I have never once thought this in my life.

File: Max_Stirner (1).jpg (120.5 KB)

120.5 KB JPG

I live and think exactly like myself though?

File: puyo4237600426.png (30.4 KB)

30.4 KB PNG

>>25062311
>I have never once thought

>>25062311
>>25062322
this

another automaton op who thinks philosophy = ad hoc self-help with psychology citations kek

>>25062300
What do you mean by that? Philosophy today isn't really about that. It's just inert discussions and arguments that are meant to stand on their own. It's not exactly a spiritual tradition anymore meant to instill love for the divine and transcend the mundane

>>25062774
To be fair, ancient philosophy was very close to being just that. Nowadays, not so much, both continental and analytic philosophies are just inert discussions meant to focus prestige and recognition in it's wroters amongst an increasingly narrow and trivial group of peers and gullible students.
I'll take Epictetus over this gay circle-jerking we have now anyday.

File: 1753002407318546.jpg (32.1 KB)

32.1 KB JPG

>he thinks that all philosophers should live within the confines of their philosophy, and that aspiring or striving for higher behaviour without complete success renders the philosophy worthless.

how low does your IQ need to self insert into nonfiction. doing it for fiction is already in the low 80's. lmao

>>25062786
The difference between ancient and contemporary self-help is that the ancients thought that knowing the truth was necessary for the good life. If what we believe isn't aligned with the reality of things, we will suffer from that beliefs

>>25062300
Why the fuck would you ever even suggest this out loud.

>>25062300
Finding your own thought already articulated by another is a coincidence more rare than originality

>>25062786
>To be fair, ancient philosophy was very close to being just that
nothing "self-help" in the pre-socratics and in aristotle.
hellenistic period philosophy was a result of decadence which is why it became practically-oriented, to help the greeks (and romans) cope with the widespread collapse of their culture across the mediterranean

calling yourself after any other mans name means you are gay and want to gay marry them.
Oh you are a kantian, hegelian, thomist, nietzschian, or aristotelean?
Wrong. You are a gay man.

Even worse is to want to be gay married to some abstract group which is some undefined collection of men like Idealist, Existentialist, Realist, continental, analytic, Neoplatonist, Marxist, or Vitalist?
You are not even at the level of a gay man then, you are a servant, a slave of a collection of gay men. A free use vessel for their pleasure.

But I tell you no one can be a philosopher if they are a gay men or a slave of gay men.

Why shouldn't I just copy everything a philosopher thinks at does? It would mean I would think and act like one of the smartest men in history. Can I really do any better myself by synthesizing multiple philosophers as well as my intuition?

>>25064601
>why would I work on my own cardio I'll never be the fastest sprinter

>>25064613
Bad analogy, it's more like copying the muscle fiber density of a top athlete instead of training your own, inferior body. Also learning what top philosophers thought still requires work.

>>25064617
Retard, the analogy is training the ability to think your own thoughts which only improves via practice and repetition.

>>25064601
You don't actually have access to what they thought and did, you just have things that were written down about them.
Actual human life and thought cannot actually be reduced that simply and just as much is always left out as is included, and much of it is historically and culturally involved and contingent.
By identifying with and trying to act out as previous people did, you are actually identified with this shallow reduction of them and through that are reducing yourself to being restricted to "what can be extracted and written down". This will also blind you to the cultural and historical factors that informed their work but you however blind yourself to the actual forces working on you in a similar manner.
>Can I really do any better myself by synthesizing multiple philosophers as well as my intuition?
This is all you can ever do, attempt to rationally understand and be faithful to reality as you understand it. Even if you attempt to identify with and conform to the shallow reduction of some thinker you have access too, you are still only able to see it through your interpretation and intuition. It's a reduction interpreted through a lens you are intentionally blinding yourself to.

>>25064589
Wouldn't the same also apply to religious men?

>>25064714
Through baptism you are born as a Child of God so the last name is fitting, you are actually "born again", assuming an ontologically real Church.
That's why I like Catholicism more than say people of the book like islam or protestants because for them it is more mere identification with someone external. In Catholicism baptism alters your nature and makes you a child it's as much your genuine name as your birth name from your family.
I am not speaking symbollically, I am speaking actually. I could see some people saying Oh but I am doing the same thing for uh plato or nietzsche! No you arent, you aren't actually their child. In Catholicism you are actually made a child of God through your rebirth.

>>25064733
To extend this further I think the distinction would be to say your identity is in offloading thought to X, Catholicism actually does not have a set of Y views you must understand in a certain why and allows a wide birth of viewpoints and particular freedom.

The other challenge might be in religious orders, however that is spoken of in similar way as dying to this life as well. In some sense the old you is dead and you take the rule of St. Benedict as say a new life, I could see someone saying they also do this for some school of thought or philosopher or something but the difference is if what you are ongoing is that ontological switch or with religious orders the relational switch there is not actually any specific viewpoint of death of reason it demands. It involves a mutual recognition that the Church is real, and that through the church certain views have been articulated but in terms of how you read those it is quite indifferent unless you outright reject it's authority.

That latter case of religious orders is harder to make but I do think it ultimately is a matter of with philosophy there is that assertion of independence of thought and reality that is required for genuine philosophy that to identify with such groups or movements it is contrary to (and i would say this is the case for some religions as well as I mentioned). It's incoherent and a sacrificing of thought while identifying with it, "your gay husbands property becomes your own and you do not need to do it yourself".
I don't think this is actually the case in religion, neccessarily. Particularly in same the medieval period it was quite more a foundation rather than anything that determines or restricts thought but a mutual recognition of the existince of some thing with certain effects.

>>25064733
Catholicism is mere doctrine and for people who need someone to disambiguate life and tell them what to think and why to think it. You can tell because they all parrot whatever the Pope decrees. Also the Pope is power hungry and not at all following "the greatest among you shall be your servant". Likewise,
>As Peter was about to enter, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet to worship him. But Peter helped him up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself".
Also, Peter himself isn't an authority according to Book of Acts and Paul's dispute with him. If you still cling to papacy then James would be a pope since he gets the final word and judgement in Acts 15
>When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me.
>It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God
Peter was there and with them and nobody referred to him as the ultimate authority. Here is Paul's criticism of Peter (the supposed Pope according to Catholicism)
>But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong
>As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy
>When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, “Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?
>You and I are Jews by birth, not ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles. Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law
Catholics have are the new pharisees. They take believers and put them under the yoke of the law under a different name, namely the cathecism and dogma such as Papal infallibility (which is circular) and the Eucharist being the end all be all instead of following the way and praying to Holy Spirit for sanctification. Stuff like that are for people who need cheat-codes to life in order that they won't actually have to live life.