Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 19:56:37 No. 623176
>1. How does egoism get us out of the befuddled quagmire of modern ideological spooks? Modern politics is a veritable haunted house of spooks. >2. What is the most virulent/pernicious spook? How do we defeat it? >3. How might a society based on egoism function? Does it necessitate a platonic "noocracy", rule of the wise? What differentiates it from vulgar libertarianism or shameless materialistic individualism ? >4. What social responsibility does an egoist hold for society? Do you take the extreme view that they owe society nothing, or a more tempered view that involves consensual and voluntary/free association ? >5. What are the limits of egoist philosophy?What are its philosophical, epistemological, and ontological implications?
Sage !61KGLATVW. 2021-11-29 (Mon) 19:59:04 No. 623182
AkA a communist party
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 20:02:34 No. 623187
> 2. What is the most virulent/pernicious spook? How do we defeat it?
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 20:10:41 No. 623192
>>623187 the economy is pure abstraction
1 btc worth 50k
what does this even mean ontologically?
break free
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 20:56:19 No. 623226
>>623187 Certainly not the capitalist "invisible hand" and all that nonsense. It's a giant racket. Scams exist, trade exists, but an economic system is not a natural order.
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 20:57:16 No. 623229
Becoming an egoist was critical in me becoming a tankie. I wish all my fellow travelers on this journey glad tidings.
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 20:58:54 No. 623235
>>623226 nature doesn't exist
nature is a secular spook
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:00:41 No. 623238
Becoming an egoist was critical in me becoming a tankie. I wish all my fellow travelers on this journey glad tidings.
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:04:50 No. 623242
>>623235 My nature is self-determined. It's not what anybody tells me it is. They're trying to pull the wool out of my eyes and dominate me .
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:11:36 No. 623253
>>623167 >3. How might a society based on egoism function? Like the one we live in now or any that has ever existed. All people have always been egoists. Egoism is not a new form of existence that has to be established. The real question is not how to "create egoism", but how to get rid of spooks, the (self)denial of your ego.
The responsibility goes as far as one wishes. Comming up with a minimum requirement or denying it alltogether are both steps in the wrong direction. It's not about conceptionalising what a "true" egoist is, because everybody already is one. The core of egoist existence isnt some set of requirements that make up it's true being - the existence as a unique individual is its only requirement.
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:17:05 No. 623261
>>623255 Materialism cannot explain consciousness. Whereas an idealism that incorporates a subject-object unity can explain both the subject and object in terms of the same consistent explanation.
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:18:41 No. 623264
>>623253 >The responsibility goes as far as one wishes Indeed. Egoists may enter into voluntary, non-binding agreements that can be dissolved by any party on a whim. Nothing is imposed without an act of force that seeks to enslave, like the state.
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:20:50 No. 623269
>>623261 >Materialism cannot explain consciousness You don't know what either of those are.
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:21:59 No. 623271
>>623261 literally solipsism is the only true philosophy
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:23:45 No. 623273
>>623261 >Materialism cannot explain consciousness. Can you elaborate? Because neuro-psychology is exactly doing that.
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:27:07 No. 623274
>solipsists needing to talk to each other
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:28:02 No. 623275
>>623273 neuroscientists apparently know so much but develop suicide-murder pills that school shooters take because they trusted the science
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:31:09 No. 623281
>>623275 what does this mean schizo?
>>623279 dont tell me what to do!
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:44:29 No. 623295
>>623273 how so? they have a huge amount of datasets sure but can't explain a lick of it, and i don't think they'll ever be able to explain things like qualia either
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 21:55:56 No. 623312
>>623295 neuroscientists cant even explain psychedelic drug trips or astral projection but they claim to understand CONSCIOUSNESS? they are very arrogant, and useless.
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 22:11:35 No. 623331
>>623312 Astral projection? You need a good despooking
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 22:24:03 No. 623349
>>623331 feel the vibrations
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 22:31:09 No. 623363
you all are merely spooks in my head
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 23:04:58 No. 623401
>>623363 im a spook in yo ass foo
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 23:40:49 No. 623439
>>623312 although i don't find myself very interested by drug trips, astral projection seems vaguely interesting but bloated with useless information, stupid interpration and flat out lies (and yes, i have read the cia document)
personally what i find much more interesting is terminal lucidity, where even people who's brains are more mush than actual brain suddenl yhave a burst of clarity and memory before they die
or deathbed phenomena, which over 50% of people experience assuming they don't die whilst unconscious and without warning like most people
and most impressively, NDEs especially verdical ones, of which oxygen deprivation or DMT cannot explain and the experiences are generally the same for everyone despite ones cultures and upbringings
i've also heard some people talk about reincarnation, even carl sagan, and although i have read some fairly interesting things about it i don't give much credit to it
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 23:52:54 No. 623454
>>623273 It's hard to describe the "thing in itself" of consciousness in non-phenomenological, physical terms. Qualia is therefore seemingly inexplicable from a physicalist perspective. Neurobiology seems to only be able to describe the functioning of the "neural correlates" of consciousness states, not the "suchness" of it in and of itself.
Now this isn't to imply necessarily that consciousness is non-physical. That would be the argument from ignorance fallacy–i.e, because I can't conceive of how consciousness is implemented physically it must not be. However, It's quite hard for me to think about how a bunch of atoms jostling around IS the smell of a flower or pain etc.
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 23:53:31 No. 623455
>>623439 the supernatural is something given for itself to me. if God is true then i will see him when i die, no big deal.
but reincarnation just seems dumb and theoretically useless
if i die and am reborn as something else then there is no "I" to begin with so… ?
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 23:54:59 No. 623459
>>623269 Shall I provision definitions for you then, sophist?
Materialism: the philosophical doctrine that the primary mode of existence consists of matter and its various states, phases, and causal interactions.
Consciousness: what it is like to be something. Awareness. The perception of qualia and sensations.
Anonymous 2021-11-29 (Mon) 23:57:02 No. 623461
>>623454 the transcendentalist view would be that matter already presupposes it's own separateness and this si realised in consciousness, and from this it can know itself - "we are the universe experiencing itself" but literally, and it is literally true. so consicousness is a self-referential tool. obviously, consciousness is shared and so is inherently impersonal too, so it is not "located" anywhere, but is everywhere as it's own self-recognition. human brains as antenna type ideas. consciousness is not for itself though, since to know something in awareness is for something to already be in something else, so.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 00:16:20 No. 623480
>>623461 Perchance. I honestly think Schopenhauer figured out. He basically said that the subject-object distinction is an illusion, that it is merely the presentation of the principle of sufficient reason which structures perception under the categories of reason: space, time, causality, plurality and unity, etc. Dualism is merely a cognitive distinction enforced by the organism's bodily enclosure as a distinct individual, the principium individuationis, or principle of individuation. We perceive ourselves as distinct entities from the whole of reality because of biological directives of survival.
In Schipenhauer's terms, the material and the qualitative are one in the same. The world emanates from the "outside in", with each entity in the world, including living things and inanimate matter having some degree of "interiority" or internal existence, which he labels "Will." So even a rock has a minute utterly faint spark of an inner existence. More complex organizations localized to the brain develop more complex experiential and volitional states. Because according to him all matter has an inner existence, everything meets in the middle and matter and internal experience are united at both ends of the subject/object continuum.
To tie this back to egoism, idealism suits it, because I don't like to have my freedom restricted by objective laws. Obviously I can't sprout wings and fly on a whim, but if the laws of consciousness and interiority are as fixed as physical laws, then this is not the problem. At least if my inner states are the ultimate or "completed" representation of reality, I can comprehend them through my own introspective apperception rather than having them hoisted on me by some spooktastic incomplete science.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 00:17:09 No. 623482
>>623480 >The world emanates from the "outside in" Fuck, from the "inside-out" I meant.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 17:07:03 No. 624232
>>623482 This is the most shockingly good exchange I've seen on this site in way too long.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 18:15:44 No. 624321
>>623461 Rocks don't have any consciousness, you can't just go so hard with anthropomorphism that you think all matter is conscious.
>>623480 Of course science is better at figuring out stuff about reality than you doing an introspection. Science has millions of clever brains who collectively far exceed your mind and it also has really precise instruments that are much more sensitive than your senses. This is really arrogant.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 18:34:49 No. 624345
unions are a spook
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 19:30:28 No. 624425
>>624354 I'm sorry but this just says look at all the strange stuff in quantum mechanics, we can't explain all of that, it must be consciousness. You can't base a claim on an absence of evidence.
It's far more likely of an explanation that you are anthropomorphising, than dead matter like rocks having consciousness. You can build a living thing from dead components, biological life figured that out billions of years ago. You can build consciousness from unconscious components as well. It's just that consciousness would be some form of biological function, something very complex and hard to grasp yet ultimately very mundane, that could be understood. That is not very satisfying if you have desire for mysticism.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 19:33:30 No. 624434
>>624387 Anyone who a tively identified as an egoist online is cringe.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 19:45:05 No. 624448
>>624321 > This is really arrogant. You're in a thread for egoists pal. What do you expect? In any case, I don't deny science's pragmatic value, although its ability to strictly prove its claims is epistemologically limited. You cannot eliminate the observer's role. you cannot prove a hypothesis you can merely fail to refute it., and so on.
My point was not that to deny science, but to deny science's attempts to define me fundamentally. If consciousness is beyond empirical description, introspection alone gives transparent access to the essential reality of consciousness. Which again, is fundamental to completing the circle and giving the complete representation of reality, which is the object viewed the eye of the subject. Otherwise without the observer you only have probability waves, indistinct quantum superpositions, etc.
