entropyanndroid Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Greetings. I've long been a listener of Molyneux's shows, but have handily avoided posting on these boards until now. As is the case with many of you, I am an avid fan of philosophy, psychology and economics. I have a strong grounding in the Austrian School and related traditions, as well as having read most of the better English translations of Friedrich Nietzsche's works. Most recently, I read and enjoyed the work of Max Stirner, which prompted me to eschew the opinions Schopenhauer, Mises and Rothbard had of the much maligned G.W.F. Hegel and read some of his work for myself. I am an anarchist, as most here are, as well as an atheist. I find such self descriptions rather impractical, however, as they merely describe those concepts which I have negated for myself. More important is what one affirms, and for me that would be a form of Egoism. I enjoy philosophical discourse, though beyond that I am also a fan of video-games, some literature, and various scientific subjects.
dsayers Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Welcome! Just out of curiosity, have you come to these conclusions on your own, or did you grow up in a rational, caring household? I share your aversion to labels and also those labels in particular for stating one thing a person does NOT accept. I find them particularly damaging because their negative denotation suggests that statism and theism are the origin/norm and anarchy and atheism is the deviation.
entropyanndroid Posted March 25, 2014 Author Posted March 25, 2014 I mostly came to my conclusions on my own, though I can't say I didn't have my influences. Some of Molyneux's videos certainly informed my opinions, as did my reading of various works, expressly philosophical and not. My own childhood household was better than most, though still touched with the same psychosis that has tinged the larger society since the beginning. I don't mind labels, I simply choose to give them no or little power over me. As far as anarchism and atheism, while they do indeed affirm the normality of the psychoses they seek to negate, they more connote little more than this negation. This is not to say that negation is of no value; far from it, as the primary order of business in examining any phenomenon is to negate it, then observe what emerges seemingly ex nihlio. Atheism and anarchism can only ever be popularized as components of a positive ideology (such as Agorism), then, as what matters is less the negation but what emerges from it.
Recommended Posts