Seriously though, what particular nihilistic lies? Pertaining to what moral and political issues most here are likely to be familiar with?
And, in regard to these lies, situated out in sets of circumstances, what specifically makes the masses mediocre?
How specifically does she challenge this? How, in turn, does she go about situating herself as above the masses?
Finally, how is her own post here but another classic example of a “wall of words”? Just more “general description intellectual assertions” about gender and race.
Where is her accumulation of empirical data/evidence – embedded in the philosophical equivalent of “the scientific method” – to establish her own “political prejudices rooted in dasein” dogmas.
This cunt doesn’t read anything…
I’ve gone over it a dozen fuckin’ times but she doesn’t read or doesn’t care…
Then she expects to be taken seriously.
Who will waste their time with such a hypocrite, and fanatic?
Not I.
You can write a detailed analysis and she will shit on it without ever reading it.
She only cares for vengeance…and like all fanatics all are enemies…“objectivists”.
It doesn’t matter what you write…she’ll negate it…piss on it…reject it…and then ask for more.
Her motive is to undermine…vengeance.
IQ moron…on your level.
100 and lower.
This trash heap wants to be taken seriously an d responded to.
How many have made the mistake and waste weeks, months…years on a pile of genetic trash?
Well, I learned my lesson fast…and I will not waste a word, a minute on her…and only use her to explain things to others.
She is my pet…my mule…my vehicle.
Don’t care what she says or thinks on any subject…but she does allow me to go over things I do care about.
When I’m gone…she’s all yours.
For me an IQ test is…how long it takes an ILP member to stop responding to her in a serious way.
Length of time reduces IQ.
She’s more of an example of postmodern zombification…an example to make one think.
He reminds me of a middle school age girl, who annoys annoys annoys to get attention, seeking male Paternal, Fatherly energy. And if you turn to slap her away, then she giggles and runs away, pleased that she received any kind of attention, even if it’s negative. To these attention-seekers, negative energy is greater than no energy.
I also imagine it took years longer for iamapiguous to learn to read and write compared to her classmates. A slow learner, slow as molasses. So slow that all of her elementary and high school teachers gave up. It wasn’t worth the effort then. It’s not worth the effort now.
All she’s good for is as entertainment…
We already know how she will respond.
I mean after pages and pages of explaining myself she has the audacity to post this:
She reads nothing…because she already knows what she will reply…
It doesn’t matter what the other says, she already has her cut and paste spiel.
So, why would anyone bother with a piece of trash, like her?
She’s only learned how to poke…how to frustrate…she’s a classic high school girl, as you said.
Tease, poke, run away…gossip, slander, spread rumours…then slither back,. to tease poke.
This gal really, really, really does want others to be in awe of her intellectual prowess. Even if only up in the didactic clouds. She takes philosophy really, really, really…seriously.
And yet over and over and over again, when I challenge her to bring the dreck I reject down out of the clouds and maybe, just maybe, convince me that there is a smidgeon of actual existential intelligence in that head of hers, she goes absolutely apeshit and allows herself to be reduced down to this.
In line with her own “biological imperatives” objectivist font, she must have inherited the gene that compels some to allow themselves to be utterly embarrassed and mortified…well beyond their control.
Right up there with full-blown determinism.
Of course, needling chumps like her really is just a game that “I” play here in the service of godot. So, no, it’s not something that I am by any means proud of.
I mean, I come off looking like a goddamn fool too, right?
For the cunt…it doesn’t matter what my positions are…or anyone’s positions are.
If you ask her she wont be able to tell you what I am saying or why.
All that matters to her is that I have a position which I think is superior to another.
That makes me a “fanatic” or an “objectivist” because the “correct position” is we know nothing, and so let’s come to some compromise based on our shared ignorance.
Let’s agree to disagree and then settle on a mutually beneficial “truth”…which can be a lie, 'cause there is no such thing as “truth”.
The problem for the cunt is how to bring all down to the state of utter loss of confidence in their own positions.
She has no clue, because she doesn’t understand anything above what her 90 IQ can understand - everything over that is “gibberish”, “pie in the sky nonsense”.
Like I said…when the cunt says “context” or “down to earth” she means “dumb it down so that an imbecile, like her, can understand,” and then she can piss on it.
Because no matter what, she’s rejecting anything you, or I, or anybody has to say.
Even Dasein had to be explained to her…
She has no idea what Heidegger said.
It wasn’t put into a soap opera or cartoon scenario…you know brought “down to earth” and put into “context”.
Pages upon pages explaining it all in multiple ways…and this cunt still has no clue. If I were to fall for her ruse, and repeat myself, she would only dismiss it with one of her cut & paste routines…as she’s done with everyone who has ever taken this cunt seriously.
All she knows, like a true “fulminating fanatic” is that anything she doesn’t believe is wrong.
How many wasted their time on this piece of faeces?
With genetic trash and insane people you can only use satire.
Note to Only_Humean, Faust, Von Rivers, Carleas and all the rest from the Old ILP:
The New ILP in a nutshell?
This clown befouls intelligent philosophy with almost every post. The bet I placed back then seemed reasonable. Now it’s just me and godot and the pinheads.
Books
All Things are Nothing To Me by Jacob Blumenfeld
Douglas Groothuis thinks nothing of Max Stirner’s nihilism.