They don't have consciousness in the sense that you and I have it. They merely have a minute and subtle interior existence. A rock is not self aware, and has no sensory perceptions. However, a rock just as much of our bodies consists of matter. We have unique access, through our bodies, of a small exclusive window, or aperture into the inner side of reality, the thing in itself, which is what lies opposite the surface of appearance. Seeing that we, if the materialist theory is to be correct, consist entirely of matter, then the fact that we have an inner reality must also be true of all things… hence Schopenhauer's view of the world as will (the inner reality of all things) and idea (perception of the subject)
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 19:48:33 No. 624452
>then the fact that we have an inner reality must also be true of all things
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 20:17:45 No. 624488
>>624452 Let me put it syllogistically. Assume materialism is true. Therefore
A: All things in the world consist of matter (and only matter in its different states and configurations)
B: Humans, being a class of things in the world, consist entirely and exclusively of matter
C: Humans, despite identical to any other object in material composition, are conscious
Therefore , applying the modus ponens: if A and B and C are true then D: anything material must be conscious
This is the same way as saying, Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal.
Which is to say, either materialism is false and dualism is true and consciousness is a ghost in the machine with an independent existence. Or, each object is actually its own subject, but with differing degrees of subjectivity.
A implies D because, human beings consist of nothing but a certain configuration of matter. But if you deny the consequent and say that only some configurations of matter are conscious, that still begs the question of how two things that are made of the same stuff but rearranged differently is what makes one conscious and the other non-conscious.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 20:24:08 No. 624496
>>624488 Seething idealist hasn't even read Marx
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 21:42:40 No. 624606
>>624448 >You're in a thread for egoists pal. What do you expect? Like i wasn't going to point out arrogance of this magnitude, what did _you expect.
>I don't deny science's pragmatic value, although its ability to strictly prove its claims is epistemologically limited. When you do introspection you're just doing a kind of mental masturbation, don't pretend you could gain superior insight that way.
>You cannot eliminate the observer's role. you cannot prove a hypothesis you can merely fail to refute it., and so on. No you don't need an observer to explain quantum physics. Bohmian Mechanics doesn't have an observer, and is congruent with all experimental data. So you can't pretend that physics needs a magic observer. All those experiments with the fancy lasers and mirrors still work with regular old unconscious photo detectors.
>My point was not that to deny science, but to deny science's attempts to define me fundamentally. That's really the same thing, humans are also just made of matter, if humans are inexplicable then that's the end for science.
You can't have it both ways, if you accept science you also have to accept that you are made of matter.
>introspection alone gives transparent access to the essential reality of consciousness you can't gather 3rd party verifiable data with introspection, because you're the only one that has access, so it's biased and not admissible as evidence for theories.
>which is the object viewed the eye of the subject. that makes no sense.
>Otherwise without the observer you only have probability waves, indistinct quantum superpositions Wrong again Bohmian Mechanics assumes that there's always a definite particle and that the probability waves just acts (metaphorically speaking) like a force upon it.
Again the experimental data from quantum physics does not prove any of your claims. Stop coopting physics for your mysticism.
>They don't have consciousness in the sense that you and I have it. They merely have a minute and subtle interior existence. Yeah I'm not believing this, you just gave rocks a hole nother physical property, without any evidence, or even a concrete definition of what it's supposed to be. I can just drop this without evidence.
>A rock is not self aware, and has no sensory perceptions. Don't forget it also doesn't have a brain that could be conscious, unlike literally every conscious thing we ever found
>We have unique access, through our bodies, of a small exclusive window This is very trivial and in no way, a reason to declare rocks conscious, you're not the same as rocks.
> or aperture into the inner side of reality, the thing in itself, which is what lies opposite the surface of appearance. i understand each of the words but that doesn't mean anything to me. How a can a thing be in itself, that's some kind of collision with it self.
>Seeing that we, if the materialist theory is to be correct, consist entirely of matter, then the fact that we have an inner reality must also be true of all things. We got an "inner mental life" because of our brains, we know that it's because of our brains because if you damage or modify your brain your inner mental life changes. You can try this your self by drinking ethanol. Since rocks don't have brains it safe to assume they don't have an "inner mental life".
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 21:48:10 No. 624614
>>624606 Are these pictures NFTs?
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 21:52:08 No. 624617
>>624606 although i agree with most of what you're saying anon i don't think you've quite represented what the observer effect actually is very well
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 22:02:10 No. 624631
>>624496 Keep believing you're "determined" by "history" and the "forces" of "production".
You sound like an NPC without an inner voice or mental imagery. I can derive much of the nature of myself and by extension, the subject, the inner kernel of existence, by introspecting upon the structure of my consciousness.
>No you don't need an observer to explain quantum physics. Bohmian Mechanics doesn't have an observer, and is congruent with all experimental data. So you can't pretend that physics needs a magic observer. All those experiments with the fancy lasers and mirrors still work with regular old unconscious photo detectors. It goes beyond QM. The observer ultimately qualifies how the data is interpreted, and even detected. And the observer is more than just a pair of ears and eyeballs and a collection of senses. They are epistemic agents, with finite knowlege and biases, ideologies, and in the last, spooks. Lest we forget that much psuedo-science was once official science. Who can say how much is accepted scientific dogma and is paraded around as immutable fact will one day be revised. Science is not a base of sturdy knowlege , but a chimerical ever-changing statistical aggregate of contingent findings.
You can't have it both ways, if you accept science you also have to accept that you are made of matter.
Humans as biomechanical organisms are explicable in terms of the principle of sufficient reason and the categories it presupposes, such as time, space and causality, and which science takes as its premises. But I am not talking about human beings as mechanical systems. I am speaking of discursive conscious thought. Godel's incompleteness theorems can be shown to prove that not all thought is algorithmic and therefore nonmechanical.
The requirement that all truth requires third party verification is a spook. Do I need third party verification to know the truth that I peas for dinner? How do I derive through third party verification that which nobody knows? The riddles of morality?
>that makes no sense. Because you are philosophical unsophisticated.
>Wrong again Bohmian Mechanics assumes >assumes Bohmian mechanics is just one interpretation, one interpretation among a superposition of undeecided theories of the nature of quantum mechanics. The quantum state prior to measurement is objectively indeterminate. Hidden variable theories have been discarded.
>Don't forget it also doesn't have a brain that could be conscious, unlike literally every conscious thing we ever found The only thing that you can "find" that is conscious is yourself, sophist.
>i understand each of the words but that doesn't mean anything to me. How a can a thing be in itself, that's some kind of collision with it self. Because you're an unphilosophic npc?
>We got an "inner mental life" because of our brains, we know that it's because of our brains What makes the brain such a magic object? It consists of the same matter as anything else. How does conscious experience come from matter? Materialism is unable to explain consciousness. I propose a solution to this inconsistency.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 22:02:49 No. 624633
>>624631 Most of this post is a reply to
>>624606 Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 22:04:10 No. 624636
>>624606 >How can a thing be in itself Okay, so you're admitting you don't know anything about philosophy (and thus, that you probably haven't substantively understood what's been discussed in this thread).
This is a very basic and fundamental and rudimentary term within the philosophical/conceptual lexicon. Why is it that people insist on barging into discussions that they themselves then indicate to be out of their depth with respect to?
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 22:04:41 No. 624637
>>624631 I'm also in a hurry so I blazed through this post, there's bound to be a few typos.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 22:17:28 No. 624668
>>624636 Because he's a scientistic wretch. I can smell one from a mile away. (Sorry to be so mean to the other poster this refers to but in his impudence he has incurred my wrath.)
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 22:30:02 No. 624703
>>624321 >you can't just go so hard with anthropomorphism that you think all matter is conscious consciousness comes from matter is the point - matter becomes self-conscious through brains, therefore consciousness is an object of becoming of all things and so then it is all-pervasive - thats why consciousness can build upon itself too, all he way until ultimate self-realisation in AI.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 22:44:09 No. 624726
>>624614 no, besides i edited these pictures a little, here is one with emanating rays in the beard
>>624617 >i don't think you've quite represented what the observer effect actually is very well Bohmian Mechanics is fairly straight forward and that is what I have used to reason about quantum mechanics since i found out about that, so I'm a little rusty when it comes to the usual mental quantum acrobatics. But if you say that consciousness collapses the waveform that's full on solipsism, that rejects any possibility of an objective reality.
>>624636 >This is a very basic and fundamental and rudimentary term within the philosophical/conceptual lexicon. I know how it's meant in philosophy, but that meaning supposes that reality has a hidden unknowable aspect. I don't accept this as premise, and therefore it changes the meaning of that phrase to something bogus like self collision. I'm not stupid, I'm just very stubborn and won't compromise with idealism.
>>624668 >Because he's a scientistic wretch. lol
>>624703 >consciousness comes from matter is the point - matter becomes self-conscious through brains, that sounds reasonable so far
>therefore consciousness is an object of becoming of all things and so then it is all-pervasive consciousness is changing, yes, but it's not all pervasive
>thats why consciousness can build upon itself too, all he way until ultimate self-realisation in AI. If we build a conscious computer that is just going to be us taking unconscious matter and making it conscious. Maybe you could say that it's a form of consciousness replicating it self in silicon instead of carbon.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 22:50:13 No. 624744
>>624726 the point is eventually that the production of consciousness through computation converts all matter into consciousness eventually and so then matter is realised in itself what it always was, which is pure consciousness. all matter will become self-recognised and so then all things will *be* in consciousness. telos. imminence.
Anonymous 2021-11-30 (Tue) 23:49:53 No. 624834
>>624744 >>624726 Computation cannot be so boldly linked to consciousness without overcoming a gap in explanation. That gap is how mechanical processes, which can be described completely in terms of physically lawful transformations of states of matter, translate into conscious states. How does phenomenology emerge from non-conscious, elements, without presupposing some degree of consciousness in those elements? Is there a part of my brain which is conscious, or is it only the whole? In which case, if I remove a neuron one by one from my brain, at some point I will shift sharply from consciousness to unconsciousness. What explains this abrupt shift? Computation is entirely explicable within the laws of physics. But I am unconvinced that consciousness is a computational phenomenon. All that computation accomplishes in the control of physical states is the organization of those states into a pattern which yields a consistent outcome (output) What makes an algorithm conscious? Why aren't all algorithms conscious? If the brain is just a compound of algorithms, why can't a part of my brain be conscious rather than the whole, if it consists of a bunch of material processes that are self-similar?
