People are driven by self-insert, they only delude themselves of normativity because society wouldn't function otherwise. Anyone who truly believes otherwise, is a sucker and there are many. That is why the rich and powerful keep winning. Religion, Politics, consumerism and even family relations are nothing more than tools used to control the individual. A individual who can break free from all of this rises to the top, the others drown in the swamp. The only person you should focus on is yourself. I know anons will call me an edgy teenager but I honestly feel like a clown for realising this, this late. I need books written by intelligent people who can articulate these thoughts better than me?
>gets arrested for possession
possession of what?
blackpills
conveniently forgetting the people "at the top" are only their because of how they've networked and used people, not only that, but they're only popular because the masses have made them so.
this is redpill consoomer individualism you're espousing, not the radical egoistic individualism that you think it is. those actual individuals have no place for society, much less at the top. don't forget, we are inherently social animals (as you've admitted).
by the way, you do know you have to be 18, right?
So you have only taken it to further extreme if what I said.
Funny how only Leonidas' name is mentioned.
Anon he’s basically saying if you want to be truly an individual you you would be closer to one by being some drugged up homeless man not caring about anything, not even themself. A position you probably don’t respect nor want to emulate because you don’t want to be an individual you just want to be seen as the best in society
>not caring about anything, not even themself.
That just sounds like depression. Also, I never said I wanted to be rich and powerful, only that they became so because they are egoists. Same would apply to the homeless person regardless of his standing in society.
But what if he's merely taken the blue pill instead of the red you can't blame him for wanting to evade truth. I guess that's why I call God all the time and why I'm my mom's chosen son.
>they're only popular because the masses have made them so
You have no place telling anyone they should be 18 you fricking moron.
ah yes, the popular without fans, the rich without consumers, the powerful without an army. I forgot that people who wield great influence wield it on the basis of their "individuality" (recently invented social identity, mind you) you fricking moron pseud. you have to be 18 to post here too, chud
You can't act as if they are equal.
You're a clinical moron if that's what you get out of my post.
You're a moron who doesn't understand the concept of solipsism.
egoism has nothing to do with solipsism you dumb frick, the former is an ethical theory the other is metaphysical. did you just learn philosophy jargon yesterday? not only that, solipsism is absolutely untenable, and has been explicitly since fricking DESCARTES LMFAO
Ethical solipsism has an entry on Wikipedia THOUGH
laughably stupid system aside, his assertions have absolutely nothing to do with solipsism of any kind (if he didn't think external morality existed, why would he try and go above it?) alTHOUGHever
Stupid or not, there has to be a reason it exists.
You are too stupid to understand what I'm saying, regardless there is no point in engaging with "you".
This image lives rent free in my head whenever anyone talks about being individualistic
I miss the peterson that would talk about dumb shit like this rather than just being another dailywire grifter
Individualism should not mean being anti-democratic. It should mean being anti-socialist.
Democracy: when each and every person has the right to pursue and satiate their desires (excluding desires which undermine democracy)
Socialism: when the majority has the right to pursue and satiate their desires (excluding desires which undermine socialism)
Democracy is in favor of the individual, socialism isn't. Learn the difference. Don't listen to Marxist drivel which insists that Western civilization's problems today are related to democracy. It's problems are actually related to socialism. We're hardly democratic anymore.
This meme was made by someone with the intellect of an average 9 year old. First level thinker.
Try this one.
Stirner is the basics.
Peikoff perfected and improved Rand’s philosophy so much. Really erudite man.
Why do people hate Rand but like Stirner?
Because Rand doesn't go far enough. Stirner does. Although I would agree that Rand hate is massively overstated by dipshits who know nothing about her. She's like Lovecraft with breasts in that regard.
Because they've actually read Rand
80% of people who hate Rand have not read her. Would bet my right nut on it.
I'd bet your right nut more people have read her than have read Stirner.
Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are both massive bestsellers, 10 million each. For comparison, The Stand has sold 4.5 million. She's probably the most widely read political writer since the war
Most people who hate her haven’t read her. Including most professors.
>Le buying a book equates to having read it
Lol. Lmao even
You think people are buying a pulp sci fi novel to stick it on their shelves for pseud cred? Like it was Brief History of Time or something?
You don't believe this. You know Ayn Rand is a widely read author. Don't pretend otherwise, it's dishonest
Even then academics have a left wing bias and just dismiss her outright
I fricking hate twilight and 50 shades too, and I'm not reading that shit.
Possibly anarchist philosophy.
If you hate collectivism so much, then why are you always going on about "muh community" this and "muh community" that?
Individualists only take what the group provides. They can never create anything as grand or beautiful as a group can. Yes, you are your own person and you should work on developing yourself, but there is no reason to eschew others while doing so. 'Wolf types' like OP are parasites and only as successful as the group allows them to be.
Go ahead and cut yourself off from any meaningful connection. The life you live will disappoint.
>Individualists only take what the group provides.
change in the collective always comes from the individual
Anti-collectivism only works when Bolshevism is in effect. The issue is representation in government. And also dividing that representation based on racism and sexism is effectively destroying any representation at all. And most of all, ownership of the government by a “special interest” is not representation.
