Why are people attatched to arbitrary things like race, gender, nationality, etc...

>race
spook
>sex
you can but he said gender which is also a spook
>nationality
spook

Stirnerism is a spook
>espouse total individual egoism
>as told to you by a published, economically-incentivized author
???????????

People who want to change their genes don't want to be themselves anyway so I don't understand your point.

>Just start with the greeks
delete yourself ok?

Attached: 9781452636337.jpg (400x430, 41K)

I’m not attached to any of these or anything really. Books for this feel?

Human, All Too Human

>Age of comparison. — The less men are bound by tradition, the greater is the fermentation of motivations within them, and the greater in consequence their outward restlessness, their mingling together with one another, the polyphony of their endeavours. Who is there who now still feels a strong compulsion to attach himself and his posterity to a particular place? Who is there who still feels any strong attachment at all? Just as in the arts all the genres are imitated side by side, so are all the stages and genres of morality, custom, culture. — Such an age acquires its significance through the fact that in it the various different philosophies of life, customs, cultures can be compared and experienced side by side; which in earlier ages, when, just as all artistic genres were attached to a particular place and time, so every culture still enjoyed only a localized domination, was not possible. Now an enhanced aesthetic sensibility will come to a definitive decision between all these forms offering themselves for comparison: most of them — namely all those rejected by this sensibility — it will allow to die out. There is likewise now taking place a selecting out among the forms and customs of higher morality whose objective can only be the elimination of the lower moralities. This is the age of comparison! It is the source of its pride — but, as is only reasonable, also of its suffering. Let us not be afraid of this suffering! Let us rather confront the task which the age sets us as boldly as we can: and then posterity will bless us for it — a posterity that will know itself to be as much beyond the self-enclosed original national cultures as it is beyond the culture of comparison, but will look back upon both species of culture as upon venerable antiquities.

"No!"

Didn't Foucault write about this? Anyone know what books would be good to read

Attached: Foucault-with-Hair.jpg (500x660, 93K)

CRINGE.

Because you can claim things and assert your intrinsic value without any effort on your part.

It's better to not be attached to those things. They are meaningless and are just used to justify oppression. I guess gender can be somewhat excluded from this.

>I guess gender can be somewhat excluded from this
Why?

because otherwise you may end up turning into a gross tranny, and we dont want that sort of thing

I'm not personally, and wish less people were. Such identifications, to my mind, can only stew future conflict. A world without them would be automatically better; a world with them can still be good, but also have the potential for problems.

The entire reason people say gender is because sex became a dirty word. No one is referring to your personality when they say gender.

Since some consider gender to be just sex, it can be argued it has some "objective ground" for the lack of the better word. There are two sexes but things like race or nationality are just made up.

What about culture? If a Japanese or Chinese person identifies with his culture is that a bad thing?

It's redundant.

>race
>gender
muh genes (gender is important to signal your reproductive role)
>nationality
muh tribe (also potentially muh genes)

Personally I don't think so. Culture reflects a way of life of certain people and is shaped by their environment. Nationality, while arbitrary isn't really "bad" in itself for me too. It's just used to justify things like wars which mostly are fought to make the rich richer and powerful more powerful.

Better to have a country full of reactionary nativists than to be turned into nondescript globalist sludge. Those places are so far gone, of course, that you couldn't even call it a lost cause.

Based Stirnerposter.

The Lies That Bind - Rethinking Identity, by Anthony Appiah. I've only just begun reading it, but thus far it seems to be most interesting. He argues that identities are ever-changing, over time and also depending on the social contextus.
amazon.com/Lies-That-Bind-Rethinking-Identity/dp/1631493833

How anybody with at least 90 iq obtain even an inkling of historical knowledge and still believe in nationality is beyond me. Race? It's pretty arbitrary but I can see where people have 'concerns', same with sex beyond being a biological male or female. But nationality? Lmao

You don't need to alter your genetic information. The vr machine will just make you look however you want.

>He critiques ideas by their authors
As is the common for people who can't grasp the former.

Literally anything about ethics

Now that you know it's all "meaning"less you can begin to choose what you want based on what kind of values you believe is important to follow

Maybe some hermeneutics a guy named Palmer has some great intros to heidegger schleiermacher and gadamer

The centrel premise of communicating egoism is flawed. You're not some kind of Ubermensch freed from the chains of reality if you're just espousing cool sounding ideas that someone else wrote out for you.
This is true of Stirner, Rand, even many of the armchair Nihilists who argued for suicide from in their ivory towers.

>believe in nationality
You can believe that national identity is something worth preserving without needing to believe that Germans are a different subspecies of humans from Poles or whatever

You can understand the differences in ethnic groups as distributed along geographical and geopolitical boundaries without espousing ridiculous supremacy. Nationality is Culture + Ethnic Group within a strict geopolitical boundary.