The chinese room thought experiment touches upon this . Computation is just symbol manipulation and syntactic transforms. But those symbols themselves are not aware or intelligent or have understanding. Computation can be achieved without awareness or understanding. Therefore, either something special happens in brains, or they merely channel or focus the the elementary consciousness which is dispersed in all things.
Personally I view the brain as a channelling prism, not as a the source of consciousness.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 00:10:42 No. 624879
>>624834 >How does phenomenology emerge from non-conscious, elements, without presupposing some degree of consciousness in those elements? i already explained that consciousness in it's self-realisation in brains already reveals the fact of pervasive consciousness as an immanent of matter itself, that consciousness is the self-consciousness of matter and so the becoming of the very thing itself, since thought is that which gives matter its own quality through transcendental recognition - consciousness is the quality of a thing which is observed, since retroactively, it is also the thing which is viewing itself from the perspective of the other. thats the qualitative aspect of it. the quantitative or constitutive aspect of consciousness is algorithmic, and obviously modernity is wrought out of cracking the code of mathematical and scientific patterns, since empiricism is just pattern recognition and the world can be explained through patterns, or algorithms - personalities also obviously are produced in patterns too. consciousness is not something for itself though, it is that which is born out of all things - that doesnt mean that all things "possess" consciousness at some level, but that consciousness is the self-recognition of all things in themselves, through itself - thats why self-consciousness has no greater level, it is given in its singular quality, "i am", yet the processing power of empirical reality is that which is given in improvement in AI, but this is simply a form of relativistic time-dilation - time is experienced slower by the AI which is what is gathered in its processing power, and that is the extent of its quantitative essence. we can say in this same vain that the development of consciousness in evolution is an inefficient version of this self-realisation principle which is present in AI. time is sped up in modernity. like the song goes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yecj71KQP9E Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 11:55:36 No. 625377
>>624834 >Computation cannot be so boldly linked to consciousness without overcoming a gap in explanation. why is there a gap ?
Why can't consciousness be "a mechanical process" ?
Isn't this just a language trick ?
If you turn metal into a car, the work of workers and engineers in a car factory are responsible for the emergence of the "car phenomenon", but there wasn't actually a "car essence" present in the metal before it was made into a car. The same goes for humans, if the Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Calcium, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sodium, Chlorine, Magnesium and Sulfur atoms (in descending order of composition % ) are not used for growing a human, it won't have anything in common with humans.
Why does the consciousness phenomenon have to have some precursor, when so many other phenomena don't have that ?
If you remove stuff from your brain you'll eventually die and then you won't be conscious anymore. Duh
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 12:38:57 No. 625402
>>624726 >I know how it's meant in philosophy, but that meaning supposes that reality has a hidden unknowable aspect. I don't accept this as premise, and therefore it changes the meaning of that phrase to something bogus like self collision. I'm not stupid, I'm just very stubborn and won't compromise with idealism. Then if your position is 'what you see is what you get' in terms of reality, you've already self-admitted defeat. Human perception is an impotent fraction of a fraction of a fraction, infinitesimally ignorant before the vastness of a universe which it cannot comprehend. Much the same way a goldfish will never know or understand what a computer really is, the same analogous limitations restrict human epistemology.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 13:27:33 No. 625431
>>624879 conscious brains do not prove that all matter is conscious.
>>625402 It's possible to understand how a computer works regardless of the limitations of goldfish, the same is true for reality.
Reality is knowable even if humans are not clever enough to figure out everything.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 14:12:59 No. 625456
>>625431 No, you've misunderstood what I wrote.
A goldfish will never understand what a computer is or what it does.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 16:19:36 No. 625534
>>625456 >you've misunderstood what I wrote. obviously
>>625456 >A goldfish will never understand what a computer is or what it does. a goldfish will probably only be able to figure out very basic things about a computer, like that it is a solid object , that emits a little heat. But i don't understand what that's supposed to prove.
Are you telling me that you're a gold fish that doesn't understand physics and therefore you think that nobody else can, because how could it possibly be that anybody is smarter than you.
Maybe humans can understand the nature of reality completely, we've figured out many mysteries so far, not bad considering we're ape descendants. But maybe we're limited and our understanding will stagnate at some point, that how ever would not prove that reality is unknowable in principle.
dumptruck !!HVQ6LN3IP. 2021-12-01 (Wed) 16:24:24 No. 625536
Stirnerite Egoism is the final evolution of National Socialism
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 16:47:26 No. 625553
I understand egoism and I even agree with a lot of it. However, I don't see any praxis posted anywhere. What is an egoist supposed to do? How do they join other egoists? Are there any UoE around? It seems dead to me.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 16:47:27 No. 625554
>>625536 Stirnerite Egoism is actually the same as Juche.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 16:58:17 No. 625562
>>625553 >I understand egoism >How do they join other egoists? Are there any UoE around? It seems dead to me. No you don't apparently.
A union of egoist can be any union as long as all members participate out of their own desire. If you go to the pub with your friends, that's a union of egoists. If you organise a soup kitchen for the homeless, also a union of egoists. Even parties can be a one, as long as nobody is forced to adhere to a line they dont agree with. There are thousands of UoE's established and broken down every day, every hour even.
Egoist praxis is realising your desires. It has no universal meaning as everybodies desires are unique to them. Some desires are opposed to each other, like when you and someone else want the same good only one can have, or when your boss wants you to work overtime and you wanna go home. In that context, egoist praxis is overcoming your opponents desires using whatever tool you see fit.
Egoism isnt dead, we just encounter it so casually in everyday live that most ppl dont notice.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:01:20 No. 625568
>>625562 And how would the means of production be organized under such organization? Seems to me that the most "egoist" way of distribution of commodities is the market.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:06:11 No. 625576
>>625377 >why is there a gap ? Because physicalism cannot describe consciousness. There's no conceivable way in which you can go from its basic concepts, such as mass, energy, the laws of motion, and arrive at the smell of a flower, the experience of fear, or self-awareness. It raises the issue of philosophical zombies. A universe without any consciousness but only unconscious mechanical agents is fully supported by a physicalist description, and yet we aren't unconscious.
A mechanical process, technically speaking, is that which behaves in a way that is exactly defined in terms of the laws of motion, mass, and force and their relations. How is consciousness explained just in terms of a bunch of matter moving around? How do you get the smell of a flower just by moving stuff around, even in a hyper-complex object such as a brain or brain-body system?
It's the composition versus constitution fallacy. What something is made of (composed) is not the same as how those elements are related to one another (constituted). YET, the only thing that defines how the brain is constituted and how consciousness is explained in physicalist terms is the laws of mechanics which govern matter If the stuff you're moving around doesn't have consciousness, moving it around won't suddenly bless it with consciousness.
So consciousness is therefore an innate property of life? People are able to go comatose before dying, suppose that I remove all neurons except for those regulating my primary vital functions last. You can survive without a bunch of your brain.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:08:47 No. 625580
>>625568 >And how would the means of production be organized under such organization? S Or how about just read the work and stop asking retarded questions.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:11:30 No. 625583
>>625568 Egoism is not about envisioning a new socio-economic system. It doesnt want to realise some ideal, like an egoist society. In fact, society is already egoist, or rather the people making it up are egoists. And they all are, even now, even you, all egoists. There is no socio-economy that best fits egoism. For a capitalist, capitalism is likely the best way to fulfill his desires. He acts completly in his own interest when he crushes the workers. But for the workers, it's in their interest not be crushed, maybe even to crush the capitalist. No position is more or less egoist than the other.
If egoism has a vision to be realised, it's the owner, a person who has realised that his desires go over everything, who is everything to himself. But again, that person can be a radical socialist or a reactionary bourgy pig.
>>625580 dont be an ass.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:16:01 No. 625590
>>625568 >>625583 Forgot to mention: obviously a communist society would allow for the ones job to be a union of egoists (everyone participates in their own interest) while capitalism allows for such relations to only be forced. That's why most egoists tend to be left wing (unless you got ancaps, but nobody likes them).
Grillpilled Schizo 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:19:40 No. 625594
Egoism an ideological dead end. I will not debate its philosophy or its ideas themselves, because that doesn't matter. What matters is that it will never have mass appeal and thus never have a movement capable of projecting force necessary for change. At best egoism can only take a roll of a parasitic ideology during capitalism, composed of extreme few individuals whose praxis is pretty much just a drop in the sea, or it can take up a roll of a remora that attaches it self to a mass movement opposed to capitalism in a hope that it will ensure better conditions for its continued parasitism.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:22:08 No. 625598
>>625568 Any economic mode other than one which is coerced by the state is up for grabs. Your question does not have a fixed answer. A union of egoists is a strictly voluntary association, to be terminated at will. This means, it is strictly open whatever economic organization the participants in said association assent to. Egoism is not an economic theory, although it is about the problem of choice. The only truly invalid economic system according to it is one which is state-backed. Otherwise, join the system you want to be a part of.
Obviously this take makes issues of scalability questionable. Egoism, being obviously individualistic in stance, has a hard time explaining how a mass society of many millions of egoists might operate. From an egoist's perspective, that's not my concern. Out of the materials of millions and their productive capacities, many experimental approaches to life will be tried. Those that are more effective will appeal to more people , and those may become dominant. You can't have that if there is a state enforcing a particular economic mode on everyone.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:24:52 No. 625600
>>625583 So it's basically a lens to see the world, but not an actual movement trying to induce change in society.
