• Gus Lamarch
    24
    "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
    6.4k
    Let's cut to the bit where you ask why your post was removed, so we can get on with banning you.
  • Mark Dennis
    397
    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
    117
    posts can be deleted here simply for having some spelling errors
  • Banno
    6.4k
    Well, the OP can go on those grounds, too.
  • Coben
    1k
    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
    445
    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.
  • Mark Dennis
    397
    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
    4.3k
    This discussion was merged into Immodesty of an Egoist Mind
  • Banno
    6.4k
    You are being far too nice. It's not healthy. Delete and ban.
  • ZzzoneiroCosm
    196
    ...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.
  • Mark Dennis
    397
    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
    24
    “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
    430

    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
    1k
    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
    24
    “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
    24
    “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
    1k
    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?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.