Of course that all becomes meaningless when you blow up the size of your given geopolitical boundary to something as big as, say, the U.S. or China or "The EU"

Except Rand blows Stirner and the nihilist ilk completely out of the water as can be observed in the sad joke of the "spook" concept vs the argumentative potency of the "anticoncept" concept.

I agree

Because all the things that you described are unifying elements, by embracing them an individual has granted themselves a larger context to their existence, and they become a part of something larger than themselves.

These things strongly affect who you are and how you perceive the world

if you are sub 130 iq probably

>awbithwawy

Attached: 1548387842362.png (671x519, 146K)

Ethno nationalism is literally cuckoldry.

Why are spooks bad again?

The "anticoncept" is a meme. All cognition is involves approximation, and most sociopolitical concepts can't be objectively grasped because they mean different things to different people.

>Why are people attatched to arbitrary things like race, gender, nationality, etc?
Those are some of the least arbitrary things there are, especially race and gender.

Having an identity is the prerequisite for functioning as a person.

do you understand what arbitrary means?

Do you?
>adjective
>subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion

You cannot decide to be another race or gender, it's what you're born and stuck with for life.

Are you legit retarded enough to say race doesn't exist? Europeans in general are vastly geneticly different from Africans. Not only different in blood but different in enviornments we evolved in.

Race doesn't exist. Physiology does.

You are just making random claims.
Race obviously exists and it baffles me that there are people who think otherwise. There is a reason European people have white skin, why African people have black skin, why nordic people have blue eyes, etc etc.
And it makes complete sense to group these people up into races, because a white person is a lot genetically closer to another white person than they are a black person.

race and gender do not exist

A white person shares features with another white person because of physiology, not race.

ignore the shitposters

Attached: c613150bd4a81ca5daa9fca94a7c51bcc16de729a8ff39797a16867c51f84994.jpg (250x352, 15K)

You're admitting race exists, y'know.

Okay? So you admit race exists you just don't like using the term race?

Stirner is worth reading on this stuff and does a good job illustrating why a lot of these types of concepts and identities are bullshit.

Still, it is useful for the general populace to believe in spooks though. I'm not personally racist or sexist or nationalist, but I like to live in a society that is very racist and nationalist because it tends to prevent multiculturalism, which causes a lot of crime and tension and instability and even more trash in the streets and more ugly obese people and illness and decay and such. Since I like living in a comfortable, clean and safe place, I endorse racism and nationalism. I also endorse sexism, since non-emancipated women are simply much less of a pain in the ass to deal with.

All these 'prejudices' are simply tools to be wielded to make your environment into a more pleasant place to live. They may be lies, but they are noble lies that keep things comfy. So I mischievously egg on the proles in their hate, because it ultimately leads to my self-enjoyment.

Attached: ms-13.jpg (260x276, 24K)

People attract themselves to those like them and form an identity around not being like the people around who are different.

That's basically nationality.

>White people only think they're white people. But white people are not white people.

Anyway, I'm not too fixated on this white/black/yellow categorization. It's way too broad and only good for Amerimutts.
The rest of the world knows it's more nuanced than that.
But still, white/black/yellow isn't completely useless either.

Race is a social construct. Physiology has roots in scientific evidence.

Sure I'll conceed that race is sort of a social construct, but you must admit it is useful to acknowledge race as it helps us classify people who are genetically close to us and suitable to breed/live with.

I can just go outside and do that.

Wendy Brown, 'States of Injury' and 'Regulating aversion: tolerance in the age of empire'

Glassmann, Slower Than a Massacre: The Multiple Sources of Racial Thought in Colonial Africa

Cultural concepts of race exist, but it's doubtful that race is a meaningful biological distinction. It's a pretty interesting subject that has a lot of epistemology tied to it. But at least from what I can tell the cultural aspect of race is not tied to genetics but of to physical characteristics. Anyway, it really depends on what you define as real.

Maybe, but studies have shown that in general, the genetic variance between two of the same race are the same between two people of a different race. It's not a settled issue by no means though.

this post hilariously demonstrates the humanities fag trying to argue that race isn't real

Different guy here. Race is real, but it's still a social construct. Race exists for the same reason that nations exist-- Some individuals decided to draw a boundary somewhere. It's got nothing to do with biology.

>It's got nothing to do with biology.
It has everything to do with biology. Why do people group Nords and Swedes together to the exclusion of Slavs? Genetics. Why do slavs get grouped into the European cluster but Chinese or Africans don't? Genetics

The group size can be sized up or down, but you can never put the japanese into the the European section. The only group that includes both Japanese and Europeans is the Eurasian group