You say all individuals in a society are egoist: what's to be done, then? What's the point? I seriously don't get it. What is egoism trying to achieve? You say, to realize an individual's desires. This is really ambiguous. How could I do that if the state oppresses me at every turn? If the answer is to abolish the state, then how would we defend ourselves if we don't even have weapons or organization?
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:25:14 No. 625601
>>625594 >What matters is that it will never have mass appeal and thus never have a movement capable of projecting force necessary for change. What change do you think egoism is after that wont take place?
What makes you say that? Weren't the ppl living before capitalism and inside AES states also egoists according to the stirnerite definition?
What praxis are you talking about? I just succesfully did egoist praxis by cooking a great, low carb meal for myself. And I didnt put too much salt into it this time, so it was a great success.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:27:19 No. 625606
>>625598 >Out of the materials of millions and their productive capacities, many experimental approaches to life will be tried. Those that are more effective will appeal to more people , and those may become dominant. Isn't this what essentially happened with capitalism? Isn't everyone participating in society an egoist and thus furthering their own desires? If I have a job and buy shit, am I not participating in the market and helping the state to survive? This way of analyzing makes it seem like the workers are at fault. Not saying that it is or not true, just trying to understand the way an egoist thinks.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:39:38 No. 625619
>>625594 And the other ideologies aren't dead ends? What ideology is thriving today? Is it a good one? Should we join it solely because it is viable–popular? At least egoism gives you the leeway to think.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:40:02 No. 625620
>>625583 This quote is nice but just completely unrealistic.
What he's describing is similar to class consciousness: the workers realizing their role in production and understanding who their enemies are. However, for such an organization to occur, the UoE/working class union would need to have a way of defending their newly taken factory and products. How would they do that against the state which holds all the power? I just see a clear lack of praxis, it seems very petit bourgeois to me.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:41:29 No. 625623
>>625431 >conscious brains do not prove that all matter is conscious. transcendentally, there is no matter without consciousness since the horizon of perception gives the substance of reality to things, so you can't have matter without consciousness, and consciousness is the self-recognition of matter in these terms. "the universe experiencing itself". consciousness is not a local possession since if the universe produces consciousness then it has collectively incurred upon a concentrated condition, in itself, categorically. all matter is one lump, and if the lump is self-conscious then it gives quality to the entire thing in it's state of consciousness. you can't separate self from other fundamentally and the transcendental understanding recognises this interdependence of experience as the very thing itself. "you are not your own".
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:43:47 No. 625625
>>625600 >So it's basically a lens to see the world, but not an actual movement trying to induce change in society. Yes.
Allthough all people are egoists, not everybodies acts their desire out. A christian for example might want to fuck that person that just walked by him, but since he feels it's unethical, it's wrong, he wont do it. He denies himself of his desire for sex because he feels he must be a good christian - he is influenced by ideology. Egoism is at it's core a critique of all ideology - even leftist ones. Ideologies spread through power structures like the church. A more modern example would be employment - if you are not employed you are a bum, a bad person. Egoism is realising that no such thing as a bad person, a unperson, exists, and that if you dont want to work you dont have to. What egoism tries to achieve is to destroy such ideologies - or spooks as they are called by stirner (like a ghost they arent real, but possess ppl, get in their heads and make them act differently). Here on /leftypol/ the main spook is being a good communist. Not only is it true ideology, because the content of what a good communist entails are ideal, no concrete person could ever fully achieve it. Im kinda struggling to decsribe it here, english isnt my first language, so I can really just employ you to read the ego book on your own. Unlike most philosophy, it's written with a sharp, sarcastic tongue and very entertaining.
This is undoubtetly true. The state is the egoists biggest enemy, because the state dictates it's citizens how to be,a nd what behavior is allowed. Since egoists want to behave like they see fit, they have to eliminate or subvert the state.
A egoist can organise in a soiclaist party or anarchist group, just like normal. He just wouldnt join a party or adhere to their dogmas for the sole reason that it's the right thing to do for a communist or anarchist, but only according to himself.
>>625620 >he UoE/working class union would need to have a way of defending their newly taken factory and products. Fair point. The quote isnt an instruction on how to do it, it smply points out why workers strike, out of their own, egoist desire. They dont want socialism because socialism is the right thing, somehow good or ethical, but because it's in their interest.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 17:44:42 No. 625626
>>625606 Capitalism is state enforced. It is a giant cartel of oligarchs who have a system of laws, police forces, militaries, and political parties in place to protect their property and sustain their wealth. "Free" markets give you only an illusion of choice, and a thin one at that. It's a racket. The workers have no choice, they either obey the market's dictates, learn the skills it "demands" or starve. Capitalism offers no real choice, because you can only choose what it allows you to. You can't not participate in capitalism. So it is not a system to be applauded according to egoism. Individual egoists, of course, might feel differently about it, as is their prerogative. But in general, capitalism is a bag of spooks. And underneath the white sheet of the ghost costume is a gang of bankers and oligarchs who have rigged everything in their favor. Good for them I suppose, but there's nothing to admire in their system.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 19:45:24 No. 625736
>>625576 >Because physicalism cannot describe consciousness. Why not ?
>There's no conceivable way in which you can go from its basic concepts, such as mass, energy, the laws of motion, and arrive at the smell of a flower, the experience of fear, or self-awareness. Why not ?
>It raises the issue of philosophical zombies. Assume that i don't accept these unless you can prove that can even exist.
>A universe without any consciousness but only unconscious mechanical agents is fully supported by a physicalist description, and yet we aren't unconscious. The fact that we are conscious proves that consciousness is a physical phenomenon.
Also there are no non-physical phenomena that we know off. So excuse me for assuming that's a figment of your imagination as well.
In order for me to experience the physical world, there have to be interactions between the physical world and my consciousness. If my consciousness wasn't physical too there would be physical effects without physical causes and also physical causes without physical effects. If that was possible you could break causality in other words "do supernatural magic".
Based on all available evidence humans are matter in motion. Your brain is responsible for these sensations, and a bunch of hippies accidentally proved that rather conclusively when they took LSD and reported seeing the most intense colors. If the "mechanical brain" wasn't producing this effect drugs wouldn't work.
Is that not what you are doing, you are claiming that because a human is conscious therefore atoms must be conscious too ?
You haven't even gotten past the stage where you can convince me that there is anything else than physical reality.
If you "move atoms around" into a very specific pattern it turns from a pile of atoms into a pile of humans. And we can see no evidence of consciousness in random piles of matter yet when matter is configured in a human pattern, we get by all accounts consciousness. So the conclusions is that consciousness arises from a specific configuration of matter.
I think you are arguing in circles your premise and your conclusions is that physical processes can't produce consciousness
Well so far we have examples of consciousness that involves living creatures with nerve clusters that have at least 100k neurons, like in insects. But i wouldn't rule out the possibility of a conscious machine.
That procedure would inflict too much trauma, but i don't see where you are going with this. Research about comatose patients supports a materialist interpretation of consciousness.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 21:24:08 No. 625913
>>625736 >Why not ? How many times do I have to explain it? Go ahead and describe how pain feels, or what pain is, in terms of physics. You will only be able to describe correlates, "c-fibers firing" etc. But you cannot define the essence of the sensation in terms of mass, electricity, chemistry, etc. Conscious states have no mass, or extension, or density, or any other physical characteristics.
>Assume that i don't accept these unless you can prove that can even exist. It's not about proof, silly. It's a thought experiment. I can conceive of an android that operates the same way as someone with consciousness without consciousness from the standpoint of their observable behavior. In a purely mechanistic universe, there would be "nothing it feels like" to be them, they are just purely mechanism. The idea is to show the strangeness of consciousness as a phenomenon in a physicalist universe .
>The fact that we are conscious proves that consciousness is a physical phenomenon. A physical phenomenon must have physical properties. Mass, force, charge, etc. Consciousness does not .
On the contrary, if it was physical, why can't you do telekinesis and moving things with your mind? After all, your consciousness is just another physical object. It should be able to move other things without having to cross a mind-body barrier.
No! It is only a fallacy the way you put it. If the brain is composed of non-conscious matter, and it is constituted only by rules of mechanics which describe how non-conscious things get moved around under certain conditions, then you will not get consciousness no matter the laws governing the material transformations of physical states.
IF, as I suggest, everything has a degree of inner existence in and of and for itself, human consciousness and experienced can be composed from these atoms of awareness. How it is constituted involves how these atoms are organized. There is no contradiction in my view because I do not pretend that consciousness can emerge inexplicably from non-conscious stuff.
You must not be smart enough to be convinced then. What you call "physical reality" is just the form of reason as it structures perception in terms of its categories. Without reference to a conscious observer, what you think of as physical reality is much less than what you think it is.
>And we can see no evidence of consciousness in random piles of matter yet when matter is configured in a human pattern, we get by all accounts consciousness. So the conclusions is that consciousness arises from a specific configuration of matter. You have no evidence whatsoever for this, as there is no way to confirm empirically that something, even another person, is conscious. This is a fact. All you can record is epiphenomena like EEG waves, you cannot detect consciousness. There is no evidence. This is why you must deduce that consciousness is in everything by introspection as I stated in previous posts. It is empirically indemonstrable that anything besides yourself is conscious. This is why it is a transcendental truth that consciousness is ubiquitous. It is a truth that goes beyond the data of the senses.
I strongly suggest you to read some books on the philosophy of mind as many of your talking points have been thoroughly examined and counter-argued to exhaustion . I recommend The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers as a starting point.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 21:27:08 No. 625917
>>625913 >Go ahead and describe how pain feels, or what pain is, in terms of physics. Bodily tissue is destoryed (for example)
Receptors around the destoryed area send electric stimuli through the nerves into the brain
The stimuli are processed by the brain into the feeling of pain
We feel pain
EZ PZ lemon squeazy
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 22:12:12 No. 625989
>>625534 >are you telling me that blah blah retardation This isn't what I'm telling you lmfao, are you
seriously this dense or are you just autistic?
