"What do you most love in people? Their versions whom I own..." - Gus Lamarch

REMINDER: My philosophical thought will, for every reader, afford little confort, and is not recommended for the easily offended, and/or closed-minded.

For a few seconds, from moment to moment, it comes to my mind, the clear reminder that we are all children of present decay and that it is thus a paradox, or a certain hypocrisy on my part, for my lines criticize directly this decadence.

Perhaps it is my ego, my insistence on wanting to see, and transform, the world into something new, something that renews the long-lost spirit of the human being. Something that causes "Man" to create his new hope and eventually reach his new supreme "Level", something that Nietzsche had already created the nomenclature of "Übermensch", but which I interpret to be the "Own Man". Not a transcendental being or anything incredible, but one who accepts his own ego, and who accepts his individuality and the individuality of others, who loves himself, as today, through "false empathy" decides to love others. A human being "et contentiones sint". - A true selfish to himself, as to all others. -

One person’s truth might well be another person’s untruth. What is true today might not be true tomorrow. — ovdtogt

This phrase describes very well what I though of being the most correct way of perceiving the concept of "Truth" in reality. - Truth is projected only by the individual's belief -.

This makes no sense to me. Truth cannot be false. Belief can. Thus, belief can be falsifiable. Truth cannot. — creativesoul

Truth is grounded on belief. There is no such thing as an "Universal Truth", there is only diferente perceptions of concepts, that some may indeed believe is truth and some who may not. Truth can be false. Belief cannot.
Truth doesn't exist outside of ourselves, in the Universe, as an all powerful force. It only exists as belief, that then is projected as "Truth" by the individual.

Nah, you're just wrong about my position... — creativesoul

And could you explain me why is so?

You could 'claim' you had seen these things only if you had indeed really (imagined) to have seen these things — ovdtogt

By other words, using "Doublethink".

“What is truth when you have belief?” – Gus Lamarch

REMINDER: My philosophical thought will, for every reader, afford little confort, and is not recommended for the easily offended, and/or closed-minded.

"Truth" is only the concept of a "Dominant Opinion". When the current "truth" no longer supports the method in which society behaves in such an age, it becomes a lie, and a new "truth" is constructed.

So what criterion or evaluation would apply to works such as Plato's "Republic", or Hume's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" then? Are these works of artistic fiction only, containing no content or substance? In this case, they are the concept of the opinion of an individual. They only become "Truth" when they become the accepted opinion of the masses. It could be truth for Plato or Hume, but what is an individual "truth" in a sea of mass "truths"?

“Rubbish. You're conflating truth and belief.”

If for you, the concept that "truth" in reality doesn't exist, but is just a case of mass belief, is "rubbish", that's ok, for indeed, this is your individual "truth".

And what is the difference between truth and belief?

Belief is the concept of accepting something as your truth, as the infinite self-realization, of acccepting something as your own. But "Truth" as I perceive that you see as "Absolute Truth" is moldable. If the majority says that something its true, it is, end of the discussion.

"Your belief creates your truth"

"Your belief is your truth"

The majority can be wrong, and have false belief. Truth cannot be false. — creativesoul

I'll quote myself in this case:

If for you, the concept that "truth" in reality doesn't exist, but is just a case of mass belief, is "rubbish", that's ok, for indeed, this is your individual "truth".

Indeed, you are an "Absolute Truth" follower. More of the same, as always...

Altruism is only moral if you accept the premise that altruism is moral. — Andrew4Handel

"Altruism" on the absolute truth of the masses, is, and can only be moral. The concept of "Altruism" was constructed to make the "self" a serf of society, a serf of the dogmatic "absolute truth".

:roll: Yeah, like living "without ecology" ... — 180 Proof

That would surely work, but of course, only for a "humanity freed of morals", and societal structures that only served to enslave the human ego, the "yourself".

What's the difference between truth and belief? — creativesoul

Belief is the concept of accepting something as your truth, as the infinite self-realization, of acccepting something as your own. But "Truth" as I perceive that you see as "Absolute Truth" is moldable. If the majority says that something its true, it is, end of the discussion.

Not anarchists though. — Pfhorrest

I'm not disagreeing with you on this one.

Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism anyway — Pfhorrest

Oh my friend, but there is many people that still views it as an anarchist ideology...

