How do I utilize philosophy to take what I want from this world

How do I utilize philosophy to take what I want from this world

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The same way Stirner did.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Start a milk business?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wasn't that tossed into his lap and he ran it into the ground?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          I heard he used his rich wife’s money to start it and once it failed she resented him for it. Then he died from an insect bite.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds accurate, I guess business accounting and insects aren't spooks.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Watch men frick his wife?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Proof?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >That she did what she wished, and that Stirner let her do what she wished-that of course may have let her appear in the eyes of the marriage-slaves as detestable as it later did to her, but it can only make the two of them more likable to us. Every act of making up the mind for the other, for that matter, would not have fit at all into the nature of those involved, for whom "marriage" meant only a loose band that was thrown around them purely externally. And not on the "unfaithfulness" of the wife-how ridiculous!-did "this marriage perish," but simply and only under the pressure of the circumstances in which he and she unfortunately all too soon found themselves.
          --John Henry MacKay, 'Max Stirner: His Life and His Work'

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Citation?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Also sounds accurate. Anybody know what his wife looked like?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, but I have this meme.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It does kind of make me wish I had a breasts out chick with hair like that and similar facial expressions to say things that Marxists believe are insulting but really aren't to me. Stirner is by far the king of philosophy memes, and I don't think anyone can ever take that away from him.

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you want to succeed in life philosophy is not a good place to look.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    you go get a job you stupid little man.

    stirner caricature is like a stamp of a criminal minded midwit who thinks he can get away with committing crimes and suppress their conscience with rhetoric.

    read crime and punishment to see where this delusion leads.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >gubmint is corrupt so it's morally justified for me to smash someone in the head and mug him
        you are not even a midwit.

        >you go get a job you stupid little man.
        there are no jobs for stupid little men, that's why the 20th century was a disaster

        go and do what every stirner reader will inevitably do and apply for a job at mcdonald's.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous
        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Cope

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          you forgot: morality is a spook.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        i'm 14 and this is deep

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          i'm 15 and this is deep

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            i'm deep in a 16 year old

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you go get a job you stupid little man.
      there are no jobs for stupid little men, that's why the 20th century was a disaster

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    rediscover that it is human nature to want out of this infernal cage, and encourage the more bold and desperate. Only a union of egoists *organized* can defeat the global Stockholm syndrome.
    Otherwise you'll always be just another petty thief, a roach in the system.

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    You don't. It's a worldview for losers. If you weren't born into wealth to succeed you need to be affable, sociable, which is to say unlike an egoist.
    Funny how those who write the most about selfishly, cynically wielding power rarely wield it in the real world. Even Machiavelli never had success in politics.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Explain Genghis Khan then.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Affable to friends / allies... Which remains the case even with powerful rulers like Ghengis Khan
        Such rulers don't get to do whatever they individually want, that's not how power works. If anything Ghengis Khan is a counter example as the leader of a steppe-nomadic tribe must act in a much more collectivistic way compared to the avg modern person.
        Also, I would imagine such powerful leaders have to be capable of seeing long term consequences and balancing their own will with the will of the community/group

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why do you think an egoist wouldn’t be affable to friends and allies?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure you can strategically with the goal of still advancing your own interests, but at that point your own interest has become so entangled with the group that it doesn't remain neatly your own anymore.
            Stirner explicitly describes his egoism as viewing the constraints society places on you as nothing.
            Such a view probably would not help a powerful leader who has to remain acutely perceptive of the limitations of his own power and often act in concert with the group.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it doesn't remain neatly your own anymore.
            Why not? If I choose to be affable to a group because I see some benefit in it then the interest is my own and not theirs. That’s the whole point of the union of egoists: it’s an association you participate in so long as it benefits you.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not that you must "BE" an Egoist, or in some way subscribe to Stirner as some sort of ideological cultist.

            Indeed you are correct, because it is the mere assumption that each person has an ego, which creates the union of egoists. It's the assumption of intelligence of each person around you. Now of course, many people are not aware of their ego, nor are they intelligent. But by assuming both ego and intelligence, you become aware of them and their potential objectives that might conflict with yours.

