/lit/ - Literature

Read the book. You did not understand the arguments and points in it.

It is really simple, yet someone like OP can still fatally misread it. How is that possible?

>>17264760
Are you retarded? The book clearly says that if you truly and genuinely believe that acting in this way is for your benefit, then go ahead. But you're not morally obliged to help her, although it is beneficial for you to do so (egoistic alturism)

As these anons said >>17264784 >>17264785 you're either retarded or didn't read the book, in which case you're making a bait thread based off your interpretation of a meme image, which makes you double retarded. Don't post on this board ever again.

>>17264760
any critiques of stirner were already refuted by him in advance in stirner's critics

Why don’t you try reading the book, OP? Stirner explicitly says that if it is in your nature to feel compassion and love for your fellow human beings, and therefore to help them when they are in distress, you are not violating egoism because you are acting in your nature. However, if this is not in your nature but you do it anyway because of some ideal of religion or morality, you are spooked.
>Am I perchance to have no lively interest in the person of another, are his joy and his weal not to lie at my heart, is the enjoyment that I furnish him not to be more to me than other enjoyments of my own? On the contrary, I can with joy sacrifice to him numberless enjoyments, I can deny myself numberless things for the enhancement of his pleasure, and I can hazard for him what without him was the dearest to me, my life, my welfare, my freedom. Why, it constitutes my pleasure and my happiness to refresh myself with his happiness and his pleasure. But myself, my own self, I do not sacrifice to him, but remain an egoist and – enjoy him. If I sacrifice to him everything that but for my love to him I should keep, that is very simple, and even more usual in life than it seems to be; but it proves nothing further than that this one passion is more powerful in me than all the rest. Christianity too teaches us to sacrifice all other passions to this. But, if to one passion I sacrifice others, I do not on that account go so far as to sacrifice myself, nor sacrifice anything of that whereby I truly am myself; I do not sacrifice my peculiar value, my ownness. Where this bad case occurs, love cuts no better figure than any other passion that I obey blindly. The ambitious man, who is carried away by ambition and remains deaf to every warning that a calm moment begets in him, has let this passion grow up into a despot against whom he abandons all power of dissolution: he has given up himself, because he cannot dissolve himself, and consequently cannot absolve himself from the passion: he is possessed.
>I love men too – not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.”

>>17264784
>>17264785
>>17264793
I have the book right in front of me. The argument involves someone stealing fish from the town market.

You know 'read the book' is not an argument? And neither is 'you didn't understand it'. Just shows that you can't even defend a simple counter argument.

Stirner states you should pursue an action if you desire to do so as an individual rather than being compelled to by some outside authority or influence.

>u dident read book

>>17264811
>you are not violating egoism because you are acting in your nature. However, if this is not in your nature but you do it anyway because of some ideal of religion or morality
People don't chase after thieves because of religion. If there's any conception of human nature, it's the shit you do automatically.

>>17264760
>Oh no, I can't stop the thief because then I will be spooked by christian morals"
Spooky stuff, OP.

>>17264760
where to start with stirner?

>>17264817
Clearly bait. Do not engage. Nothing good will come of this.

>>17264784
>>17264785
>>17264793
>>17264811
>>17264841
It's literally in the book
>But even here all might yet resolve itself into a personal interest, each of the partakers reflecting that he must concur in the punishment of the thief because unpunished stealing might otherwise become general and cause him too to lose his own. Such a calculation, however, can hardly be assumed on the part of many, and we shall rather hear the cry that the thief is a “criminal.” Here we have before us a judgment, the thief’s action receiving its expression in the concept “crime.” Now the matter stands thus: even if a crime did not cause the slightest damage either to me or to any of those in whom I take an interest, I should nevertheless denounce it. Why? Because I am enthusiastic for morality, filled with the idea of morality; what is hostile to it I everywhere assail

"Such a calculation, however, can hardly be assumed on the part of many". This is plain wrong. You'd know if you read anything else about human nature.

Got any arguments or are you retards just going to keep saying the same shit?

>>17264833
Not “human nature”, moron. Stirner specifically argues against the idea of human nature. If it is in YOUR INDIVIDUAL NATURE to do so, then you should do it. If you’re just doing it because it’s the “Christian thing to do” or “it abides by the categorical imperative”, you’re spooked. Why don’t you read the book before criticising it? I hate Stirner but you’re making me have to defend him from your shitty, uninformed attacks.

>>17264857
Maybe try learning to read before responding.
>If you’re just doing it because it’s the “Christian thing to do” or “it abides by the categorical imperative”, you’re spooked
Christianity and deontology aren't human nature. You don't consult the Bible or Kant when deciding to run after a thief. Wanting to help people or serve justice is human nature, and people do it because they want to.

Also notice that every single post ITT that has the phrase "read the book" is made, ironically, by an illiterate retard.

>>17264852
I literally posted an excerpt from the book clearly and expressly affirming that you can, if it is in your nature, take compassion on people, and even sacrifice your pleasure and freedom for them. This excerpt is talking about situations where morality compels someone to do something, not their individual nature.

>>17264866
Well done for evading the argument entirely.

>>17264760
Don't touch my shit or get bricked boiiii it's not morals it's territory and if them get away with it today tomorrow they'll take something bigger. Degenerates shouldn't be welcome

>>17264837
>logic and truth spooky
>noooo Stirner's arguments are totally logical and true!

After reading Stirner I became and egoist.
After reading posts by Stirner's fans I abandoned egoism.
These people are cringe. Egoism is reddit now.

>>17264879
and in the process you have stumbled upon the one true calling in life - the ruthless disavowal of everything reddit

>>17264879
Still an egoist

>>17264894
reddit is just shorthand for millennial internet loser.

Do these people really need a book to tell them to act according to what they want. Lmao what is this self-help shit.

>>17264852
>literally missed the point of the excerpt

please take an english course if you can't understand it

>>17264914
It's you who has missed it. (Notice how easy contradicting someone is)

>>17264833
>If there's any conception of human nature, it's the shit you do automatically.
That's sort of the point. You have no choice but to be an egoist, you do what you wish to, naturally. The question is do you embrace it or not.

>>17264879
>I abandoned egoism.
Hmmm...

>>17264960
Now I devote parts of my life to things like my family, my children, my community, and progress (e.g. by contributing to scientific literature). And I do it for a greater good, not my ownness.

>>17264912
That is Philosophy for ya

>>17264879
If posts on 4chan influence you, you may have a very frail mind.

>>17264760
Stirner, Max. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me.

>>17264873
If you are dissuaded from an action only because it is in line with christian morality, you have been spooked. Your refusal to stop the thief has been motivated by that morality nonetheless, just as the christian is motivated to stop the thief. Here's a more straightforward, braindead example
>I better kill myself because the christians hate suicide.

>>17264994
You decided what the greater good was, thus you're doing it for your own ideals ultimately. You can't escape being an egoist. You are simpy willing or not.

>>17265054
I can't even tell if this is bait or if you're retarded. That statement is an egotistical one.

>>17265141
It is a joke, Anon.

>>17265145
Ah the ol pretending to be retarded joke, good one!

>>17265178
I am not that guy, I am just pointing out that this is likely a joke.

>>17265040
>autist with no self-awareness

>>17265139
By this logic everyone is already an egoist. This is psychological egoism, which isn't the same thing.

marx destroyed stirner

>>17264879
t. spooked retard who wants to be a part of the fotm cool hip philosophy

>>17265334
lmao imagine not seeing the irony in this post... le sekret club amirite?

> Over the course of the book, he variously declines to condemn the officer’s widow who strangles her child (281), the man who treats his sister “as wife also” (45), and the murderer who no longer fears his act as a “wrong” (169). In a world in which “we owe each other nothing” (263), it seems that acts of infanticide, incest, and murder, might all turn out to be justified.

yikes

>>17265141
He's referencing the opening lines of the book... You clearly are too retarded to get the joke.
/lit/ is full of brainlets.

>>17265387
Who wrote this

>>17265293
Yes, that is why never published his critique and let it rot in a drawer for 30 years.