I think that both those works must contain "truths" within them. — Pantagruel

"Your belief creates your truth"

Rubbish. You're conflating truth and belief. — creativesoul

If for you, the concept that "truth" in reality doesn't exist, but is just a case of mass belief, is "rubbish", that's ok, for indeed, this is your individual "truth".

So what criterion or evaluation would apply to works such as Plato's "Republic", or Hume's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" then? Are these works of artistic fiction only, containing no content or substance? — Pantagruel

In this case, they are the concept of the opinion of an individual. They only become "Truth" when they become the accepted opinion of the masses. It could be truth for Plato or Hume, but what is an individual "truth" in a sea of mass "truths"?

Or does every philosophical work stand on its own merits as something true, or possessing elements of truth? — Pantagruel

"Truth" is only the concept of a "Dominant Opinion". When the current "truth" no longer supports the method in which society behaves in such an age, it becomes a lie, and a new "truth" is constructed.

yeah I have thought of that too and the best I have come up with is blockchain law, with ledgers and records. I dont even know how to conceptualize it. — Lif3r

We could come up with something in the near future to replace the "State". The problem is how to stop people of corrupting it, and how are we supposed to implement it on society nowadays. Some may call it "Anarcho-Capitalism" but this line of thought, in my view, is not the correct way, because as I already pointed out, Anarchism is, indeed, stupid.

Anarchists become statists to the natural cycle of leadership, and in anarchistic society the general leadership that forms is a forced leadership of violent individuals with little concern for morals. The bullies. So that's out. — Lif3r

Anarchism, yes, is stupid, but the current way that we decided to implant the "State" on society is stupid too. On my point of view, we should create a new structure, more refined, more individual, to take the place of the State, something that we doesn't even have a noun to project it.

"Morality is nothing more than just the ego turned inside out" - Gus Lamarch

REMINDER: My philosophical thought will, for every reader, afford little confort, and is not recommended for the easily offended, and/or closed-minded.

Since always, the human being made himself pursue his goals, mundane or not, with willpower. However, that same will is the only way humanity has managed to build and project, of its own ego, its own individualism, but many consider it to be unique and "transcendental" in essence, and there is where they are mistaken. The ego is fragmented into two parts, which the nomenclature that I created were "Positive Egoism" and "Negative Egoism", yet both are of the same essence, the ego, only becoming different from the moment onwards when they are designed through the individual will of each one.

The "Positive Egoism" comes to be projected in various ways by various people, yet most people make the sad distortion of the "Positive Ego" and end up judging it to be the "Negative Ego", thing that is not. "Positive Egoism" is one that affirms its position in the world, in history, and in its condition, without fear of the opinions of others, and ends up doing what suits it and what brings it well and success. So to speak, the "Positive Egoist" is one who knows that he is selfish, and accepts it as a virtue, and makes the best use of his ego ultimately to bear fruit. And as a result, the "Positive Egoist" ends up affecting other individuals in various ways and forms, that in a way positively changes them.

Yet, the "Negative Egoism", which is the dominant essence of the decaying population, is the rotten one that is projected by the envious, weak, and cowardly. He is the one who idealizes and tries to bring to reality the denial of the ego of others, so that his own ego, one of the weakest ones, will continue to exist and be "important" to the small crumb of the universe that considers it important. "Negative Egoism" is the one that accepts and at the same time does not accept his ego through "Doublethink", so that it is moldable for every situation where other egos have the slightest chance to make it insignificant, and thus weaken, divide, and fragment the others.

Isn't it annoying that the vast majority are "Negative" unknowingly? And that the "Positive" minority ends up judging themselves as "Negative"?

I think people are complacent about morality and appear to apply moral platitudes over moral commitments. — Andrew4Handel

Morality, is nothing more than reins that society putted over the individual to control and command the way that the "own" thinks, lives, and exists. Without morality, with the "ego" in its full potential, humanity would develop at its maximum.

Most of us believe that we own things, but what does it mean to acquire ownership? Perhaps first we need to understand what ownership is. — Wheatley

In reality, "ownership" is just one more concept that we humans created that give reason for our deeds, and our existence.
Can we really "own" something that is not intrinsically imprisioned with us, as ourselves? No, i think not.

