• Gus Lamarch
    80
    "We do not aspire to communal life, but to a life apart" - Max Stirner
    "We do not aspire to communal life, neither to a life apart, but to own life" - Gus Lamarch


    First, i would like to make it clear that i'm not here to offend or disrespect anyone's beliefs, life or individual morals, i'm here to make my point and put my way of thought open to the world to see, and if it suits you, good, if not, it's your life and you follow what you want.

    Didn't you already asked the question to yourself:
    - Why i'm living this life? This pathetic existence? Why do i have to work continuously without rest that in end of the month i'll be paid, to pay bills, taxes, and buy the necessary materials to survive one more month, to then, work endlessly again? Where's my freedom? Where's my liberty?

    I had that same question pouding in my mind all this time, until i found the answer, and as cliche as it may sound, the answer was inside my very own property. - Myself -.

    The problem with society nowdays is that most people are too indoctrinated by the sistem of consumerism (in the case of the west) to question their places in life. While they're buying, consuming, laughing, being entertained, etc, the state, or in this case, the society is flourishing, but flourishing at the costs of the individual, the same individual that made society possible. - Ha! - And they laugh as i say the truth to them, they laugh as i try to make them aware of the reins that the State and society have put on them, but they won't listen, and if they listened, they would not comprehend, but i'm still trying, still hoping to make the "Intelectual Minority" come to life and begin the "Individual Revolution" that all want, but none are willing to put their own state-proclaimed "liberty" in danger!

    Our society, as Nietzsche putted, is in a deep state of nihilism, decadence, and "cult of death", and why do you ask? Because our society was molded to work in accord with the State, society was molded to work with itself, but as the ages passed, both the technology and ethics "progressed", the individual as a force began to appear, the individual became the most-darling property of the state (reminding all readers that in this case, i'm criticizing the way society is in the west), and as self-proclaimed egoist, i'm totally against the state owning as property my individual, and the individual of others, they're their own, as i'm my own, nothing above this. - The individual is the supreme property of no one but itself -.
    And how do we correct the mistakes? How we get out of the state of nihilism, how do we work morals and ethics in this way of thought? How do we see property in this case? What is "Individual" in this philosophy?


    In this initial publication, i'm here to shout to everyone my own philosophy, if anyone that has an open mind to new thoughts, as radical as they might seem, read this, in the flow of time, i'll continue to write about my immodesty, about how my egoism changed me to the better...
  • Banno
    6.9k
    Let's cut to the bit where you ask why your post was removed, so we can get on with banning you.
  • deletedmemberMD
    590
    As soon as I hear someone self describe themselves as a holder of radical ideas or beliefs, I back away slowly.

    The Ego trap is strong with this one..

    @Banno Hahaha!
  • OmniscientNihilist
    171
    posts can be deleted here simply for having some spelling errors
  • Banno
    6.9k
    Well, the OP can go on those grounds, too.
  • Coben
    1.2k
    but none are willing to put their own state-proclaimed "liberty" in danger!Gus Lamarch
    How are you, now, putting your state-proclaimed 'liberty' in danger?

    What is it you are hoping others will do?
  • Tzeentch
    498
    I'd turn it around.

    Every individual that is part of a state allows that state to restrict their liberty, because they seek whatever it is that the state has to offer.
  • deletedmemberMD
    590
    Oh believe me, you’re in the herd. Not us here. The key features of the “herd” is arrogance, ignorance and a blind devotion and submission to the ego. Namely the nutcase at the tops ego.

    Also, intellectual has two Ls. So Elite.
  • StreetlightX
    4.6k
    This discussion was merged into Immodesty of an Egoist Mind
  • Banno
    6.9k
    You are being far too nice. It's not healthy. Delete and ban.
  • ZzzoneiroCosm
    501
    ...but what i'm trying to do, is to encompass the whole of society and its structures in individual unity that would bring mutual benefits among the selfish, and with that, give real liberty for the own-self....Gus Lamarch

    You tried to do that.

    But it turns out all you did was post on a philosophy forum.
  • deletedmemberMD
    590
    Encompass the whole of society and it’s structures in individual unity = force humans to conform to an individuals ideas of “unity”

    “Everyone shut up and look at my magnificent ego!” Is pretty much what this post is saying.
  • Gus Lamarch
    80
    “He who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook.” - Max Stirner

    “He who is infatuated with Man leaves the individual out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, neither an ideal, it is a problem to be overcomed.”- Gus Lamarch

    In the latest publication of, "Immodesty of an Egoist Mind", i discoursed about the concept of "Intellectual Minority" and my views on it, but now, i think it's the time for me to start talking about "morals".