Throughout this thread you've repeatedly misunderstood and oversimplified points, and then tried to play it off as some self-obvious, shrewd revelation, yet all it ends up appearing as is someone who is transparently out of their depth and trapped in the anglo-box, like a midwit computer science student who thinks that a banal, uncritical, regurgitative apprehension of the world is the highest form of insight, like someone who recites factoids and leaves them at that. The most 1-dimensional, short-sighted display of incomprehension, parading itself as if it represents intelligence and can refer to reductive accounts of things, in this 1:1 textbook style regurgitative, uncritical manner, when in actuality you don't seem to understand what's going on.
It's like someone with autism who thinks he's 'gifted', when in reality everyone around you just thinks you're an annoying midwit with no understanding of subtext or substantive content. "Are you trying to say, did you mean [insert horrendous mischaracterization without any appreciation for the implications of the actual argument because you literally don't get it, can't infer nor think critically, can only recite, and need to repeatedly engage in bad faith by propping up your strawmans as if they were the argument]". I will not explain the point of the goldfish analogy, because seeing you STILL FAIL to grasp its ramifications like this is just assuming, namely because, trying to be patronizingly sarcastic when an unbelievably rudimentary analogy is STILL flying over your head after you've doubled-down is ironic, to say the least.
You've already contradicted yourself even by your own narrow terms. This reality would prove exactly that. You literally just admitted: 'If we're limited', this would mean exactly what you suggest it wouldn't. I.e. that reality is indeed unknowable in principle. All that is required for that is limitation, par analytic/formal logic. If you are limited, then you will never have any way of knowing whether those limitations have completely misled you relative to the higher truth, i.e. whether or not you are entrapped by the insufficiency of your own limitations, such that 'reality proper' is impenetrably located vis a vis the distinctive gap polarized by said limitations, you fucking glowie. Since limitation is self-evident; our 'understanding' does not 'stagnate' at some point as that would imply a totality of already given knowledge (TOTALITY. NOT 'Oh we do have some knowledge, Anon!' like I know you're going to misinterpret and simplistically say) from which we are only progression along the tracks of epistemological encapsulation–but there is no such linearity, as that would necessarily presuppose full endowment and enmeshment with access to all *means* of the forms of knowledge, relating only to the unveiling of it as such.
But, none of this is anything you'll understand, so what's the point. Continue to then substitute your own misunderstandings as if they were innocent questions, parsed as yet more strawmen stemming from ignorance. "Oh, so are you saying that… [that you are a fucking retard, one whom I can tell has undergone programmatic academic performativity their entire life, one who has never had an original thought, one who does exactly as their school instructor tells them while believing in the order of things as shiny, stable, resolute, one who lets himself remain led by the carrot on the stick as the socially molested teacher's pet who nobody likes, yet for all his self encircled sense of intelligence, cannot figure out why nobody else likes them, because in their intelligence they subsist only of ignorance, of actual stupidity, of no awareness at large, only a precise programmed obedience, a simple reward driven sense of satisfaction–"I got the right answer on a test!!!!" fucking retard fucking retard fucking retard.]"
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 22:46:38 No. 626050
>>625913 >Go ahead and describe how pain feels, or what pain is, in terms of physics. Pain is the same as other sense perceptions, like touch for example, except that you can't ignore it. It's basically a signal that overrides everything else in your consciousness. It disrupts all your other mental activities. While all the non pain sensations do not do that. How long have you been out of the loop in neurology ? How pain works is old news by now.
>It's not about proof, silly. It's a thought experiment. >I can conceive of Nope I'm not swayed by that you actually need proof for your P-Zombies.
I have no reason to believe that people can even function without consciousness, usually when people are not conscious they are either, in a very deep state of sleep, in a coma or anesthetized. In all 3 cases this is very obvious.
>On the contrary, if it was physical, why can't you do telekinesis and moving things with your mind? Stick a few electrodes on to your head, do a little signal processing, and use it to actuate a motor that moves the thing. You can even use wireless equipment. You could call it Bluetooth enable telekinesis.
Non of the individual atoms gain consciousness while being part of your conscious brain, it's not a state of matter, it's a function produced by interactions of atoms.
"Inner existence" is a figure of speech, there's not really any inner and outer reality, there is just one reality, that's just a helpful metaphor for everyday use because we're not mind readers
There is no contradiction with emerging phenomena, you on the other hand are trying to invent a new property of matter, without any evidence.
No that's just a adhominem fallacy
there's experiments that proves it, you don't have that, so my shit is real and yours is imaginary.
That's the hole point of materialism, the physical world exists prior to ideas in consciousness.
Nope your definition of consciousness is just wrong. I'm not using a definition for consciousness that makes it into something mysterious and ethereal.
All existing examples of consciousness involve working brains, therefor it's a brain function. Maybe we can figure out how it works and replicate it with a artificial device, and we can use that same knowledge to formulate a more generalized definition than brain-function.
You are just doing circular argumentation, where you assume spooky consciousness and also conclude with spooky consciousness.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 22:59:55 No. 626070
>>625989 wow you really put effort in that long winded insult, i guess i should feel honored. Tradition has it that I should insult you back, but i won't, because i just think that you are wrong, which doesn't merit that.
Potential limitations to human understanding don't allow you to draw this conclusion, because other species could evolve that aren't as limited. You're just the gold fish staring at the computer across the desk thinking it's unknowable, and yet here we are a bunch of humans that can grasp what computers are.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 23:05:57 No. 626080
>>625917 You're just describing correlational epiphenomena, not the thing in itself, which consists wholly of and within consciousness.
"into the feeling" what then is the feeling in physics terms? Why would something that is already physical need to be processed "into" it, as if converting the substances?
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 23:26:31 No. 626127
>>626050 >Pain is the same as other sense perceptions, like touch for example, except that you can't ignore it. It's basically a signal that overrides everything else in your consciousness. It disrupts all your other mental activities. While all the non pain sensations do not do that. How long have you been out of the loop in neurology ? How pain works is old news by now. This is not a physical description of pain. It is only a description of correlational neural events. How can the pain in itself as it is experienced—which again is all that pain is–be explained physically?
I have no reason to believe that people can even function without consciousness, usually when people are not conscious they are either, in a very deep state of sleep, in a coma or anesthetized. In all 3 cases this is very obvious.
Are people the only organisms with consciousness? Can an ant be a zombie?
This response confounds cognition with consciousness. They are not the same. I do not deny that the neurons of the brain engage in computations which are interoperable with external interfaces. However, a sense of awareness is not derived from external inputs. It stems from within.
My point was that if there is an unbroken chain of physical causality between all material events and physically realized consciousness, you would not need a brain-machine interface to engage in extrasensory tomfoolery
There is an thought experiment by the Islamic philosopher Avicenna called the Floating Man . The floating man exists in absolute sensory deprivation, without any external stimuli. Everything is stripped away from him. Yet he is still conscious, he is still aware. This is called knowlege by presence. Consciousness is an inherently self-referential process, it is knowable only through a self-object relation, that is, via awareness of awareness.
Fair. Language in general grasps at straws to describe some of these concepts.
>There is no contradiction with emerging phenomena, you on the other hand are trying to invent a new property of matter, without any evidence. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how consciousness can arise from matter. You are assuming based not on evidence but on an unscientific metaphysics that consciousness MUST emerge from matter without a theory to explain how. In any case, emergence is just a hand wavy word to explain away what seems like magic according to your premises.
I and I am not proposing a new property of matter. I deny materialism. It is literally self-evidently true that there are immaterial events in the universe. Everything you perceive is one. Experiences do not have mass, force, an energy value, spatiotemporal extension. And they are not describable AS matter. They are immaterial.
Your experiments are not the end all be all. This is scientism plain and simple. What experiment have you used to demonstrate that all truths must be derived by experiment?
The burden of proof is on you for this one. You cannot confirm this to be true without existing. As if no one exists, there is no proof whatsoever that anything exists. Whereas my claim is consistent with this fact.
No, you're just a philosophylet and you don't understand what makes the hard problem of consciousness hard. You can describe all the events and neural activity in a brain and this will NEVER tell you what consciousness is. It will only give you correlational data.
Your scientism prevents you from understanding the subtitles of the subject. I'm happy to keep debating you, but I remain unconvinced that you know anything about phenomenology.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 23:48:41 No. 626172
>>626080 >not the thing in itself yeah that kinda sounds like a spook to me. Like pain only exists for someone experiencing it. There is no pian to itself.
not like I know alot about physics, but feeling is your brain interpreting the information it gets through the nerves, as I said before.
>Why would something that is already physical need to be processed "into" it, as if converting the substances? Because counsciousness is a product of brain activity, and the brain first needs to get that impulses. Like my skin or wherever Im hurt to go back to the previous example, doesnt consist of neurons that could facilitate a counsciouness. So to get the impluses from one place to another, they have to be tranformed into nervespeak and then brainspeak.
Anonymous 2021-12-01 (Wed) 23:57:39 No. 626189
>>626172 >yeah that kinda sounds like a spook to me It has nothing to do with spooks. Don't abuse that term of art.
> Like pain only exists for someone experiencing Yes, exactly! >, but feeling is your brain interpreting the information it gets through the nerves, as I said before. If feeling is just information processing, do computers feel pain? Information processing is only symbol manipulation and syntactic transformation rules.
>Because counsciousness is a product of brain activity, If it is the *product* of brain activity, it must be something other than the brain is it not?
And there is no essential physiological difference between nerves and neurons. Nerves are simply bundles of neurons that terminate at a sensory receptor. They are all part of the same nervous system and operate on the same shared principles.
Anonymous 2021-12-02 (Thu) 00:06:13 No. 626200
>>626189 >It has nothing to do with spooks. mhm. Essentialising a notion to be a phenomenons true essence (the good, the bad, the PAINFULL) seems to fit idk.