But in the case of human society, what gives me "property" over something, someone, etc, its my power to get it, hold it and defend it of others. Until someone can proclaim "ownership" over my property, it's still "my property".

"It's both utter privilege and a burden to be unique" - Gus Lamarch

REMINDER: My philosophical thought will, for every reader, afford little confort, and is not recommended for the easily offended, and/or closed-minded.

Is my egotism my egoism?

Nowadays, the sad memory comes to my mind that the masses of the "Last Man" denigrate their individual, their ego, in favor of a social structure, where collectively everyone ends up calling the State their dearest father. This hurts me, saddens me, for how can a unique being in each of you want to be so equal? So monotonous? So Content?
The ego, my dear fellow, is the only property that you belong to, and indeed has, so it is very naive to think that you can destroy it, because if you do, you will eventually destroy yourself.

"Egoism is not Egotism", although every single one of you misuses the terms... Tragic!

"After his death, his sister Elisabeth became the curator and editor of Nietzsche's manuscripts, reworking his unpublished writings to fit her own German nationalist ideology while often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche's work became associated with fascism and Nazism" — Gus Lamarch

Didn't you read this part?

The Übermensch falls very much in the Fascist ideology (extreme libertarian-ism/individualism). — ovdtogt

First:
How can you see "extreme libertarianism/individualism" on Fascism? To clear your mind here is a quick link to the wiki page about Fascism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

See Hitlers admiration of Nietzsche's ideas. — ovdtogt

Second:
The Nazi party, with the support of Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche (Sister of Nietzsche), re-edited Nietzsche's manuscripts so that they seemed to support german ultranationalism and racism. Heres the link to the wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

And here is a quote from the same page:

"After his death, his sister Elisabeth became the curator and editor of Nietzsche's manuscripts, reworking his unpublished writings to fit her own German nationalist ideology while often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche's work became associated with fascism and Nazism"

So, no friend, i can for surely say that neither the Übermensch is something about human facism, or that the Last Man is something about human communism. Sorry for saying but you're wrong.

This discussion is about the time in between moments. — elucid

The error in your assumption is the fact that you forgot that "Time" is just a collection of "Moments", thinking as scales, Time is greater than the Moment, and can't be lessened as to put it between moments. In conclusion, "Time" is composed of infinite amounts of moments, but "Moment" is not and cannot be composed of Time.

By becoming as powerful as God we are causing our own demise. — ovdtogt

Maybe this demise is the so called "transcendence"? I cannot know, because i'm not yet an "Übermensch", maybe i'll never become one, No one knows...

I prefer the honest of position A, and indeed I have largely been a kind of egoist in the past. I have even written my own The Ego and His Own type of philosophy, where I 'fixed' Stirner or at least tried to clarify his text in my own preferred direction. So I don't at all simply take Marx's side. I take a position with distance from both of them. And maybe Stirner himself did, the man from his text. — Eee

If it is your philosophical thought, but just being influenced by Stirner's, there is no problem in saying that's your own philosophy. All philosophers had and still have influences. I have a certain disgust with today's way of thought on the philosophical realm. No one can create or interpret something "new" because his/hers influences were of someone else, it's almost like a creative barrier.

I also love Feuerbach. — Eee

I respect Feuerbach as he was one of the firsts to see religion more or less as a human construction to project something else, although i disagree with his position as to "what" the projection is (inner nature of the human being).

Maybe I'm challenging you because I think you are reading Stirner too politically. — Eee

We can read the same philosopher with the eyes of a student, of a politician, and even as of a curious child, but in the end, all of these points of view are only contribuing to one opinion. - That of your Ego -

I suggest checking out Marx's criticism of Stirner. — Eee

Marx was very clever indeed, to the point that he read and plagiarized with other words some of Stirner's ideas. They even frequented the same philosophical group in their early era. (Check, Die Freien)
Both have developed in some kind or another, the same philosophical thought, the only difference between Marx and Stirner is that Marx didn't accepted the "true egoist" that he was, Stirner on the other hand, accepted it fully. Now, I have a question for you:

What is more egoist and "evil"?

A) Developing a entire philosophical thought about the true nature of egoism, and trying to explain that you, indeed, is egoist, and that you have to accept the fact that all you do is only for your own benefit.

