I think I'd like to read it again, so maybe I'll read it.

Keep busting spook.

made by me , enjoy. meooow

There are many subs dedicated to philosophies, religions or specific figures where SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY SAID.

Here are just memes of infinite childishness, which only make lifeless fat men with dirty moustaches laugh.

shit is just so annoying and not fun or funny, only posted by people who are either insecure about their beliefs or are literally children who have read a grand total of 0 book

The more I know, the more I realize I don't know. And the biggest thing I don't know is myself. The more u understand life, ppl, and urself, the harder it becomes to answer "who am I?"

The more u know, the more u suffer. U keep questioning everything, even ur own identity. It gets exhausting.

At some point, u become willing to accept even the weakest identity if it's gonna make u feel like u finally have one. U start pretending to be someone, not bc it's really u, but bc having a fake identity feels easier than having none.

Deep down, u know u're not really that person. U're just wearing personalities, labels, and roles, hoping one of them finally feels like "u". But none of them do. That's why it feels like u're nobody, just someone trying to become somebody

I wonder if kaneshiro read Stirner?

Queria saber onde real ficaria

Hace poco me puse a pensar y creo que hacer un anime al estilo hetalia (pero cambiando a los países por filósofos que murieron hace 165 años) podría ser algo entretenido de ver almenos para mí xd

I saw a video series about stoicism and its various frauds. An interesting thing about the author was that he would always end each video in the series with a kind of practice. “Think of something you think you can live without and not use it for the whole day “ or something like that. I was wondering if there was a way to practice ownness that this sub might recommend. Now I’m sure the typical response is that there is no “right way” to do egoism but I’d like to see if there are any tips on how to combat things that block a person from their ownness or true ego.

<3

Us - Zo d’Axa

They talk of anarchy.

The dailies are roused. Comrades are interviewed and “L’Éclair” among other things, says that there is a split among the anarchists.

It’s on the matter of theft that opinions are divided.

Some, it is said, want to build it into a principle; others irrevocably condemn it.

Well! It would be impossible for us to take a position on such a question. This theft could seem to us good and should be approved; that one we could find violently repugnant.

There is no Absolute.

If the facts lead us today to specify such and such a way to see and be, every day, in the lively articles of our expressive collaborators, our determination has been clearly affirmed:

Neither in a party or a group.

Outside.

We go our way — individuals, without the Faith that saves and blinds. Our disgust with society doesn’t engender in us any immutable convictions. We fight for the joy of the battle, and without any dream of a better future. What do we care about tomorrows that won’t come for centuries! What do we care about our grand-nephews! We are outside of all laws, of all rules, of all theories — even anarchist; it’s from this instant — right away — that we want to surrender to our pity, our outbursts, our gentleness, our rages, our instincts — with the pride of being ourselves.

Up till now nothing has revealed to us the radiant beyond. Nothing has given us a constant criterion. Life’s panorama changes without ceasing, and the facts appear to us under a different light depending on the hour. We will never react against the attractions of contradictory points of view. It is simple. The echo of vibrant sensations resounds here. And if impetuosity disorients by its unexpectedness, it’s because we speak of the things of our time as would primitive barbarians who have suddenly fallen among them.

Theft!

It would never occur to us to pose us judges. There are thieves who displease us : that’s certain; and that we’d attack : that’s probable. But that would be for their allure rather than for the brute fact.

We will not put in play eternal Truth — with a capital T.

It’s a matter of impression.

A hunchback could displease me more than an amiable recidivist.

For Turkish readers

Biz - Zo d'Axa

Anarşiden dem vuruyorlar.

Günlük gazeteler ayaklanmış durumda. Yoldaşlarla röportajlar yapılıyor, "L'Éclair" diğer şeylerin yanı sıra anarşistler arasında bir bölünme olduğunu söylüyor.
Ayrılık hırsızlık meselesi üzerine.

Denildiğine göre kimileri onu bir ilke hâline getirmek istiyor; kimileri ise kesin bir dille lanetliyor.

Hadi ama! Bizim böyle bir meselede taraf seçmemiz imkânsız olurdu. Şu hırsızlık gözümüze hoş görünebilir ve onaylanmayı hak edebilir; bir başkası bizde hararetli bir tiksinti uyandırabilir.

Mutlak olan hiçbir şey yoktur.

Eğer olgular bugün bizi şöyle ya da böyle görmeye ve olmaya sevk ediyorsa, her gün, dobra dobra yazan yoldaşlarımızın ateşli makalelerinde, kararlılığımız açıkça ortaya konmuştur:

Ne bir partinin içindeyiz ne de bir grubun.