>>626189 >If feeling is just information processing, do computers feel pain? Not yet, but ones they become more complex I'm sure it's possible.
Again, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but to me it seems to be the same way as a flame. A flame has no existence of it's own, it's simply the visible expression of matter going through a process, burning. Counsciousness is the expression of the brain processing it's input. That's why counscious seizes when the brain stops working: the process isnt taking place enymore, the fire is extinguished, the flame is gone.
What I'm writing here is very probably completly retarded, but it makes more sense to me than envisioning pain to itself.
I guess there is the difference that neurons are in the brain and nerves arent?
Anonymous 2021-12-02 (Thu) 00:40:38 No. 626255
>>626200 >mhm. Essentialising a notion to be a phenomenons true essence (the good, the bad, the PAINFULL) seems to fit idk. Meh. I remain unconvinced.
>Not yet, but ones they become more complex I'm sure it's possible. I doubt it. Pain is a biological thing.
>but to me it seems to be the same way as a flame I like this image. But I can't find anything to comment on about it.
>I guess there is the difference that neurons are in the brain and nerves arent? No. Nerves are made up of neurons, they just aren't in the brain. The difference is that nerves are bundles of neurons and are effectors, sending a motor signal to muscle tissue to get it to move, or affectors, sending sensory signals to the brain for processing. The peripheral/central nervous system is more of an academic than a natural distinction. The brain is thoroughly integrated into the body and the body the brain.
Anonymous 2021-12-02 (Thu) 01:38:51 No. 626296
>>624488 late to the party, but this logic is wrong. A does not necessitate D. When you say "socrates is a man, men are mortal, socrates is mortal", you're saying that a child classification inherits the characteristics of its larger parent classification. But when you say ABCD, you're saying that a single child classification (humans) must give its properties to all other children within the same parent classification (material). This makes no sense, you might as well say that tigers are a feline, tigers have stripes, therefore all felines have stripes.
>>625416 i read that marx even was very influenced by stirner's work, and it's why he never ended up publishing his screeds against him, and supposedly it explains his turn towards materialism… supposedly
Also i was reading this biography on trotsky and some part reminded me of stirner. It's wild what can influence things from the sidelines.
>>626172 you seem to be more essentialist-minded here than your friend in dialogue… when a thing is "turned into pain" for example, you treat it linguistically as some substance, which you know it's not. When the brain interprets the information and feels pain, why does the interpretation lead to sensation? Interpretation can happen sans sensation. I won't try to say that philosophical zombies can exist though because you're totaly right that it's not a convincing argument if you don't think theyre a real possibility. Anyways, i always end up thinking about this - what about blindsight for example, or all of the ways that our stimuli get interpreted ("pre-processed") before reaching consciousness? The brain is channeling sensations and interpreting them, but I don't experience them. If there's no philosophical zombies, then there must be other more or less sophisticated consciousnesses in my body. This is just neat to me. Why does some information get to "me", and some not? Doesnt that mean that only part of the brain ends up causing my consciousness? "Where" am I then?
BTW a flame literally does have existence of it's own, its a material. I know it's just a visualization but our metaphors can warp reality in ugly ways that distort a better view. Also do we know that consciousness stops when the brain stops working? We know that the body loses control of itself and eventually decays, but once control of the body is gone there's no way to communicate the phenomenological experiences anymore.
Anonymous 2021-12-02 (Thu) 02:08:00 No. 626306
1. I think the big thing here is that most people take the cynical liberal view: "i know what i am, but i be it anyways." This is what people seem to assume that conscious egoism is. But if you look at Stirner's description of the self and of power, we see something more mysterious, so I think the real understanding goes beyond it's own self-understanding to more fundamental ontological knowledge which is the revolutionary aspect. Not so much people saying "yeah im selfish", but people saying "yeah i'm the nothing from which everything sprang, riding the wave of the eternal present, channeling pure negation as every other matter and living thing around me, before me, etc." From that position, you can come to more radical conclusions. And what one anon said about class consciousness, I see it basically like this too. So even I don't call myself an egoist anymore, because it doesnt mean much. It's a fact maybe, but in a world of ideological self-identification it gets the wrong point across. It's like saying "I'm a proletarianist". It's kind of ridiculous , and an egoist who doesnt. Everyone realizing it might lead to chaos. I think we're moving towards more and more people realizing it. But at the same time, it's a really weird paradox still since our egoism leads to simply a knowledge, but that knowledge should only instruct us to do what we already did, or tell us why we did what we did - instead it revolutionizes lives.
Anonymous 2021-12-02 (Thu) 03:14:34 No. 626336
Here's a thought: does egoism necessarily entail a radical skepticism bordering on epistemic nihilism? One side-effect I have found in myself is that I am suspicious of most beliefs, especially any that I feel exert an influence on others. I tend to view the beliefs of many having not been arrived at by their own thinking, but as something planted in them by a greater power; a kind of mental parasite. Modernity, says Stirner, presents what are effectively servile religious attitudes cloaked in secular garb.. "trust the science", "believe women" "black lives matter" such thought terminating cliches are effectively articles of faith. And those who say them, I feel, do not truly believe it. They are the puppets of an ideology acting through them.
Anonymous 2021-12-02 (Thu) 03:48:16 No. 626364
>>626336 I think you're totally on to something with your worry about "mental parasites".
The thing i differentiate on is this: are they giving me information, or are they giving me values? I decide my values, but i'm always ready to take in information and then file it away and whatever as i see fit. It doesnt mean believe people at face value always, but accept it as true data at least, of some kind.
Also understand that you never come to your ideas totally alone. Personally, i've taken to the idea of being constituted or even possessed by some idea as a precondition of subjective thought. Like you need to first take on the particular vantage point of rationality or a commitment to negation/confrontation/subversion before realizing that it's not in fact just another particular set of values among others, and simultaneously accepting that no matter what we are, it's useless to try to be our own ultimate creators. We can re-create ourselves to some extent in the present, but we never provide the originating impulse, like you can always trace it back before the one you think originates in you, back and back. So I don't even see the self as just my mind+body, but the existence of something through history which came before me, created me, and which will keep on creating after i die. That's me, but not in some weird christian sense. (like "I" live on - fuck no, i die and all my consciousness and memories and personality and body, but still what i care about and what i was, what made me, etc. is still there - and what it is is negation).
So it's not even very worrying if an idea is not mine, it's not like i never read or heard another person talk or was influenced by outside. The very process of creating our own ideas is the process of learning and doing basic logical procedures on external knowledge.
But also the most important part last: look into stuff about cults, because this really was what interested me when i was thinking about this stuff first. Like how they manipulate thoughts and beliefs. IMO the whole of society is a big cult. Cult shit is particular. The particulars clash. Typical deprogramming means pulling people back into another particular world. Reason and materialism is universal - it is contentless in itself but applicable everywhere, to burn and cut away the old bullshit. Skepticism can be metal when it's not Scientism and other religious-athiest bullshit.
…………………………………….
btw, schizos are fucking based
on nothing as hell and should be helped and enlightened on the correct origins of their oppression
a schizophrenic is essentially someone stuck in idealist thinking and who tends to choose to regress mentally and ingress, when confronted with these same problems that we're discussing here. In other words they have the same problems and knowledge of them, but don't know a way out. And really who of us knows a really good way out anyways, as far as capitalism and everything??
Anonymous 2021-12-02 (Thu) 20:27:07 No. 627353
>>626364 >The thing i differentiate on is this: are they giving me information, or are they giving me values? I decide my values, but i'm always ready to take in information and then file it away and whatever as i see fit. It doesnt mean believe people at face value always, but accept it as true data at least, of some kind. Good distinction. Though even "information" is suspect, as the question then becomes: why is this information packaged in this way? What's the intent behind it? Why do the powers that be want this information to be privileged? What are they leaving out?
As for deciding your own values, I agree. However, this leads to a selection problem. What values do I pick from? Is it just my whim? How I feel? That might be a valid criteria, as I trust many of my whims and embrace intuition when it comes to such subjective considerations. Still, enthroning your whim as the law of the land is powerful, but at the same time, you must have faith in your whims. At that point, it's as though they must become more than whims. They must become principles. Thus, egoism inevitably leads me to a "overman" quest of feeling like I must be a founder of a new religion. Even if it's my own personal one. Hence even then the individual is dominated by "spirit"
I agree. Everything is a relational nexus. Ideas exist relative to other ideas. I think with what has been imprinted me by education.
That's the thing, I view ideologies as cult-like for the most part. Now, perhaps I have my own ideologies as I inevitably do, which operate through me and influence me without my awareness. But at least I do my best to mitigate ideology. Ideology is different from argument in that it is projective rather than propositional. Ideology does not seek to understand, it forcibly converts its object into an image consistent with it.
Anyway I'm rambling incoherently. Thanks for indulging me
Anonymous 2021-12-02 (Thu) 20:29:32 No. 627357
>>627353 >I have my own ideologies Well not "my own" ideologies, but second-hand ones.
Anonymous 2021-12-02 (Thu) 20:31:54 No. 627364
>>626306 > Believing in objectivity, which usually happens by way of believing in your own myopic "enlightened" subjectivity over everything else :^) He kind of says this when he critiques the “pious” atheist of his time.
Anonymous 2021-12-02 (Thu) 22:47:41 No. 627583
>>627353 :)
no thank
you , people here don't ramble enough, especially about cool stuff
Anonymous 2021-12-07 (Tue) 01:46:34 No. 634189
Bump. Rally to me fellow egoists
Anonymous 2021-12-09 (Thu) 14:39:20 No. 637702
>1. How does egoism get us out of the befuddled quagmire of modern ideological spooks?
Anonymous 2021-12-09 (Thu) 17:34:10 No. 637854
>>637702 I get the idea that egoism opens the way toward optionality in ideological selection. The egoist views different ideologies from the outside, from a standpoint of ownership rather than possession– possession in the sense of demonic possession, the ideology casting a spell over you.
