/lit/ - Literature

>>13966921
the ego is a spook

>>13966922
nothing's a spook

>>13966921
Humans and being itself is driven by a will/desire, Yes this is true. But conflating that will with egoism is retarded.

>>13966921
Imagine projecting this fucking hard so that You won't have to cope with your own mediocrity and selfishness

>>13966930
Give me a single example of an altruistic action and I will have to agree with you.

>>13966921
People who reach Moksa seem to agree. However, this has implications egoists don't like, so they keep on feeding their ego.

>>13966921

is there anything wrong with feeding a my sense of self-esteem or self-importance? Especially if im not deluding myself.

>>13966921
This.
Therefore the sage keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action and practises the teaching that uses no words.

>>13968249
self-sacrifice for the sake of others

>>13968648
Why does no one sacrifice himself for a worthless, inanimate object? Why do we care about the things that share our DNA?

>>13968249
caring for individuals that share your genes is altruistic on the level of your ego, if not your genes.

>>13968249
The problem is that you stretch the definition of egoism from the common sense understanding of the world.
Egoism, in common parlance is doing something becuase it benefits you in some way.
For example, saying that giving money to poor people is an example of egoism becuase it benefits yourself misunderstands the common sensical definition of benefit. Benefit doesn't really mean "sensation of feeling moral" but "gaining something material/pleasurable". Note that feeling moral is distinct from feeling pleasure.

>>13968707
The sensation of feeling moral is the result of knowing you will be benefited by your action. When you help others, you will likely be helped in the future, or at least improve your social status, making people more acceptable of you. Being a nice, good person is obviously beneficial. Otherwise, why be a good person?

>>13966921
imagine not being a delicate gardener

>>13968741
>the result of knowing you will be benefited by your action. When you help others, you will likely be helped in the future, or at least improve your social status,
This is the evolutionary logic behind it, but the actual individual just feels subjectively good when being nice to people. The ultimately selfish logic behind it isn't felt consciously or subconsciously, they just know that 'being nice feels good'.

>>13968758
When you do something wrong, you feel guilt, fear, shame, etc. You know that you will be punished, or that people will think badly of you. The same thing happens when you act good, but it’s an opposite feeling. It’s our body’s way of saying we should do this or that, an intuitive morality. Sometimes we do something and we don’t feel good or bad, because some moral decisions aren’t so clear. Without intuition, and when reason doesn’t help us know what the best decision is, we wonder if we will be benefited in the future, or punished.

>>13968778
nein i do not agree. I think doing those things just feels intrinsically good or bad. The reason they feel good or bad follows the logic you are outlining, that is why said feelings evolved, but they are self-contained in terms of our subjective experience of them.

>>13968249
Give me a single example of an actions that you would consider altruistic, if it were possible.

>>13968741
> The sensation of feeling moral is the result of knowing you will be benefited by your action.
Can you give me psychological studies published in academia to prove this point?

>A Human's ultimate goal is to feel good, achieve happiness
>Therefore, any action a Human takes is selfish and done for working towards that goal, even ones that help and benefit other ones
Philosophy books with this train of thought? It interests me.

>>13969120
Ethical egoism maybe. That’s what someone labeled me here on /lit/ during a discussion. Once you see it, I don’t understand how you can go back.

>>13969141
It's actually descriptive egoism which is a position in rational psychology, a subsection of ontology and not a normative position.

>>13969149
Any normative position following descriptive egoism is ethical egoism though. Ethical egoism is inescapable if you accepted psychological/descriptive egoism unless you reject normative positions.

>>13968577
The only thing wrong with it is using a facade to deceive others, like the feed a man a fish vs. teach fishing parable, in the united states today, most would cherish feeding rather than the teaching.

>>13969155
1: I don't think a normative position can follow from purely descriptive premises, so ethical egoism can't logicaly follow from descriptive egoism in a deductive argument.

2: You could argue that there is a correct morality, but we can't follow it becuase of our human nature and we should use cybernetics to alter our nature so we can follow it.

>>13966921
We are one.

>>13966921
What about peeing

>>13969173
I shouldn't have said follow. It is the only normative position compatible with descriptive egoism. You can reject all normative position but you can't take a position like utilitarianism as under descriptive egoism it is better described as ethical egoism appearing as utilitarianism to conform to your personal desires.