    We can see in various cases in history, that different people, on different places, with different contexts, had different views on morals, but in every single case, they had especific, almost identical forms and structures. But why? The answer is simple. - Need for power to control the individual -
    In the most prehistoric times of humanity,"morals" didn't existed, but as time passed, and with larger communities forming, that needed more organization for being maintained, social hierarchy became a reality, and with that, resentment of the "lower castes" began to form. With this emminent fear of overthrown of the "higher castes" by the lower ones, a need for order, a need for castration of will took place, and with that, "morals" began to took root, and what is more functional than a social structure that maintains the view of being "good" and doing "good deeds" while the individual will of power and freedom is slowly taken away. Christianity took place in west, Zoroastrianism on the Middle East, Confuscionism in China, etc. Morals are good for only one thing, taking power, and maintaining it.
    You could say that i'm totally against morals? But that's not the truth, with the advent of "Doublethink", morals could be very useful, but only on the purposes stated above.

    Morals are nothing more than laws of society, constructed to control how the individual - the state's property - behaves and thinks, that is an assault against the very core of human life. - Self-Freedom -

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

    And for the ones that, still with the reminder above, attacks my very own property through my philosophical thought, i'll quote Max Stirner:

    “You call me the unhuman," it might say to him, "and so I really am—for you; but I am so only because you bring me into opposition to the human, and I could despise myself only so long as I let myself be hypnotized into this opposition. I was contemptible because I sought my 'better self' outside me; I was the unhuman because I dreamed of the 'human'; I resembled the pious who hunger for their 'true self' and always remain 'poor sinners'; I thought of myself only in comparison to another; enough, I was not all in all, was not—unique. But now I cease to appear to myself as the unhuman, cease to measure myself and let myself be measured by man, cease to recognize anything above me: consequently—adieu, humane critic! I only have been the unhuman, am it now no longer, but am the unique, yes, to your loathing, the egoistic; yet not the egoistic as it lets itself be measured by the human, humane, and unselfish, but the egoistic as the—unique.” - Max Stirner
  • Judaka
    463

    I mean, you're still around, how to justify banning OP then? Not enough of your posts get removed haha.


    People will buy what you're selling if it's marketed at something they want or feel they need, philosophy is not different. You seem like the anti-social type, you're interested in philosophy and you prioritise interpretations of yourself which are based on your ideals which others do not share. With different personality types and circumstances, I just don't see everyone seeing things the way you do or adopting your solutions. Have you tried factoring in the differences between your personality and others to explain the differences in approach? I would classify myself as an egoist as well, I believe there's a pragmatic element to it but it's mostly just my personality.

    About nihilism, life is hard, people find meaning in life through their relationships, responsibilities, interpretations and the ego. There is no undoing of nihilism without belief in the supernatural, the answer is to dispense with the notion of transcendent meaning and find meaning within your life through your actions. If that's by having a hobby, or starting a family, or achieving goals you've set for yourself - or perhaps trying to change the world with your ideas? Each to their own.

    It is a misconception that the consumerism impacts the West alone. India and China can be argued to be even more materialistic cultures than what's in the West. Eastern Europe, South America, most of south-east Asia, Korea and Japan all of them are pretty much equally materialistic and consumer-orientated. Any country with the wealth to be materialistic has a materialistic element to their culture. I also fail to see how individualism and consumerism are at odds with each other but rather appear to complement one another.

    As for your gargantuan conspiracy theories about morality and religion etc that merely describe the proclivities of men and the trends of civilization, you appear determined to simplify things to seeing a fantastical villain. The powerful elite conspire globally and across time to construct systems which control and enslave the masses? The "herd" is not a "herd" because there are shepherds. It's more complicated than that but isn't that kind of obvious? People who don't talk in terms of shades of grey, I see as more emotional than logical.
  • Coben
    1.2k
    but none are willing to put their own state-proclaimed "liberty" in danger!
    — Gus Lamarch
    How are you, now, putting your state-proclaimed 'liberty' in danger?

    What is it you are hoping others will do
    Coben
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    - Why i'm living this life? This pathetic existence? Why do i have to work continuously without rest that in end of the month i'll be paid, to pay bills, taxes, and buy the necessary materials to survive one more month, to then, work endlessly again? Where's my freedom? Where's my liberty?Gus Lamarch

    I enjoy life/living. It's not pathetic in my opinion. And I like what I do for work . . . plus I don't t have to do it continuously.

    Do I have the freedom to do everything I'd like to do? No. But a lot of what I like involves other people that I have to interact with, and they have different opinions and preferences about what we should be able to do. Interacting with others is always going to involve some compromise.