B) Developing a entire philosophical thought about how to, in supposedly "harmony and altruism", confiscate everything from everyone on behalf of "Communism".

not creating an end-of-history utopia where everything is safe and cozy for the non-egoist. — Eee

I'd rather prefer to call it a dystopia.

My comments seem on topic. Though I'll leave you alone if you resent criticism. If you push all criticism away, though, you are wasting the forum. And people will just tune you out as someone lost in a dream he refuses to clarify or modify. — Eee

I didn't say that I "resent criticism", but only that if the discussion was leaning towards my own philosophical thought, this is not the "discussion to discuss it". I've already a discussion only about that topic. Search for "Immodesty of an Egoist Mind" if you're curious.

We are already consumers who are free to dream our own dreams. — Eee

You're free to dream what society says you can. Liberty in this case doesn't exist, but then we are arriving on my philosophical thought, and that's not what this discussion is about.

I take it that you like his mystic side more. — Eee

I love both Nietzsches, the vague, "mystic" one, and the rational, "logic" one. He molded both in a way that each one complements the other, something few philosophers have been able to do.

All I can say is examine the vagueness of your mystic song. — Eee

I'll only dance to a melody that represents the world in its most "real" form.

I take it that you like his mystic side more. All I can say is examine the vagueness of your mystic song. What exactly are you proposing? From my point of view, you are high on abstractions, high on the indeterminate promise of the superman. — Eee

And what isn't abstract? The concept of Overman is molded by my mind, to the most functional notion for me. If the Superman is inderteminate, make it the best concept you can, for yourself.

What are your thoughts about pride? — Wallows

Could you not love pride? In that case, are you not loving yourself?
Because the one that has pride, has pride only by himself. Pride, in the case of having of others, is misused, since the correct term would be "admiration".


Lets say that pride is a "First Person Only" use, in the subject and object. (I can only have pride by I)

Therefore, admiration is a "Thrid Person Only" use, but only in the object (I can have admiration for He)

I love Nietzsche, but let's add to this picture. What do we do with our modern comfort? We watch TV and movies full of violence and drama. We have our cake and eat it too. And even Nietzsche did this. When was he violent?The last man might just be a reader of Nietzsche who still obeys the traffic lights and pays taxes. Or are we to read Nietzsche as a thug? — Eee

Yes, even Nietzsche did this, and he confirmed, but his point was that to feel comfortable with it, and not attempt to change, is the greatest error that humanity ever did. Life is tragic, tough, but to not fight back, and feel that what you did was worth living, could only be the will of the "Last Man".

It's hard if not impossible to create new values. — Eee

It's not impossible, because we already did it before, examples like the Roman Empire, Christianity, Enlightenment, etc. In all of this cases, we took our daily values, and rethink how to "best" design them for the future, more or less, creating new values.

Where, in Nietzsche, do you read that going "beyond Man" is the creation of a new species? — Valentinus

Nietzsche, on his works, never fully explained the concept of "Übermensch". He left it open to interpretations, because neither he, as a human to be surpassed, could fully comprehend it.

"Slavery, in the new age, is called Freedom" - Gus Lamarch

REMINDER: My philosophical thought will, for every reader, afford little confort, and is not recommended for the easily offended, and/or closed-minded.

The values, which by the time of Nietzsche were being seen as collapsing, are now dead. The organism in which the "Kingdom of God" functioned, today is already destroyed. There are few who try to reconstruct this non-nihilistic "Golden Age", and those very few are stoned by the decay of the "Man of the Herd", because the man of the herd wants nothing more than objects that think they are not, minds that agree with them, and hedonistic pleasures granted by the new father. - The State -
The ego wants nothing more than self-liberty, but the herd desires slavery for their own mind sake, this act of giving up on individualism brings humanity closer and closer to destruction, to the end of self-caring, the end of egoism, that many don't understand and criticise. The problem, is that they too have their own ego, and by doing this, they not only wreck others, but also destroy themselves!

I care only for the ones that are closer and closer to achieving "positive-egoism", the "intellectual minority", who are willing to give up everything to create a new concept that could bring down and take the place of the State, and society as it is.

And to the decaying masses? For the sake of our beautiful and fragile structure, if thinking of living in destruction, be as soon as possible in perishing.