            A union of egoists then, has nothing to do with joining a Stirner cult, and instead, is the assumption that every person naturally possesses some--- POWER, even if they aren't aware of it. But if you are aware of it, then you can use their power for your own gain, and if they are aware of it, then they know the rules very well, and will not mind at all, just as they will use you and your power.

            And your benevolent assumption of intellect on your part means that if for some reason they are unaware that you are using them, in the context of a group-objective composed of individuals with individual-objectives, then that idiot ought to read more books and realize very quickly that the purpose of any group is to accomplish an objective that you cannot accomplish alone.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why not? If I choose to be affable to a group because I see some benefit in it then the interest is my own and not theirs.
            Because your interest is not now neatly your own, but enmeshed into the group.
            You can still tell yourself you're acting in your own interest, and in a certain sense you are.
            But if you have the perspective that you only care about yourself, it's hard to imagine such a p.o.v would lend itself well to being a good politician or leader, in which you have to be very aware and sensititive to others interests.
            I'm not claiming it's impossible to be an egoist and work for the good of a group, merely that it's the case that in leading a group you may come to have a genuine concern for the will/interest of the group/nation/community/etc over and above your own will in so far as your interest becomes tied to it

            It seems like I have caused some seething.
            >tl;dr

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh come on, read them! I'm not seething. I'm having great fun, sir.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Noticed it after I posted. Good explanation.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why not? If I choose to be affable to a group because I see some benefit in it then the interest is my own and not theirs.
            Because your interest is not now neatly your own, but enmeshed into the group.
            You can still tell yourself you're acting in your own interest, and in a certain sense you are.
            But if you have the perspective that you only care about yourself, it's hard to imagine such a p.o.v would lend itself well to being a good politician or leader, in which you have to be very aware and sensititive to others interests.
            I'm not claiming it's impossible to be an egoist and work for the good of a group, merely that it's the case that in leading a group you may come to have a genuine concern for the will/interest of the group/nation/community/etc over and above your own will in so far as your interest becomes tied to it

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            To elaborate a little more, imagine you wrote a book like Stirner in which you explicitly state you only care about yourself.
            Who would then ever entrust you with Ghengis Khan levels of power?
            No one would because it would be read as a signal that you are not a trustworthy leader, that you aren't capable of moderating your own desires, and that at the 1st opportunity you'd abuse your position to the detriment of the group.
            Many leaders are extremely egotistical and narcissistic.
            Such traits are often a requirement to be an effective leader. There is still, however, an implicit assumption that this narcissism will be channeled and used to advance the overall interest of a group.
            Someone who revealed they have no genuine interest in the group probably would not last long as a leader.
            That's all I am saying

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            But that's the issue with a group looking for a leader. Imagine this instead: A shareholder's meeting at a corporation. If you are just one shareholder among say, nine total, then of course it is known to all nine that each of you wishes to come home each day with big profits. But to make those profits, they must each pitch in and help out the corporation as a whole.

            So even knowing that each person is there for their own personal objective of making money, the overall goal ends up the same: The corporation must succeed.

            Attempting to admit that you are some Stirner-Machiavellian type who is truly trying to manipulate people just makes you look like the kid in a friendgroup who pretends to be the evil jester, and is always playing tricks--- until the day he's kicked out because no one wants to deal with his dumbass shenanigans.

            So to quote my other post: Assume intelligence and assume ego. If a person is acting with malice, destroy that person, because that one person will try to extract all the profits, gain all the power, and then collapse the system and thus burn the ladder. Just get rid of that clown.

            In effect, if you know who Stirner is and understand his ideas, then keep Rules 1 & 2 in mind, mmk? It's best to not talk about Stirner. Each person who knows that you know about Stirner will look at you funny, and even if the name "Stirner" or "Egoism" is never mentioned, the idea that someone suspects you have some odd motive will most certainly reflect badly on you.