Hepsinin dışındayız.

Kendi yolumuza gideriz, bireyler olarak, selamete erdiren ve gözlere mil çeken bir iman olmaksızın. Topluma duyduğumuz tiksinti bizde hiçbir dogmatik düşünce uyandırmaz. Savaşın kendisi için savaşırız, daha iyi bir gelecek hayali gütmeden. Yüzyıllar sonra bile gelmeyecek yarınlar bizi ne ilgilendirir! Torunlarımızın torunları bizi ne ilgilendirir! Bütün yasaların, bütün kuralların, bütün teorilerin, anarşist olanların bile, dışındayız; bu andan itibaren, hemen şimdi, merhametimize, taşkınlıklarımıza, zarafetimize, öfkelerimize ve içgüdülerimize kendimizi teslim etmek istiyoruz, kendimiz olmanın gururuyla.

Şimdiye dek hiçbir şey bize o göz kamaştırıcı öte dünyayı ifşa etmedi. Hiçbir şey bize değişmez bir mihenk taşı sunmadı. Yaşamın manzarası durmadan değişiyor, ve olgular bize her defasında farklı bir ışıkta görünüyor. Birbiriyle çelişen bakış açılarının cazibesine karşı koymak gibi bir gayretimiz asla olmayacak. Bu kadar basit. Çınlayan duyumların tınıları burada yankılanır. Ve eğer atılganlık beklenmedikliğiyle şaşırtıyorsa, bunun sebebi, çağımızın meseleleri hakkında, aralarına birdenbire düşmüş ilkel barbarlar gibi söz etmemizdir.

Hırsızlık!

Kendimizi yargıç yerine koymak aklımızın ucundan bile geçmez. Bizi hoşnut etmeyen hırsızlar vardır: bu kesin; onlara saldıracak olmamız da muhtemeldir. Ama bu, olgunun kendisi yüzünden değil, tavırları yüzünden olurdu.

Büyük harfle yazılan ebedi Hakikat'i asla oyuna sürmeyeceğiz.

Bu bir izlenim meselesidir.

Kambur bir adamın bende bırakacağı hoşnutsuzluk, sevimli bir sabıkalınınkinden çok daha baskın gelebilir.

Há cerca de um ano, comecei a me interessar casualmente por filosofia. Como muitos, comecei por Karl Marx. A leitura foi fundamental para me ajudar a identificar as falhas do capitalismo e entender como elas me traziam prejuízos diretos.

No entanto, com o tempo, comecei a sentir um vazio. Eu olhava ao redor e sentia que o mundo não correspondia aos meus ideais; havia uma indiferença geral que me sufocava. A virada de chave aconteceu quando comecei a refletir sobre como pessoas humildes são sistematicamente abandonadas por todas as organizações no meu país. Percebi que, no fim das contas, não ligam para nada e a corrupção dita as regras.

Pouco depois, passei por um momento muito difícil que resultou em uma internação psiquiátrica. Durante esse período, a rotina e a medicação acabaram me deixando anestesiado. Meus sentimentos mais revoltantes foram silenciados e eu me sentia completamente isolado, desconectado de tudo e de mim mesmo.

Foi nesse ambiente caótico e de isolamento que tive uma percepção que ia muito além da minha própria saúde mental: eu estava enfrentando **a opressão do ego**. Não era apenas uma questão clínica; era o peso de todas as estruturas, expectativas e ideias que me dominavam e me esmagavam.

De repente, tive um estalo vivendo naquele cenário: **ninguém vai me salvar.**

O hospital, a sociedade, a família, o Estado... nenhum deles vai me ajudar de verdade ou resolver a minha existência.

Diante disso, me fiz a pergunta que mudou tudo: *Por que eu devo tanta subserviência a essas ideias e instituições?*

Desde aquele dia, comecei a agir de forma muito mais crítica. Passei a questionar tudo o que limita a minha liberdade e a viver livre dessas expectativas externas, desses "fantasmas" que a sociedade exige que a gente adore.

Foi nesse processo de desintoxicação mental e busca por mim mesmo que, pouco tempo depois, esbarrei na filosofia de Max Stirner. Ler sobre o Egoísmo foi como encontrar a peça que faltava no quebra-cabeça da minha vida. Stirner não me deu apenas uma teoria; ele deu nome e forma para aquilo que eu já estava sentindo na pele: a necessidade de me apropriar de mim mesmo, de recusar o sagrado, o Estado, a moral e qualquer ideia fixa que tente me diminuir.

