/lit/ - Literature

>>14467805
Wrong. Descriptive egoism is irrelevant in metaethics.

>>14467823
care to elaborate on that?

>>14467823
All fucking tripfags must fucking hang.

>>14467805
>Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake, and the disreputable egoism will not come off him. On this account I call him the involuntary egoist.
this is me. I’ve been thinking about this for a while. I can’t shake this idea. I’ve just accepted it and modeled my thinking into trying to find what’s best for me

>>14467823
Are you retarded? Descriptive egoism is a part of metaethics, just as normative egoism.

>>14467830
You can reformulate any apparently self-less acts, as a selfish one. "Compassion" is just satisfying your own empathy, piety is just satisfying the innate drive you have for being pious. When you're talking about altruism, you're usually talking about empathy, or stuff that plays on group selection ect. Even though all altruistic acts are done to serve someones own preferences, altruism is still a useful term.

>>14467856
Stirner's observation goes deeper than that. "Satisfying your own piety" doesn't say much, piety is ultimately good, so there isn't even a problem.
Stirner goes even further than the "I do good things because it makes me feel good" position, or the "I want to be rewarded in the afterlife" one.

>What matter if the body wither, if only the spirit is saved? Everything rests on the spirit, and the spirit’s or “soul’s” welfare becomes the exclusive goal.
This involuntary egoism starts from the very root, it soaks your very desire, staining it entirely. Stirner exposes that the very action of changing yourself for the better is an egoist one, as you are concerned with nothing but your own purpose. Love your neighbor as you love yourself? You will NEVER love your neighbor as you love yourself, even if you want to do it, if you dream of it - that is because ultimately you are doing it for the sake of your own spirit, to become greater, better.
You aspire to be perfect, a saint - this is a selfish desire.

>>14467963
Yea, I never mentioned pleasure in my post. Stirners criticism goes so deep that it becomes useless. My point is that "altruism" has a meaning when its used, and that deconstructing it the way egoists do is doesnt do anything. A buddhist munk that sets himself on fire and kills himself is doing to for reasons that can be construed as selfish. Doesn't matter, when people say selfish/altruistic that isnt what they're talking about. All moral philosophy can be done on top of descriptive egoism.

>>14467963
even the desire to become selfless is selfish. The desire to let go of the ego and its attachments and go to nirvana...how is that not also an attachment? Isn’t some form of the ego also preserved in nirvana? This is why I can’t accept all the eastern mumbo jumbo about no-self

>>14468020
This, if anyone ever achieved nirvana they would zero-sum their brain, essentially becoming a vegetable.

>>14468020
However, I think we should distinguish certain parts of the self. We should let go of some attachments, but not all of them. Jesus says to deny the self and take up the cross. But i would interpret this “self” as the materialistic self, the one caught up in the world. You still have the spiritual self, and that is what Jesus wants you to be

>>14468016
the fire thing wasnt realy selfish, it was an enlightened statement showing that we are all people, why are we fighting about things, watch how little life means, it was nihlistic because though nothing matters Hed rather their be more happiness and harmony than pointless war and pain. It was very unselfish actually, he doesnt give his pain any value. Thats what happens with enlightened lack of ego.

>>14467856
What is the argument? Your claim that something is vacuous (as descriptive egoism admittedly is) doesn't mean at all that it is invaluable, it might be invaluable to metaethics since descriptive egoism makes DESCRIPTIVE claims, not normative, i.e. it's not a metaethical view.

>>14468016
You're arguing about words? Sure, you can define altruism in this very scholarly manner, referencing group sociology.
But, ultimately you would be conceding with Stirner in this regard then, by choosing to ignore his "involuntary egoist" idea, because it simply breaks metaethics, even breaks the very language we use.

>>14468016
I agree insofar that you shouldn't evolve egoism into something that ecompasses every act, because there is proper information that can be shared by the statements egoistic and altruistic. But that is only a pragmatic view, and it is compatible with psychological egoism (or descriptive egoism) with a certain definition of altruism, that is.