This is simply preposterous to me. Yes, until we can actually understand how the “human condition” fits into a comprehensive understanding of existence itself, even the seeming hardcore reality embedded in the either/or world is inherently suspect. After all, isn’t that the basic premise of the Matrix films?
Choose the red pill or the blue pill: “a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill…”
Even if you swallow the red pill, there is still “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”.
On the other hand, come on, are we not going to believe that in all likelihood, the either/or interactions that we take part in from day to day have no objective truth behind them…are not a foundation rooted in the laws of nature and the rules of language and the empirical world around us?
I’m simply not one of those nihilists who lumps everything and everyone into a problematic “personal opinion” understanding of reality. Instead, for me, this too revolves around the existence of God. Sans God, there does not appear to be a font/foundation enabling us to establish an overarching essential meaning…an ontological and teleological Truth, or Theory Of Everything.
What else is this but yet another example of “language games”. Also, another indication of how far the gap can grow between what we wish to convey about the world around us through language and the limitations of language itself in getting the job done. Along the lines of, “all men are liars and that’s the truth”.
Here what makes sense is to, to the best of your ability, attempt to make a distinction between truth in the either/or world and truth in the is//ought world. What is true for all of us sans dasein and what seems true to you but not to others re dasein.
This part:
Of course, this is all encompassed in a “world of words”. What we need instead is, well, take a wild guess.
On the other hand, for those who just can’t get enough of his “it’s so deep, it’s meaningless” pedantry, let me remind you that there is still an outlet you can turn to. His very own Know Myself clique/claque.
There, if you are interested in understanding things like nihilism, he explains it to you…
Books
All Things are Nothing To Me by Jacob Blumenfeld
Douglas Groothuis thinks nothing of Max Stirner’s nihilism.
Here of course [for me] the “ego” and the “unique one” revolve largely around how close to or far away from dasein we go. “I” in the is/ought world in other words. At least regarding the Self in the either/or world, it’s “own properties” are objectively true. Or are to the extent that this can be demonstrated to be the case. The Ego and the Unique One either embody certain demographic components or they don’t. Their lives unfold empirically as they do or as they do not. Nothing those like Stirner can write in an opus is going to change that.
Of course, in so many ways we are intertwined demographically, historically, culturally and the like in sets of circumstances where our sense of self is clearly going to be derived from this. You can obviously take the “unique individual” frame of mind to the point where the “we” part disappears altogether. And in “defining ourselves for ourselves” when does that become intertwined in a la la land description of yourself? And the part where I bring dasein into the discussion. When does that disappear altogether?
In other words, the “Stirnerian self” is basically this intellectual contraption he thought up as a way to take all of the factors that actually do go into how we come to think of ourselves and make that the default instead. In fact, historically and culturally, most of us are a citizen of one or another polity; we are a member of the human biological species; we do occupy particular social niches as workers or owners or artists or athletes. We have a skin color and a gender and a sexual orientation. And in interacting with others there is no getting around, among other things, the stereotypes and political prejudices we’ll have to deal with…in whatever manner in which we choose to think of ourselves as Stirner might.
Get you, but such a self as the one described above, may be a necessary pre-conception , for lack of this would create some kind of domino effect, where lack of the minutest end ingredient will collapse the entire following continua.
How to get to that appearently invisible , being the focus of most of what ontology has been all abut, may not necessarily sew it up, as those adversely oriented toward Kant would have categorically been inclined to do so.
Books
All Things are Nothing To Me by Jacob Blumenfeld
Douglas Groothuis thinks nothing of Max Stirner’s nihilism.
Again, unless someone were to take what they think is being conveyed here and make it applicable to their own life…describing behaviors that they themselves choose by way of embodying the point being made…it is hard to pin down what in fact is being conveyed here in regard to the creation of values. Moral and political values in particular. To me the “will to power” is no less subsumed in particular worlds historically, culturally and experientially.
In particular, this part:
“… will to power is for Stirner but another spook – another false idealization of what’s not there, and ‘the unique one’ would be subsumed and alienated from its creative energies by employing the idea.”
You tell me how this is reflected in the life that you live, the behaviors that you choose. It’s a “spook” given my own understanding of dasein in that it is still no less something that you “thought up ‘in your head’” So it is “out there” only to the extent that you believe it is. As a “philosophical contraption”.
Books
All Things are Nothing To Me by Jacob Blumenfeld
Douglas Groothuis thinks nothing of Max Stirner’s nihilism.
Come on, how ridiculous is that? Depending of course on how any particular intellectual defines “nothing”?
For all of us, many things are something…mean something. But some things mean the same thing because they revolve around interactions that are the same for all of us. Unless, of course, we are afflicted with a clinical condition that makes even the either/or world our own personal domain.
Instead, the part where all things are nothing to me – and Stirner? – revolves around the assumption that in a No God world, our lives are essentially meaningless and purposeless. And, therefore, all things come to be/mean essentially nothing when we ourselves die and tumble over into the nothingness that is oblivion.
This part:
Yes, but how then is this not the sort of “philosophical assessment” that, even if true, does not make the world that we live and act in with others go away. We have no choice but to take out own existential leap of faith to “something”. Even in the is/ought world. And that is because as long as we choose to behave in certain ways around others, we are opening ourselves up to being challenged. Others will demand the reasons we do what we do. And how effective do you suppose it will be to go down the “all things are nothing to me” path?
Got that? Okay, then, in regard to the life that you live with and around others from day to day what “for all practical purposes” does it entail?