>>17264760
science shows helping others gives you the happy chemicals is maximizing my happiness a spook?

>>17264852
>or to any of those in whom I take an interest

>>17265280
>by this logic everyone is already an egoist.

Now you’re getting it.

>>17265847
If it’s in your interests, no

>>17265944
so then giving to charity becuase I think it's moral is a spook but giving to charity because it promotoes oxytocin isnt?

>>17265916
And yet Stirner is not a psychological egoist.

>>17265949
Yeah, the whole thing is redundant. Being charitable we can forgive Stirner for being scientifically illiterate.

>>17264760
No, retard. You should do something if you want to, not because of "morals" (hint: a lot of """moral""" people won't do actually anything and yet still feel guilt afterwards)

>>17264852
based

>>17264914
uh... I think you might be the one who missed it. The excerpt clearly says that the only reason people care about crime in general is morality, although they may justify it to themselves by saying it's self-preservation.

>>17264866
>this passage covers morality
but it doesn't. It covers a very rational thing people do -- stop crime -- and tries to claim that the only reason anyone cares about stopping crime is morality, since self interests are too far removed from the crime itself, and punishing the crime will have no direct effect on one's own self interests.

I think my favorite thing about this board is that the swarms of "you didn't even read the book" invariably come from posters who have no idea what the author is arguing. I'd rather someone not read the book and have some understanding of a philosopher's argument than to read the book but not understand a thing. You know, it's not really "reading" if you don't understand the words, right?

>>17265916
>if I redefine everything to fit my conclusion...
>...then everything fits my conclusion!

>>17264947
>you have no choice but to be an egoist
>the question is whether you embrace it.
No, you have no choice but to be {thing certain philosophers define as an egoist}. In practical usage of the term, someone who chooses to help others because they think it is important is the opposite of an egoist.

Stirner is making a trivial argument -- it is impossible to leave your own head, so everything you experience and think happens inside your head. Duh. Was this supposed to be revelatory? Philosophy that relies on changing definitions to prove the point rather than making a point that matches the existing meaning is masturbatory and most of the reason why people don't like philosophy.

>>17266692
Yes rationality, logic, and reason are all spooks.

He is right. If you don't belt in God morals are a spook a d you should behave so.

>>17266721
that's the appeal of stirner to brainlets. it lets them do whatever they were doing before but now they can say they're doing it because of their own individual nature, while everyone else is just a moralist/christian sheep

>>17266723
It's rational, sure, but uninteresting. It uses as presupposition a definition of "egoist" that no non-philosopher would agree to, but as a result, the conclusions are equally irrelevant to non-philosophers. The conclusion about Stirner's definition of egoism has absolutely no implications towards what a normal human considers egoism. The problem is, people on this board are egoists in the normal definition of the word, but use the philosopher's definition to justify it, which is not rational, logical, or reasonable. The fact remains that people whose nature is to care about others are good people who find joy in the world, and people who only care about themselves are miserable and read philosophy to convince themselves it's not their fault.
>>17266745
yep. I think I need to stick to threads on literature from now on.

>>17266681
You still do not understand the example. Come on man. How can you misread even a simple text this much?
He is saying that according to moralistic principles the thief must be punished. Not regarding whether you as an individual even care about the crime itself. Let's make an even simpler example. If someone steals an apple from the neighbors tree, this person also becomes a thief and according to law, they must be punished. Do you care or not care about this act? Technically, you should apprehend this person since the law says so.

>>17266809
sorry, are you kidding? or maybe ESL
>Now the matter stands thus: even if a crime did not cause the slightest damage either to me or to any of those in whom I take an interest, I should nevertheless denounce it. Why? Because I am enthusiastic for morality, filled with the idea of morality; what is hostile to it I everywhere assail
This isn't him advocating for morality -- he's explaining /why/ everyone cares in spite of it not affecting them directly, and he's saying morality is the reason. He's not saying that's a good thing, though, he's arguing that morality is stupid.

>>17264839
Some anon made this the other day

>>17266835
>to me or to any of those in whom I take an interest
>whom I take an interest
This is the key here, do you not understand what he is saying with this?
He is saying, "why should I care about this issue if it does not affect me or my community"? Extremely simple.