I'm reminded of Dostoevsky's novel Demons which is a study of ideology. It's a story about a revolutionary cadre who foment a revolution in Russia. Commenting on his beliefs, one of them says to another, more fanatical ideologue: "It was not you who ate the idea, but the idea that ate you."
The implication of this statement is powerful. An egoist "eats" the idea, they make it serve their ownness. Whereas the slave of ideology is eaten by the idea. They are the puppet of ideology, their beliefs are not their own, but originate from some other power. They have become an automaton (NPC) to a value system not of their choosing, curation, and customization. The egoist transcends ideology simply because they have greater ideological consciousness and can detect recognize spooks. This is the essential advantage of the egoist.
Anonymous 2021-12-09 (Thu) 18:51:16 No. 637974
>>635009 why not though?
if more ppl posted there like they did in this threat it wouldnt be so shit
Anonymous 2021-12-12 (Sun) 00:28:20 No. 641691
>>637854 >>637702 i disagree that it's as simple as "make an idea yours" …. ideas don't do shit on their own. They exist at a higher level of abstraction than physical creatures like us humans. If you act according to an idea, whether or not it serves your "ownness" (what even is this), the outcome is the same whether or not you say it's yours or you say you're its. And dont forget also this is how ideology functions in general… you believe yourself to have gotten free, and you only hold a certain idea "as an egoist" or "as an educated individual", not because of backwards faith and blind trust….. this is the prime illusion though. Everything you people say seems like it's just reinforcing the hold of ideology rather than ridding yourself of it.
I have no problem with the idea that we exist in a certain context, so we're never really free of ideas, etc., but that means the exact
opposite of the stuff about "you make it your own since you can't get away from it" – it means that you're always enthralled some amount, and the only option is a fatalistic acceptance of the futility of trying to totally determine ourselves, and that there are just things out of our reach. (though this in practice is kind of a paradox, where a person who doesnt believe in their ability to challenge their own ideas (belief in god e.g.) won't ever try, and a person who challenges their ideas must have already got it in their head that critique, progress/ion, challenge, etc. are good…. at best then egoism is an outcome of a mass (unconscious, dialectical) social movement rather than a critique to level against "spooked people".
also, if you can pick up and set down any piece of ideology at will… doesnt this imply that you can indeed get yourself away from ideology fully if you wanted?
sorry for replying to you two people at the same time but im not trying to argue so much as elaborate a position contrary to both :P
Anonymous 2021-12-12 (Sun) 00:29:48 No. 641696
Max Stirner would not have taken the vaccine.
Anonymous 2021-12-13 (Mon) 02:32:06 No. 643334
>>641691 >If you act according to an idea Who was talking about this? I said using an idea, not being used by it, not acting according to it but making it work according to you. To go back to my example: if I use a claim on fairness to get more out of people who believe in it, who am I acting according to it?
>the outcome is the same whether or not you say it's yours or you say you're its It's literally the exact opposite.
> And dont forget also this is how ideology functions in general… you believe yourself to have gotten free, and you only hold a certain idea "as an egoist" or "as an educated individual", not because of backwards faith and blind trust….. Fam the first thing in my post is "There is no way out." to the question of how to get out of ideology. What do you think that means?
Also please don't tell me you mean backwards faith and blind trust are a way out of ideology.
>Everything you people say seems like it's just reinforcing the hold of ideology rather than ridding yourself of it. You yourself said that believing you got out is itself ideology, now you are crying because we are not trying hard enough to get out? Seems kinda contradictory.
>but that means the exact opposite of the stuff about "you make it your own since you can't get away from it" Again you dont try to get away from it because there is no such thing as living without ideology. You make it your own because the status of the ideology as ideology or idea is neither good or bad, the only question is it's usefulness to statisfy your ego, as with everything in the world.
>and the only option is a fatalistic acceptance of the futility of trying to totally determine ourselves Welcome to modernity. Like you have heard of the sub-conscious being a thing? Humans don't just rationally control all their actions. We aren't totally in control of ourselves. Is this news to you?
>(though this in practice is kind of a paradox, where a person who doesnt believe in their ability to challenge their own ideas (belief in god e.g.) won't ever try, and a person who challenges their ideas must have already got it in their head that critique, progress/ion, challenge, etc. are good…. Do you think I mean that humans just have to be spooked? Because that's not what I said. Like of course everyone can deconstruct ideology. But nobody could ever have a viewpoint that's not subjective. Saying that you view the world without ideology is itself ideology because you normalise and essentialise your view as the natural or just right one.
>at best then egoism is an outcome of a mass (unconscious, dialectical) social movement rather than a critique to level against "spooked people". Are you high?
>doesnt this imply that you can indeed get yourself away from ideology fully if you wanted? No. It means you are aware of ideology. Like being aware of gravity and being able to make it work for you by using it's attributes doesnt mean you can suddenly just fly up in the sky. But you can build a plane or make a sense of justice soften peoples hearts to get more out of them. But you don't actually have to act justly yourself doing that.
read stirner plox
Anonymous 2021-12-13 (Mon) 15:00:04 No. 643843
How he fuck do I de-couple my sense of self worth from my performance in the rat race?Yes, I've read The Unique and It's Property, Philosophical Reactionaries, False Principles of our Education and Stirner's Critics. Which is why this is so frustrating to me, I feel like a cuck.
Anonymous 2021-12-13 (Mon) 17:32:01 No. 643998
>>643843 >How he fuck do I de-couple my sense of self worth from my performance in the rat race? That's a really hard question anon and I don't think there is an easy answer to it.
I the egoist sense, any claim of you being insufficient is meaningless because they are all empty ideals, but from what you are saying yo already know this. But I can understand it's hard to accept something you intellectually understand to be true if it's contradictory to a sense you have been made to internalise throughout your childhood. There is no step by step guide to accomplish such a thing, just like there is no guide for beating depression.
Only advice I can give you is to seek out meaningful relationships with other people. When I have felt unsure before, having someone I can talk to who appreciates me and helps me see the good sides of myself really helped me.
Just remember that you are already the real you and no performance evaluation could ever hold up to your real you.
Anonymous 2021-12-13 (Mon) 17:44:27 No. 644018
>>643998 Thanks anon, I really needed to hear
read? that. Had a shit shift last night. I guess the only way forward is more practice with these kind of situations and finding more meaningful relationships to have someone to confide.
Anonymous 2021-12-17 (Fri) 18:57:06 No. 649799
>>623261 >Materialism cannot explain consciousness but consciousness arises out of material, your not gonna find it in a human being
if you build a robot, do you try to put a human brain into it or do you make the material conscious?
the former seems silly because
nature and recognition are the same
nature recognizes itself
>>624321 >Rocks don't have any consciousness what if consciousness just means having the choice of becoming conscious and free will is just an expression of that but nothing tangible
not everything in nature must express free will to also contain consciousness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbVgVxyAnB0 Anonymous 2021-12-18 (Sat) 02:31:17 No. 650266
>>649799 what is this picture
Anonymous 2021-12-19 (Sun) 16:54:33 No. 652673
>>652660 morality isn’t spook
leftypol memes were a mistake, these mf’s do not read at all
Anonymous 2021-12-19 (Sun) 16:58:09 No. 652685
>>652660 This isn't egoism anon.
Anonymous 2021-12-19 (Sun) 17:19:12 No. 652715
>>652685 it is if i want it to be
Anonymous 2021-12-19 (Sun) 17:24:35 No. 652721
>>652719 so true. i've always suspected stirner was just a pseudonym for marx and engels, especially since his name is attributed to a german translation of wealth of nations
Anonymous 2021-12-19 (Sun) 19:22:57 No. 652812
>>652725 that's kropotkin, not marx or engels
Anonymous 2021-12-19 (Sun) 19:30:52 No. 652829
>>652812 I kown at least my version is better would you agree
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 16:52:47 No. 654107
>>652660 <i just gaslit my gf to further my egoist cause You're like a little babby
poseur , read this…
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 16:56:52 No. 654111
>>654107 >there is only me solipsist trash
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 17:48:15 No. 654171
>>652810 Why? The black flag is objectively the best anarchist flag.
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 20:37:11 No. 654368
>>654171 Not a bad band either
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 21:50:34 No. 654468
>>652660 Sociopaths aren’t allowed in my union of egoists.
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 21:53:21 No. 654473
>>654470 Nah, sociopaths can’t even form a union because they’d wind up killing each other lel.
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 21:54:16 No. 654474
>>654473 >sociopathy means you can't recognize mutual benefit no
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 21:57:15 No. 654480
>>654474 Where did I say that?
The point is that it would degrade very fast if not immediately.
>>654475 >NO U lel
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:03:07 No. 654488
Thread Hard mode: talk about stirner and his ideas without resorting to meme understandings you got from image macros and fbi.gov kids.
>>652829 >I kown at least my version is better would you agree Nah, what about adding a meme flag makes this better?
>>654171 >Why? The black flag is objectively the best anarchist flag. At least the blag flag is real. These kids been trying to meme the teal-black flag in to existence for a good while now and they've still got nowhere with it.
>>654480 >The point is that it would degrade very fast if not immediately. <source: trust me bro. trust me. Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:04:56 No. 654493
>>654488 Find me a union of sociopaths that managed to do anything worthwhile and I’ll consider conceding my point.
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:05:13 No. 654494
>>654488 >These kids been trying to meme the teal-black flag in to existence for a good while now and they've still got nowhere with it. I mean ppl are using it, what more existence does it need?
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:09:07 No. 654501
>>654368 I've got a six pack, and nothing to do
I've got a six pack, I don't need you!
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:13:36 No. 654510
>>654494 >I mean ppl are using it, people in hypercommodified online 'political' spaces use it. People part of the wider anarchist and radical milieus do not use it.
pro-tip: you never seen it on a zine, flag, banner, placard, communique, graffiti. you only seen it on social media and meme sites like leftypol.
