Free will cant exist until society is abolished
> prove me wrong
> you cant.
when I mean "society" I don't mean people living within a general vicinity of one another, I mean the cultural norms that place a higher obligation above the individual i.e cultural norms, taboos, collective identity, Private property, ethnic pride, national pride, morality, money, consumerism and so on.
based
why though
The abolition of the state goes without saying aswell.
Because the individual would otherwise be dragged down by the mediocrity of the herd.
>reads Stirner once
You teenagers are fucking insufferable
Abandoning groupishness is a recipe for extinction. Humans descended from the creatures who forged alliances with those who are not kin.
So? Youve yet to give a good reason why this inhibits free will
I'm not even a stirnerite, I'm much more Nietzchean, but I'm too fuckin lazy to make a better pic.
These abstractions exist to control behavior and therefore go against the very concept of free will.
Free will is the ability to make choices, restricting choices does not restrict the ability to make them.
To be more direct, imagine what a society where no one was obligated to each other or bound together by custom or collective identity would look like. There would be no way to credibly promise other people that you will have their back when things go wrong. So any kind of insurance or sharing risks is out. No way to get large numbers of people to all do the same thing at the same time. So economies of scale are out. So in the society that you are talking about, what are we free to do exactly? We wouldn't be free to take risks or enjoy the conveniences that we now enjoy.
> There would be no way to credibly promise other people that you will have their back when things go wrong
wrong, People already do things unconsciously out of selfishness, the obligation is just the inauthentic Justification people give to "fit in" and be moral.
Self-interest due to the establishment of herd mentality has become a sin, even though people are already typically self-interested.
mutual aid would be the ideal answer to a lack of Group mentality.
There is no such thing as free will you 14 year old dumbass
wrong self interest is one of the highest virtues now, to a degree it has become decadent
>mutual aid
hardly even related to group mentality really. one is based on behavior, the other materials.
and i just lefty gobbledygook, your posts just aren't convincing, and you still havent replied to the only post related to free will in the thread
Only if you're a spineless faggot.
relevance?
So what does mutual aid look like without any group mentality?
>Free will cant exist until society is abolished
But without free will how can we choose to abolish society?
> wrong self-interest is one of the highest virtues now, to a degree it has become decadent
Not at all due to juedeo-christian values, service to the herd is decadence, that's why such things as consumerism are an on-going factor in the west, it's all an attempt to fit in with the herd as that would be the safe thing to do. due to the various abstractions listed in the OP, the people who create these abstractions now have a great deal of unchecked power which allows them to write the narratives of how society functions disallowing any actual free will which would the individual living by their own narratives.
Mutual aid in it's purest form is already without group mentality since it places no moral superiority on any party involved, it is strictly an anarchic encounter.
> pic related.
If we can't choose to abolish society, then why bother bringing it up?
Yeah by following the herd you are being a spineless faggot.
You can choose (ironically enough) to do the opposite of what's expected of you, the opposite of what the cultural norms have established.
Too much Chomsky, not enough Kindergarten.
Without society you'll just be controlled by your biological drives. There's no such thing as free will.
Perhaps it's somewhere in the dialectic between society and nature like Freud and others have thought. But removing society will definitely not bring free will.
when I say "free will" I don't mean it in the sense you're thinking of, I mean it in the sense that society's cultural basis is a method of control and that.
> Without society you'll just be controlled by your biological drives. There's no such thing as free will.
Not nesecerilly , you still have your mind, society's destruction would certainly bring free will if you are strictly left with your own mind.
chomsky is a moralist, the only thing he ever did that was relevant was write "manufacturing consent" and really nothing beyond that.
In that case free-will can't be the ability to do the opposite of what is expected of you. Because we clearly all ready have that. So what exactly is free-will?
* and that by actively choosing to not obey you are making a choice, otherwise, you are letting your life be manipulated.
That's not very different from now. That level of division is already here on a personal level. It's not here on a professional level... yet.
Continuing to live the way we do, we are choosing to be slaves.
You conception of the mind is naïve. You think there exists some sacred part of you that is neither society nor nature. There is no such thing. Your mind is biology and culture. Take away culture and you take away a significant part of what you are. You can't separate what you are from culture. As Freud pointed out, choice implies that you have alternate, competing drives in your mind. Without culture you'll have far less competition in your mind, and you'll be reduced to an animal driven by the most basic of drives. Complexity of mind, and hence our illusion of free will, arrives only because of the complexity of affections/drives which arrives with man becoming a social animal that has to account for his position in society as well as his personal needs.
Of course, man is also genetically coded to be social, so even if you remove society you will not remove the fact that man is a social animal and all you will do is make him miserable.
> You conception of the mind is naïve. You think there exists some sacred part of you that is neither society nor nature. There is no such thing.
And your conception of the mind is a simple one, based strictly on post-"enlightenment" rationalization.
>when I say "free will" I don't mean it in the sense you're thinking of, I mean it in the sense that society's cultural basis is a method of control and that by actively choosing to not obey you are making a choice, otherwise, you are letting your life be manipulated.
This conception of choice will not do. Once authority is gone and there is nothing left do disobey, choice disappears. Also, "cultural norms" is itself a spook. Its a way for lazy sociologists and anthropologists to explain human behavior with itself. cambridgescholars.com
If you knew your shit you'd know that dualism is perhaps the most pervasive philosophical idea of Western thinking since Plato. It's definitely not "post-'enlightenment' rationalization".
Human beings a genetically coded to be a part of society. The fact that we are born helpless for YEARS is a testament to that. The fact that our bodies are evolved to communicate in a very complex manner via speech is testament to that. The removal of society from man is an absurd idea. Society is integral to man, without society man would not be man. You don't even need to talk about free will to understand this simple fact.
Once authority is gone and there is nothing left do disobey, choice disappears.
Nope, a new cultural basis forms which allow each individual to create themselves in new unique ways, not just the prefabricated norms that are sold to us today.
> Also, "cultural norms" is itself a spook. Its a way for lazy sociologists and anthropologists to explain human behavior with itself.
spook just means abstraction, you clearly aren't familiar with existentialist views, particularly Stirner's. denying that cultural norms is philosophizing with a hammer, you are rationalizing by placing things in black and white pigeon holes, which is philosophizing with a hammer, you are trying to make things as simple as possible to understand "grey" behavior.
> If you knew your shit you'd know that dualism is perhaps the most pervasive philosophical idea of Western thinking since Plato. It's definitely not "post-'enlightenment' rationalization".
How do you think the enlightenment came about? through philosophers such as Plato and Socrates which were the forerunners to rationalization.
and what happens when those individuals then decide to get together and engage in mutually beneficial transactions of their own free will? and then decide to increase efficiency and reduce negotiating time by setting up some sort of value hierarchy? oh shit that's how "society" starts retard
economic Value hierarchy of commodities is fine, social status is the issue, within Post-modern society people have such disdain for themselves that they care what others think so they seek approval through social status. now -a-days sign value has far exceeded actual use value, and through this we have created value systems which are simply abstractions but have become real to the point that they have influence in actuality.
You're not wrong, but without community this cannot change and there is no community, at least not if you're white.
I believe it's the opposite, we have allowed ourselves to become too attached to abstractions such as "community".
Sorry. When I said "spook" I should have said "invalid construct" or "swindle."
>Nope, a new cultural basis forms which allow each individual to create themselves in new unique ways, not just the prefabricated norms that are sold to us today.
That was also the selling point for social media.
It encompasses far more than just "post-enlightenment rationalism" you cunt. Stop moving the goalposts.
Once authority is gone and there is nothing left do disobey, choice disappears.
>Nope, a new cultural basis forms which allow each individual to create themselves in new unique ways, not just the prefabricated norms that are sold to us today.
Bunch of wishful thinking mumbo-jumbo. Man is an animal.
>spook just means abstraction, you clearly aren't familiar with existentialist views, particularly Stirner's
It seems very clear to me that you are familiar with little more than Stirner. Cultural norms are a spook, but free will is not? What nonsense.
>philosophizing with a hammer
Philosophizing with the hammer, to use Nietzche's term, is something to be proud of. It's Occam's Razor, it's killing idols - idols like your free willed noble savage.
You do realize that this shift of labour from the first world to East and SEA has resulted in a massive gain in the world real median wage? The losers have been the white working class but the working classes of those countries have seen miraculous gains.
i.gr-assets.com
Not only has everyone become richer, the world has also become more equal, especially across countries.
> That was also the selling point for social media.
Yeah, I think social media should be abolished, since it is one of many means which hyperreality is propagated, unlike Jow Forums which is completely anonymous, and status is not an aim of this site. Memes, for instance, are an example of an Un-harmful abstraction, since status can't really be transmitted through images as someone could just say one thing or the other.
Man is an animal, and animals are much more complicated then biological and cultural drives.
> Philosophizing with the hammer, to use Nietzche's term, is something to be proud of. It's Occam's Razor, it's killing idols - idols like your free willed noble savage.
You realize Nietzche was against Philosophising with a hammer right? He was referring to the blunt nature of categorizing things in black and white pigeon holes, what you're doing right now and im all for iconoclasm, It's not my fault you aren't familiar with Nietzche.
i have no idea what world you are living in but here in canada self interest is definitely one of the highest virtues for an individual. and as ive already refuted before, influences on free will does not mean it doesnt exist. this is a boring thread
You use a picture of Stirner, yet your line of argumentation is fundamentally un-stirnerian.
>cultural norms, taboos, collective identity, Private property, ethnic pride, national pride, morality, money, consumerism and so on
None of these are binding. You can break any taboo, ignore any cultural norms, take anything which someone believes to be his private property, race-mix as much as you want, etc. - the only thing that can punish you for it is people. The ideas themselves are powerless.
The real question is: aren't you benefiting more from society than it is to your detriment? If we know that private property is no natural law but a right that has to be protected by people carrying arms, does the state not benefit you in making sure that nobody steals from you or otherwise harms you? Do you not benefit from the infrastructure it provides? etc. etc.
Even if you believe that the ideological foundation of the state, its norms and customs are to your detriment, a Stirnerian position would be more to find your own niche within to violate the rules as you see fit without anyone noticing rather than getting rid of the entire construct that may be still beneficial to you.
Wtf do you mean by "abolishing society"?
> Not only has everyone become richer, the world has also become more equal, especially across countries.
That's simply not true, they have become "equal" yes, however they have become more equal at the cost losing their sovereignty as independent nations to western imperialism, which their economies become intertwined with western economies through globalization.
> mfw
but here in Canada self-interest is definitely one of the highest virtues for an individual.
That's not individualism that's conformity disguised as individualism, consumerism and supposed "unique" identities are just people seeking approval from the herd.
-------> > None of these are binding. You can break any taboo, ignore any cultural norms, take anything which someone believes to be his private property, race-mix as much as you want, etc. - the only thing that can punish you for it is people. The ideas themselves are powerless.
That's what ive been saying, the abstraction has replaced the material.
even if you believe that the ideological foundation of the state, its norms, and customs are to your detriment, a Stirnerian position would be more to find your own niche within to violate the rules as you see fit without anyone noticing rather than getting rid of the entire construct that may be still beneficial to you.
You do realize Stirner was an anarchist right? he would've advocated using the state to destroy it, yes, but he saw the state as inherently against the ego, Try again.
To be a bit more clear; the force that "backs up" abstractions such as property is what needs to be questioned, in that sense because of the ideas that are propagated through collective coercion the ideas have become a real force, due to it's memetic pull on people.
Exactly what I said in the op, the abstractions which bind society together need to be abolished otherwise we have no real choice.
>You realize Nietzche was against Philosophising with a hammer right? He was referring to the blunt nature of categorizing things in black and white pigeon holes, what you're doing right now and im all for iconoclasm, It's not my fault you aren't familiar with Nietzche.
I've read almost all of Nietzche's works. You're wrong.
>Man is an animal, and animals are much more complicated then biological and cultural drives
No, they're really not. Those are the fundamentals.
>Mutual aid in it's purest form is already without group mentality since it places no moral superiority on any party involved, it is strictly an anarchic encounter
That's not an answer to his question.
i meant all values including moral ones, ie this thing is better than the other thing. you are supporting an arbitrary moral value system right now. mathematics is an abstraction that has influence in real life by allowing us to effectively act out complex ideas. Is that inherently bad? if so why? you havent thought anything through. Also the idea that people are completely subservient to culture is unscientific bullshit.
>You do realize Stirner was an anarchist right? he would've advocated using the state to destroy it
This is fundamentally wrong. Stirner was "anarchic", not "anarchistic".
Bringing down the state, abolishing order, affecting countless lives to achieve some greater good, all these are grandiose, universalist ideas which Stirner would brand as being born from a mind that is stuck in that teenage phase where one is obsessed with the spiritual. Stirner is much more about inner freedom than about external freedom. It's not about crossing the street when the light is red - it's about realising that you yourself have the power to do it, that the red light has no binding power over you.
community isnt an abstraction unless you meant the word itself. community as a word is merely the verbal representation of a preexisting idea which is the thing people are trying to communicate. Communities have existed since the beginning of humanity, they preexist all your bullshit.
Ernst Juenger made a clear distinction between the Stirnerian "Anarch" and the "Anarchist":
>The anarchist, as the born foe of authority, will be destroyed by it after damaging it more or less. The anarch, on the other hand, has appropriated authority; he is sovereign. He therefore behaves as a neutral power vis-à-vis state and society. He may like, dislike, or be indifferent to whatever occurs in them. That is what determines his conduct; he invests no emotional values. [...] The anarch wages his own wars, even when marching in rank and file.
its not imperialism if its voluntary. And dont fucking tell me we conquered Vietnam.
if you admit they are a real force why are you claiming its "mere abstraction"? Do you understand that if we only engaged in simplistic material thinking we would still be savages?
Ernst Jünger, the guy who wrote Im Stahlgewittern? When did he write about political philosophy?
How do you abolish a spook?
Do you see free will as just what you decide to do in this moment? Does your will not extend far into the past and has it not influenced the web of individuals around you? Even as an egoist, you must recognize that you need other people for your own sanity and security. Peace is a good that all desire and to that end there is natural law which men break at their peril.
Surrounding us are the effects of everyone's sum total transgression against the natural law. I believe that we have developed ways of drawing inferences about what not to do and what to do through cultural technology and maybe even language itself came to us for use in liturgy.
Look into "Der Arbeiter", "Eumeswil", "Der Waldgang", etc. - Juenger has always been interested in politics and corresponded with a great variety of political protagonists of his time. e.g. Carl Schmitt, Ernst Niekisch, Joseph Goebbels but even Bertolt Brecht.
Social status is a value hierarchy of human capital. The irony is that you're just upset there is a huge bubble in human capital that the kikes are running as a pump and dump scam. It's going to be glorious once it pops.
What if the child consenst though?..
Stirner is and always will be irrelevant
Stop shitposting
So, basically, you're going to raise kids by telling them they can do whatever the fuck they want? Well, that sure is going to be great
>individual would otherwise be dragged down by the mediocrity of the herd
Sounds like welfare to me. You sure you ain't ancap?