In a decadent society, does non-participation become a virtue?

Doesn't stirner's philosophy basically rest on the biggest spook of all time, the ego?

no, stirner has a pretty zenlike idea of the self

*fart* lol

no

Care to explain?

Damn...

>not realizing that non-participation contributes to the decline, not elevation, of a society.

not really but here are some quotes:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Max_Stirner#The_Self

it's worth it to read the actual book though

Stirner is cancer because you autists take him too seriously

Yes, considering it would occur in a small number of individuals. Balance always finds itself, so a decadent (I'm assuming this has a 'hedonistic' connotation) society would be overly self indulgent to the point where those self aware enough to abstain would typically be perceived and likely perceive themselves as people of virtue.

i like to believe so, because I like to consider myself somewhat virtuous

>Non-participation
>Not accelerationism

All that remains is to do all that you can to make the shit hit the fan.

More decadence, more depravity, let it all crash.

I don't think so. Virtue lies in advancing the narrative somehow. Even if you criticize, you're participating

Conscious nonparticipation makes you a bystander

>Implying I'm not 100% okay with that

"If you're not with me, you're against me"-morality has to be the most plebeian.

>As though the only two choices are to participate or not to participate. >As though doing something different weren't an option too.

who cares?

at some point human brains will cease to exist and the idea of decadence won't even matter any more because there will be nothing to comprehend it

across a long enough timescale nothing matters at all

Do you happen to be dependent on others? Perhaps socialized healthcare or Medicare? You'd be a fool to estrange to population you depend on without first proving self a sufficiency by living alone in the woods first.

Btw I stated a half-laced trolley problem joke and it went over your head

>Do you happen to be dependent on others?

No. I have only voluntary agreements amid my union of fellow egoists, which I can do without at any time; but which I choose to maintain, for the benefit of me.

Hence I do not depend on others, but nonetheless benefit from them.

>my union of fellow egoists

*union of fellow virgins

>
ego is a spook, so, no.

>implying the collective wisdom of generations won't be uploaded to one central AI that outlasts the mushy flesh of mankind.
>implying that this supreme being will not become the sole warden of the earth and the guardian of mankind's legacy through its eternal vigil

Can you make your own clothes? Hunt your own food? Build your own shelter? Defend your own family? If you have not done any of the things above, you are dependent upon the faceless mass. Ego grips you by your gonads yet you are far too delusional to admit that you are involuntarily involved with the faceless mass.

No it means you're a little NEET beta bitch boy.

>People on lit still dont know what a spook is an isnt.

Just a tip the term they translate as ego actually means the unique one

>Really makes you think...
>...that it's cheap bait

I believe you have that backwards. They are "cancer" because they only take him as a lolmeme.

>virtue

thats sounds like a cheap justification for the excluded ones who still want to be in but cant.

stop trying to justify your situation and instead try to understand it. the reward will be not needing to justify your 'exclusion', cause it will stop seeming like one, it will stop being a negative thing and will actually become the right way to be. without effort.

If you weren't then the only virtue possible is rejection of that which is poison to you.

And then the struggle to destroy or change it in one's own self-interest.

The man who is ejected from society has been given the gift of severance.

He may return and destroy that which made him malformed.

No, because some level of participation is fundamentally human. Virtue is born from the intent with which you form this participation. Note that virtue is more about a general mode of doing things, rather than evaluating each decision individually. So it is possible to live a relatively virtuous life, while still having aspects of your life be "wrong" or broadly "unethical".
It can easily be argued, that it is idiotic to place all responsibility of every ethical problem of the society you live in on each individual. Much like it is idiotic to place responsibility for every job on every individual. And it is equally unreasonable to assume that every individual can possibly act in a way that isn't somehow connected to unethical situations.
It isn't inherently unethical to benefit from the research of Nazi-doctors. By the same logic it isn't inherently unethical to benefit from the crimes your government committed (secretly).
What is important is what you do with the cards you have been given and with what intent you do it.

If a society has deteriorated to the point where non-participation is "Virtuous" (okay, I admit it, I have no idea what this word means to you people, I suspect it's just a noise you make that means something like "Good" but in a more generalized sense" then it would be better to participate in it's destruction than to simply ignore it.

Non-participation is for DEGENERATES. You've got one life to live, and if you think society is """"le decadent"""", because of your inability to break away from your neckbeard edgelord phase, then you lack virtue.

spok

Dont speak to me or my wife's son ever again. Go twiddle your thumbs in Tibet or something

Basically this. Decadence is the symptom of non-participation

You're going to have to qualify what you mean by "Degenerate" "Decadent" and "Virtue".

Because in the context we're given your sentence is largely nonsense.

None of you are "philosophers".

Everybody in this thread is an idiot.

This includes me, but I, like Socrates at least know that I know nothing.

the context is: fucc u

Helios a shit

New Dark Age every time

This nigga need a hug.

Degenerate: more recent colloquial usage that roughly means people that are ruining things, or act against one's morals.

Decadent: normal definition and/or way it was used by OP

Virtue: things that are good that people do

haha fagger

Okay, now qualify what you mean by "Ruining things" how and what?

Then qualify what you mean by "Good".

Also, you'll have to define "Decadent" for OP, because he wasn't nice enough to do that for us, "Normal" in this context is a non-helpful word for the purposes of determining what precisely is meant.

it means your a loser

Kek, that's not a cogent answer.
I guess you haven't thought this out.
Socratic Reasoning strikes again.

Ruining things = making thing worse. Youre at a lever and a train is coming. You can choose to not do anything and let a person tied to the track die because "oh i dont want to get involved", or pull the lever and it changes trajectory onto a free track.

Good = whatever I say, come on now Socrates

Decadent = decay, but in a not-putting-raw-meat-in-the-fridge way

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

John Donne

Worse is comparative badness, which is the antonym of good.

If the good is personally contingent then so is the bad.

When you say by decadent you mean "decay" but not in the actual physical sense, you are not giving us a definition, but a very limited "Non-definition".

Non-definitions can be helpful in establishing what is meant, but only if they are significantly more extensive than that.

The raw meat thing was metaphor usage rather than in the physically scientific way. Everything rots and dies, but if there is no interest in prolonging that fact, then it would be irrational to not suicide

Why didn't Jordan shoot the horse fucker?

On a practical level I can accept that a broken thing no longer has any use, but when can we measure that a society is so broken that the benefits it ensures are less useful than would be breaking out from under it's yoke?

And even harder to determine when it is so for most or all of the members thereof.

Many times we are limited to our own narrow perspectives.

Agreed about the limits of the perspective. But if there were ways to reconcile many different things ranging from cost-benefit analysis to public opinion to expert opinion to etc, then we could probably answer your first question

Sounds like we're running into discussing the Teleology of Dissent.

Which I'd characterize as being one of the most "up in the air" subjects about.

Highly personal reasons are often present in anecdotal explanations for dissent, which renders the entire field a sort of subjective quagmire.

only if it comes naturally, without any feelings of 'missing out on something' and you do not feel superior because of it

>not realizing that non-participation contributes to the decline, not elevation, of a society.

really

>lad called Benedict, late Roman empire
>goes to Rome to study
>everyone around him is degenerate
>decides to drop out and live in a cave
>later founds Western Monasticism, which literally saved western civilisation after the collapse of the Roman empire

think again, toots

That isn't what he said.