>>13969190
>It is the only normative position compatible with descriptive egoism.
Not true, check out my transhumanist argument.
>You can reject all normative position but you can't take a position like utilitarianism as under descriptive egoism it is better described as ethical egoism appearing as utilitarianism to conform to your personal desires.
I disagree with this.
The two sentences "we should do actions that maximize happiness for all beings" isn't incompatible with "we only act in self-intrest". These two statements could be true, without a contradiction.

>>13969208
>The two sentences "we should do actions that maximize happiness for all beings" isn't incompatible with "we only act in self-intrest". These two statements could be true, without a contradiction.

It is through the lens of descriptive egoist; "we should maximize happiness for all beings... because that IS what maximizes my well-being". If you accept descriptive egoism, your normative position is always described better as ethical egoism as the only way you can act is in pursuit of egoism.

>>13969220
>>13969208
A descriptive egoist is never saying "we should maximize happiness for all beings", he is describing what will maximizes his own happiness, which is the moral ought.

>>13969220
>It is through the lens of descriptive egoist; "we should maximize happiness for all beings... because that IS what maximizes my well-being".
A descriptive-egoist human could still be a utillitarian becuase they are persuaded by philosophical arguments, they would simply biologicaly be shown to accept it becuase it is in their self intrest while accepting utillitarianism intellectualy on the merits of philosophical arguments. The reason (biologicaly) why they accept the position would be egoism, but the reason (intellectualy) would be on the basis of philosophical argumentation.

This argument is like saying that all normative positions are better described as normative physics becuase people can only act according to the laws of the physics.

"A descriptive moral physicist is never saying "I should do what maximises my own happiness", he is describing what will happen according to the laws of physics, which is the moral ought."

and:

"It is through the lens of descriptiv physicist; "I should maximize my own happiness... because that IS what maximizes my following the laws of physics". If you accept physics, your normative position is always described better as ethical physicism as the only way you can act is in accordance with the laws of physics"

>>13969322
>"A descriptive moral physicist is never saying "I should do what maximises my own happiness", he is describing what will happen according to the laws of physics, which is the moral ought."

If your laws of nature are a restriction on the will, then yes it must conform with normative position. The same occurs with determinism; a deontological position could never be compatible with refutation of free will. Descriptive egoism restricts what is possible in ethics. The egoist "ought" is always "what will maximize my well-being", anything beyond that are not oughts, they are requirements to fulfill the original ought.

>The reason (biologicaly) why they accept the position would be egoism, but the reason (intellectualy) would be on the basis of philosophical argumentation.

The egoist has no reason to accept anything beyond what he personally desires. Like determinism there can be no reason/rational to an act, it is just the act that maximizes the individuals personal well-being (or more specifically, what the individual THINKS maximizes his personal well-being).

>>13966921
no, a lot of them come from unconscious drives, or at the very least are compromise formations when such drive is not compatible with ego's self image

>>13969322
>>13969363
All of this assuming was agree "ought" implies "can".

>>13969363
> If your laws of nature are a restriction on the will, then yes it must conform with normative position.
Nice, then you have accepted ethical physicism.
>Descriptive egoism restricts what is possible in ethics.
And so does ethical physicism, it just goes further and eliminates egoism.
> The egoist "ought" is always "what will maximize my well-being", anything beyond that are not oughts, they are requirements to fulfill the original ought.
Egoism doesn't exist, there only exist physcial descriptivism. The ought is always, what will happen according to the laws of physics. Anything beyond the laws of physics( egoism and so on), are not oughts, they are requirements to fulfill the original ought of ethical physicism.

All egoism reduces into ethical physicism, meaning that ethical egoism really is ethical physicism. Calling it ethical egoism is actually incorrect when it infact is really the laws of physics that rule.

>>13969386
Which I agree with, the only thing that can happen is humans following the laws of physics, not egoism and other silly things like that.

>>13969428
I mean I would agree with this. I don't think ANY normative statement is compatible descriptive egoism, including ethical egoism. My conjecture was that IF a normative statement does follow from descriptive egoism, it must be ethical egoism as any normative statement (such as utilitarianism) can be better described as ethical egoism for a descriptive egoist as utilitarianism in itself is not possible, utilitarianism is only possible as a means to fulfill ethical egoism.

