/lit/ - Literature

>>10287734
better question: is there someone who posts about stirner who actually read him?

>>10287734
>Is there someone who has refuted Max Stirner
Yes, Max Stirner.
His idea of "spooks" is simply another spook he has to free himself from, in order to reach total euphoria, lest he become the currency of a fixed idea.

>>10287741
>he is totally not an egoist at all, he is actually the opposite!

>>10287759
>you thought you was smart but I will object your objection, like haha

>>10287734
Living around diversity

>>10287734
Yes, the rejection of society as a whole and the fact that he has faded into history shows that his unpopular philosophy is not one that can be used for the foundations of any kind of government or serious mindset.

His rejection of pretty much anything that is outside of himself in the physical world allows for no room for things like trust, honor, or even kindness. Even though he claims humans tends towards kindness regardless.
In reality his philosophy of egoism would Lead to anarchy and would quickly destroyed by any Nation that didn't believe in anarchy.
His ideals require defenders of which there would be none because to defend his ideas is to go against the philosophy at its core. You are defending an abstraction an idea. Hence his philosophy is kind of self defeating. It could only apply to individuals who exist within a society, like a secret cult but could never be anything more than a niche.
Which is why I believe it's gone through cycles of obscurity to niche culture edginess.
It's a pipe dream, but he has good points but seems to shoot those points down in his writing down in his book.
Nothing matters except getting yours not even this philosophy.


I give his philosophy 4 popcorn shakes out of 5. If everything he did was intentional he's a genius or a master troll. If not, well it was a good try but you created something that to defend it would be to destroy it.

>>10287741

Yes

>>10288874
who r u
i've seen the orange marker before

>>10288886

If you're French and are interested in the online "scene". You know me.

>>10287772
What a vibrant culture

>>10288914
It's technically a type of dance and if you look it up it's got a sub cultural in itself.

>>10288862
Pretty much this,
You can't defend what isn't supposed to be defended

>>10287734
It's easy to refute stirner because the self is not a coherent substance

>>10287734
Marx tried in The German Ideology, but he failed spectacularly in a series of non-arguments one after another. Nothing but ad hominems and straw men arguments. It's a shame that Marxists have chosen to read Marx's take on Max Stirner from The German Ideology and felt that they were satisfied with the approach instead of coming to their own conclusions. Why does Marxism attract hivemind proponents?

>>10288923
>It's technically a type of dance
That makes it about 100 times funnier because it actually is a part of their culture

>>10289001
You can straw man this all you want. However to assume the minority is the whole, is a flaw in both logic and in life.

Basically, yea you can make this about black people, but most black people don't like being beaten believe it or not. So this isn't a big thing, it's just a thing.
Primarily in thug culture.

>>10288862
Read the book. It's so obvious that you haven't. Your whole post conflates voluntary egoism with ethical egoism.

>>10288989
you forget to mention that Marx's failure goes on FOR HUNDREDS OF PAGES

>>10289200
I'll re read it this Christmas.
And I guarantee you it's self defeating.

>>10287734
The very best critique of Stirner I've seen is pic(s) related. It looks a little bit ad-hom, but the actual point is otherwise well made. 1/2

>>10289285
Stirner's philosophy is highly defensible because, well, it isn't very much at all. More often than not it's just a way to do the same thing while thinking about it in a different way.

>>10289285
>>10289288
-and to add to this, similar criticisms apply to a lot of ideas which are similar (inferior) to his

>>10289285
>>10289288
fuck off back to l.eddit with these unfunny comics

>>10289288
>More often than not it's just a way to do the same thing while thinking about it in a different way.
Yeah that's why he wholesale rejected all kinds of philosophy involving government, politics, religion, morality, etc. Because he wasn't actually concerned with doing anything different, he just did it for the lulz.

>>10289285
>The very best critique of Stirner I've seen is pic(s
You can't be serious

>>10289285
how are those comics a refutation?

"Stirnerism doesn't work because milk buying customers find Max's rants too convoluted when they step into the door"
?

I don't think Stirnerism practical because to "free yourself from spooks", you'd have to be able to see yourself rather objectively from the outside and stay unspooked.
But that pic doesn't make sense to me. There's no good reason that guy would just buy his milk in that panel and it worked out.

But I appreciate that they used sort of actual history and I like the drawings.

>>10289285
>>10289288
Existentialist Comics is the most vacuous, pedestrian, repetitive, cliche, unfunny, forced, shittily drawn, facile, self-congratulatory bullshit even inflicted upon the philosophical community. Peers in my philosophy grad program are always bringing it up, why? some pathetic desire for acknowledgment or relevance? ugh!

>>10289699
It's an okay comic. There's no need to be this butthurt, just because none of your fellow students talk to you.

>>10289288
(I thought it was pretty funny. Especially the sign.)

>>10289170
>However to assume the minority is the whole, is a flaw in both logic and in life.
Exactly.

>>10289844
There's no arguing with someone who likes fake news.

>>10287734
the state is dead! i feel sorry for anyone that hasn't realized that arguing for any political or ethical position other than deontological anarcho-capitalism informed by the Rothbardian non-aggression principle is logically incoherent.

>>10289910
That's a very sophisticated way to say you suck cock Anon.
But good on ya mate. It's 2017 you can have a bf if you want to.

>>10289285
>>10289288
>stirner was a bad businessman so this somehow refutes his philosophy

>>10289935
>implying homosexuals won't be physically removed

>>10289316
>>10289505
>>10289545
Make a better point about his beliefs that doesn't boil down to "but I don't like that," anons

>>10289651
>>10289937
I said critique, not refutation. The reason why a lot of what Stirner says is easy to defend is because there isn't a large amount to actually be defended, that's all. It isn't the actual fact that he was a bad businessman that proves anything, but it illustrates it quite clearly: for all of Stirner's wit, he did nothing but invent a way to sell the same milk with a slightly less appealing looking sign. The business he failed in boomed immediately after he left, when christians started doing it. He writes this loud book about how he'll dance on germany's corpse, then proceeded to live his life the same way other germans do while under a different and unfortunately less-popular label. The problem with philosophies that tie into anarchism this way is that they tend to skip over the fact that, ""meta-politically"", everything already "is" anarchism since state law isn't actually an absolute "law" the same way we would say something like a natural law is, which means that the philosophy can fit in within social norms entirely in spite of the fact that it was written to challenge them (or worse: fit in enough for the author to fit it in themselves, but not his customers to understand).

>>10289935
"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order"

>>10289948

>le fascist but totally a libertarian meme

>>10289285
>>10289288
>stirner
>anarchist
didn't even read him, dropped

>>10289956
Are you saying there's nothing new in the book? I don't get it.

>>10289962
The homolust in this paragraph is pathetic.
It's so obvious that he's gay but just putting up a very try hard front to pretend he's not gay.

>>10289977
t. nature-worshiping commie

>>10289966
t. someone who didn't even read him. Obviously it's hard to apply any label to Stirner, but the same goes for "egoist" even when you put him alongside other egoists like rand, who are entirely different.

>>10289972
The joke is that if Stirner were following his philosophy in full, he probably would have just pretended he was a christian.

>>10290028
>t. someone who didn't even read him. Obviously it's hard to apply any label to Stirner, but the same goes for "egoist" even when you put him alongside other egoists like rand, who are entirely different.
So you agree with me that the label is nonsense but claim I didn't read him?

>>10289285
>>10289288
Is that supposed to be Bauer?

Didn't Marx and Engels like devote part of a whole book debunking Stirner?

>>10290069
>So you agree with me that the label is nonsense but claim I didn't read him?
It's no better or worse than the label "egoist" is.

>>10289868
>Bell Curve is fake news
Nobody has mounted any respectable response to it. Read the afterword for countless easy refutations by Murray.

>>10290089
I'm not sure. Usually they actually name each person on the webpage.

>>10290124
I would say it is a bit worse, but not by a lot.