>Literature
The entire genre of pulp adventure is about dudes defying all norms to get what they want.
Conan, Princess of Mars etc... since the 60s and all the way to the 80s - its honestly refreshing to read some of those because they are written by guys who were anti-collectivists to the marrow of the bone and their work just breathes with that outlook.
https://www.scribd.com/document/551280851/Unfiltered
Is embracing all your negative thoughts and dark tendencies a kind of anti-colectvism? Is there an advantage in becoming the worst you possible? I mean letting your envy and contempt for other people flourish inside you. I'm too much of a coward to really go against all this "good person" attitude that has been pushed on me my whole life, but I'm conscious that I have to force myself to be "good." Sometimes I wonder how it'd be to just let go and be a bad person in the open.
Emerson - self-reliance
Novatore - toward the creative nothing
Actual intelligent people who believe this don't waste time mulling over it in writing. They acquire friends, seek out opportunities and secure their position. Maybe then they write books to sell to gullible morons like you.
>Actual physicists don't read books bro, they simply apply physics.
The man who subsumes himself through the mob, becomes nothing.
The man who alienates himself away from all others, becomes nothing.
You have realized nothing, you are an idiot.
This is one of those techniques where you criticiize everything without providing a solution, just to appear smart.
>People are driven by self-insert
yeah, inserting ourselves into your mom
Got em
OP absolutely obliterated
self-interest*. I suffer from schizophrenia.
Why the frick would an intelligent person who focuses only on themself write a book for you?
Hello there
Gotta love based Schmidt. He’s one of few that shows both sides as wrong, proves it soundly and assuredly, and doesn’t even appear like an butthole despite Engel’s and others butthurt depictions that became a meme about him being smug.
Got to be the first time I've heard Stirner being referred by his real name.
Kek. I did it to see if someone is like ‘Who’s Schmidt” for Johann. Just to see if people reply that who think the weird, abstract name is actually theirs.
I did the same for Mordechai (Marx) too a few times.
Freedom lies in actuality, the ability to actually know and do the good. Modern individualism is based on an incoherent idea of freedom where freedom is defined solely in terms of potency, the "ability to do anything," without any focus on the good. It becomes hollow and incoherent, such that action itself is a limit of freedom because having chosen one thing means not being free to choose something else.
Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, St. Augustine, St. Maximus, St. Bonaventure, etc. have the right idea.
True freedom lies only in Christ.
A typology of freedom might be helpful. People tend to think of freedom largely in terms of Lockean "freedom from external constraint," but this can only be part of the story.
>Negative Freedom is defined by a subject’s freedom relative to the external world. It is freedom from external barriers that restrict one’s ability to act, e.g., the government or theives seizing your tools so that you cannot work.
>Reflexive Freedom is defined by subject’s freedom relative to themselves. To quote Hegel, “individuals are free if their actions are solely guided by their own intentions.” Thus, “man is a free being [when he] is in a position not to let himself be determined by natural drives.” i.e., when his actions are not subject to contingency. Later philosophers have also noted that authenticity, and thus the free space and guidance needed for us to discover our authentic selves, is another component of reflexive freedom.
>Social Freedom is required because reflexive freedom only looks inward; it does not tie individual choices to any objective moral code. This being the case, an individual possessing such freedom may still choose to deprive others of their freedom. (This the contradiction inherent in globalizing Nietzsche’s “revaluation of all values”).
>Since individuals will invariably have conflicting goals, there is no guarantee than anyone will be able to achieve such a self-directed way of life. Negative freedom is also contradictory because “the rational [reflexive] can come on the scene only as a restriction on [negative] freedom.” E.g., being free to become a doctor means being free to choose restrictions on one’s actions because that role entails certain duties.
>Social Freedom then is the collective resolution of these contradictions through the creation of social institutions. Ideally, institutions objectify morality in such a way that individuals’ goals align, allowing people to freely choose actions that promote each other’s freedom and wellbeing. Institutions achieve this by shaping the identities of their members, such that they derive their “feeling of selfhood” from, and recognize “[their] own essence” in, membership.
Further, we might consider how no human beings creates themselves. We only become self-determining given that people have empowered us by raising us in a certain sort of environment. One is not "free to become a doctor," if one is raised to be illiterate. It's notable that Rand's novels have almost no children. Childhood poses a serious problem to the community of self-possessed individuals in that children must be nutured to become free, not mere slaves to desire, emotion, and ignorance.
Anyhow, I think Hegel is on to something here, although I would add a fourth level "moral freedom," the ability to do what one truly thinks is best. And this would seem to require the lower types of freedom to be fully perfected.
You have the freedom to be succinct
Don't know about you, but the only reason I'm "anticollectivist" is because I'm non-white and I'm embarrassed by how non-whites behave. I can't take responsibility for other's behavior when it's not in my control in the first place.
The prince. Stirner and Rand were also good shouts.
collectivist/individualist as an analytical category exists to convince those repulsed by mindless communist mobs to deprive themselves of allies.
Collectivization is power. Is the power used well or poorly? Thus is the "collectivism" good or bad