            To that end, a union of egoists is cemented together by respect and a common goal, with the simple awareness of the true nature of each individual person.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ah I see what you're saying, some kind of enlightened self interest in which your own self interests can align in common.
            Shareholders are a good example.
            I tend to think about these things in terms of short v.s long term interest. Revealing that you're an egoist is read by most as a sign that someone is not capable of withholding, inhibiting their short term interest for the sake of a shared long term interest of the group.
            Likewise extreme altruism has the potential to reward a person long term.
            Also so many different kinds of reward: respect, friendship, sex, notoriety..
            After a certain point the distinction between egoism and altruism becomes a bit blurry i think when examining how various kinds of denial of interest can advance interest, in so far as it displays a signal of trustworthiness and will want a person various kinds of social acclaim

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            To me, I believe Egoism is not an ideology or philosophy to believe in and uphold, but rather it is THE TRUTH.

            Egoism is THE TRUTH THE TRUTH THE TRUTH. It is inherent to every living being, from microbe, to cat, to cow, to dog, to tree and flower, little spider and bee, egoism is the foundation of the individual organism and its desire to survive and thrive.

            It's the same with Spookism. It is not that you must always think about it and believe in it like a religion. It is the permanent realization that idealistic, ideological concepts like religion, politics, government, social trends, cultures, corporations, are illusions. Individuals are what exist, and thus a union of egos is a spook unto itself. Thus you cannot ever trust the union fully, but instead, work towards a common goal with the full awareness of each ego you work with.

            Only material-reality is real, and within that material-reality, are egos in the form of physical bodies with minds and objectives. Other entities exist, and if we hadn't already made them extinct or rare, we would still fear the objectives of wolves and bears. Instead, we do not fear the "idea" of government or etc, but rather, the solid, lethal force they can wield.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's just a nonsensical topic to talk about in such extremes as stirner did. Morality and societal rules primarily exist to benefit the collective over the individual, sure, but following them does generally reward the individual too.

            It's a case by case basis, often times you can extract 90% of the reward from a societal rule without personally adhering to it and sometimes disregarding it will benefit you more than the lost 10% but it's not always the case, it depends on the individuals situation and a whole host of complex factors. The whole topic is stupid and by extension so is anyone who takes him seriously, they are just isolated cringelords who are yet to understand through wisdom the subtle ways in which 'subjugating' themselves is often their best course of action.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also btw Stirner imo is better understood as a kind of modern mystic.
            His radical individualism is an inversion of traditional mystic practice in which the self melts or merges with the Absolute or God. And in which often the self is illusory and the God is the omly real reality.
            Stirner just takes that religious rhetoric and inverts it. Such that the self is seen as the Absolute real reality, and the higher principle as an illusion
            In that sense, i wouldn't read Stirner as any kind of practical guide to gaining real world power, but rather as a kind of mystic.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Explain Genghis Khan then.
        Pure collectivist with a brain working on total tribe mentality, which is why he understood and used it so perfectly.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >hedonism good
    Woah, so insightful

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Your not making an argument against stirner though, you are basically just saying 'admitting to egoism is bad optics'.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's because we are not debating Stirner.
      Stirner is technically correct 100%. The issue at hand here is what do we DO with this information he has given us?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well i wasn't exactly trying to wholesale refute him, but just was responding to the idea that following his philosophy is effective in terms of gaining power.
      The problem is theoretically a person could only care about themselves and gain power, but realistically in the process of moderating / inhibiting your own self interest (or short term if you prefer) to that of the group you come to genuinely believe in or value the good of the group (that group could consist of a close circle of confidants, or more broadly a community).
      There's no such thing as pure self-interest, as self interest is always relational, which is to say more than self.
      And Stirner's philosophy is built upon the mythology that the state of nature consists of an isolated asocial self

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's a common mythology that goes back to Rousseau: the notion that the individual self is the real nature and civilization is mere artifice imposed over and inhibiting the more real self.
        In modern times Nietzsche and Freud carried the mythology further, viewing the individual self as the fundamental reality and civilization as a external force that relentlessly represses so called primal drives.
        I believe in contrast that society is more or an extension of man's nature rather than an artificial imposition over it

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          So then Stirner would push his glasses up his nose and look at you calmly; coldly, as he asks,
          >"An extension of man's nature? Tell me clearly: Which man? Why not I? Why not you?"