>>17266858
Yes, I know. That's literally what I said. He thinks the only reason to care about things that don't directly affect you is morality, and he thinks that's stupid.

>>17266894
Yes, because that what it actually is. That is the argument. If you perform an action not because it is sensible for you personally but because an external force demands it (for example morality), you are subject to a spook. Because otherwise, why would you perform this action? What do you or the people that you care about (note that this can extend to a wider extend) have to gain from that action? If he does not give a shit about the baker and he has nothing against the thief, why ought he seek revenge on him. On whose behalf?

>>17266946
>but an external force demands it
Sorry, where are you getting this from? My morality is internal.
>but if your morality is internal by definition you care about all humans and therefore are affected directly when anything happens to any of them
Yeh, as I said, philosophy based on trivialities and manipulation of definitions is for pseuds. If a philosophical conclusion has no practical consequences, it is useless.

>>17266965
I have no idea where you are coming from right now. I only saw your previous post on Stirner's writing and had to comment because it was quite the misreading.

>Sorry, where are you getting this from? My morality is internal.
You have to distinguish whether you are acting on the basis of your own interests or your hand is forced because of some pre-defined framework.

I am not exactly sure what you mean with
>but if your morality is internal by definition you care about
Who are you quoting?

>>17267000
>acting on the basis of your own interests
>hand is forced because of some pre-defined framework.
Yes, I am acting in my own interests by upholding the pre-defined framework of principles I constructed for my life.
>Who are you quoting?
Sorry, just trying to anticipate what non-argument you'd come up with next, but I see you decided to go with something even less rational

>>17267031
>Yes, I am acting in my own interests by upholding the pre-defined framework of principles I constructed for my life.

Yes, and as soon as you are acting against your own interests because of the pre-defined framework you constructed and have become a slave to, you are "spooked". This is the entire flaw with the categorical imperative, you know?

>Sorry, just trying to anticipate what non-argument you'd come up with next, but I see you decided to go with something even less rational
No. What I am saying is that I can not follow where your mind is going right now. You are quoting some phrase but I do not see it anywhere in the thread. I am not one of the previous Anons you likely discussed with.

>>17267062
>as soon as you act against your own interests
>by acting in your own interests
Sorry. There's something I'm not quite following here.
>you are quoting a phrase
I was quoting your presumed follow-up argument. You do know how 4chan works, right? The green text doesn't have to literally appear in another post.

If you see a thief, then you are probably in the wrong place.

>>17264852
Based. No one of any value actually takes Stirner seriously.

Keep BTFOing these retards.

>>17265141
t. Has literally not read the book and doesn't get the reference

This board is full of pseuds, my god.

This thread is abysmal. A few words of signal engulfed in a storm of repetitive noise - "you haven't read the book", "you don't understand", "you can't read". It's the personification of "NO U".

>>17267086
>Sorry. There's something I'm not quite following here.
Sure. If you are acting on the basis of your own interests that is fine. As soon the framework you have placed yourself in becomes a forcing-function you are spooked. The principle is that you can adapt your value system and actions on the context of the situation and do not necessarily have to adhere to it. Ethical egoism is actually a fairly pragmatic philosophy.

>I was quoting your presumed follow-up argument.
I am not exactly sure what your argument is supposed to say?

>>17267497
A correction. I realized ethical egoism is not the right term, since it is prescriptive. Stirner's Egoism is very much descriptive in nature. It is a reaction to contemporary philosophy.

>>17267302
Why even bother when the post clearly indicates that the poster has not read the book.

>>17264760
The amount of people on this site who ( both for and against) don't understand this this book is staggering. In the most basic and generalized sense what is being said is that any action taken, can not be in and of itself considered universally good, and groups of people who try to invoke the greater good in order to compel you to conform your actions to their ideal are only doing so out of a need for control. There is no such thing as a greater good. It is a lie. STIRNER HAS NO INTEREST IN COMPELLING YOU TO DIFFERENT PARTICULAR SETS OF ACTIONS! HE WANTS YOU TO EXAMINE WHY! WHY ARE YOU MOTIVATED TO A PARTICULAR SET OF ACTIONS!?