>>14468046
>“Spirits exist!” Look about in the world, and say for yourself whether a spirit does not gaze upon you out of everything. Out of the lovely little flower there speaks to you the spirit of the Creator, who has shaped it so wonderfully; the stars proclaim the spirit that established their order, etc. You have spirit, for you have thoughts. What are your thoughts? “Spiritual entities.” Not things, then? “No, but the spirit of things, the main point in all things, the inmost in them, their — idea.”
>What haunts the universe, and has its occult, “incomprehensible” being there, is precisely the mysterious spook that we call highest essence. And to get to the bottom of this spook, to comprehend it, to discover reality in it (to prove “the existence of God”) — this task men set to themselves for thousands of years. Behind the existing world they sought the “thing in itself,” the essence; behind the thing they sought the un-thing.
>When one looks to the bottom of anything, i.e. searches out its essence, one often discovers something quite other than what it seems to be; honeyed speech and a lying heart, pompous words and beggarly thoughts, etc.

>Through Christ the truth of the matter had at last come to light, that the veritable spirit or ghost is — man. The corporeal or embodied spirit is just man; he himself is the ghostly being and at the same time the being’s appearance and existence. Henceforth man no longer, in typical cases, shudders at ghosts outside him, but at himself; he is terrified at himself. In the depth of his breast dwells the spirit of sin; even the faintest thought (and this is itself a spirit, you know) may be a devil, etc. — The ghost has put on a body, God has become man, but now man is himself the gruesome spook which he seeks to get back of, to exorcise, to fathom, to bring to reality and to speech; man is — spirit.

This part of the book is interesting, so why does it get so repetitive towards the end?

>>14468052
>kills self in attempt to shape the world to what they think is best
selfish

all of the nietzsche and stirner fanboys should read u.g. krishnamurti instead. he actually put into practice what they attempt (badly) to theorize

The involuntary egoist, who serves only himself and at the same time always thinks he is serving a higher being, who knows nothing higher than himself and yet is infatuated about something higher; in short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, and abases himself (i.e. combats his egoism), but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of “being exalted,”

the utter disregard for metaphysics here is disgusting, almost as if nothing higher than the typical human experience exists at all, and if it were able to be recognized by him, he would still disregarded

>Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake, and the disreputable egoism will not come off him. On this account I call him the involuntary egoist.

more complete disregard for the metaphysical, yet will to power taken to it's logical conclusion all ends up going back to god. all of the division that we see in consciousness is ultimately consubstantial. the differences in consciousness and continuity that we experience are all just divided manifestations of the exact same energy, so it would be far better to be in harmony with that energy than to deliberately reject it

amazing how schopenhauer's unfortunate misreading of buddhism completely ruined western philosophy

>>14468983
>the utter disregard for metaphysics here is disgusting, almost as if nothing higher than the typical human experience exists at all, and if it were able to be recognized by him, he would still disregarded
Crying?
>the differences in consciousness and continuity that we experience are all just divided manifestations of the exact same energy, so it would be far better to be in harmony with that energy than to deliberately reject it
Refuted by Aquinas seven centuries ago

>>14469044

>Crying?

yes, i weep every day that i have to share this board with insects

>Refuted by Aquinas seven centuries ago

i doubt it, especially since the bible says the same thing in numerous locations

>>14469069
The Bible certainly does not parrot Alan Watts sounding garbage in “numerous locations”.

Why would egoistic behaviour constitute a “rejection” of the universal energy? It seems to be begging the question. Schopenhauer seems correct in diagnosing the universal will as oriented toward perpetual strife and suffering. Remember also that egoism is not necessarily identical with violent and asocial behaviour. Altruism and selflessness are just as if not more often responsible for sowing discord, division, suffering, mass death.

>>14469156

>alan watts "garbage"

sorry buddy, you know nothing. i think all of the phrases in the bible about god existing in all, or breathing life into the dirt went over your head. all religions agree here, whether you call it breath, life, qi or energy. denial of this simple fact is a denial of god, you didn't read aquinas nearly as well as you think you did


>Schopenhauer seems correct in diagnosing the universal will as oriented toward perpetual...

this is only partially right, since obviously the next logical step in the diagnosis would be to transcend the suffering, with the knowledge that there is far more beyond what. so will to power and egoist ideology offers less than zero in regards to that, if anything it just keeps you stuck where you're at

>egoism is not necessarily identical with violent and asocial behaviour

it is where those ideas naturally lead to, you've proven yourself to be an idiot

>>14468983
>disgusting, almost as if nothing higher than the typical human experience exists at all
>>14469069
>yes, i weep every day that i have to share this board with insects

Typical involuntary egoist, so much denial. It's so clear that the only being that you worship is yourself, any higher essence you might believe in serves only in legitimizing your spiritual superiority over your fellow men.
How could you possibly be altruistic, virtuous, if everyone is a lesser idiot to you? Even people like Schopenhauer are only "partially right", simply because dead people can't threaten you, if he were alive he would be a bourgeois scoundrel and a charlatan. You are the sole arbiter of truth, the greatest genius that ever lived, by the simple virtue of your intellect. Not your accomplishments, not any material wealth - no, you are legitimized by the invisible spirit.

If you had even a shred of self-awareness, you'd realize the stupefying incongruity between the teachings of the Bible and what you present in this albeit brief, but honest exchange.

>>14471220
BTFO

kuk

i'm a completely selfless religious person that acts selfessly.
debate me

>>14471390
How and why are you selfless?

>>14471423
>How
by doing what god sent me into the world to do
>why
because i'm doing what god sent me to do without hoping to gain anything from it

>>14471429
Why are you doing what God sent you to do?

>>14471436
i have no reason

>>14471441
So there is no reason to be selfless? Or to obey God?

>>14471450
you're asking me what motivates me, I'm saying that nothing motivates me to do it as in there is no prelude.

>>14471441
>>14471451
Looks like you run out of logic, to admit your reasons would be to admit defeat, that you are ultimately an egoist.

>>14471456
no, it's more like you realize that there is a giant flaw in stirner's reasoning is that there can be the agent that acts blindly
boom
*i* have completely debunked stirner
anyway I could've gone further or rather, i'll just close with this:
does the heart keep the body alive out of egoistic reasons? the heart doesn't have a will of its own, it is simply a machine working at it is designed to do. Left to itself, the heart will work tirelessly as long as it has energy just as a locomotive would run aslong as it has fuel
i am as the same, I am simply an entrance of God into this world and I do his work simply because it is natural for me to do it, there is no motivation, I just am

>>14471451
If there is no motivation for your actions, then how do you explain your doing them?

>>14471462
is there a motivation behind a rock staying where it does? perhaps we can speak of force, but then it is an otuer influence and a result of established laws that are greater than the rock in itself

>>14471459
>can be the agent that acts blindly
>is there a motivation behind a rock
At most you'd be neutral, not altruistic, if such a thing were possible. But, you would also be mindless, like an animal that just follows it's instincts.

>>14471470
So then everyone is “selfless” since their actions have causes beyond themselves

>>14471478
...unless the cause is a desire of their own

>>14471480
but those desires have causes. Are you implying that you act without desiring? If that were true, then you would be selfless, but you would hardly be human. But I think you’re pretending.

According to Stirner, even god is an egoist.

>You have much profound information to give about God, and have for thousands of years “searched the depths of the Godhead,” and looked into its heart, so that you can doubtless tell us how God himself attends to “God’s cause,” which we are called to serve. And you do not conceal the Lord’s doings, either. Now, what is his cause? Has he, as is demanded of us, made an alien cause, the cause of truth or love, his own? You are shocked by this misunderstanding, and you instruct us that God’s cause is indeed the cause of truth and love, but that this cause cannot be called alien to him, because God is himself truth and love; you are shocked by the assumption that God could be like us poor worms in furthering an alien cause as his own. “Should God take up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?” He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must “serve a higher cause.” —
>Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is — a purely egoistic cause.

>>14471492
Psalm 115:3
>Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.

>>14467805
This is retarded. You're just reducing a human to some woefully inadequate (explanatory) idea and pretending there's nothing else to it. Yeah, it's incredibly easy to force anything into a limited concept, but the concept is useless to understand the why and how.

Also Stirner is much beyond nonsense psychological egoism.

>>14471498
This translation introduces this "self-pleasing" aspect, while it's more about freedom, i.e. "he does whatever he wants, whatever he desires".

