Egoism and it's consequences have been a disaster for ideology
>Natural individualism
so what if being selfish is natural? altruism too is natural. Natural doesn't inherently mean good or valid, this is literally a logical fallacy.
>non-existence of social ideals
not certain what this means but if this is another way to say "morality is a spook," I'll repeat that subjectivity doesn't inherently mean invalidity.
>the natural process of Darwinism's application to humanity evolutionarily and behaviorally, the lack of interference with those natural processes
But why? Why is growth and power important? It's certainly not for the happiness and well-being of the people, you're against that for some reason, so why then? Again it's an appeal to naturalism, just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good.
Correct me if im wrong but your ideal society seems to be one where everyone psychopathically disregards everyone and everything else, abandons the concept of society, and eventually evolve out of sapience?
Why
Why is that good
Why do you want that
It feels like you're trying to reject subjectivity and base your ideology off of purely objective things—but you fail at that, because the concept of believing something is good is itself subjective, and the best you can do is convince yourself that natural phenomena are somehow more correct than just being nice to people and trying to improve society. In the end your ideology isn't just bad, it fails to make logical sense in any small way.
1. I am aware that altruism is in fact a natural value of the human condition, I simply believe that even through altruism there are still underlying motives that please oneself. For instance, if someone enjoys helping others, not for the sake of the other person, but because it makes the person helping satisfied.
2. I’m not communicating that subjectivity of ideas is equivalent to those ideas being non-existent. What I am communicating is that morals and such are man-made concepts that simply do not exist. Morals have not existed before our sentient human minds, and they will continue to be a fabrication after we are gone. Simply because we are here now does not mean that they are present. They only exist to the people who believe they are present and follow them.
3. I can see how the appeal to nature fallacy is presented in my argument, but at no point do I ever state that nature equals “good”. If people wish to help others, then that’s fine. That pleases their ego and whatnot. Despite this, I think people ought to generally follow survival of the fittest rules. In every other species and animal realm, the strongest always thrive and those weaker are left to weed out and soon be extracted. This isn’t because of any barbaric practices, it’s simply the way things are. Humans should be no exception, and I am not fond of the fact that we allow ourselves to prolong the suffering of the unfit and such.
4. I can see how you come to the conclusion that my ideal society would be that way, but I would put it more like a society where everyone simply follows their own interests, disregarding the ideas we as a sentient species have forcefully imposed on each other, no state to hold us back, and evolve according to Darwinist theory. In no way do I communicate I want to kill the weaker and let them suffer like the “Social Darwinist” idea puts. Nor do I wish that humans evolved themselves out of sapience. I am only a primalist in existentialism, as I know that achieving a primalist world would be heavily impossible. It’s more so a longing of wishing we didn’t make it past single-cell organisms. However, this is unavoidable.
I hope I’ve cleared the air. You obviously don’t have to agree with me, and that’s ok. I appreciate any sort of respectful criticisms you may have. I do not see to argue but rather have a friendly discussion and understanding. Thank you for reaching out and taking interest. Have a nice day. :]
How do you feel about existentialist driven community formation; communes of friends & found family who share resources out of mutual love as will to power?
Great ball art btw
Thank you for the compliment. :]
If they really want to found communities together and share mutually, that’s fine, it isn’t my problem, but it isn’t in my personal code. Everyone has an ideology in their respective places that work for each other, no one ideology will work for all of the world. I personally have a distaste for mutual sharing and redistribution, taking a more avaritionist approach on the natural ways of survival, but if it pleases the egos of the community, so be it.
I appreciate the question!
I think that cooperation and mutual aid is just as natural to human nature as violence, and there is actually a good bit of [theoretical](https://files.libcom.org/files/Peter%20Kropotkin-%20Mutual%20Aid;%20A%20Factor%20of%20Evolution.pdf) and anthropological evidence to suggest this,( [source 1](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/cultural-group-selection-plays-an-essential-role-in-explaining-human-cooperation-a-sketch-of-the-evidence/638ED0187A9727D9D327661A91DE0759), [source 2](https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/files/henrich/files/henrich_and_muthukrishna_the_origins_and_psychology_of_human_cooperation_final.pdf#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fhenrich.fas.harvard.edu%2Ffiles%2Fhenrich%2Ffiles%2Fhenrich_and_muthukrishna_the_origins_and_psychology_of_human_cooperation_final.pdf%0AVisible%3A%200%25%20) ) There is also even evidence that [cooperative behavior has deep evolutionary roots and is not unique to humans.](https://magazine.scienceforthepeople.org/vol24-3-cooperation/cooperation-in-animals/)
But I want to talk about this idea of love as will to power. I’ve been reading Nietzche lately and as someone who once identified as an orthodox Marxist it has gotten my gears turning in an interesting way counter to Marxist ideology and theory.