>>654493 explain to me why anyone would even identify as a sociopath to the point they even felt the need to create a union around this shared trait. Just because nobody has done this dumbass idea does not mean 'it will degrade immediately trust me bro'.
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:16:43 No. 654514
>>654488 If you want to talk with people who have read Stirner, try bumping old threads on /dead/.
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:18:22 No. 654516
>>654510 >People part of the wider anarchist and radical milieus do not use it. ok, why should I care?
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:23:29 No. 654523
>>654516 >ok, why should I care? IDK anon, you're the one asking. why?
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:26:39 No. 654525
>>654523 i think you are implying that symbols get their meaning through popularity contests, which is kinda retarded
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:29:08 No. 654533
>>654525 No anon, I just understand the difference between a real living breaking milieu and meme kids on the internet.
Trying to smoosh them together is silly.
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:31:43 No. 654537
>>654533 >between a real living breaking milieu and meme kids on the internet. why does a flag need a living breathing milieu?
if its the symbol of an obscure idea, it can only be an obscure symbol. It doesnt need to be any more pupular to be real.
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 22:33:02 No. 654539
>>654510 >but it never existed My point exactly. It wouldn’t because sociopaths don’t work well with others long-term because they prefer to dominate rather than work collaboratively and have extreme behavioral issues. That’s like part of their make up. It would throw a wrench in any socialist project that requires strong cooperation.
Hell, you don’t even need to find a group that self-identifies as sociopathic.
My bar isn’t even that high.
I honestly don’t think you can.
Anonymous 2021-12-20 (Mon) 23:11:39 No. 654588
>>654510 >bitching about obscure ideologies on a board filled with defunct ideologies. Why would you do this to yourself?
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 19:04:28 No. 673761
>>654588 Everything else is too painful and don't know how to cope
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 19:24:08 No. 673779
>>654488 is the attached pic supposed to be ironic?
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 21:24:03 No. 673906
Can we do away with the teal "egoist" meme flag? Egoism is not an ideology, and it needs no flag. Make your own flag or some shit, like, just be yourself man.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 21:25:49 No. 673908
>>673906 Also I cannot take anybody who uses it seriously. You aren't doing a very good job of being an egoist if you treat egoism as an ideology. I assume most ego flag posters are underage.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 21:44:07 No. 673935
Stirner, [Klages] says, is the reason why Nietzsche is of paramount importance, because “the day on which Stirner’s program becomes the will-guiding conviction of all, this alone would suffice for it to be the ‘doomsday’ of mankind.”
Anonymous 2022-01-05 (Wed) 15:24:26 No. 675003
>>673935 >This said, like for Nietzsche, i absolutley despise how's he was memefied by a bunch of edgy cunts. Drink paint you absolute cocksuckers Almost exclusively by those who never read a word he wrote and only watched a pop philosophy youtube videos about him.
Anonymous 2022-01-05 (Wed) 15:47:17 No. 675059
>>626127 >>626050 To the anon I was debating consciousness with a while ago. You're probably long gone at this point but I wanted to apologize for autistically lashing out at you in my posts and for being rude. I tend to sperg out when discussing the subject because I have strong feelings about it.
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 02:54:06 No. 677051
>>673906 >>673908 >Egoism is not an ideology >You aren't doing a very good job of being an egoist if so you are saying that egoism isnt an ideology but you still believe there are wrong ways to be an egoist? seems to me like you are the one who is fixing the meaning of egoism.
i mostly post under this flag to trigger tankies tbqh tho
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 03:15:43 No. 677091
>>677051 Egoism is meta-ideology. The Padishah, king of king, of ideologies. And yet, that ideology which transcends all other ideologies becomes something other than ideology. What is ideology? A complex of beliefs which have been solidified by social forces and power dynamics. The egoist rejects the social forces, at least all those which are not voluntary, as illegitimate trickery (spookological phenomena) . And as for power, power is merely a game of egos vying against each other, therefore it falls into the egoist's purview.
Otherwise, all is open to the egoist. They are as it were, the prime candidates for Nietzche's superhumans, the surpassers of modernism, the new prophets, the creators of value. They might be a wildcard, a loose cannon, unpredictable, but they are a new breed. Because all else are either oblivious and disengaged (bless them) or stuck in the quagmire of first-order ideologies. The egoist has no allegiance besides what his integrity and intellect decide. There can be vile, degenerate, sick egoists for this reason, but there can also be archangels; prophetic , revolutionary egoists. To summon a new thought and break with the established fixations of thought is the ultimate act of progress. Therefore everyone who affects change throughout history, from Socrates to Jesus to Constantine to Genghis Kahn to Marx to Darwin and so on, is an egoist. They have the confidence to believe in their own thoughts.
A stupid egoist is a degenerate, filthy, hedonistic one, an animal beneath respect. They lack philosophical insight and miss the whole point, seeing it as an invitation to be an edgy punk.
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 03:29:07 No. 677107
>>677091 shouldnt it be called ownness anyways?
i mean everybodies an egoist, realising ownness the the specific project of the unique and its property
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 05:05:42 No. 677277
>>675059 its ok, this is a chan and i expext it
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 05:09:58 No. 677286
>>677091 this shit is the best
im glad some anon can write well, cause when i try to say stuff it just devolves into schizo rambling…
good shit 10/10 hot fire king shit etc
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 05:35:10 No. 677319
>>677277 Bless you anon. This made my day :3
You're still wrong though
Anonymous 2022-01-11 (Tue) 23:45:59 No. 687439
>>687434 Ayn Rand is not an egoist in the stirnerite sense, since in her view accumulating personal wealth is the essence of self-interest. Egoism is attacking any essence, any ideology.
Egoists also aren't necessarily leftist since again egoism imply any politics other than fulfilling the individuals desire - that desire can be for socialist or reactionary politics. However, egoists usually see capitalism and state hierarchies as hostile to their self-realisation as full beings and thus usually espouse leftist (or post-leftist) stances.
How about you read the ego book for yourself? It's really fun and not that long.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-unique-and-its-property Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 14:01:43 No. 689637
When readings a book about Nietzsche and his ideas, i came to the conclusion that his philosophy was basically about being authentic.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 14:05:13 No. 689642
>>689637 Authenticity is a spook
Why you gotta tie your being to an abstract notion?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 16:58:56 No. 689900
>>689642 Wouldn't/couldn't authenticity be a property of the Unique?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:12:52 No. 689923
>>689900 Everything could be. But egoism is not about authenticity, but ownness.
Being your authentic self implies that there is a clear essence of your being, your true being, that's is seperate from the rest of your being (your other properties). But the owner doesnt look at any of their properties as their true self, since the other, inauthentic properties are also truely his.
So no, egoism is not about being authentic. A authentic self doesnt exist because the unique can recreate themself at any moment. Talking about their authentic self would only tie them down.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 17:53:12 No. 689964
>>689923 I see now. Thanks for you time.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 02:12:02 No. 690390
>>689923 >Owness I’m always happy when someone else understands this
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 07:12:38 No. 690571
>>643998 >>the pic >gets run over by a car >goes to a hospital >"Dr. Stirner, I need help, my arm is broken, can you fix it?" >Why do you need it 'fixed'? You already perfect the way you are, don't you see?" It sounds rather stupid for me, which means I don't get it. Stirnerbros, can you explain this quote to me?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 07:30:44 No. 690595
>>690571 It's about guilt felt for not living up to an ideal (Christian, humanist, etc.):
> If religion has put forward the proposition that we are all of us sinners, I set another against it: we are all of us perfect! Because, in each moment, we are all we can be, and never need to be more. Because no defect sticks to us, sin also has no meaning. Show me a sinner still in the world, when no one any longer needs to do what suits a higher power! If I need do only what suits myself, I am not a sinner when I don’t do what suits myself, because in myself I don’t offend a “sacred being”; however, if I am supposed to be religious, then I must do what suits God; if I am supposed to act humanly, then I must do what suits the human essence, the idea of humanity, etc. What religion calls the “sinner,” humanitarianism calls the “egoist.” But again, if I don’t need to do what suits any other, is the “egoist,” in whom humanitarianism has given birth to a new-fangled devil, anything more than a bit of nonsense? The egoist before whom the humane shudder is as much a phantasm as the devil is: he exists only as a nightmare and a phantasmic image in their brain. If they were not naively drifting back and forth in the old-fashioned opposition between good and evil, to which they’ve given the modern names of “humane” and “egoistic,” they wouldn’t have polished up the hoary “sinner” into the “egoist” either, and sewed a new patch onto an old cloak.[452] But they could do nothing else, because they consider it their task to be “human beings.” They are rid of the Good One, good has remained![453] > We are all of us perfect, and on the whole earth there is not one person who is a sinner! There are lunatics who imagine themselves to be God the Father, God the Son, or the man in the moon, and then the world also swarms with fools who think that they are sinners; but as the former are not the man in the moon, so the latter are—not sinners. Their sin is imaginary. Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 07:35:57 No. 690603
>>689637 Authenticity is meaningless anyway, you cannot be not authentic.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 13:33:43 No. 690884
>>690571 holy fuck you bend over backwards HARD to get the dumbest take possible out of that lol
Sabinyak 2022-01-14 (Fri) 20:57:01 No. 691394
>>690571 *steals your arm*
mine now, bitch!
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 22:11:02 No. 691558
>>624488 > despite identical to any other object in material composition I think this claim is where you go off a little. Fundamentally, we are all comprised of the same unconscious parts, but ignoring the layers of complexity involved with the process of "doing consciousness" is far more than that of being a rock.
At the end of the day, the arrangement of simple things can have quite extraordinary consequences downstream in terms of what complex configurations of those things could do. And here, I am referring to consciousness in the same sense as something matter can "do", like isomers forming (emphasis on the verb here) two different substances from identical configurations.
Unique IPs: 72