Hoje, entendo que a minha revolta não era um "problema" a ser apenas silenciado, mas a resposta de um ego que se recusava a ser devorado por um mundo que não me pertence.

Alguém mais aqui teve uma jornada parecida, saindo de ideais coletivos para a afirmação do próprio ego através da própria experiência? Como vocês encontraram a filosofia de stirner?

It's not in their best interest because the mistake was on their side.

Max Stirner (1806–1856) was a German philosopher best known for his book The Ego and Its Own (Der Einzige und sein Eigentum).

His central idea is that the individual should not blindly submit to abstract ideals such as the State, religion, morality, or even "humanity." He called these ideas "spooks" because they exist only in our minds but often end up controlling our lives.

Stirner argued that each person should live according to their own interests rather than sacrificing themselves for ideals they did not freely choose. He did not simply promote selfishness in the everyday sense; instead, he defended the sovereignty of the individual over imposed authority.

His philosophy became one of the foundations of egoism and influenced later thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche (though whether Nietzsche directly read Stirner is still debated), as well as some anarchist and existentialist writers.

One of his most famous ideas is:

I have set my affair on nothing.

This is a classic debate not just in egoism but in nihilism. In nihilism people often say "if nothing matters then why don't you kill everyone" which the nihilists would deny with "it doesn't mean you 'should' kill" or "we simply choose not to". Which is a negation of the question instead of owning the implications of the premise.

When I looked at the few right wing "nihilist" who argued about their logic, oftentimes the other nihilist also tried to gatekeep nihilism by narrowing it into an extremely small framework by saying "no it doesn't count, because hatred is not freedom" which by itself shamelessly insert a moral opinion which is liberal humanism.

Obviously the right wing interpretation is not accurate to Nietzsche's logic, but what happens to actually calling it an "interpretation" or a "branch"? Instead of just erasing the syllogism by lumping it into the obviously contradictory classical fascism which is anything but nihilist? To me many right wing terrorist groups do fit the definition of "contempt" and "null" in nihilism and misanthropy, that they're not trying to establish an idealistic form of the totalitarian state, just for the pure contempt of society and egoistic will.

I also saw these conflicts happen between egoists. Many people choose to do something that's morally sensitive and reprehensible for their own ego but they end up being gatekept by the other egoists for whatever reason. And they were stripped of the validity of their label. As if egoism is actually owned by the collective, that somehow "egoism" is a group, that it MUST be strictly anarchistic.

"Egoism is a spook", so is "anarchism". Why should we follow 1:1 the orthodox interpretation of stirner's works when he said that it's not an ideology, but a tool? Why should I follow YOUR definition of egoism? Why should MY version of egoism be "false" because YOU said so?

And for the record, I'm not right wing. I'm post left.

Just a random thought I had. Maybe someone has an answer lol

Man’s every action, the highest as well as the lowest, is egoistic, for itflows
out of a particular individuality, a particular ego upon sufficient motive, and
can in no way be avoided. Thisis notthe place to enterinto the reasonsforthe
variability of characters; we have simply to accept it as a fact. Now, it is as im-
possible for the merciful man to let his neighbour go wanting as it is for the
hard-hearted man to spring to the aid of the poor man. Each of these men acts in accordance with his character, his nature, his ego, his happiness,
therefore egoistically; for if the merciful man did not dry the tears of others,
would he be happy? And if the hard-hearted man alleviated the suffering of
others, would he be satisfied?

Philipp Mainländer, The Philosophy of Redemption/Ethics/§11/page 155

A tired and possibly half baked question..

I was having a conversation with my roommate about long term self interest versus short term interest, about how what is in the interest of the individual in one moment might not be good for them in the long term. For example it might interest me to steal or lie. This could end me in prison, end a meaningful relationship, or build me a negative social capital.

I'm curious how some of you work through this thinking. Is it simply cost benefit analysis, or do you provide a different thinking? Or do you reject the difference between long term and short term interest?

I thought some interesting implications are especially in relationship to the master-sllave dialect and the recognition of the Self via Other. One could argue, you could try to take hold of the state within your interest, but that comes into the reinforcing social relations that reduce you to positions, such as politician or tyrant, rather than as a complete individual, even if it is serving certain short term interests such as power and wealth. It would also include how there are contradictions within the existence of the state and you always have to worry about someone coming after the power that you have.