I inaccurate?
>Well, in which way was I inaccurate?
NTA but he isn't Ayn Rand, for one.
>Well, in which way was I inaccurate?
>argues you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit
That is absolutely what his philosphy is though, have you even read a paragraph of the guy?
as i said
if you had actually read him you'd see him mocking those who live to benefit no one but themself
if you think he argues to not consider others, you are just being willfully retarded or are yet again another person pretending to have read his work
bruh your fucking quote even acknowledges that he loves them because love makes him feel good. You're so fucking stupid
meant for
>NOOOO LOVE IS ONLY LOVE WHEN YOU DONT FEEL THEIR PAIN OR ENJOY THEIR PLEASURE
>GOOD LOVE IS THE KIND OF LOVE THAT YOU ARE TOLD TO HAVE AND DO OUT OF OBLIGATION TO IMAGINERY FORCES
that's beside the point, brainlet
you called that person stupid for quoting stirner for describing love
where was the point in that, exactly?
i didn't. the point is in the reply chain.
>Well, in which way was I inaccurate?
you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit
>That is absolutely what his philosphy is though, have you even read a paragraph of the guy?
>bruh your fucking quote even acknowledges that he loves them because love makes him feel good. You're so fucking stupid
i didn't call him stupid for "for quoting stirner for describing love", how is that something so hard for you to grasp. That isn't even the point of discussion at all lol
don't bother, he's just coping his image of le edgy meme philosopher was a lie.
maybe on day he'll pick up a god damn book, but until then it's not our job to educate him.
Your quote was supposed to disprove that anon's understanding. Your quote only supported what
said. it didn't disprove it. It's interesting that you supposedly read his giberish ramblings yet cannot comprehend the text of simple replies chain
>helping someone because you love them or enjoy helping strangers in need is bad
>he is a sociopath because he isn't helping strangers in need because the teaching of a rabbi who died 2000 years ago told him he'll suffer if he doesnt
Nobody claimed it's bad you absolute mouthbreather. You claimed the other anon's understanding of Stirner is wrong you've failed to demonstrate how and just shift the discussion and cope
>no one's claiming it's bad, its just that it makes him a sociopath for helping others out of love and not obligations to spooks!
ok pal
>is Cinemaphile retarded?
yes of course
a spook like patriotism might get you to die for your country
now you might die because your country, the people and way of life, are all threatened and they mean a lot to you and you go into danger willingly in defense of the real state of affairs
or you might be heavily indoctrinated in a social circle where "patriotism" is a convenient spook to get you to go die in iraq for the benefit of israel
spooks are social/political/religious/etc ideas that subjugate your behavior and interests to abstract ones, often conveniently promoted and controlled by major societal centers of power
you're the only one using the word sociopath, so fucking stupid. How do you even pretend to understand his philosophical giberish with this absolute naggerish reading comprehension
>you're the only one using the word sociopath, so fucking stupid
>He can only laugh and suggest, by his actions and from what he mocks and prefer, a sociopathic way of living. If you discerned what you did, you must have also seen how many of Stirner readers glorify the sociopathic way of living more than recognition of spooks.
>It's why this is a good suggestion
Nightcrawler or any other movie with sociopath/psychopath type character.
i assume you'll get tired of being publically retarded eventually, but i might be overestimating you
You can't even follow a simple reply chain all you can do is quote some other person in another reply chain as proof. How stupid are you truly? You cannot demonstrate how the anon's understanding is wrong all you can do is deflect and strawman.
dang i keep citing relevant widely quoted replies in the comment chain but somehow you haven't divulged this secret reply hidden in it, with all the understanding?
must be a mystery 😉
It's not relevant as neither me nor the other anon have used the word "sociopath". I see you can't show how anon's understanding of Stirner is wrong seeing as you yourself are too stupid to even understand the discussion at hand and instead seem to have began talking about some other topics in a pathetic attempt to not lose the "debate".
oooo another reference to this mysterious post, containing all the meaning of the comment chain, that cant be >
it's this
this is the second time i point you to it. it's literally a linear reply chain. You have the memory of a pidgeon it seems.
that sure took you a long time
>stirner says not to consider others and dont do things that dont benefit you
not true, whew that was easy
don't bother replying anymore i probably won't see it. plus it's likely gonna be some cope or deflection
he's saying he has empathy for people and acts accordingly, which is very different than the sociopathic behavior you claimed he was promoting
>from the little I have read
>argues you should do whatever benefits you and to not consider other people/morality/etc when it goes against your benefit
i too dont read things but then offer my incorrect interpretation of them
I suppose he can be a little hard to parse if you don't often read above a certain level. He does not write gibberish. I don't think (good translations) of Stirner are any harder to understand than Dickens. The one posted here
is perfectly legible. He does often get playful though and is frequently mocking the people who he is writing (sort of) in response too (eg Feuerbach).
bump
What kind of film would even be able to embody such autism?
I know almost nothing about him, but by this text, it seems like following Stirner is a good way of becoming depressed.
quite the opposite, it's very liberating.
Living without a higher end leads to confusion and ultimately to some form of hedonism.
that's because Stirner is what Nietzsche is but with 2 standard deviations lower IQ
Being a selfish animal obsessed with your own farts and call it an ego? Go to the zoo.
A hidden life by Terrence Malick
however this would only be apparent to you if you actually understood the nature of Stirner's egoism, if you think of him as just le edgy milkman then you'll never get it
nagger I cannot think of a more anti-egoist film than the one you just posted, are you retarded?
Ever notice how stirnerposters are often anarchosyndicalist trannies who don't understand that liberalism, feminism and the rights of minorities are also spooks? Weird stuff.
