[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / aus / baaa / caco / choroy / dempart / doomer / leftpol / miku ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

THE INFINITY CUP IS COMING BACK
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 03acf2041ab1d18⋯.jpg (332.13 KB, 850x567, 850:567, Aghori.jpg)

 No.136999

Man, I used to think there was a way to reconcile my religious practice with being a fuck-you egoist but I'm having a tough time wrasslin with some of these concepts and I cannot come to any real answers anymore

Like, we often see the pics of stirn on lao tzu, dr bones tries to blend them &c but they're actually really opposed. The dao de ching promotes unselfishness, and that feels right when I read it, but Stirner says, no I'm going to be fucking selfish!

I think ultimately the big chasm for me personally is between Yoga philosophy and Egoism. No matter how far you go, the immortality that is promoted in the Vedas is based off of satyam(Truth) and rtam(Right), and Stirner just shits on it and says fuck it man are you retarded the only Right is in might and if you don't see that then you're only fooling yourself. I mean, from one angle it's like the Dwarf that Nataraj Shiva is dancing on just gets up and installs himself on the altar as the highest. On the other hand it just is the play of the ego to try to assert itself in place of the (higher functions of the frontal lobes). I think RAW bridges the gap the best, because he draws from Stirner but also Tim Leary who learned tantra from a real Indian baba.

tldr what is truth, right, reality

 No.137003

Truth is contradiction. Right is whatever you want it to be. Reality is matter and energy in motion.


 No.137007

>>137003

thank you for replying but how about in the light of some philosophy JACKASS lol jk

I guess I'm mostly curious if anyone else has had some issues grappling with Stirner & then tried to make sense of it through a different lens, because his work is truly a radical departure from anything else, and the way he lays it all out makes it hard to argue because he's describing Reality minus centuries of projected spooks.

One of the main critiques I'm aiming at here though is that The (selfish) Ego is entirely Hominid in that it's an evolute of vertebrate mammals. It seems very much like 'I' am asserting 'my' will when I act on selfish desires, but they are really just robotic programs, hand-me-downs from millions of generations of previous species. Sure the dogma from centuries of Christian thought stinks to high heaven, and it's good he calls them out on a lot of their trash, but what religion (revealed behind the facade) truly has over the ego is meta-cognition and being able to select which desires to go after instead of being blindly lead by ancient, ancient primal desires.


 No.137010

File: 627a323f997b315⋯.png (75.92 KB, 1017x709, 1017:709, stirner on love.png)

>>137007

>what religion (revealed behind the facade) truly has over the ego is meta-cognition and being able to select which desires to go after instead of being blindly lead by ancient, ancient primal desires.

Yeah but the implicit point of religious critique is that the meta-cognitive choices it makes fucking suck. The whole reason for freeing yourself is so you can make your own choices instead.

>The dao de ching promotes unselfishness, and that feels right when I read it, but Stirner says, no I'm going to be fucking selfish!

pic related

You don't even need the religious aspect unless you like the way they put the ideas.

>tldr what is truth, right, reality

Well the truth is that right and reality are subjective, and they are sometimes part of a collective subjectivity. You could create a collective moral or ethical code in line with egoism if you could get enough people on board with the premise. The best we can do for truth seems to be empiricism and mathematics. We're some dumbass monkeys though so we fuck them up all the time. Probably the best thing we can do is to try to know ourselves and do what lets us live with ourselves.


 No.137020

>>137007

>but how about in the light of some philosophy

Get you some materialist dialectics, son.


 No.137021

Lao tzu and the vedas exist in a fundamentally different context to stirner's egoism, the two don't as much contradict as that they don't touch each other, there's a nearness required for clash and contradiction not of formal accord, but of sharing a sphere, as did for example, stirner and marx. Trying to combine the two while staying true to their unmediated meaning is impossible.

>>137007

>he's describing Reality minus centuries of projected spooks.

Ideology at its purest!

''Zizek begins his theoretical project in Sublime Object by taking up Laclau and Mouffe's notion of 'radical democracy'. As he admits in his Acknowledgements there, it is their book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy that first oriented him in the use of the 'Lacanian conceptual apparatus as a tool in the analysis of ideology' (SO, xvi). What is the essential argument of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy? Its fundamental insight, following the linguistics of Saussure, is that there is no necessary relationship between reality and its symbolization (SO, 97). Our descriptions do not naturally and immutably refer to things, but - this is the defining feature of the symbolic order - things in retrospect begin to resemble their description. Thus, in the analysis of ideology, it is not simply a matter of seeing which account of reality best matches the 'facts', with the one that is closest being the least biased and therefore the best. As soon as the facts are determined, we have already - whether we know it or not - made our choice; we are already within one ideological system or another. The real dispute has already taken place over what is to count as the facts, which facts are relevant, and so on. For example, in 1930s Germany the Nazi narrative of social reality won out over the socialist-revolutionary narrative not because it was better able to account for the 'crisis' in liberal-bourgeois ideology, but because it was able to impose the idea that there was a 'crisis' - a 'crisis' of which the socialist-revolutionary narrative was itself a part and which must ultimately be explained because of the 'Jewish conspiracy' (TS, 179).

The same 'arbitrariness' applies not only to reality but to those ideological systems by which we construct reality. That is, again following the analogy of Saussure's conception of language, the meaning of particular political or ideological terms is not fixed or unchanging but given only through their articulation with other terms. For example, the meaning of 'ecologism' is not the same in every ideological system but shifts between several possible meanings: there is feminist ecology, in which the exploitation of nature is seen as masculine; socialist ecology, in which the exploitation of nature is seen as the product of capitalism; conservative ecology, which urges us to get back to the cycles of nature; and even capitalist ecology, which sees the free market as the only solution to our current environmental problems (SO, 87). The same would apply to the terms 'feminism', 'socialism', 'conservatism' and 'capitalism' themselves. And ideology is the struggle over which of these elements not only is defined by its relationship with the others but also allows this relationship, is that medium through which they are organized. It is the struggle not only to be one of those free-floating ideological signifiers whose meaning is 'quilted' or determined by another but also that signifier which gives those others their meaning, to which they must ultimately be understood to be referring.''

http://www.lacan.com/zizek-signifier.htm

>>137010

>The whole reason for freeing yourself is so you can make your own choices instead.

Where lies the difference between the self and external intrusions that obscure the self?


 No.137036

Zizek is a fat retard


 No.138812

HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES


 No.138962

HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES


 No.139171

HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES


 No.139685

HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES


 No.139721

HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / aus / baaa / caco / choroy / dempart / doomer / leftpol / miku ]