>> muh socioeconomics... not the heckin game theory.

Yeah sure, that's why everything goes so well, and there is so much honesty and sincerity in the world today.

>>17264817

Read the book is an argument when your basic understating of text is so bad that you can't seem to understand the premise. For example:

>>He thinks that if you see a thief, you shouldn't do anything about it because morals are a spook.

Stirner isn't interested in convincing you particular actions are good or bad. The ENTIRE point of the text is to get the reader to examine the motivations behind their actions.

>> I have the book right in front of me.

Then why isn't it helping?

>>17264852

>> Now the matter stands thus: even if a crime did not cause the slightest damage either to me or to any of those in whom I take an interest, I should nevertheless denounce it. Why? Because I am enthusiastic for morality, filled with the idea of morality; what is hostile to it I everywhere assail.

The refutation of your position in your own quote right there. If you choose to conform to a moral standard because you want to you can, according to the text, do so without violating egoism. See also this quote you are responding to>>17264811
That further elaborates on the same idea. Along with every other passage in the entire book because it is the entire point of the book in it's entirety. That somehow you have missed which is why people are saying you didn't read it. But, I believe you OP. I absolutely believe you read a 327 page book that exists singularly to elaborate on only one point and yet managed to miss the point so entirely that even the basic premise of what the book is about is a fucking total mystery to you, and the only thing you came away from the text with is the idea that you are smart.

>>17264760
Thats not true. If you like seeing other people doing well then helping them out is the egotistical action.

>>17264760
Was Stirner Chinese?

>>17267818
You don't understand Stirner. Not even gonna bother. You probably read some reddit explanation of the Ego and think you understand it now.

>>17267836
This, I'd help because empathy makes me feel pain if I see someone else who is in pain.

OP here. Out of all the non read-the-book replies, all I can see is a defence of psychological egoism, which is not what Stirner is arguing.

>>17268165
What do you believe Stirner is arguing for? Also where do you see arguments for psychological egoism?

>>17268222
I made a very simple point that all these people who supposedly have read Stirner are failing to grasp.

I will try one last time in case anyone with an IQ above 70 is browsing.

Stirner claims that people act according to some abstract idea of morality (due to Christianity or some other spook). This is wrong. In reality people just act according to their own nature, and justify it by appealing to some notion of morality. In other words, Stirner gets it backward. It is morality that is the rationalisation of nature, not the other way round, as he claims.

And this is not 'human nature' but the nature of the individual. Calculations like 'I should help this person' are baked into this nature so they do them implicitly. It just happens that most people have roughly similar natures (most us don't like to see pain).

Example from Stirner himself: he thinks if you don't have sex with your sister out of morality you've been spooked. Wrong, we are repulsed by incest (and pretend it's about morality) because of our own nature, which is not ideological but much more primitive.

If your post includes any reference or even hint of psychological egoism you have failed to understand Stirner, egoism, my post, and are basically retarded. Please don't respond.

>>17268478
>who supposedly have read Stirner are failing to grasp.
They are not failing to grasp it. Your argument is just so nonsensical it is hard to even unwrap it.

You are providing some nebulous primal argument about human nature. That will convince few people and is absolutely unrelated to Stirner's ideas. He argues against humanism and nascent liberal thought. There is no point going into a nature vs nurture debate at that level.
You also did not even point out any posts about psychological egoism.

>>17268523
>They are not failing to grasp it. Your argument is just so nonsensical it is hard to even unwrap it.
At first I was joking but now I'm actually afraid I'm talking to someone with Downs syndrome.

>You are providing some nebulous primal argument about human nature. That will convince few people and is absolutely unrelated to Stirner's ideas. He argues against humanism and nascent liberal thought. There is no point going into a nature vs nurture debate at that level.
My post has nothing to do with the nature vs nurture debate. What the fuck are you even talking about I know what his arguments are, I'm saying his basic premise -- THAT PEOPLE ACT BECAUSE OF ABSTRACT IDEAS LIKE RELIGION AND HUMANITY AND NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN NATURE -- is flawed. If you disagree, then you're a psychological egoist, in which case you disagree with Stirner too.