Stirner's ideas are so vague they lend themselves to whatever your so called "creative nothing" wishes to latch onto.
you could probably justify any single action you want using his reasoning as long as it's something you're doing for yourself and not because of some external cause you've pledged yourself to.
>Stirner's ideas are so vague they lend themselves to whatever your so called "creative nothing" wishes to latch onto.
You can't really be a "stirnerian" if you start to pick and choose what things are spooks and what aren't. A stirnerposting social justice activist us just like a nihilist teen who is so clueless that he thinks Nietzsche is on his side philosophically
>You can't really be a "stirnerian" if you start to pick and choose what things are spooks and what aren't.
being "stirnerian" is itself a very spooky term but I'll humor you, Stirner's point is for you to simply recognize the spooks, he's not giving you any imperative on how to act around spooks.
you can think of spooks as social constructs, doing something thinking it's the natural state of affairs is different from doing the same thing while recognizing how it's just made up.
one is aware of the nature of the things he follows and can thus discard them when they become an inconvenience to himself.
>Stirner's point is for you to simply recognize the spooks, he's not giving you any imperative on how to act around spooks
Yeah, but the oversocialized idiots I'm talking about always gloss over the fact that their morality is full of spooks too. Their tiny baby brains are like haunted houses. For example, human rights are 100% a spook but to these retards it's like the ten commandments which cannot be questioned under any condition.
They are NPCs. They are fatalists who meekly follow the flock and believe everything the patricians tell them.
The thing is, Stirner is merely saying this but not suggesting you should follow it or anything because that would be spooky, and this leads to, for me, an important conclusion of his philosophy: you can't escape spooks. He can only laugh and suggest, by his actions and from what he mocks and prefer, a sociopathic way of living. If you discerned what you did, you must have also seen how many of Stirner readers glorify the sociopathic way of living more than recognition of spooks.
It's why this is a good suggestion
or any other movie with sociopath/psychopath type character.
>He can only laugh and suggest, by his actions and from what he mocks and prefer, a sociopathic way of living
and yet if you read him he mocks the empty lives of those sort
>If you discerned what you did, you must have also seen how many of Stirner readers glorify the sociopathic way of living more than recognition of spooks
you are referring to other people who also havent read him, like yourself, but are equally encouraged to weigh in anyways and project what they want
people who glorify sociopathic ways of living only know of Stirner through memes, it's why I posted
and didn't bother replying to the anon who (you)'d me, here have an excerpt from The ego & its own:
>"I love men too – not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too..."
>If I see the loved one suffer, I suffer with him, and I know no rest until I have tried everything to comfort and cheer him; if I see him glad, I too become glad over his joy. From this it does not follow that suffering or joy is caused in me by the same thing that brings out this effect in him, as is sufficiently proved by every bodily pain which I do not feel as he does; his tooth pains him, but his pain pains me.
Miami Blues
Films are a spook, you're just watching moving images that don't actually exist.
They're observable and objectively exist though
No they don't.
The images exist. The film reel exists.
Even the digital files exist.
How do you observe something that doesn't exist?
Objectively, they exist.
Cope and seethe for all time
You don't exist.
stay mad
t-that's not what spook means
Fags fags fags all of you
fight club if it wasn't so preachy
I'd say Fight Club is more Nietzschean. People raised as herd animals wanting to break free and become something heroic, life affirming, great (wisely or not).
Indeed. His takedown of liberalism is the best part of the book imo. Seen in part here:
Stirner was a cute robot girl who shot laser beams from his stomach?
are you saying he wasn't?
>any kino that embodies this man's thoughts?
>any kino that embodies this man's thoughts?
Based. If there was any character I wanted to live as, it would be Vincent. Rich, ultra capable and connected assassin who can live in whichever way he wants and is not bound to anything. God, I wish that were me.
Nolan's Joker
no country for old men
The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.
QRD?
He wrote ghost stories, basically a 19th century Stephen King.
Nightcrawler
What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the Good Cause, then God's cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never to be my concern. "Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!"
This reads so unhinged that it caught my curiosity, I will check out your meme philosopher OP
So do good because you want to do good. Not because it is good. Is this the gist of stirner?
the gist is to not get tricked into serving others through spooks, and to focus on what actually matters to you
How do you define what is a spook and what isn't?
My impression from Stirner fans on Cinemaphile is that everything is a spook.
If someone says "You shouldn't cheat on your wife because it will harm your family, besides the virtue of temperance is good for yourself since it makes your mind freer"
Which leads to Stirner fans claiming family, love and virtue are spooks and that cheating is to their benefit.
Are Cinemaphile Stirner fans being idiotic or is it that his philosophy leads to this?
>Which leads to Stirner fans claiming family, love and virtue are spooks
Yes.
>and that cheating is to their benefit
Maybe, maybe not. Hurting my family would be very unpleasant for me, I would not cheat on my wife.
The way I understand is that you not cheating on your wife shouldn't be amoral obligation because someone's god or government says it's bad. You don't cheat on your wife because you love her. You don't cheat on her because making her suffer is causing yourself suffering.
I look like this and usually speak like that. What now?
>seethe so hard at someone's work you write more pages than he wrote just to cope
How did Stirner do it?
I Am Jazz
My Friend Dahmer
Cuties
My 600-lb Life
Stirner unironically helped me during my teenage years, I was spooked by this notion of "masculinity" and used to be very emotionally distant, I dropped that act once I've read his book and became comfortable in expressing my love to my dad.
he passed away a few years later and I'm glad I didn't stick to my cold persona during what little time he had left with me.
so thanks Stirner
I dont care what is or isnt a spook ill keep calling things i dont like one
based https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6QMmrM4BmI
I know exactly what your doing posting this shit anon it worked based
the original chud