LordCompost (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
I am sure you have read something, but merely returning and subscribing to 'ancient' philosophy does not make one intelligent, nor does it advance any knowledge or let one overcome modern problems simply because thought has developed and overcome older philosophy. | I am sure you have read something, but merely returning and subscribing to 'ancient' philosophy does not make one intelligent, nor does it advance any knowledge or let one overcome modern problems simply because thought has developed and overcome older philosophy. | ||
[[File: | [[File:Brazlib.png]] [[Brazilian Liberalism|{{Color|#009638|'''Killer Kitty'''}}]]<br> | ||
Question: | Question: If politics was a net negative on your country would you overcome it and bring politics into its nullity? Or would you hold close to it and always remain bound to your highest truth? 'No,' you would say, 'politics cannot be done away with; it is necessary, it is fundamental, it is more important than us.' Liberalism, Fascism? Politics... | ||
[[File:Hoodism.png]] [[Hoodism|{{Color|#800000|'''Kosciuszkovagr'''}}]]<br> | [[File:Hoodism.png]] [[Hoodism|{{Color|#800000|'''Kosciuszkovagr'''}}]]<br> | ||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
[[File:mfaicon.png]] [[Mindform Anarchism|{{Color|#BDF1FF|'''Xx godisfaithful xx'''}}]]<br> | [[File:mfaicon.png]] [[Mindform Anarchism|{{Color|#BDF1FF|'''Xx godisfaithful xx'''}}]]<br> | ||
Your similarity to postmodern/post-anarchism with your rejection of an 'Arche' or grounding principle is fascinating. This is why I am surprised you disagree with postmodernism so much. To complement this, I suggest reading 'Romantic Anarche: The Philosophical and Literary Anarchism of William Godwin'. However, in your thought, I find the assurance of human rights to be the primary ground of politics; it seems to be a slight contradiction? | Your similarity to postmodern/post-anarchism with your rejection of an 'Arche' or grounding principle is fascinating. This is why I am surprised you disagree with postmodernism so much. To complement this, I suggest reading 'Romantic Anarche: The Philosophical and Literary Anarchism of William Godwin'. However, in your thought, I find the assurance of human rights to be the primary ground of politics; it seems to be a slight contradiction? | ||
[[File: Hysteriaball.png]] {{Glow|[[Hysteria Thought |{{Color|#ffffff|'''Hysteria'''}}]][[Hysteria Thought |{{Color|#ffffff|'''Thought'''}}]]|#FFFFFF}}<br> | |||
It is quite strange that through all your insights and some I agree with quite earnestly, post-rationalism is a particular favourite; one then runs into your quite tame and sacred economics. Economic freedom is the same as 'religious freedom' - not freedom from the economy, but the freedom of the economy; 'Only the freedom from intermediaries is supposed to be expressed in this, the freedom from mediating priests, the abolition of the “laity,” and so, the direct and unmediated relationship to religion or God... for one who’s “economically free,” the market is a matter of sacred earnestness; it is his heart’s affair, his chief affair, his own affair.' | |||
[[File:Bax.png]] [[Baxism|{{Color|#036A66|'''Anthony Bax'''}}]]<br> | |||
I am still yet to understand the existence of altruistic egoism. Where in Stirner does he deny altruism? Where does he deny saying that the egoists are opposed to being social, to helping others? He explicitly, in several places, argues that individuals gain enjoyment from supporting and loving others. Also, why are there all these shoulds? When egoists are social, supportive, associative, etc., why does this entail the conclusion that sharing is a moral ought, and that collectivisation is a sacred duty? It is alien to my will, something that can always be separated from the social ego unless it really did become a complete collective will, something Stirner specifically critiques. | |||
=Notes= | =Notes= | ||
| Line 120: | Line 126: | ||
= Comments = | = Comments = | ||
{{LordCompost}} - Please comment here if you have questions.<br> | {{LordCompost}} - Please comment here if you have questions.<br> | ||
{{#css: | {{#css: | ||
.cs-comments{display:none;} | .cs-comments{display:none;} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 01:22, 14 January 2024
 |
Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent LordCompost's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission. |
‟Through the heaven of civilization, the human being seeks to isolate himself from the world, to break its hostile power.”
– The Unique and Its Property,Max Stirner
Howdy, I'm 
LordCompost.
TL:DR, I believe that [insert issue here] is simply due to our servile and religious relation towards [said issue] treating it as sacred, necessary, unquestionable, etc., - Instead I see these [issues] as merely transitory, revisable, pragmatic, and contingent phenomena which individuals, groups, or even 'societies' are able to "freely" transform.
Summary
See my Philosophy page.
Writings
Links to my Substack.
The Cultural Industrial Complex
Relations
CarrotsRppl2
How is 'The State and Its Property' illegitimate? If you truly held to the principle that property is individual protection, then isn't the state currently the most powerful entity that protects its property? As such, according to you, it is your perfect society already.
Bourgeoisie Destroyer
I am sure you have read something, but merely returning and subscribing to 'ancient' philosophy does not make one intelligent, nor does it advance any knowledge or let one overcome modern problems simply because thought has developed and overcome older philosophy.
Killer Kitty
Question: If politics was a net negative on your country would you overcome it and bring politics into its nullity? Or would you hold close to it and always remain bound to your highest truth? 'No,' you would say, 'politics cannot be done away with; it is necessary, it is fundamental, it is more important than us.' Liberalism, Fascism? Politics...
Kosciuszkovagr
No writings...
Xx godisfaithful xx
Your similarity to postmodern/post-anarchism with your rejection of an 'Arche' or grounding principle is fascinating. This is why I am surprised you disagree with postmodernism so much. To complement this, I suggest reading 'Romantic Anarche: The Philosophical and Literary Anarchism of William Godwin'. However, in your thought, I find the assurance of human rights to be the primary ground of politics; it seems to be a slight contradiction?
HysteriaThought
It is quite strange that through all your insights and some I agree with quite earnestly, post-rationalism is a particular favourite; one then runs into your quite tame and sacred economics. Economic freedom is the same as 'religious freedom' - not freedom from the economy, but the freedom of the economy; 'Only the freedom from intermediaries is supposed to be expressed in this, the freedom from mediating priests, the abolition of the “laity,” and so, the direct and unmediated relationship to religion or God... for one who’s “economically free,” the market is a matter of sacred earnestness; it is his heart’s affair, his chief affair, his own affair.'
Anthony Bax
I am still yet to understand the existence of altruistic egoism. Where in Stirner does he deny altruism? Where does he deny saying that the egoists are opposed to being social, to helping others? He explicitly, in several places, argues that individuals gain enjoyment from supporting and loving others. Also, why are there all these shoulds? When egoists are social, supportive, associative, etc., why does this entail the conclusion that sharing is a moral ought, and that collectivisation is a sacred duty? It is alien to my will, something that can always be separated from the social ego unless it really did become a complete collective will, something Stirner specifically critiques.
Notes
Comments
LordCompost - Please comment here if you have questions.