>>13969460
Something can't follow from a statement if it isn't compatible with it.

how does one escape but by death

>>13969489
Yes, so I am saying no normative statement can follow descriptive egoism. If someone wants to try and develop a normative position compatible with descriptive egoism, it will always fail as it is always better described as ethical egoism, which I would further argue isn't compatible.

>>13969496
There is no escape. It’s all one big game of work and reward. You either live mindlessly or you live with the boring realization of your goal, which seems less and less exciting the more you think about it. For us, being alive is not enough to be content. We are expected to do more, to always find a way to intensify out positive experiences and make them more frequent. To get what we “want” is nothing special, yet we have to do it, because we would suffer even more if we do nothing.

>>13969553
sounds like death is the only answer

>>13969582
We will all die eventually. And in death, it will not have mattered what pleasures you enjoyed while you were alive. So the only real meaning we can find in this life is preparing ourselves for death.

>>13968654
I went back into a fire to save my Kermit doll.

>>13969654
because it makes you happy

>>13969649
to hell with preparing, why not hasten it. such a bullshitter you are.

>>13969831
The problem is, you don’t know what comes after death.

>>13969831
The more you suffer, the sweeter your death.

>>13969841
same thing that was before i was alive. nothing. very simple.
>>13969845
sounds like a cope.

such bullshitters.

>>13969862
>such bullshitters.
says the guy who thinks suicide is the best way to go, and hasn’t committed suicide

Why do people even argue against this point? It's so obvious with just a second of thought. Is it because people relate egoism to selfishness and thus a bad trait, which their own ego will not allow them to bear willingly?

>>13969878
my ego won't let me. doesn't mean it isn't the best solution.

>>13968616
How lame

>>13969883
You hit the nail on the head, people develop vast rationalizations for their actions so that they feel just in doing them despite whatever the action may be. If you tell them that their frameworks are just justifications for doing what they wanted to do anyway they will reeeee. People don't want to be told that they are just doing whatever they want to do, and coming up with reasons why after they want to feel like there is a framework to be followed.

>>13969887
COPE

>>13969901
>People don't want to be told that they are just doing whatever they want to do
This isn't what egoism claims. You have reduced egoism to meaninglessness. This is why you can't give a example of a hypothetical act that would be altruistic; you have made "descriptive egoism" synonymous with action.

>>13969862
>same thing that was before i was alive. nothing. very simple.
So after you die, you will be born again? If you can be brought of that nothingness, what makes you think you will stay there after this life?

>>13966921
stirner is what you read before you realize physical violence

>>13970025
>This is why you can't give a example of a hypothetical act that would be altruistic; you have made "descriptive egoism" synonymous with action.
maybe that's the point kek

>>13970193
Then don't misuse the term egoism or descriptive egoism. The existence of action or acting does not infer selfishness on behalf of the agent. An act could exist void of motive/reason altogether if determinism exists as a logical possibility.

>>13966921
As a human, one strives for what he - within the given context - deems of positive value.

Value is perceived individually, therefore value is always MY value. What one perceives as positive value, is thus always value to him. Therefore I always strive for my value. Sidenote: as Nietzsche points out in Human all too Human (I think, maybe Twilight), some individuals are simply better at accomplishing the object of their value than others.

Very well. As >>13968707 points out, your (Stirner's) particular formulation of this phenomenon as "egoism" is bound to lead to a confusion in words.

So if you are in it for the actual philosophy, I suggest that you formulate your ideas more carefully so that you will be more likely to have a discussion that is not merely one centered around sematics.

>>13968249
There are altruistic actions, they just cause suffering on whoever does them.

>>13970246
>An act could exist void of motive/reason altogether
how

>>13970386
That being said, I think Stirner's whole point is very much the same as Nietzsche's point of "Everything is perspective" (and accordingly a case against metaphysics). Being conscious of this simple fact of life makes it easier to perceive value.

Stirner's philosophy boggles down to: value is always yours, and metaphysical value is an illusion. As he points out, this still leaves room for love, kindness, etc. but now through the knowledge that it is really your love, your kindness, which you enjoy.