>>14471491
yeah, the cause of their desire is their own, their personality if you will, which is really at the root of what sitrner calls the ego
if you act from beyond the personality you can truly act without desire which would fulfill your condition for selflessnes

>>14471491
>>14471519
>act without desiring
Sounds like Crowley. "Pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect."

>>14467805
The cringe Stirner, who is in fact not a real philosopher, serves only deez nuts. There is a reason why there are no pictures of him--it is because even in his day, everyone understood that he had about as much relation to serious discussions of philosophy as a bricklayer does to physical therapy.

My greatest pleasure is the knowledge that you could give an impassioned defense of this man's life work, and even the most serious of actual intellectuals will be incapable of suppressing their laughter that you wasted your time reading such a hack fraud's babbling.

>>14471528
But then it’s no longer an action, but a reaction. You’re being acted upon, not doing the act yourself

>>14471540
yes

>>14471506
People have pretended to be beyond egoism for so long, but it's just posturing. From the very first human interactions, this lie was there. Beginning with monarchy, kings have introduced the concept of the divine rule, that their rule is legitimized by a higher power.
They were discovered in their deceit, it became apparent that they serve nothing but themselves, sparkling many revolutions. Now, we have more sophisticated myths, of a selfless politician, serving his fellow men.

We cover up our egoism to a great extend, pretending to act for a higher power, so much so that if Stirner points it out, you think he's extremely reductive. But it is a natural state of things, something which we can't escape from, but something which is very beneficial to hide. In essence, you are blinded by our culture.

>>14471539
>hack fraud's babbling
Stick to watching internet celebs, philosophy is much beyond you. You rely so much on group-think that you speak in memes!

Look up Irrationalism on encyclopedia dot com

Great lengthy sum into this topic and some elaboration into what has already been said in this thread.
The obvious answer to losing the ego is in the Peter Pan story. We “forget how to fly”; It’s something we lose as we age and as the mystery of life becomes less fluid. If I’m wrong and the ego is worth preserving, the Jesus allegory fits perfectly with the need to grow food and reproduce yet man strives for dominance in all things. Thus we create our own gods. Existential indeed. We definitely lack the society to be xyz aka a perfect world.

Based Stirner.

>>14471831
M I L K

>>14471834

>>14471720
>the Peter Pan story
ok, kid

>>14467823
You’re a retard

>>14467823
hang all tripfags

Swedenborg does not out right condemn self- love. It is only condemned when it becomes cancerous. As someone else mentioned, even so-called virtues can be hijacked by evil foundations. Water is good but it is also bad. only a philosophy imbued with "everlasting life", personhood and wisdom has a chance of apprehending and speaking about reality.

>>14474675
Stirner's point is, that ultimately every impulse/want/cause is always contaminated by egoism.

If the mystics are right when we say that we become what we love or behold, then i could not condemn a self, as they seem to be one of the most fundamental and primordial of realities. God might not find a worthy reason to exist if he could not have his playmate. Selfhood is too important to throw away. It is childish to automatically condemn so-called selfishness. They who condemn the core of us wish to drink us up and make ourselves into their own image!

>>14474675
Cancerous self-love is not special. It’s just another case of not knowing how to do what’s good for you.

>>14474761
Stirner certainly doesn't condemn selfishness, he wants people to be egoists who are aware of their own egoism, who don't serve any other egoists than themselves. In the very introduction he says:

>God and mankind have concerned themselves for nothing, for nothing but themselves. Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my concern! You think at least the “good cause” must be my concern? What’s good, what’s bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me.

>The divine is God’s concern; the human, man’s. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is — unique,[Einzig] as I am unique.

>>14474745
I get that even though i might not have used the word "contaminated" because it seems to be a negative term and max did not think his ego to be bad.

Stirner was also justly criticizing the average religious larper who often was little more than a product of his evolutionary environment. He was keeping it real.

>>14471492
i´ve always god himself was a slave towards his own laws, so in sense the master is his law and the slave is everything else, pretty depressing, not the even creator himself is truly free

>>14475068
It’s depressing if you imagine God to be an agent like humans.

>>14475091
he portrays himself that way in the bible

>>14475095
The Bible is a translation from God to humans. The language used to describe God’s actions and words is convenient to convey the idea.