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Which man? Why not I? Why not you?"
            All men because the moment you are born you do not exist alone but already plotted into a social group. Self is relational. Even your inner thoughts derive from a language that had to be taught to you. And without said language you would have little means of conceptualizing your self.

            You're very wise and I like your post. In one way, it's not a myth though that we are an isolated asocial self. In a certain way, it is absolutely true, and this goes beyond Stirner. We are truly alone in our minds, due to the gap between self and other. Even the gap between self and reality.

            But nonetheless, your words have great value to them, and I had written this in another post for another reason, but I think I'll repost this little thing here, as an order of priorities. Perhaps you can insert a "shareholder's conference" or a "union of egos" in there too someplace, but the idea below seems to be in-line with egoism, yet extends itself outwards, towards real things outside of yourself.

            Self > Family/Friends > Community > Race > Species > Life > Earth > Solar System > Galaxy

            You raise a fair point about self v.s other, as i understand you're saying one's own inner world is incommunicable. You will never experience a perception outside of your own perception.
            This is true, but to my mind is different from claiming the state of a nature is an asocial individual.
            You will never experience another person's p.o.v, but your own p.o.v is formed out of the nexus of others interacting with your own.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >All men because the moment you are born you do not exist alone but already plotted into a social group.
            Stirner says this:
            >”The original state of the human being is not isolation or being alone, but rather society. Our existence begins with the most intimate connection, since already, before we breathe, we live together with the mother; then when we’ve seen the world’s light, we immediately lie again on a human being’s breast, her love cradles us on her bosom, leads us on a leash, and chains us to her person with a thousand ties. Society is our natural condition. This is why, as we learn to feel ourselves more, the connection that was once most intimate becomes looser and the breaking up of the original society more obvious. The mother must fetch the child, who once lay beneath her heart, from the street and from the midst of its playmates, to have it once again for herself. It prefers the intercourse that it enters into with its peers to the society that it did not enter into, but rather was only born in.”
            >Even your inner thoughts derive from a language that had to be taught to you. And without said language you would have little means of conceptualizing your self.
            Stirner says this:
            >”For all free criticism a thought was the criterion; for own criticism I am, I, the unspeakable, and therefore not merely something thought; because what is merely thought is always speakable, since word and thought coincide.”

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are correct. It's been some time since i read him. If i recall he argues as you mature you develop the independance of will of separateness from the mother, and then analogizes that maturation process to the broader society . A bit like Freud with his notion of maturation as a process of realizing your self as distinct and overcoming the infantile view that your self v.s reality are one and the same.
            Your quote does show that he acknowledges we are born into society, but i also think it's clear in that quote that he views that society itself as composed of individual wills. And so in a sense the individual will is the primary natural unit.
            Thus the child's will as it develops and becomes independent comes to conflict with the will of the mother in an analogous way to how an individual's will may conflict with the will of the nation.
            It's in line with the modern view of higher ideals as mere impositions meant to compel and subdue the individual to tye interests of society

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Your quote does show that he acknowledges we are born into society, but i also think it's clear in that quote that he views that society itself as composed of individual wills. And so in a sense the individual will is the primary natural unit.
            Pretty much. The fundamental relationship is between the unique and its property, or I and not-I. They both exist interdependently, but Stirner’s point is that what is mine has become something alien due to me taking it as something higher that I must obey.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're very wise and I like your post. In one way, it's not a myth though that we are an isolated asocial self. In a certain way, it is absolutely true, and this goes beyond Stirner. We are truly alone in our minds, due to the gap between self and other. Even the gap between self and reality.