>You also did not even point out any posts about psychological egoism.
The fact that you can't see any sign of this proves you're not reading these posts. Here is an example of psychological egoism along with about 20 others >>17265139

>>17265109
Finally, someone. I have waited for this to be written down forever. All the stirnerniggers I have seen in real life act like this and it is very annoying to see how they deny the ways they could profit from an action and refuse to take it simply because it would be according to the bible by coincidence. Their anti-spookism ends up being a reverse spook.

>>17269014
reminds me of teenagers when they do the opposite of what other people tell them so they can feel authentic lmao

>>17264879
Doesn't seem like you had any convictions about it anyway

>>17264760
That isn’t exactly what he was saying. I have read Stirner. Forgive him he was an autist.

>>17264760
Yes you shouldn't. That doesn't mean you can't do it. And knowing you should doesn't mean you will do it. Stirner's book is more about the hypocrisy of morality, much like Nietszche's take on morality.

>>17269014
No one knows what kind of people you interact with in real life, Anon. It is okay to let out your anger here. Just tell your friends that they should read the book.

>>17264760
>He thinks that if you see a thief, you shouldn't do anything about it because morals are a spook.
This is a basic misunderstanding. Morals imposed by social authorities are spooks, but if one personally is against what the thief is doing, if his robbery rubs you the wrong way, crush him. If we were honest with ourselves we'd admit this is how people go about morality anyway when left to their own devices. We make exceptions and choose to amend the constitution of our morals when it proves inconvenient to maintain the principle. People are morally opportunistic. Arrest the petty thief but let the taxman rob. Murder is a crime in the eyes of the state unless it's for its war. And so on. Stirner is much closer to how people really are with morality than any of Kant's autistic deontological nonsense.

>>17266844
Is the version on the anarchists' library pirated or did the translator allow it to be distributed for free?

>>17269226
Pretty much this. But desu it's basically what Spinoza tried to say except edgier.

>>17269288
>except edgier.
That's what makes it amusing to entertain.

>>17269271
It's the anarchist library, does it matter?

>>17269220
:(
They did read the book but they only understood it in a way so that it confirmed their thinking. Nothing changed, except that now they walk around and think their actions are justified by some wise undebateable philosophy. Yes that makes me angry because I like stirners texts but not some kind of hypocracy on legs pretenders.

The idea that morality should only apply to people who serve a purpose for you is against human nature. I think a lot of philosophers are sociopaths, because they think of people as ideas and not as actual human beings. Wanting to stop someone from suffering is a natural part of human nature, deeply engrained in our genetics from us evolving to coexist. Even in prehistoric times, people had to coexist in villages, and not everyone liked each other; however, even before any religions brought about the concept of forced morality, they would still protect each other because it is how they evolved. Although the root of morality on a primal level is to benefit oneself by benefitting your fellow man, it's a twisted interpretation to say you should only help people if it's directly for your benefit. Most people will help someone they see suffering to an extreme degree (e.g. someone getting beaten to death with a brick, as per OP's retarded example) if they are able to, simply because they are able to, and an innate part of their nature drives them to help their fellow man. Basic human morality predates the philosophies that try to pick it apart by millennia, and it's absurd that people still think they can debunk the "myth" that people are inherently good unless led astray from their nature.

>>17264879
based

>>17264760
>game theory
spook
>evolution
bigger spook
>socioeconomics
biggest spook

>>17270451
but none of these are idealisms

>>17264894
Anti-redditism is indeed the pinnacle of philosophy thus far. In both its simplicity and its depth.

>>17264760
>don't attach any meaning to anything

This is the ideology of the herd-man who rejects instinct, read Nietzsche

>>17266692
It's not redefining it, it's just pointing out the underlying reason for human behaviour.

>>17266721
>someone who chooses to help others because they think it is important is the opposite of an egoist.
Why? You're doing it because you think it's important = you're doing it because ultimately you want to.

You're not doing it because you think it's not important = you're not doing it because ultimately you don't want to.

The core of every action is what you desire at the given time. People or concepts might influence you, but the core behaviour stays the same. It doesn't matter if it's helping a granny cross the road, or running her over, you're reason for doing so is the same.

the stirner philosophy falls apart when you realize that morality is in your own best interest because we are all effected by the conditions of the society we live in and morality helps keep those conditions in check

>>17270721
>the stirner philosophy falls apart when you realize that morality is in your own best interest
>in your own best interest
Actually you just gave a reason why it holds up retard lmao.

I'm fed up from fools being filteree by thinking you need to abandon any system to be an egoist. You do not. You simply need to avoid justifying your actions on such systems with no further thought other than
>durrr dems da rulez

>>17270721
He never advocates for immorality outright. He's saying that deontological "duty bound" morality is just a way to slavishly deprive yourself of autonomy for the sake of a principle which you did not derive yourself and which has made you its puppet. He is not saying that you should commit to being an asshole just for the sake of it, but that there is no strict mandate to "follow the rules" of a morality which is imposed on you "on high" from outside your own judgement.

If you are an egoist and wish to be a good Christian boy, that is totally acceptable within Stirner's system, so long as you came to that decision from your own consideration rather than by being fearfully pressured to by coercive social forces. In this case, however, Christian morals are selected because they are suitable to you, not because you must make yourself suitable to them. If they are incompatible, the egoist is obligated to reject it out of hand.

>>17270773
>egoist is obligated
Rereading what I'm writing here sounds kind of funny. Of course the egoist is not "obligated" to reject it lol. Rather he is not obligated to accept it.

>>17269781
So...we're just going to ignore the man with the brick? Humans aren't inherently good, and you even admit as much yourself.
>and it's absurd that people still think they can debunk the "myth" that people are inherently good
>unless led astray from their nature
In other words, it is not the human himself, but a quality present in him which makes him good. There's your refutation.

I assume your definition of a moral good is mere utilitarian hedonism. In which case, how can human nature ever be a good? Your prehistoric villagers weren't peaceful savages, for war was common amongst tribes, and in the absence of the law, violence must've been used to maintain order. It seems the noble savages were doing exactly what you thought was a 'twisted interpretation', for people are, in the end, as inclined to killing as they are to saving, and it is only a matter of perceived interest.

>>17270717
yeh, I'm thinking you might be retarded
>The core of every action is what you desire at the given time.
Exactly, which is why calling this "egoism" is silly -- there is absolutely no other way that a person could make a decision, because a decision is inherently what you desire at the given time.
So it's saying nothing. (Semi-intelligent) people get this, they just don't care because it doesn't matter -- if someone's innermost desire is to help other people, that reflects well on the person. Everyone is doing the thing they want to do, it's what you want to do that matters.

>>17270861
>Exactly, which is why calling this "egoism" is silly -- there is absolutely no other way that a person could make a decision, because a decision is inherently what you desire at the given time.
Why is it silly? Perhaps you expected something more? Sometimes pointing out something seemly obvious is required.

>So it's saying nothing. (Semi-intelligent) people get this, they just don't care because it doesn't matter
You really believe that? You don't think there's plenty of people who think true selfishness exists? That killing is inherently evil? That stealing is? Or charity is inherently good? That their actions are justified because the law said so? Because the Bible said so?
Are you going to tell me they're all morons? Should we not share the truth if we believe we know it?

>if someone's innermost desire is to help other people, that reflects well on the person. Everyone is doing the thing they want to do, it's what you want to do that matters.
You can't control your desires.

>>17264879
>Abandoned egoism based on the perception and actions of others.

Seems a bit ironic, not that I disagree though.

>>17270914
>you can't control your desires
filtered, we have nothing in common, nothing to discuss

>>17271049
Just in case you're not completely retarded, I mean that we cannot control which desires arise, not that we can't tame them.

>>17271100
Then what are you trying to say? replace "if someone's innermost desire is to help other people" with "if someone chooses to make their top priority to help other people". Again, this is just semantics, it has no practical consequences