"It is impossible to suffer without making someone pay for it; every complaint already contains revenge." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"It is impossible to suffer without making someone pay for it; every complaint contains a little bit more of you - your egoism -." Gus Lamarch

REMINDER: My philosophical thought will, for every reader, afford little confort, and is not recommended for the easily offended, and/or closed-minded.

I already expatiate about liberty, and about the only two forms that we, as mere humans, can discern, the State-proclaimed and the Self-Proclaimed. So are you free? Many will say that yes, but i'll say no, not until a "Union of Egoists" is proclaimed and the "State" is done with.

Dear other being that I judge being thoughtful, can't you see the paradox? In the "evolved" 21st century society, it is almost a "secular sin" to quote any slight positive connotations about the word "slave", because Man has his freedom, doesn't he? Well, you are a slave to society who compels you, almost as if a religious belief, to have an opinion about everything and everyone.You are a slave to "freedom" and not even you can set you free from this slavery, an - individual slavery -. And also, is it ethically wrong not to want to help a homeless person for his own good? I think that because of the pressure of society you would say yes, or because of the pressure that morality imposes on you, but what if I tell you that everyone who has helped him to this day has done it selfishly, and thinking of their own image to the poor fellow? What if I tell you that my pity does not stem from the fact of his miserableness, but from the fact that he is not useful to me? You would be amazed if in this case I was right. In society, utilitarianism comes before the individual. Tragic! Tragic!

And for the ones that will judge and thought of me badly, i'll quote, again, Max Stirner:

"Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it."

You earlier said people were not willing to take risks for liberty. What risks do you take? — Coben

Please read "Immodesty of an Egoist Mind II".

“Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings -- always darker, emptier and simpler.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

“Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings -- Always more hypocritical, unjust, and Own.” - Gus Lamarch

REMINDER: My philosophical thought will, for every reader, afford little confort, and is not recommended for the easily offended, and/or closed-minded.

In the age in which we live, which is called by the nomenclature - "Contemporary" -, it's inhospitable to the thoughts and emotions that overlap the individual's overlapping reins - Ah! What a tragedy it would be if these same reins were dismantled by the joint power of each individual! - Would the state perish?
Maybe yes, maybe not, but one thing is certain, the reins would not anymore be controlled by the structure, but would be the "individual property" of every man. So why they shout for "equality"?

"Society" has never been, is not, and never will be egalitarian, since from the moment when more than one Man came into existence, greed came to be born with it, however, it is almost pleasurable to those with greater acquisitive power - better known as the elite - wanting to egalitarianize things, because it will not be their power that will diminish, but the power of the masses. - Equality is a lie! - Why then do they use the argument that "Men exist to be equal", since there is not everything for everyone?

What if the fundamental entities of the Universe are not matter, or consciousness, but Good and Evil? — leo

There is no such thing as a "fundamental entity of the Universe", humans can't accept the fact that existence, the Universe, everything and nothing, are only cases of improbability and chance. There isn't a higher purpose for our existence and/or of the Universe.

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is not the rule, it is society” - Gus Lamarch

Every time, always remembering that my philosophical thought is very unnerving and problematic for the closed-minded and for the easily offended. If you think you fit into one of these categories, stop reading now.

What is power? Some may say that "power" is the capacity of ruling something or someone through merit, force, or even prestige. Some may even say that is something that "good" people are rewarded by their good actions. Ha! - quantum in innocentia - Power is a concept, and only a concept. An idea of getting what the individual wants, in the time it wants, without being reprended for their doings.

Power can be used in a variety of ways, to attack, to defend, to blackmail, to convince, to force, to adapt, to give, to make the will of the "Self" become true. The relation of humanity with power is na interesting one, all humans, in this case, all individuals, love power, but power, only loves the strongest, the finest, the more intelligent and in the end, the more "egoist". Without egoism, without the will to have power to maintain your own survival and fortune, humanity wouldn't thrive, wouldn't have prospered, and become the dominant species in the planet. Men has an intrinsic relationship with power, one of love, and hate, of indifference, and worry, and that same relationship makes the individual want to constantly express his ego, something that with today's society is impossible to reach out.

In conclusion, power loves the individual, the current slave of the state, and the individual, loved and still loves power, but with his will tied, he can't express itself. - Wake up egoists! The only way you'll see and understand, is by accepting your own - self! -