The reason why Stirner's project is important, is because value is always individually conceived. So the way to attain value is to make you feel yourself. Metaphysics, objective truth, "socratism" will not lead one to values, because these will require you to think your self away.

>>13970453
As Hume pointed out: motive and reason cannot be perceived and it is our minds that project these phenomenons onto reality. In Stirner's jargon: motive and reason are spooks. The dogma of necessary egoism shouldn't be justified by pointing out that everyones motive is egoistic, because that's pure spookery.

tl;dr OP is right; existence is necessarily egoistic (i.e. self-centered) because one cannot transcend himself.

>>13970386
> not merely one centered around semantics
I think the main discussion here is that, no matter what, an individual will always be driven to do what he feels it has the greatest value (ie "feeding the ego"). It doesn't matter if it actually benefits him materially or morally. These are things that might shape what makes something the most valuable, the individual might question himself if he isn't sure, but at the end, that's the main goal is the same. It's based on one's perception IMO.

I think the individual will finally determine what will be taken as pleasure. If i give to someone an object that benefits me just because "he will find it more useful than i do", i did it because i found a more valuable end on giving up something to who serves the most adecuate subject, thus i have already determined feel pleasure through moral on that action.

Discussing about "being egoist" is pointless in this regard


I agree with the OP

>>13970386
Survival and sexual pleasure nigga

>>13970690
>>13970603
Again give an example of a hypothetical act that any hypothetical agent could do without it being defined as "egoism" by this "non-definition".
Even an act predicated by God or a perfect being void of ego would be egoism under this definition as "egotistical" has been reduced to "acting".

Now a different point: arguments centered around examples that are either or not altruistic are pointless.

>>13968648
Take for example self-sacrifice for the sake of others. Using this example to debunk Stirner's theorem of egoism requires you to know that the person in that case indeed valued life above death, but chose death anyway. We cannot crawl into each others existence to see what they valued at that moment, so this argument will get you nowhere.

Arguing in favor as well as against in the above
example is some spooky territory, because talking about the content of another's existence is nonsense either way.

In the end, these arguments are based upon essentialistic, goods; be it will-to-sex, will-to-life, etc. Fact of the matter is: there is just will, and this will is einzig. Will is just simply a given and all the how's and why's are spooks.

>>13970869
which is more or less the point you make >>13970790

>>13970896
I agree with you, that proving motives for or against egoism are both "spooks". I don't however, understand how you "agree with the OP" from this position.

>imagine not believing that every single action taken by humans isn't purely bred out of feeding the ego
This is claiming psychological egoism to be true.

just think of 'spook' in context of the hegelian system. once you dehegelize without being continously buttblasted about the hegelian meat factory and its consequences, thats when you appreciate the simplicity of mad max,

>>13970949
See >>13970386

let me try to reproduce the thought in different words
>Everything is (my) perspective
>Through this perspective I perceive something we call value (Heidegger's: 'sorge'). (Words can't exhaustively describe value, it is broadly what appears to me as the favorable, valuable, nice)
>All value is related to me and as such it speaks to me.
>I perceive nothing that is foreign to my existence.
>Therefore all value is my value.

Now that I'm think of it, I think this is about as far as we can go without spooking out. I have some trouble with "bred out of feeding the ego" because to me this seems to be at most a hypothetical statement, while I do agree with a form of absolute egoism.

>>13971069
Also let me stress that I believe there is no such thing as a god-like ego that creates its own values. Value simply presents itself to the individual and we can at most hypothesize, but not know about the origin of our values.

>>13971069
>>13971124
Should it not be
>Therefore all value is perceived to be my value
Also doesn't this almost presuppose moral realism is false?

>>13971170
>>13971170
Though everyone has different circumstances and values, it is still the case that some actions are more preferable regardless of what the agent thinks is the best decision. In any situation, there is a right decision, one that maximizes benefit in the long run, but we cannot always know it, and often we act against perfect morality. We can understand and intuit basic moral laws that have obvious negative effects on ourselves, but most of the time we’re just guessing. So morality is subjective in the sense that the right decisions depend on what benefits the agent, but once that agent’s constitution is known, set in place, the objective moral path is determined by that agent’s construction and the environment.

>>13971170
Moral realism is at most a hypothesis, whereas what I perceive is immanent and real. I have basically a Heideggerian phenomenology axiom. Very competible with Stirner's thought imo.

Also I believe in a Nietzschean fashion that value and (objective) truth are two incompatible things. We humans are not made for truth (the more strict, truth-concerned a discipline of science is, the less subjectivity is allowed in its methods), while we are always in a valuing relationship with our existence.

I think moral realism is completely unsatisfying philosophically.

>>13971262
I don't want to get to off track with moral realism vs. anti-realism, but your final statement "Therefore all value is my value" is spooky to me. I think even going this far is stretching. Perhaps I am missing something in your argument, but I think we are pretty far away from even egoism and have reduced it to "act". Assume we accept Divine Command or some similar form of objective value. Value now exists irregardless of the agent and is known with certainty (or as certain as any empiricism). Acts committed by the agent can still be reduced to this type egoism because it has no relation to value, it is related to the agent exerting a will of any sort.

Again, what hypothetical act could God or a perfect being commit that could not be reduced in the same way? It seems the act, irregardless of known/perceived value can be defined under this "egoism".

As an aside I agree that arguments for moral realism aren't satisfying, but arguments against anti-realism seem inescapable (be it Huemer, Cuneo or Enoch) without appealing to complete nihilism (which is seemingly impossible) and rejection of epistemic realism.

>>13971069
>Therefore all value is my value.
Way to go contradicting yourself. If all value is your value, what defines a "spook"?

>>13971411
A spook is a fixed idea that a person subjects themselves to, rather than an idea that they subject to themselves, i.e. make their own.

>>13966921
grow up

>>13971411
It's just a different way of phrasing "Everything is perspective". Seems like I'm not clear enough.

>>13971433
>rather than an idea that they subject to themselves, i.e. make their own
But you just said that all value is your value, that you already are subjected to all ideas, even ones you haven't made. This makes a "spook" impossible.

>>13971451
No I didn't, i'm not the previous poster, i'm just telling you what a spook is according to Stirner because people on this board seem to get it wrong constantly.

>>13971446
I don't get how you could phrase it like that. "All value is my value," is an altruist viewpoint. Stirner believed, "My value is my value, and my value is based on my perspective." Did you mean the latter?

>>13966921
Imagine having so little ego-strength you live in a world of abstractions with no set definition shared across a spectrum of individuals and everyone ends up arguing because they all speak different languages.

>>13968868
How the fuck do you explain somebody doing something that they feel great guilt for yet still do so for the sake of duty or honor?

>>13972670
the good feeling associated with the honor is stronger than the bad one associated with the guilt

>>13966930
Denial of the ego is denial of a major aspect of the will.

>>13968648
Its a person choosing that he would rather die than see his mates suffer. He perfers the satisfaction that he died helping the people he cared the most instead of the suffering of seeing them dying. He is a egoist nonetheless

>>13970869
He didnt value his life more than death in that example, otherwise he wouldnt sacrifice himself. But he did what was according to his will.

>>13971124
creating your own values is simply listening to what you want and like and evaluating certain actions, traits and intentions as either good or bad for you.
This of course means that as you grow and age so do your values change over time.

>>13969120
>all we ought to achive is happiness and "felling good"

>>13970386
>>13970603
>>13970869
>>13971069
I highly request you if you could please put your thoughts in a more forward way in a single post. I think i kinda get what you are on about but if you could explain it better of what is this positive valuing and what is "egoism" or what is a "spook" i would gladly appreciate it.

>>13968778
I feel bad for doing things that only I do, or ever will, know about. To do things in reaction to a reward/punishment system is not true morality. A person who is truly moral, to give an example, would anonymously perform an act of charity, while an immoral person would do what many ecelebs do now, which is to perform acts of charity on camera and put them online for millions to see. For them it is simply an expression of the ego, while for the truly moral person it is simply correct to perform said charitable act (of course there is most likely deeper reasoning behind their moral code, I'm just simplifying).

>people like doing things in their own self interest even if it's helping people they care about
wow great insight genius

>>13973636
>of course there is most likely deeper reasoning behind their moral code, I'm just simplifying
Elaborate on that