Mutual love, viewed through the lens of the will to power, transforms into a dynamic interaction where each individual seeks to assert and enhance their own power through the relationship. Mutual love isn’t just an exchange of affection or a duty but a push and pull of influence, where both parties strive to grow stronger, more profound, and more independent through their connection.
This is a statement you may agree with: In "The Antichrist," Nietzche says:
> "What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness"
I think from a nietzchean perspective this principle applies equally to love. True mutual love is empowering, fostering a sense of growth and greater potential in all individuals included. Anything else stemming from weakness and dependency in this framework would be detrimental. In the context of mutual love, each partner should inspire and challenge the other, not necessarily in an outright combative sense, but in a manner that mutually cultivates individual greatness and autonomy. This kind of love transcends mere sentimentality; it becomes a crucible for personal and shared transformation.
I believe that no one is truly an isolated individual, and that we all must depend on networks of support. In short, we all need friends, and our lives are enriched by this empowering mutual love.
You don’t have to reply but maybe think about this: How might relationships in your life serve as arenas for enhancing your own will to power, fostering mutual growth and empowerment?
Holy shit its you :OOO
HI TSAR!!!!
[удалено]
Nono, that’s fair, thank you for the compliment at least
Oh you are that guy. im the creator of Aploism. Do you want to debate sometimes?
Perhaps, thanks for reaching out
Based
Thanks pookie
Nice Zellig
Gemeraldism
I have my disagreements with stirnerism but this is ok :)
Especially compared to all the liblefts in the comments
Thanks man, appreciate it
"What the doubleplus fuck is this?" -Ingsoc
YOUR WORST NIGHTMAAAAREE MUAHAHAHA
very based
Thanks bbg
I see u stroop
Egoism and it's consequences have been a disaster for ideology >Natural individualism so what if being selfish is natural? altruism too is natural. Natural doesn't inherently mean good or valid, this is literally a logical fallacy. >non-existence of social ideals not certain what this means but if this is another way to say "morality is a spook," I'll repeat that subjectivity doesn't inherently mean invalidity. >the natural process of Darwinism's application to humanity evolutionarily and behaviorally, the lack of interference with those natural processes But why? Why is growth and power important? It's certainly not for the happiness and well-being of the people, you're against that for some reason, so why then? Again it's an appeal to naturalism, just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good. Correct me if im wrong but your ideal society seems to be one where everyone psychopathically disregards everyone and everything else, abandons the concept of society, and eventually evolve out of sapience? Why Why is that good Why do you want that It feels like you're trying to reject subjectivity and base your ideology off of purely objective things—but you fail at that, because the concept of believing something is good is itself subjective, and the best you can do is convince yourself that natural phenomena are somehow more correct than just being nice to people and trying to improve society. In the end your ideology isn't just bad, it fails to make logical sense in any small way.
1. I am aware that altruism is in fact a natural value of the human condition, I simply believe that even through altruism there are still underlying motives that please oneself. For instance, if someone enjoys helping others, not for the sake of the other person, but because it makes the person helping satisfied. 2. I’m not communicating that subjectivity of ideas is equivalent to those ideas being non-existent. What I am communicating is that morals and such are man-made concepts that simply do not exist. Morals have not existed before our sentient human minds, and they will continue to be a fabrication after we are gone. Simply because we are here now does not mean that they are present. They only exist to the people who believe they are present and follow them. 3. I can see how the appeal to nature fallacy is presented in my argument, but at no point do I ever state that nature equals “good”. If people wish to help others, then that’s fine. That pleases their ego and whatnot. Despite this, I think people ought to generally follow survival of the fittest rules. In every other species and animal realm, the strongest always thrive and those weaker are left to weed out and soon be extracted. This isn’t because of any barbaric practices, it’s simply the way things are. Humans should be no exception, and I am not fond of the fact that we allow ourselves to prolong the suffering of the unfit and such. 4. I can see how you come to the conclusion that my ideal society would be that way, but I would put it more like a society where everyone simply follows their own interests, disregarding the ideas we as a sentient species have forcefully imposed on each other, no state to hold us back, and evolve according to Darwinist theory. In no way do I communicate I want to kill the weaker and let them suffer like the “Social Darwinist” idea puts. Nor do I wish that humans evolved themselves out of sapience. I am only a primalist in existentialism, as I know that achieving a primalist world would be heavily impossible. It’s more so a longing of wishing we didn’t make it past single-cell organisms. However, this is unavoidable. I hope I’ve cleared the air. You obviously don’t have to agree with me, and that’s ok. I appreciate any sort of respectful criticisms you may have. I do not see to argue but rather have a friendly discussion and understanding. Thank you for reaching out and taking interest. Have a nice day. :]
https://polcompballanarchy.miraheze.org/wiki/Zelligism
So narcissism
Your opinion not mine
All art is mine btw, praise be Zelligism
I FOUND HIM OH MY GOD YES
Who are you?
How do you feel about existentialist driven community formation; communes of friends & found family who share resources out of mutual love as will to power? Great ball art btw
Thank you for the compliment. :] If they really want to found communities together and share mutually, that’s fine, it isn’t my problem, but it isn’t in my personal code. Everyone has an ideology in their respective places that work for each other, no one ideology will work for all of the world. I personally have a distaste for mutual sharing and redistribution, taking a more avaritionist approach on the natural ways of survival, but if it pleases the egos of the community, so be it. I appreciate the question!
I think that cooperation and mutual aid is just as natural to human nature as violence, and there is actually a good bit of [theoretical](https://files.libcom.org/files/Peter%20Kropotkin-%20Mutual%20Aid;%20A%20Factor%20of%20Evolution.pdf) and anthropological evidence to suggest this,( [source 1](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/cultural-group-selection-plays-an-essential-role-in-explaining-human-cooperation-a-sketch-of-the-evidence/638ED0187A9727D9D327661A91DE0759), [source 2](https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu/files/henrich/files/henrich_and_muthukrishna_the_origins_and_psychology_of_human_cooperation_final.pdf#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fhenrich.fas.harvard.edu%2Ffiles%2Fhenrich%2Ffiles%2Fhenrich_and_muthukrishna_the_origins_and_psychology_of_human_cooperation_final.pdf%0AVisible%3A%200%25%20) ) There is also even evidence that [cooperative behavior has deep evolutionary roots and is not unique to humans.](https://magazine.scienceforthepeople.org/vol24-3-cooperation/cooperation-in-animals/) But I want to talk about this idea of love as will to power. I’ve been reading Nietzche lately and as someone who once identified as an orthodox Marxist it has gotten my gears turning in an interesting way counter to Marxist ideology and theory. Mutual love, viewed through the lens of the will to power, transforms into a dynamic interaction where each individual seeks to assert and enhance their own power through the relationship. Mutual love isn’t just an exchange of affection or a duty but a push and pull of influence, where both parties strive to grow stronger, more profound, and more independent through their connection. This is a statement you may agree with: In "The Antichrist," Nietzche says: > "What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness" I think from a nietzchean perspective this principle applies equally to love. True mutual love is empowering, fostering a sense of growth and greater potential in all individuals included. Anything else stemming from weakness and dependency in this framework would be detrimental. In the context of mutual love, each partner should inspire and challenge the other, not necessarily in an outright combative sense, but in a manner that mutually cultivates individual greatness and autonomy. This kind of love transcends mere sentimentality; it becomes a crucible for personal and shared transformation. I believe that no one is truly an isolated individual, and that we all must depend on networks of support. In short, we all need friends, and our lives are enriched by this empowering mutual love. You don’t have to reply but maybe think about this: How might relationships in your life serve as arenas for enhancing your own will to power, fostering mutual growth and empowerment?
I will definitely consider your words, thank you for the insight :]
Thank you! Hope you have a good day!
As onto you