>>10290127
How did he acquire this data? Were the individuals chosen at random or was it at a voluntary basis?

And were the individuals of a similar cultural background or was it across the board?

I can imagine more black people have lower IQs than white people only because dipshit thug culture is more prevalent along the black population, but I have never seen any valid proof that blacks are innately stupider than whites.

If you took a black baby and a white baby and put the black kid in an upper-middle class environment, I really doubt that the black baby would grow up and start saying sheeit and twerk while doing drivebys.

Similarily if you put whitey baby in a ghetto I think it's more likely he's gonna become a dipshit gangbanger than a successful lawyer or accountant or whatever the hell white people do for a living.

>>10288862
He was explicitly against "the government," the idea of the state, as distasteful and restrictive. He only rejected prison society, and found the basis of love, kindness, and trust in the union of egoists. The unique is an anti-ideal, it is an intentionally void conception.

Oh, but you didn't read it, all you can do is claim to have read it while "guaranteeing" that the philosophy is self defeating, but offering no explanation as to why this is the case. At least Szeliga explained why the unique would fail as a concept, although it isn't, so this can't really be classed as a refutation (read Stirner's Critics).

As to "honor," fuck it. Faith at least is something that can be consciously egoistic. I have faith that the woman I love also loves me, and though I may have some objective confirmation of this, I will never know with certainty that this is the case, and whether it will continue to be. "Honor" is nothing but a confused dignity that takes its worth from the mob's praise.

>>10289910
Argumentation Ethics is the most autistic nonsense ever conceived.
>You have to abide by the NAP in order to argue
>But what if I just take what I want without your consent?
>THEN I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU FOR VIOLATING THE COVENANT YOU DIRTY DEMOCRATIC COMMUNIST REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>10290221
>pic
this shit makes me want to actually learn arabic

>>10287734
>>10287772
Wtf is wrong with these people?

>>10287734
Unironically the only thing you need to say to dismiss Stirner is "I don't care" because he systematically avoids making truth claims and instead prefers assertions and declarative statements. He is neither negating or positing anything, the most you can find is a description of how an ego relates to abstractions. If a Stirnerite is calling you "spooked" it literally means "you are holding some concept above your ego" to which the appropriate response is "okay".

You don't need to "refute" value systems lol.

Just pick another one.

>>10290254
Not above your ego, if you mean it in the Freudian way, but above you. Why would you want to do this? It's torturous. Not saying there's anything "wrong" about it, I suppose if you're an intellectual masochist you would enjoy that sort of thing.

>>10290221
my autism prevents me from seeing anything wrong with that

>>10290363
The problem is that it assumes argument is a necessary procedure in the determination of property, which is exactly what it tries to prove. In other words, the act of engaging in argument would have to be empirically necessary for the NAP to have universal validity. His system applies only to argument itself, and this renders it fairly useless, because who would ascribe logical validity to an argument that consisted solely of threats and violence? He only describes a formal logical known as argumentum ad baculum

>>10290400
*formal logical fallacy

>>10290400
but this is true for any society, no? there is a social compact. you are forced to abide by that, and if you fail to, you will be either be ridiculed or forcibly removed

>>10290487
What is true, that arguing from force is a fallacy? Yes. Does this mean I can't get away with stealing? No.

>>10290191
Culture is not a coincidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

>>10290501
>What is true, that arguing from force is a fallacy?
oh no i mean that the threat of force is universal.

here is the formation of the fallacy:
If x accepts "the NAP" as true, then "theft is punishable by removal"
x acts to prevent "theft is punishable by removal" and succeeds, so "theft is punishable by removal" is not true.
Therefore, "the NAP" is not true.

is this correct?

>>10289285
>>10289288
I like him but that was no serious critique

>stirnerites believe others owe them a counter-argument

IRONIC

>>10290217
>I have faith that the woman I love also loves me,
You see that's where you're wrong kiddo.

Also if you really want me to write a fucking essay on the shit I can.

Just not today or tomorrow as I have other philosophy papers to write.

Striners views are just side dishes to the main giants like mill, Kant, Aristotle, Hobbes ect.

>>10290614
What is wrong in that statement?

>>10287734
Marx in German Ideology, he dedicates an entire chapter on shitting on Stirner.

>>10290524
Don't bother with faggots. He's probably hell bent on saving the "white race" from Extinction.
He probably got bullied by a minority or lost his job to one and rather than taking a look at himself wants to blame an externality.
Good luck in life friend.... You're going to need it.

>>10290620
Faith is belief in something without substantial evidence.
But I'd rather just say that women don't know what love is.

>>10290547
Well, that's not a fallacy. You're saying
If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

That's deductively valid form. Am I misunderstanding your subjects and predicates?

>>10290634
That's precisely what I'm saying. You can't have objective (substantial) evidence that the woman who claims to love you does, because you are not her, and love is an internal experience. Regardless of how strongly you believe in her sincerity, there isn't any way to know that she is sincere. There could always be an ulterior motive, even if it's just self aggrandizement.

That's not to say you can't extrapolate based on what you feel in relation to how you look when you feel it, and assess her potential feelings on that basis, but you will only ever have one component of the two, i.e. her appearance. This is why it requires at least a little faith

>>10290628

>>10290644
no, i'm just showing that this fallacy is built into any social compact--the threat of force is always implied

If x accepts "the law" as true, then "theft is punishable by prison"
x acts to prevent "theft is punishable by prison" and succeeds, so "theft is punishable by prison" is not true.
Therefore, "the law" is not true.

>>10290707
This argument form is also valid, provided you mean "true" in a logical sense. I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

>>10290524
Both of your studies have been refuted, the Minnesota one in the exact same article and the Stanford marshmallow experiment in this video where Mischel explains that delayed gratification is a learned process:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b3SWsjWzdA

but whatever, no skin off my back. honestly I feel worse for you if you do believe in all this racist shit: it's only a fact that white people are having far less children than black people. considering the view you have on that race, it must be hell on earth for you to have to deal with the absolute staggering amount of black people that will be around within the next 30 years.

>>10290716
A fallacious logical argument based on argumentum ad baculum generally proceeds as follows:

If x accepts P as true, then Q.
x acts to prevent Q and succeeds, so Q is not true.
Therefore, P is not true.

There is no way to construct a social compact without this fallacy, right?

>>10290770
Here the problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, because "x accepts P" and "P" are not equivalent. From "If x accepts P as true, then Q" and "not Q," what follows is "x falsely accepted P," not "not P." It ends up showing that neither P nor Q apply to x.

>>10290793
but then why are these true?
>>10290547
>>10290707

>>10290741
>I feel worse for you if you do believe in all this racist shit: it's only a fact that white people are having far less children than black people. considering the view you have on that race, it must be hell on earth for you to have to deal with the absolute staggering amount of black people that will be around within the next 30 years.
Real spooky. Not him but I grew up in Louisiana and I have experienced enough explicitly black cultural bullshit, no amount of studies on either side will change my mind. Call it culture, call it IQ, call it socio-economics. I don't care, if you are around black communities you know what it is. Put the relativist progressives around black neighborhoods, there is a reason "racism" is directly correlated with proximity to black populations, all these fools in Portland, where I have also lived (around Asians, but they don't violently attack and verbal abuse strangers), bend over backwards to absolve black people and culture, fucking idiots have never lived around it. I would not be surprised if the same applied to you

>>10290741
Where? There is no refutation in the Minnesota article, and your video does not address the racial differences noted in the original study.

>>10290856
I misinterpreted your intial subject, I took "if x accepts the NAP as true" as a whole subject and "then theft is punishable by removal" as a whole predicate, rather than as you meant the former, as a subject (x) and a predicate (accepts the NAP as true).

>>10287734
why are those subhumans loose?

>>10290869
that's fine, I should have used ( ) instead of " ". the point however, is that you can plug any social compact into the formula, so your argument is actually against society rather than against Hoppe?

>>10290628
>He probably got bullied by a minority or lost his job to one and rather than taking a look at himself wants to blame an externality.
Yeah he should really look into himself to stop random harassment and affirmative action quotas... what the fuck are you on about, growing up I've been beaten up and harassed specifically for being white, how should I take a look at myself for that? Maybe move away from these savages? Well that did work

>>10290897
Hoppe falls victim to the same error as anyone who attempts to describe a general morality. But to say it's only against "society" is still too narrow, and vague. I have no problem with society in the specific sense, that is, I enjoy the company of others. I find that the arguments used to justify certain behavior on the basis that "it's good for society, the nation, all people," etc. are usually lacking because they cover up the ulterior egoistic motive. That doesn't mean egoistic motivation is "bad," it's simply that I don't buy into generality-slinging chicanery.

In case the following weren't clear already: I don't believe in abstract self, at least, not as an "essence." Any argument based upon the "I" as a principle is subject to the same problem as an argument based on "society" as a principle.

>>10290912
>random harassment
That's unavoidable in low income areas.
I've been harassed by whites and even treated as lesser by them at work and at my university.
I don't think all white people are like that though, just Uber conservatives.
I've also had to deal with blacks, who have done similar. Everyone's an asshole.
Moving away from poor neighborhoods helps.
A lot.....
>affirmative action
Is legal in a lot of red States.
California has a ban on it because it's racist.
It makes sense that racist think a racist law is good.


You speak with a lot of anger in your voice. Just breath and try to take steps to better yourself.

>>10291099
You have to go back, Paco.

>>10290947
but with Hoppe, there is no forced integration. you could live in your own Daoist collective and no one would impose their morality on you other than by war or violence or physical removal. that's why you hire a private army. there are no black coops, only black markets--forces of nature. you could still choose to opt into another social compact at any time. your world requires genetic engineering. or some advanced force, and puts far too much faith in science and in humanity.

>Hoppe falls victim to the same error as anyone who attempts to describe a general morality.
or maybe it's just your own slave morality

>>10291149
Good luck with that.

>>10289956
Something you might find interesting he made the first and most used translation of Wealth of Nations

Stirner was an individualist

Sometimes the collective knows whats better for you than the individual

>>10291209

>>10287734
Stirner said personal desire is only thing worth pursuing, right?
I desire to live in a world with higher purposes, for myself and others and people as a whole
I would desire this even if it went against what everyone else wants or appreciates or thinks is right, I do desire this even as a person of less faith than I used to be, I do desire this even as I've come to recognize the importance of freedom for every person
unless you can tell me that desire is wrong somehow, or cop out and assume that it can't be an internal desire and has to be a spook despite my statement and belief that it isn't, then I do believe I've just circumvented his stance and rendered it moot in my case

>>10290363
damn it, Neil
I want to like him but he so much blisteringly obvious or blatantly political stuff on the Internet on a constant basis I can't help but be annoyed
I can't really stay mad at him though, I think he legitimately has autism or OCD or something

>>10290295
>Not above your ego, if you mean it in the Freudian way, but above you. Why would you want to do this? It's torturous.
it's enjoyable
sometimes it's torturous instead, yes, sometimes it's enjoyable and torturous, and sometimes it's just enjoyable
have you not ever felt satisfaction at meeting expectations, for example?

>>10290912
as hard as it is, you can't take your own experience as the only one, you shouldn't even assume it's the average
I went to a black high school as a scrawny pale nerdy white kid, and I got called names a few times, I got pushed roughly twice in crowds
that's about it*, it wasn't much different from the treatment I got in other schools that had a white majority-- I felt unsafe, but no one ever beat me up or stabbed me or anything like that
and no, I'm not saying my experience is the average either, just that there are different experiences to be had
* one time when I had a broken leg I had my crutches stolen, but I never found out who did it, and a lot of people thought I was faking it because they put screws in my leg so I didn't have a cast-- kids are dumb

>>10290862
>there is a reason "racism" is directly correlated with proximity to black populations
Literally not true btw. It's correlated with homogeneous white areas.

>>10287759
Read ''Stirners Critics.''

>>10287734
On what basis? The idea of an union of egoists? His nominalism? His ethics? His view of history?

>>10288862
>Yes, the rejection of society as a whole and the fact that he has faded into history shows that his unpopular philosophy is not one that can be used for the foundations of any kind of government or serious mindset.

Stirner never posited that his ideas *ought* to lead to a form of social organization. Except perhaps his idea about an union of egoists.

There are many philosophers that have were either not popular or influential in their time, but gained influence later on. And Stirner did have somewhat of an influence. On Marx and Engels, Nietzsche, Evola...
But regardless. The popularity of the philosopher, is not a point of refutation, rather their ideas should be the focus of this.

As for your critique of his ideas. I can see that you have seemingly not read any of his works.

>His rejection of pretty much anything that is outside of himself in the physical world allows for no room for things like trust, honor, or even kindness. Even though he claims humans tends towards kindness regardless.

Where precisely does Stirner ever state that people tend towards kindness? And again, his ideas are not a social plan of how to run a state, for the most part. Again, the only exception is his idea about the union of egoists. Stirner posits that everyone is already an egoist, but a ''unconscious egoist.'' His position on this is that these people just funnel their egoism into these fixed abstractions, without understanding their true relation to themselves.

>>10290741
>considering the view you have on that race, it must be hell on earth for you to have to deal with the absolute staggering amount of black people that will be around within the next 30 years.

Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not

>>10290741
How do you think they will feel once they realize there's nobody left to keep the lights on? The current trend is no benefit to anyone involved.

>>10287833
how mad are you he spat on your god?

>>10291424
>Where precisely does Stirner ever state that people tend towards kindness?
When he goes on that rant about how people tend towards order and how society itself is proof of true human nature.
I think he was making the point that even though society wants us to think that where all savages without it, we created society.
It's the first few chapters or parts of the ego and his own.

>>10291330
You sure told me. Pat your self on the back for saving the white race one meme at a time.

>>10287734
>refuted
What can be rejected does not need to be refuted. Isn't this how you deal with morals? Well, therefore, it is moral to reject you and muh stirner.

>>10291789
He was providing an example for spontaneous order out of self interest. His critique, though, is that that order is filtered through an illusions. Spooks etc... I do not recall any notions of moral extrapolation.

>>10287734
Psychological, ethical and rational egoism are all refuted, if by refuted you mean there are arguments that would convince a reasonable person that those positions are wrong.
Also, moral realism is a refutation of egoism, because egoism needs moral anti-realism to be true.

>>10292087
You're no explaining or refuting anything. Ipse dixit. Perhaps elaborate?

>>10292275
Elaborate on what? Of course I'm not refuting anything, I can't comprehensively refute all of them on here, I can at best give sketches for why they're wrong.
Psychological egoism is a bunch of unfalsifiable statements that are supported by little to no evidence. There are plenty of behaviors that look like altruistic behaviors, that are called so by the people who do them and the people who witness them, that have no evidence in favor of being called egoistici, only just-so stories. So psychological egoism is "refuted".
Rational egoism has quite a lot of problems with phenomena like kin selection, and yet again, there's little to no evidence in support of it.
As to ethical egoism, I've yet to see a single argument in favor of it. Every single time ethical egoists come around, they always try to tear down (unsuccessfully I might add) other ethical systems but they never give any sort of reasoned argument in their support.

Of course stirner fans will make up all sort of unfalsifiable shit for why none of this is true or none of this matters, but I'm more and more convinced that, like another anon was saying earlier, stirnerism as an idea is mostly devoid of truth-apt statements.

Hey Stirnies! What was Stirner like? Did he reject morals? How can you not have any morals? Was his goal to become completely empt ly and without values?
Doubting is important. Question everything, tear it all down for if it can be built back up it will be stronger and if not - good riddance!
How was Stirner as a person? Was he a sociopath? Did he step all over people to get what he wanted? From what little I've read you could reach this conclusion but I doubt that's the case.
What was he like?

>>10291794
>t. increasingly nervous spic

>>10291413
>homogeneous white areas.
Like the west coast? Go to Atlanta and see how progressive they are

>>10292731
Rumour has it, that he's faking it and doesn't plan on actually building it.

>>10292289
Let us consider the operation of kin selection in humans. Someone is to tell you that they would ''die to save a family members life.'' This is kin selection. And it is based entirely on an involuntary emotional response to the *selfish* desire of the person. They are the one feeling this, and their kin is the object of their affection. The mere existence of cluster B traits among the human population proves this a non-universal phenomena; and this phenomena in humanity is as much dependent on conditioned bias and affection, as it is genetics, though I do not know enough about the latter to fully integrate it into my explanation. In view of this, any form of ''moral realism'' derived from kin selection would seem to be a naturalistic fallacy, which would point to the evoking thereof to be an arbitrary, ''as it suits my ideals,'' stance. This would seem to prove Stirners point, that whatever ''spook'' we uphold is an abstract object of our perceived interest.

Is not logical consistency in ethics dependent entirely on a point of reference from which you approach it, and from what utility you seek to make of it. Stirner makes the point that the inevitable source of this would ultimately be your own self-interest. And its application would be entirely dependent on what it is being applied to. So here, Stirner is against ''universals,'' his ideas focus on specificity.

>>10293052
>In view of this, any form of ''moral realism'' derived from kin selection would seem to be a naturalistic fallacy
First of all, you misunderstood my point completely. The existence of kin selection serves as a point against rational egoism, not ethical egoism, as it shows how clearly non-egoistic behavior can definitely be efficient and logical.
Second point, not to be rude, but I find that everyone that is quick to go to "appeal to nature!" as a refutation has zero idea of what teleonomy is and what role it plays (and can play) in ethics from a moral realist and naturalist perspective.

>>10293068

>as it shows how clearly non-egoistic behavior can definitely be efficient and logical.

I do not think so. How can there be non-egoistic behavior, when every reaction is relative precisely to the ego and its conditions?

Egoism is dependent on self interest; whatever sacrifice you make, is very much your perceived *self* interest. You feel the emotional response, and you act on it. And maybe you die so that your kin may survive. If anything, this is very akin to what Stirner defines as the 'spook'. As an example, how humans can abstractly identify with not a group, but an idea of a group and higher purpose, etc.
''can definitely be efficient and logical.''-- To whom? To the self sacrificing subject that is involuntarily reacting to preserve another, based solely on his own desires? The logic and efficiency of it are entirely relative to the perceived interest of the subject. Take away the self-interest, and you also take away any purpose, thus, you take away any logic or efficiency. Where is the reference point to this? Where is the arbiter that deems it beneficial and to whom?

>"appeal to nature!" as a refutation
Is it even a refutation, if I merely point out its arbitrary and relative (in interest and purpose) nature?

>>10293479
Yeah, that whole paragraph is entirely unfalsifiable. "whatever sacrifice you make, is very much your perceived *self* interest" this is basically freudian psychoanalysis-tier.
>"it's about your mother"
>"look, no, it's not, there's no evidence that is so and there's prima facie reasons to think it's not"
>"yeah you say that but it's ultimately about your mother"
Also
>its arbitrary and relative (in interest and purpose) nature?
I don't see how it's arbitrary at all.

>>10293588
>"whatever sacrifice you make, is very much your perceived *self* interest" this is basically freudian psychoanalysis-tier.

Show me a moral universal, show me an instance of selflessness.
>I don't see how it's arbitrary at all.

''subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion.'' It is relative to you and your self interest, your conditioning, your value preference... etc.

>>10288862
>Yes, the rejection of society as a whole and the fact that he has faded into history shows that his unpopular philosophy is not one that can be used for the foundations of any kind of government or serious mindset
Not an argument. Go back to plebbit.

>>10292289
>muh evidence
>muh fallibility as if that is relevant to anything but STEMspergery
Back to plebbit. You don't know how to do philosophy.