        But nonetheless, your words have great value to them, and I had written this in another post for another reason, but I think I'll repost this little thing here, as an order of priorities. Perhaps you can insert a "shareholder's conference" or a "union of egos" in there too someplace, but the idea below seems to be in-line with egoism, yet extends itself outwards, towards real things outside of yourself.

        Self > Family/Friends > Community > Race > Species > Life > Earth > Solar System > Galaxy

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    simple, stop dong shit for free, stop shouldering other peoples burdens, focus on yourself first and foremost, understand that any "selfless" action you do is motivated by your own feel good in the end and if it's not you're a useful idiot, become a freelancer, business owner or work in a heavily unionized field that ensures that you get your times worth, remember that you cannot buy a single second of wasted time back no matter how much money you eventually get and set goals that don't make you want to shoot your brains onto the ceiling fan
    philosophy mostly just tells you shit that should be obvious but that we've been indoctrinated to ignore, every system of belief is inherently subjugating, every value is just a rope to control you with and everyone is selfish they just try to convince you they're doing it for greater good which happens to align with their own good

    tldr; learn to put your own well being above others and only after you've achieved a cushy life for yourself should you even consider being benevolent philantrophist or doing shit for others

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      This post here, if accepted as absolute truth with zero compromises, could cause any person who reads it to immediately turn their shitty life around and walk with a new sense of authority and wisdom.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        that is assuming of course that you don't fall into the territory of "even military won't hire me because my IQ is detriment to the team", unfortunately some people are doomed to be walmart greeters but for most functional people with at least average IQ could technically turn their life around if they just found some job that they can train for with relative ease

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          But as I said before, I will always assume intelligence, and always assume ego. So although you're right, I would consider consider Forrest Gump to be effective, even in a military situation.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            trust me, if the united states of america's military that scrapes the barrel with recruits yearly and tries to get anyone to sign their name on that sheet of paper won't accept you into the military they went through the scenario and figured out something god awful about people under certain IQ and their ability to be useful

            ?si=TPk6uWpuabru-rPn

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The military doesn't care. If you are a brainlet you will do menial shit for your entire stint. If you are genetically capable of high stress activity you will likely be guided towards light infantry. If you are smart enough to look at a computer and press a button when told to you will be doing that. If you are smart enough to tell the person when to press the button when you are told to you will be a lower officer. If you are good at politics you may wind up getting into upper officer ranks. They literally give you medals when you exceed the minimum requirements for your job because you surprised them.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They literally give you medals when you exceed the minimum requirements for your job because you surprised them.
            Kek that's funny. Maybe I'll join at least being surrounded by idiots will give me a nice little ego boost.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            assuming you have the IQ to make it to officer and are given responsibility of leading troops in any capacity you will quickly realize that your life depends on these "idiots", if you didn't manage to build rapport with them you're going to have a hard time surviving if you're leading in the field, the troops won't trust you enough to pull off any batshit crazy sounding plans you radio them and if you fricked up bad enough they might even let you die
            only good officers that knew how to build rapport are going to be having anyone risk their neck for them, you can scream your face red and try to order them to go above and beyond to save your sorry ass but if they don't like you / respect you you're shit out of luck and they will be late to save you unless they can do it safely

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'd probably just skate by in the navy or some branch in some low position get the frick out and collect my free college.
            I know myself well enough to know i am way too much a loner to ever be effective at being something like an officer.
            I'm a pretty cold person and have no doubt in my mind if i were an officer my subordinates would dislike me.

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't that what post-modernism is about?

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    You utilize it to change 'what you want' to be in each moment whatever you have and whatever you're doing in that moment.
    Even if circumstances include the desire or necessity to attempt to change them. How could anything ever trouble you and make you regretful, resentful, discontent, distressed, or fearful if you can find nothing essentially wrong. Nothing ever out of place, everything always as it should be. Your will in harmony with the will of the universe. You can even have your cake and eat it too; not only can you still get to enjoy the original goal, but you will also then enjoy whatever path leads you to it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *