/lit/ - Literature

>>5030126
There are numerous similarities between Max Stirner's philosophy and Buddhism: the idea that the Self is a construct resulting from "backward-thinking" (reflecting, re-presenting) on "our" part, for one example. Stirner observed that what one "is" is not really what one "is", but is merely a representation of what one "is", and a very limited -- and more importantly, a LIMITING -- one at that. The Buddha calls this "Ego-clinging", and is not only illusory but is constraining. As Nagarjuna observed, our Egos are real AND illusory -- we "are" here, but we "are not". This is why many who understand what Stirner was getting at prefer the term "the Unique" to "the Ego". Stirner did NOT believe in a true, independent Ego, as if it were some sort of spirit within us. He would have said that to believe in an individual Ego that exists on its own merit would be "religious thinking", something he was OBVIOUSLY opposed to. He says that concepts are mere "spooks", and it is obvious that "Egos" are mere spooks that owe more to the tradition of "ghosts" and "spirits" and "souls" than to anything else. But what he DOES mean by Ego is that unnameable, unique SOMETHING that is the locus of experience (what often people refer to as the "mind", but ... that's just another concept, another spook, outside of the realm of the REAL.)
Just as in Buddhism and Taoism, Max Stirner was critical of dualistic thinking -- his philosophy is decidedly non-dualistic, just as Buddhism and Taoism is. He understood that the self is conditioned by all that is observed EACH MOMENT and is therefore ALWAYS in flux. The Buddhists would call this "impermanence" -- each moment our "self" (which is merely an illusion, a construct, a "spook" to use Stirner's term) dies and is reborn the moment we think of it again, but it is always different, just as every moment is different from the previous moment. Stirner underlined this fact by saying that who he was last moment he would no longer be the next moment, and "he" had no loyalty to his "past selves".
"The name is not the thing named." Buddhism also asks us to get beyond "mere concepts", "mere words", as, obviously, Stirner did. And every time I say "I am (such and such)", I am merely conceptualizing myself, not really presenting myself. I can't present what comes before conceptualization, all I can do is present the re-presentation, which is only a copy of the original, NOT the original. Time and space conditions us all -- again, the person I am right now will NOT be the same person I am the next moment, but then again -- it will be, in a manner.
This moment to moment living, this being born, dying, and being "reincarnated" each moment echoes, obviously, in Buddhism and Taosim, albeit in a more "religious" manner more often than not (except in the more philosophical traditions of Buddhism and Taoism).
-source: some guy on yahoo