Sign into an existing account

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcaBgDavzmU

#"The Republic" by Plato | Read by Joshua Graham

Playlist where each Book is separate

Plato's 'The Republic' is a classic in philosophy. It explores the idea of a perfect society. The book uses dialogues, mainly with Socrates, to discuss justice and human nature. It also looks at a philosopher's role in leading the state.

This was narrated by Joshua Graham (TTS) From Fallout new vegas. Who was voiced by Keith Szarabajka.

Source https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1497

It’s what the Bible teaches. All bibles teach it. The love and joy of 72 virgins is no different than the heaven promise in all religions, everywhere! Is there a religion I can believe, Christianity, Buddhist, Muslim (but not the Jews, they are evil.) one thing is true: just love one another, be kind. But watch out for Jews, they are the naughty people.

Max Stirner, pseudonym of Johann Caspar Schmidt (Bayreuth, October 25, 1806 - Berlin, June 26, 1856) was a German philosopher.

...
a transcendence of the subjugation of consciousness to abstract ideas such as "the state" and "humanity". Stirner simply assumes that his state of consciousness can no longer be connected to abstract concepts such as "the state", "the people", "man" etc.

Since this "unique ego" is beyond the limits of the definable (it falls outside the dialectic) it is therefore also completely indefinable. The absolute is thus linked to pure subjectivity, and therefore escapes any subjectivation.

In other words, humanism is a curse rather than a blessing, as it imposes limits on the “human.”

Ich hab' mein' Sach' auf Nichts gestellt (Goethe). This phrase indicates what both Stirner and Hegel regard as the fundamental nature of pure subjectivity.

Stirner plainly stated that there is no difference between humanism and Christianity, but that "humanism", on the contrary, entails an intensification of the oppressive mechanism of Christianity.

He seriously problematizes the alleged evidence that man has simply become "freer" or has started to act more "morally" since the Enlightenment.

An interesting fact is that Stirner did not preach "revolution" at all, but what he called Empörung: the individual man had to come to the insight that he was faced with the choice to realize his own individuality on the basis of daily practice and not to let seduced by all kinds of sacred goals outside themselves. The resistance and oppression that the individual person may experience must be circumvented through a cunning strategy. According to him, striving to realize a new form of society inevitably leads to a new essentialism and is itself the product of this.

In fact, Stirner's relevance is limited to his own time. His alleged modern-day apostles sometimes lack irony. Stirner can be understood as a "tool" to disassemble contemporary developments, and in particular to formulate a critique of the communalism of the "alter-globalist movement".

Rudolf Steiner: "Like Nietzsche, Stirner often believes that the driving forces of human life can only be found in the separate, real individual. He rejects all forces that seek to shape and determine the individual personality from outside. The free human being determines his own goals. He possesses his own ideals and does not allow himself to be possessed by those ideals. The human being who is not master of his own ideals as a free individual is under the same influence as the mentally ill individual who It makes no difference to Stirner whether a human being imagines himself to be the “Emperor of China,” or whether an ordinary citizen imagines that his destiny is to be a good Christian, a faithful Protestant, a virtuous human orphans, etc., or that he is taken captive, and sits, in orthodoxy, virtue, etc.

You only have to read a few pages in Stirner's book, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, to see how closely his views are related to those of Nietzsche."

John Glassford (prof. present): "Could it be more than a coincidence that Stirner, like Nietzsche, abhorred the state, nationalism, liberalism, socialism and communism? Nietzsche called all those modern isms “fits of stupidity" and Stirner said quite remarkable about one of those ideologies, “that the communists see the man, the brother in you, is only the Sunday side of communism.” According to Stirner and Nietzsche, these ideas are all based on a latent, secularized version of Christian ethics.

If one is a subject, then there is no doubt in the certainty of servitude, whether one’s master is personally recognizable it does not matter — a man is a slave.

If one is sovereign, willfully directed, then one is one’s own master and slave only to one’s whims — it is imperative then that your whims carry speed and action, like an arrow, unto compression.

A thesaurus isn’t a dinosaur and obligations are mandatory to put relics of an ancient and fake organism into the ground to once more draw a dark and holy oil.

The last was not for you, but consider the former and crown yourself king before one becomes the rot of ages, a pool of lifeless and listless potential

"but I kept looking at the lollipop and wondering how much it hurt the scorpion getting entombed in molten sugar.

Earlier in the week I'd spoken with an expert in the psychology of diet and perceptions of food, American lecturer Dr. Mathew Ruby. He'd said something that had really resounded with me. “As far as we know insects aren’t suffering that much, but if we’re wrong, we’re wrong times how many more lives? How many more insects would have to die to contribute to two pounds of food?”

An argument for the meat industry is that the slaughter of one cow feeds dozens. But if we want to satisfy one person’s hunger with bugs, we have to kill thousands. To me, this feels like an ethical pitfall."

Excreted from this article about a girl who tries to eat bugs for a week and keeps throwing up. I almost threw up reading it.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ywx9y5/this-is-what-happens-when-you-eat-nothing-but-bugs-for-a-week

https://youtu.be/FqOHOKO-Qgg?t=10130

"Truth before Faith; Duty before Self."

Fascism is a political ideology that holds that government policies should serve the interests of their people before all else.

Nationalism is where the interests of a specific tribe of people within the state is the focus of government policies, instead of everyone.

Although perhaps I'm getting it wrong, and fascism is the focus on the state, while nationalism is the focus on the people.

Capitalism is the political philosophy that prioritizes individual ownership of person, property, and enterprise.

Libertarianism is the philosophy that focuses on maximizing liberty.

Socialism is the philosophy that all property and enterprise should be owned by the state.

Communism is the idea that all property should be free of ownership.

When the above four are combined in some way with nationalism or fascism, the way in which this marriage occurs is that the aspects which deal with those outside the state or those outside the preferred tribe within the state, are all overwritten by the nationalist or fascist policies, but the policies that deal exclusively with the people of the state or of the state's preferred tribe are governed by the socialist, communist, capitalist, or libertarian policies.

For example, the approaches to trade under national capitalism, foreign trade would be handled by nationalist policies, as they indeed the involvement with those who are not the preferred tribe of the nation, but domestic trade between its preferred tribe of people would be governed by the policies of capitalism instead.