    Also, consumerism provides me with a lot of the stuff I enjoy the most as an individual.
  • Gus Lamarch
    80
    “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! -
  • Gus Lamarch
    80
    “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?
  • Coben
    1.2k
    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 reinsGus Lamarch
    What emotions do you find the age we live in inhospitable to?

    You earlier said people were not willing to take risks for liberty. What risks do you take?
  • Gus Lamarch
    80
    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".
  • Gus Lamarch
    80
    "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."
  • Coben
    1.2k
    Here's the only applicable point...
    What i'm doing that put my state-proclaimed liberty in danger is that i'm trying to aware what i call the "intelectual minority". People who have desire for self-freedom, individuals who are willing to destroy the order, to built a new, functional, egoist, society, but with this act, the state, through its power in the "herd majority", can very well exile, punish, and even rob my own self.
    I see nothing you have written in your threads here that would annoy the State. It is at a level of extreme abstraction. Has the State made any noises through any of its bureaucracies or law enforcement to punish you in any way. Can you point to someone who has written the types of posts you have written here that has been punished? I do understand that you are critical of certain ideas and of states and certain values and complacencies that if you got thousands of followers might very well anger the state. Though in that case you would have to get into specifics and also have prescriptive portions of your posts. I still don't see it. It seems like dramatizing without foundantion.
  • Eee
    159
    I see nothing you have written in your threads here that would annoy the State. It is at a level of extreme abstraction.Coben

    Indeed, it seems that @Gus Lamarch is doing a kind of more abstract but essentially Ayn-Randian philosophy. Its something like the exaggerated essence of capitalism.

    Well, you are a slave to society who compels you, almost as if a religious belief, to have an opinion about everything and everyone.Gus Lamarch

    Life is slavery. I am a slave to my belly, a slave to my attachment to surviving, a slave even to my curiosity. I am a slave to my need for fantasies like perfect autonomy. The ego is one more spook. Stirnerism is one more evangelism, one more stuffing of the headpiece with straw. Any song and dance that seeks a stage manifests a compulsion to spread the sacred meme, even it it be the supposed anti-meme.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAWaZqDf-VE
  • Gus Lamarch
    80
    "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.
  • Gus Lamarch
    80
    "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!
  • Valentinus
    646

    Nietzsche did not identify the role of the state as you have. Duty to a system of order is separated from individual conscience.
    The psychology of the ego in his work is entangled with the idea of eternal recurrence. As an ethical requirement, you are to live your life as something you are willing to repeat over and over.
    In regards to playing the arrogant writer, he challenged people to kick his butt in regards to what he put forward.
    The best way to accept him is to oppose him. He said that himself.
  • Coben
    1.2k
    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.Gus Lamarch
    I don't see this as common at all. People seem skeptical about government almost as a rule. I wish they were more so, but this seems hallucinated. It's not North Korea everywhere.
  • Coben
    1.2k
    The ego wants nothing more than self-liberty,Gus Lamarch

    This is a very idiosyncratic idea of the ego. The ego, generally, is the sense of self, sense of identity. It is protective. There are parts of the unconscious that want liberty, for sure. And the ego wants to do certain things. But the ego generally tries to maintain a sense of the self it thinks is good. And this can avoid all sorts of freedoms, impulses from the unconscious for example, actions, for all sorts of practical and ego-ideal reasons.
  • Gus Lamarch
    80
    "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"?
  • Coben
    1.2k
    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.Gus Lamarch
    We are social mammals, not monads, so our egos, healthy ones are conscious of and want have good social relations. Not with everyone, but with some kind of social network. This is part of what sets us apart from other species and we are, in fact, an apex social mammal. The ego, having to do with the identity of a social mammal, in this case a homo sapien will be concerned about what others think. This does not mean one must humbly avoid stepping on toes, or pretend to be less than one is, but any fully human homo sapien will be affected by the thoughts and feelings of others and will affect those of others.
    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 fruitGus Lamarch
    Sure, though if he is only selfish, he is a partial human. Some people seem to think that any empathy and desire for closeness and real intimacy with others is just fantasy or guilt. But this is because they in fact have self-hatred. They hate their own limbic systems. They think that being a partial human is stronger, which is not the case, since what has made humans strong has in part been their social nature and this social nature is not just selfish. Empathy is not guilt. Wanting mutual relationships based on love, is not weakness or fantasy.
    Isn't it annoying that the vast majority are "Negative" unknowingly? And that the "Positive" minority ends up judging themselves as "Negative"?Gus Lamarch
    You are creating a mirror imbalance to the one out there. Yes, guilt is often confused with actual care for others. Yes, people make themselves small. And now in reaction to that you want to cut people down in a mirror image way to the way traditional and Abrhamic culture has cut them down. Instead of guilt you want to create people who are cut off from the full range of their feelings and who are solipsists.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment