/lit/ - Literature

This board loves him and it's full of spergy basement wizards. You do the math.

>>5003834

>>5003834
talk shit post /fit/

i think it's more of being an asshole towards people that provide you with no benefit or gain.

only if you believe that people become assholes automatically when they arent broken by hegelian teachers or "pious atheists"

>>5003859
It's about being an asshole when it's to your advantage and not being one when it's not

Hes trying to explain that the notion of 'being an asshole' is based on a false premise- that there is some social or ethical order that you should subjugate yourself to. Egoism doesn't necessarily entail being an asshole, its just indifferent to it

I don't know. Why is /lit/ and the left attracted to douchey philosophers?

>>5003823
His premise: God is an asshole, therefore man should not be ashamed to be an asshole. Everything else is just "spooks"

>>5003938
he talks about "inner god". superego is an asshole, common knowledge.

>>5003946
So it's like satanism but for douches who "grew out" of Friedrich "Fedora" Nietzsche and don't shitpost on /x/. Riveting stuff chap.

>>5003956
Why don't you just read his work

>>5003956
can you rephrase that in your own words instead of using prefabricated 4chan labels?

>>5003961

The man who “has based his cause on nothing" begins his lengthy “critical hurrah” like a good German, straightway with a Jeremiad: “Is there anything that is not to be my cause?” (p. 5 of the “book”). And he continues lamenting heart-rendingly that “everything is to be his cause”, that “God’s cause, the cause of mankind, of truth and freedom, and in addition the cause of his people, of his lord”, and thousands of other good causes, are imposed on him. Poor fellow! The French and English bourgeois complain about lack of markets, trade crises, panic on the stock exchange, the political situation prevailing at the moment, etc.; the German petty bourgeois, whose active participation in the bourgeois movement has been merely an ideal one, and who for the rest exposed only himself to risk, sees his own cause simply as the “good cause”, the “cause of freedom, truth, mankind”, etc.

Our German school-teacher simply believes this illusion of the German petty bourgeois and on three pages he provisionally discusses all these good causes.

He investigates “God’s cause”, “the cause of mankind” (pp. 6 and 7) and finds these are “purely egoistical causes”, that both “God” and “mankind” worry only about what is theirs, that “truth, freedom, humanity, justice” are “only interested in themselves and not in us, only in their own well-being and not in ours” — from which he concludes that all these persons “are thereby exceptionally well-off”. He goes so far as to transform these idealistic phrases — God, truth, etc. — into prosperous burghers who “are exceptionally well-off” and enjoy a “profitable egoism”. But this vexes the holy egoist: “And I?” he exclaims.

>“I, for my part, draw the lesson from this and, instead of continuing to serve these great egoists, I should rather be an egoist myself!” (p. 7)

Thus we see what holy motives guide Saint Max in his transition to egoism. It is not the good things of this world, not treasures which moth and rust corrupt, not the capital belonging to his fellow unique ones, but heavenly treasure, the capital which belongs to God, truth, freedom, mankind, etc., that gives him no peace.

If it had not been expected of him that he should serve numerous good causes, he would never have made the discovery that he also has his “own” cause, and therefore he would never have based this cause of his “on nothing” (i.e., the “book”).

If Saint Max had looked a little more closely at these various causes” and the “owners” of these causes, e.g., God, mankind, truth, he would have arrived at the opposite conclusion: that egoism based on the egoistic mode of action of these persons must be just as imaginary as these persons themselves.

>>5003981
>disliked and misinterpreted by the men who are most responsible for 20th century horrors
>and they were so insecure that "german ideology" remained unpublished until their death

well, that will show stirner-fans

>>5004003
>be philosopher
>write some books
>some assholes use them to legitimize their bullshit
>it's all my fault, really

>>5003981
holy shit this is some of the most retarded stuff I've ever read and I don't agree with Stirner

it's a kid kicking a sandcastle he can't understand

>>5003981
How can he have been that obsessed with Stirner and not understood that the Ego is corporeal

If you read him, you'd know that he wasn't trying to "justify" anything, he was trying to do away with the notion of "justification". Was he eager to be an "asshole" as in hurt and shit on people? No, he was not.

No, that you could use his ideas to justify being a complete asshole to everyone around you is incidental.

>>5004910
So what would a Stirnerist society be like, really?
I keep thinking some of these ephemeral spooks, with their good and bad nature, are even harder for people to outgrow than the concept of god and heaven. (Here in this world were kings and queens still sit on figurehead thrones) Anon keeps proposing a world of egomaniacs practically hunting each other.

>>5004932
That depends on the people. A union of people who get a great deal of pleasure from hurting others would be rather different from a union of egoists who savor kindness.

>>5004932
What the hell is a spook?

>>5004973
I should add that there would never be such a thing as a Stirnerist society, because Stirner doesn't believe in society.

>>5004975
A metaphysical essence

>>5004975
Socially conditioned mental inhibition if I understand correctly, I haven't read Stirner

>>5004997
Nah. You can believe in a spook without being socially conditioned to. Believe in a spook can cause a compulsion, not just inhibition.

>>5004973
>>5004987
After having Braudel explain "civilizations" meaning, I had to pick some word. A world of Stirners is a world without spooks, but a world of similar to this one with your good and your bad, say 80/20, roughly. It sounds like how I'd imagine the mindset of an anarchists world would be like, I guess.

>>5005019
Stirner contrasts "union" with "society" and "state".

Unions wouldn't necessarily lead to anarchism; Stirner seems to think they make for unpredictability, it would more likely be a steady rise in a powerful, fluid union exploiting the others until they act (which, according to Stirner, wouldn't take nearly as long for egoists, because they don't have to bother with whether or not dismantling power is ethical). Maybe more of a cycle of weak states with brief anarchism in between.

>>5005052
Made me think of the Mondragón Corporation

>>5005060
It would suit cooperatives quite well, yeah. In fact, that's pretty much what a union is, a group of egoists cooperating for one reason or another, but not bound together by requirement.

>>5005072

>>5005072
>not bound together by requirement.
You've never dealt with unions in real life have you?
There are still hierarchical and subordinate elements in its organization.

>>5005113
Yeah, okay, no trade union today is really a "union of egoists", dawg. And there's not an issue with organizers, it's just a matter of doing what they say because it's in your interest to follow their advice, rather than out of obedience as a value

>>5003859
>>5003867
>>5003868
>>5003870
>>5004057
>>5004100
These people have read Stirner

>>5003834
>>5003946
>>5005019
These people have only read about Stirner on /lit/ and want to talk shit. Just wait till they get hit.

>>5003981
This guy read Stirner but didn't really get it. Note the spooks and phantasms circling his head.

>>5004910
>>5004973
>>5004987
>>5005014
>>5005052
>>5005072
>>5005120
This is feminister, our residential Stirnerfag. If you have any questions about The Ego and It's Own please direct them at her.

>>5003889
>the left
You do realize that leftists fucking hate stirner and nietsche right?

>>5005213

Nah, the left likes everything I dislike. They are everything that's wrong with my America.

>>5005213
mfw that 'Nietzsche discussion group' got shut down at that UK university

>>5005221
heres the article
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/05/university-college-london-s-nietzsche-club-is-banned.html

leftists lel

>>5005221
>>5005228
10/10 research, as expected of the geniuses who browse Stirner threads

Nothing to see here, just good old fashioned Nietzsche discussion mixed with sensible people like Benoist, Evolva, and Heidegger.

Stupid leftists oppressing muh freedoms.

>>5005221
>>5005228
10/10 research, as expected of the geniuses who browse Stirner threads

Nothing to see here, just good old fashioned Nietzsche discussion mixed with sensible people like Benoist, Evolva, and Heidegger.

Stupid leftists oppressing muh freedoms

>>5005248
>>5005246
pls calm down

If you finished The Ego and are excited to learn more, I suggest:
- Stirner's Critics, a rebuttal to some attacks on Egoism
- Egoism, a collection of Egoist /individualist anarchist writings
- Renzo Novato, an extreme individualist anarchist who lived during the Italian revolutions before fascism
- Wolfi Landstreicher, a more recent individualist anarchist that is a bit more reasonable

>>5005250
Fucking autocorrect : Renzo Novatore.

Also, Stirner's Critics was written by Stirner himself. Forgot to add that.

>>5003981
Where did you get a full copy of "German Ideology"?

Also, now I understand why his criticism of Stirner is widely considered bullshit. Because it is.

>>5003981
>Here, as always, Sancho [Max Stirner[ is again unlucky with his practical examples. He thinks that “no one can compose your music for you, complete the sketches for your paintings. No one can do Raphael’s works for him”. Sancho could surely have known, however, that it was not Mozart himself, but someone else who composed the greater part of Mozart’s Requiem and finished it, and that Raphael himself “completed” only an insignificant part of his own frescoes.

>>5005298
That might be why Marx ultimately didn't publish it.

So how is this incompatible with left-anarchism? It seems pretty spot on.

>>5005673
It's not incompatible, but neither is it limited to it. Enslaving a bunch of people is compatible with it. If everyone WERE a conscious egoist, that would mean something like left anarchism, but there is no SHOULD in Stirner. He is NOT an ethical egoist, he is a PSYCHOLOGICAL egoist.

>>5005686
Thanks. You've convinced me to read stirner sounds like he knows his shit.

>>5005298
>Where did you get a full copy of "German Ideology"?
probably google...

>you will never exercise your power over fixed ideas and forcibly have your way with feminister

>>5005213
>You do realize that leftists fucking hate stirner and nietsche right?
Remember kids: they are all the same!

>>5005706
>In feminister's world, disemboweling her, making a wig out of her hair, and terrorizing her mother and father while wearing a suit made out of her flesh wouldn't be a "bad" thing

Who cares?
Stirner is a bad philosopher.

>>5005248
>>5005221
>>5005228
>UCLU’s clampdown on the Nietzsche Club is an attempt to portray both UCLU and the Nietzsche Club as more important than they really are. Hollowed out and lacking any real political significance, UCLU attacked another, even more inconsequential, group so that it could pretend for a moment that it was doing something of significance, something with real political meaning.
>Nevertheless, while the whole debacle was nothing more than student-union posturing, it projects a dim view of students. It shows a lack of faith in the capacity of students to digest certain ideas and come to reasoned conclusions. If UCLU really is that concerned about a small number of people attempting to popularise the ideas of a few reactionary thinkers, the best solution would be to expose these ideas for what they are: wrong. The only way to do that is through free and open debate, not censorship.
^ this seems a good psychological summary.

>>5003823
He removes the need for justification. So that allows for both raping your mum and starting a kitten orphanage.

>>5004932
>Anon keeps proposing a world of egomaniacs practically hunting each other.
Consider the following;
We are already in that.

>>5005706
Let's be honest here. How many of us have a bit of a crush on feminister because she introduced us to Stirner? I actually felt a little feel when I found out she had a pleb bf that was making her read westerns. I think I'm being 80% sardonic.

>tfw you and feminister will never form a perfect Union of Egoists.

"spooks"

is this a term that Stirner actually coined or is this a word that we've co-opted to mean what he means

>>5006548
He uses it. I can see how between "spooks" and the Engels doodle he seems like a bit of a joke, but he is certainly the furthest thing from that.

Egoism is asinine.
Cooperation is more beneficial than competition.
Stirner is nothing but a crude apology for hedonism based on a bad reading of Hegel.
Moral relativism is everything that's wrong with the world today, and adopting these sorts of views in order to form an edgy identity is actively hurtful.

>>5006532
>he still doesnt get it after all these posts
some dense motherfuckers on this board

>>5006532
A world like that would eventually result in a world where a number of people have managed to defend themselves well enough to create a sort of power balance and resort to using arguments or peaceful and mutually beneficial means of interaction.

This sounds very much lika our current state.

>>5006567
Moralists, pls.

>The moral man is necessarily narrow in that he knows no other enemy than the 'immoral' man. 'He who is not moral is immoral!' and accordingly reprobate, despicable, etc. Therefore, the moral man can never comprehend the egoist.

Besides, Stirner never had any problem with cooperation.

>>5006583
Yes, except I never said anything about immoral people being an enemy. That's simply a way to reduce my stance to something it isn't to argue away a legitimate flaw in Stirnerian egoism.

Cooperation holds no force when it isn't binding.

This is why "Right-to-Work" laws destroyed the American union, and why social contract theory was formulated in the first place.

>>5006598
>Yes, except I never said anything about immoral people being an enemy.
>>Moral relativism is everything that's wrong with the world today.

How do you mean I'm supposed to interpret this?

>Cooperation holds no force when it isn't binding.

So essentially you don't think cooperation is necessarily superior to competition since contracts need at least a modicum of power imbalance and not exist only for the mutual benefit? May be so, but I don't see how that necessarily contradicts Stirner in any meaningful way, he never outlined many specifics for how an "ideal" society should function.

there are people on /lit/ Right Now who don't realise things like human rights, Equality, democracy, etc are ignoble and only make things easier for the average person at the expense of the peaks of humanity

>>5006624
>How do you mean I'm supposed to interpret this?
See the dialogue with Thrasymachus in The Republic. Justice is not merely the advantage of the stronger, etc. It should give you some pause that your ideology, the oxymoronic nature of "egoists" adhering to one not withstanding, glorifies situations such as a serial killer successfully torturing and dismembering people who love "Blood Meridian" for pleasure as acts of heroic egoism. Or raping women for fun. Or enslavement and genocide.

There are a plethora of reasons that these things, if you actually witnessed them, would make you more than just a little uneasy. Glorifying them is a step backwards. In no way does providing examples of the absurdity of egoist valuation commit me to black-and-white thinking or put me into a box where I can only see immorality as the only bad thing in the world.

>So essentially you don't think cooperation is necessarily superior to competition since contracts need at least a modicum of power imbalance and not exist only for the mutual benefit? May be so, but I don't see how that necessarily contradicts Stirner in any meaningful way, he never outlined many specifics for how an "ideal" society should function.

Unfortunately, there was a power imbalance the moment you were born into a world where there were a lot more people than you. There is no way for you to change that, even when you come to a recognition.

>>5006648 cont.
The reason contracts are necessary is to make plain the penalty for manipulating good-faith efforts at cooperation. Civilized people are capable of this. It happens all the time, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Holding one's interest above that of everyone else's is quite possibly the easiest way to justify hedonism. Why do you need Stirner for that?

Not to mention that it's highly likely that you are the last person to know what's best for you, at least on your own.

>>5006633
>peaks of humanity
>muh genius cult

>>5006543
D'awww

>>5006648
>glorifies
Doesn't glorify anything. Glory is very much a spook.

>acts of heroic egoism
Again, no. Heroism is not only neither Right nor Wrong, but it is a spook itself. All conscious egoism is conscious egoism, there is not any sort that is inherently more "heroic" than other sorts; to egoistically rescue someone from a burning building is egoism, why would it not be heroic? Because metaphysical nihilist egoism doesn't posit heroism as a virtue, it doesn't posit ANYTHING as a virtue. Once again it is vital that you learn the distinction between PSYCHOLOGICAL egoism and ETHICAL egoism; Stirner is the former.

>>5006656
>Holding one's interest above that of everyone else's is quite possibly the easiest way to justify hedonism. Why do you need Stirner for that?

Because Stirner is beyond that. He'd say there's no such thing as "justified" hedonism

>>5005702
Couldn't find one anywhere, even through Google. The ones I found were cut up and incomplete.

>>5006633
Sorry we're such a burden on you enlightened one

Why does /lit/ like Stirner so much?

His intriguing portrait, as well as his surprising philosophy (I'd always doubted someone like this existed) kind of got me to be fascinated by it, then I saw some people discussing it. Made me read an interesting yet poorly written essay, I guess I was influenced by it.

>>5006798
If there is no good, all things are equally ethical.
In this case, my example is exactly that, praiseworthy. It can't be ethically wrong, there are no such things as right or wrong in true nihilism.

In fact, the ego itself cannot be good, as there is no "good" and there is in the end little reason to think the self any better an aim than the negation of the self. I am well aware of the difference between psychological and ethical egoism. Both are subject to many of the same flaws, yet strangely, you seem to think the one with an even shakier ethical foundation to have somehow avoided the pitfall?

By openly proclaiming that there is no normative ought, that somehow means we "ought" to act out of egoistic aims?

>>5006819
Why act? In the absence of the ought, what is your end as an egoist? Self-improvement? Pleasure? Identity? Why is responding to this post any more in line with your end than self-immolation?

>>5006648
>Glorifying

He doesn't glorify anything, he just makes it clear that right and wrong does not exist as anything but spooks. Of course genocide and slavery and rape makes you uneasy and that's why don't do it and try to avoid it! But there's no other reason than just that.

>Unfortunately, there was a power imbalance the moment you were born into a world where there were a lot more people than you. There is no way for you to change that, even when you come to a recognition.

Well yeah, of course. I was just asking about the nature of cooperation according to you and I didn't even say you were wrong.

>>5006656
>Holding one's interest above that of everyone else's is quite possibly the easiest way to justify hedonism. Why do you need Stirner for that?

I don't, but that's what I'm doing, Neither is it what he is doing. He doesn't try to justify anything, he's not saying that you have any more reason to put your interest above others, you don't have any reason not to either. He is simply stating a fact.

>Not to mention that it's highly likely that you are the last person to know what's best for you, at least on your own.

It's highly unlikely that I know what's best for me, yes, but I don't think I would be the LAST person you would ask about that, and I also know a fair good amount of things that are GOOD for me, even if they're not BEST.

Besides, I'm not on my own and I don't wish to be.

>>5006862
>Of course genocide and slavery and rape makes you uneasy and that's why don't do it and try to avoid it! But there's no other reason than just that.

No, I don't refrain from these things because they make me uneasy. I refrain because they are wrong. If the thought of them did not make me uneasy, I wouldn't do them and would be perfectly justified in doing so. By the same token, someone else would not be justified in doing them simply because it doesn't "feel" wrong to them. The value of an action is not based on how I "feel" or how you "feel" about it, that would lead to easily demonstrable absurdity.

>you don't have any reason not to either.
Yes, you do; this is exactly what I've been at pains to demonstrate. Cooperation is more beneficial than competition in every case. Cooperation only functions when it isn't gamed. Hence we make concessions when deciding to cooperate with each other, and that includes binding agreements in the long term.

I was not actually saying you would be the last person to ask about what is best for your well-being, that was hyperbole. You also certainly wouldn't be the first.

>>5006889
>No, I don't refrain from these things because they make me uneasy. I refrain because they are wrong. If the thought of them did not make me uneasy, I wouldn't do them and would be perfectly justified in doing so. By the same token, someone else would not be justified in doing them simply because it doesn't "feel" wrong to them. The value of an action is not based on how I "feel" or how you "feel" about it, that would lead to easily demonstrable absurdity.
Stirner's entire point is that there is no such thing as right or wrong. There's no intrinsic value to any action. Grind down all of the universe to it's smallest components and you see that there's not a single molecule or particle of justice, mercy, morality, etc. These are things we make up for ourselves for various reasons, what he calls "spooks". Whatever this realization leads to has no bearing on how correct it is.

>Yes, you do; this is exactly what I've been at pains to demonstrate
First, I'm still not disagreeing with you (not agreeing 100% either but i feel that the details of social organization is a different discussion). Second, here's where it's important to make the distinction between psychological egoism and ethical egoism, which has been pointed out. If it's beneficial to cooperate under an enforcable contract in order to achieve what you desire then of course you would do that! Everyone trying to game their on way even when it's demonstrably detrimental to them is just stupid, morality of any kind has nothing to do with that.

>>5006722
>>5006825
weaklings who need life to be easy

>>5006943
>Stirner's entire point is that there is no such thing as right or wrong.
Yes, this is exactly the major problem. Or it is at the very least the first of the major problems.

>There's no intrinsic value to any action.
Firstly, Kant has an answer to this.
Secondly, it doesn't matter whether the value is intrinsic or not if it is UNIVERSAL.

>Grind down all of the universe to it's smallest components and you see that there's not a single molecule or particle of justice, mercy, morality, etc.
I think you will find that there are more things which have existence beyond simply the physical. For instance, your ego is a fabrication under this definition.

>Whatever this realization leads to has no bearing on how correct it is.
Well, first of all that's wrong. If something leads to an impossibility, then it too must be impossible.
Secondly, I hope after you consider my points above, you will see that there is enough reason to reject the initial premise without even a reductio argument.

>If it's beneficial to cooperate under an enforcable contract in order to achieve what you desire then of course you would do that! Everyone trying to game their on way even when it's demonstrably detrimental to them is just stupid, morality of any kind has nothing to do with that
Framing the debate in terms of personal benefit is disheartening. Acts of altruism are real. I've done them myself, and I wasn't acting either irrationally or out of egoistic aims.

>>5006990
Please define the peaks of humanity, anon.

Consider the following:

Human interaction, even from an egoistic viewpoint, can be good or bad, constructive or destructive. Life can be exiting, vibrant, full of reprocicated emotions. And it can be dull, colorless, almost dead even in interaction with other beings.

What spook is it then that haunts our lives and paints it full of lovely colors - or deprives it of it's ingenuity? Is it our ego that decides whether to make life come alive or kill it off? How then do you explain the friendzone? or jealousy? Is it the fault of the others?

There are certain simple rules of communication, or life, that if you play along makes life come alive. And if you break them, the air goes out of the balloon. They can be ascertained empirically by observing life. Spooks?

This might be hard to grasp for a teenager, sure, but if you have some experience in life, you will know that there are ways of playing that work, and ways that just dont. You can't justify the latter by saying 'my ego and my own and the rest is spookery'. I mean, you can, and you will probably end up feeling very lonely.

I get how Stirner is good for misfits who feel that succubing to certain social conventions is subverting themselves to 'spooks'. The key though, is not ego or it's own or ghostbusting. The key might be affirmation as opposed to assertation. This is where Stirner's egoistic paradigm can also become very very destructive- just saying...

Interaction can be open, honest, considerate, etc - it can also be the opposite- depending on the egos interacting, their feelings at the moment and their ability (or lack thereof) to listen to and appreciate the sentiments (or expressions thereof) of the other. Even more so, once a communicative pattern is established, it tends to reinforce itself. If I start calling you a raging faggot, I will most likely get the same answer. So, we have the possibility to open the treasure chest that is life, or close it.

Unfortunately, most of the time, we are to consciouss about ourselves and our own needs to be consciouss about what's actually going on. Afterwards we ight think 'mum is such an asshole' or 'my boss is such a faggot', but we are still not conscious about what's happening. And even, when someone manages to 'open' us- we are mostly unconscious thereof, because we are too busy with our ego and it's own. And if we really open, we tend to get possesive and jealous.

I think it is safe to assume that some spooks are very very real. More so than our egos and their own.

>>5007240
Have you read Stirner?

>>5007256
Yes, and I find his system coherent. That just doesn't make it true.

His critique of social conventions and ideas is very welcome. The self affirmative philosophy that comes out of it, is great for inspiring courage.

At the same time, it's like an autofelatio. A closed system completely oblivious of anything beyond the ego and its own.

Have you made love to another human being?

>>5007303
Yes, what does that have to do with anything?

>>5006992
>Acts of altruism are real. I've done them myself, and I wasn't acting either irrationally or out of egoistic aims.

Here's the problem -- or, well, problems: altruism can only exist in a state of apathy because any emotional inspiration to act, or emitting from the act, is egoistical; so, it begs the question: why act if you don't care?

So, I must ask: how did you feel about your acts of altruism? If you felt good about committing the acts, that's egoism -- don't erroneously think egoism is inherently-negative: it's our base function [mutual-egoism].

I'm not saying altruism doesn't exist; but, it's so rare, that I doubt you could even identify one altruistic act you've done without questioning its validity.

>>5007314
Everything

What is the difference between jacking off to tranny porn and being penetrated by love?

If it's about real traction, smeel and so forth- why son't you get a hooker?

If it's about the money, then why don't you rob a bank?

And so forth, without touching upon the central issue, which is transcendence of self

>>5007318
>altruism can only exist in a state of apathy because any emotional inspiration to act, or emitting from the act, is egoistical

Thisiswhategoistsactuallybelieve.jpeg

>>5007330
Transcendence is a spook, how can one expect to go beyond what one is?

>>5007355
>how can one expect to go beyond what one is?
What are you then?

Also, you do it all the time, even though you might not be conscious about it (being to preoccupied with your ego and it's own)

>>5007351
It's only genuine in extreme cases where the ego is willing to sacrifice itself (materially or in terms of resource) for the valued "other", thereby proving that the action is not in one's self-interest. Such cases are practically non-existent.

>>5007371
Tell your mother that. I'm sure she'll understand.

>>5007355
One never "is", one is always becoming

>>5007355
one is / I am / etcetera are all spooks

also, you didn't answer my question

>>5007375
Not him, but Mother raised me and loves me because she was an involuntary Egoist that was haunted by spooks. It made her feel good to be a good mother. I love her because she has raised me and is a fantastic person. My mother is actually quite an Egoist, she cares nothing for most external authority and only uses them to further her (admittedly shallow) existence. She pledged to communism in China then came to America and denied ever pledging. If she was not such a fantastic person I would not love her.

I told her once that I didn't love her because she was my mother, but because she was a great person that I legitimately respected. She thought about it and eventually agreed that that was better.

Please stop throwing spooks around and thinking that they're arguments, though. Stirner also rejects familial love as a fixed-idea, although you supposedly read him so you should know this too.

>>5003823
You don't have to be an asshole, though it is probably asshole's favorite ideologue.

>>5007447
So, your mum didn't sacrifice herself for you in any way? She just went on and raised you because it stroked her ego?

Also, you do realize that spook can be called on anything. Pr. definition a spook is a metaphysical essence that is haunting reality. That goes for any word ever.

>>5007498
>Pr. definition a spook is a metaphysical essence that is haunting reality. That goes for any word ever.
Maybe why Stirner and Nietzsche have such idiosyncratic philosophy texts.

>>5007371
>It's only genuine in extreme cases where the ego is willing to sacrifice itself (materially or in terms of resource) for the valued "other"

The fact the other is valued makes it egoistical because the act is to better the other. Sacrifice doesn't necessitate altruism; I don't know why people think it does. A person can feel good for sacrificing something for another because they are better-off from it.

What is it with people STILL thinking egoism is inherently negative? That is it ONLY bad?

I don't get it. Is it some rationalization that, "No, it's not possible I do things for myself; that would make me selfish! And selfishness is ALWAYS bad because... well, because."

>I don't get it. Is it some rationalization that, "No, it's not possible I do things for myself; that would make me selfish! And selfishness is ALWAYS bad because... well, because."

Apparently. Any life form is inherently egoistical, if it wasn't like this, there would be no self-preservation.

Hey guys. I haven't read Stirner, but I have read Nietzsche. How alike are they? From the discussion in this thread Stirner and Nietzsche seem quite similar. Stirner's idea of "spooks" sounds a lot like Nietzsche's disdain for pre-existing value systems and a preference for self-directed living. Is there a big difference between the two I am missing?

>>5007648
Stirner brings the hegelian discourse to new levels of abstraction while passing it as non abstract, and Nietzsche destroys it.

>>5007671
So in your view Nietzsche is an advancement beyond the Hegelian paradigm while Stirner remains, in a sense, enslaved by it? I guess I can see that in the abstract verbage this thread is filled with in comparison with Nietzsche's mostly material-focused writings. Still, they seem to have a similar angle on ethics and metaphysics.

>>5003823
Stirner is mean, I don't like mean people.

>>5007498
She sacrificed and felt good doing it, because she was an involuntary Egoist.

A spook cannot be called on anything. The word "rock" is not a spook. A spook is a fixed-idea that causes you to act for its sake instead of its own. Regular words do not ask me to act for their sake instead of my own. If you truly have read Stirner then you sorely lack reading comprehension. Maybe you should stick to genre fiction (thanks ol schoppy!)

>>5007845
>a spook cannot be called on JUST anything (read: all words)
>a spook is a fixed-idea that causes you to act for its sake rather than your own

Fucking typos sry

>>5007671
Can you expand on this? I've seen Stirner called Hegelian even though he abhors Hegel. I'd like to understand the argument.

>>5006845
No. Things are not equally ethical anymore than they are "equally holy". There is no holy, there is no ethical.

>In this case, my example is exactly that, praiseworthy. It can't be ethically wrong, there are no such things as right or wrong in true nihilism.
But according to what value system is it praiseworthy?

>In fact, the ego itself cannot be good, as there is no "good" and there is in the end little reason to think the self any better an aim than the negation of the self.

That's correct

>By openly proclaiming that there is no normative ought, that somehow means we "ought" to act out of egoistic aims?
No. Psychological egoism posits that we DO act out of egoistical aims, not that we "ought" to. Ethical egoism says we "ought" to.

>>5006845
>Why act? In the absence of the ought, what is your end as an egoist?
Everyone is.

>Why is responding to this post any more in line with your end than self-immolation?
It's more in line with my pleasure. You can certainly say something is, or is not, personally pleasurable; attributing any value beyond that, such as Just or Right or Good, is spooky. Pleasure is not a spook; pleasure is simply pleasure; when you deify pleasure into some sort of code or value system, then that is essentialism, it is imbuing pleasure with a metaphysical essence--a "spook".

>>5007864
>Everyone is.
That is, everyone is an egoist. And I don't need to "justify" action, I act because I do or because it pleases me.

>>5008107
Finally, someone who fucking understands egoism.

>>5007330
You truly haven't read Stirner or didn't understand him. Don't mistake his 'egoism' for conventional egoism as in selfishness.

>>5007864
>I've seen Stirner called Hegelian even though he abhors Hegel
Marx is invented hegelianism, that's still hegelian. Hegelian is a buzzword for idealist, obscurantist, immensely circular or purely theoretical thinking.

>>5005213
I'm a leftist (though I don't think that term fits me well, post-left is better I guess) and love le Spooksman, so do most of my other left-wing friends.

>>5008174
Max Stirner is selfish, though. He says when he loves and sacrifices for another, it is for the selfish pleasure it gives him to see them happy.

>>5008216
Emma Goldman was big into Nietzsche, and to a lessor extent, into Stirner. She wasn't exactly a moral nihilist, but she was a radical individualist.

>>5005219
America barely has a real left, honestly.

>>5008236
At least the Democrats don't pose as socialists like all those frauds in the Socialist International.

>>5008260

They pose as friends of the popular masses, which isn't far removed. 'The Party of Landlords and Rentiers' isn't exactly their slogan.

>>5008327
They "pose" as social liberals light, which is exactly what they are. If anything else, they are constantly trying to fight back charges of being socialist or leftist in favor of mild populism.

>>5008347

I don't believe for an instant that such a party doesn't enjoy those salacious little 'accusations' of being radically left, with the incumbent privilege of saying, "Please, stop, you're *too* much! We're only mildly populist!" Their social 'liberality' is laughable, and amounts to little in excess of belated support for homosexual 'rights' and abortion. Trailing behind the actual state of social liberalism hardly constitutes them a socially liberal party.

>>5003842

>>5008375
They're as sonically liberal as they can be while still being populist in the America sense. Telling people they need to pay $15,000 in licensing fees to start a small business or a cooperative, or that concealed carry as a personal privilege should be reserved for cops as a reward for service, or that smokers should have to fork over extra taxes to pay for healthcare stuff even though they don't live on average to when healthcare is truly expensive, or that it's now a legal requirement you have a degree to perform a job that was open to everyone before--these are not populist things to America.

>>5008436
>as socially liberal as they can be while still being populist in the American sense

>>5008436
God damn it feminister quite being so cool.

>>5008218
Yes, but that anon seems to think selfish love isn't love. While it is in fact the only love.

>>5009004
The only love in praxis. Fictional, artistically love can be conceived of, and in fact we have been greatly scared by courtly love.

>>5009004
It's a combination. Yeah, you want that person and you'll throw a fit over it, but some will do anything for their love, subject themselves in a near slavish way.

>>5008623
Girl can't help it.

>>5009011
>It's a combination. Yeah, you want that person and you'll throw a fit over it, but some will do anything for their love, subject themselves in a near slavish way.
In Stirner's conception, you can devote yourself to another egoistically (just like if you devote a year to writing a book, it is egoistic), but it's not "sacrificial", we just delude ourselves into thinking it is. That person is our interest, we devote ourselves to our interests.

>Girl can't help it.
If I try really hard I can lend a hand to it

>>5009036
Healthier love. The extremes are annoying.

>If I try really hard I can lend a hand to it
Lending a hand to not being as cool?

>>5009036
The man who builds houses for the poor is a violent man.

>>5009049
idk heat gets to me sometimes

>>5009063
>heads out with Feminister, into the cool of the even for groceries.

>>5009063
>heads out with Feminister, into the cool of the evening for groceries.

>>5009036

Is Stirner's 'spook' just another way of referring the the various ways in which people become conscious of their social connections and interdependency? - that is, communal consciousness beside and against individual consciousness. Or, to put it dialectically, are 'spooks' (for Stirner) the communal aspect of the identity of community and individual (as a unity of opposites)?

I should probably just go read his fucking book, but I've been too fucking busy with other projects. Never enough free time and all that.

Stirnerism is the dumbest utopic vision. benign but for its thorough denial of god, good, etc.

>>5009104
You don't even have to read more than the first section of his book to see what he's on about.

One important notion he has is that people follow spooks like Religion or the Good or Mankind selflessly when these spooks are themselves egotistical and care only about further themselves, about furthering Religion, Good, Mankind

Mostly though he views these spooks as just being meaningless constructs, as opposed to the physical reality of the Ego, of obeying and furthering oneself

I honestly read the whole thing in like an hour and half though so you're better off reading it yourself, its quite entertaining

>>5009152

I'll put it on the to-do list. It does sound an awful lot like he's trying to resolve the opposition of community and individual, viz. the individual 'sacrifices' himself for the community, when in reality it is only for himself, for what he gets out of the community; everyone doing this, serving themselves through the community, constitutes a 'community'; consciousness of this relation is banishing the 'spook'; Ego and Community become identical, and so the Community becomes a 'Union of Egoists'. It's appropriate for a Hegelian. Anywho, thanks for the tips.

>>5008107
Making something like pleasure your end is hedonism.

You can't handwave valuation away as something that doesn't exist. Talking about oughts makes sense because, and only because, it is a term attached to a concept that has meaning. If you think that there is no universal standard of moral value, then that IS a stance on moral value. This is exactly my point. In the absence of such a standard, of course you rely on concept such as desire and pleasure. Which is why egoism is a thin veil for hedonism, and is simply Hegelian-flavored in the Stirnerian speciation. You really don't need all this extra, and in many ways problematic, mental gymnastics and handwaviness to say that pleasure is the ultimate good. Or to say you believe that your own pleasure is of greater importance than everyone else's.

By dismissing values, you create a value system. Because humans are the type of things which value, and we act on our values. Pleasure is the obvious choice to fill the void you create in such a situation, but it is crude to do so and even cruder not to realize that you are.

Beyond that, it's patently wrong that people only act out of egoistic aims. People devote their entire lives for others and throw their lives away for others. There are numerous instances in which people make the ultimate sacrifice for the benefit of others, and there is nothing wrong with that. Each of these cases is a counterexample to the highly unlikely assertion of psychological egoism.

>>5009059
>The man who builds houses for the poor is a violent man.
Explain

>>5009189
The community would be just one of his spooks, they can be really anything.

>>5009090
:p

>>5009104
Stirner draws a parallel between essentialism and believing in ghosts. "Spook" is just his tongue-in-cheek word for "essence".

>>5009135
>utopic
The only utopic concepts derive from some sort of 'good'. When you reject the idea of a 'good' and view things in terms of your ego, utopia ceases to exist.

So how does Stirner explain instances of people dying to protect others, soldiers willingly sacrificing themselves for their country, priests and monks who forsake all earthly pleasures, and so forth?

>>5009152
>reading through the entirety of Ego and its Own in 90 minutes

You read a page in 15 seconds? Shit.

>>5009224
The one I read was 180pgs
http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf

so thats 30seconds a page(was probably more like 2hours i didnt time it..)

That was my point though i just rushed through it to see what he was saying, and so the other guy shouldnt take me that seriously

>>5009211
Incorrect. Feminister, for example, imagines some rising up of the people, all equally in egoism, feminism, communism, utopia the result. Egoism, basically, is the freeing of man, and while I don't particularly disagree with any of its metaphysical considerations, it's still dumb, benign, redundant, but for its appeal to outliers (typically immoral, I imagine). There is no political philosophy which is not to proffer the individual's utopia.

>>5009206

Well, the community is quite material. That's just a matter of evolution. The dialectic is between the individual, self-interest, and the communal, expanded self-interest. The nature of mankind as a communal species is the basis of various forms of communal and individual consciousness, some less materialist than others.

>>5009207

Sure, so a 'spook' is, say, Biblical morality, rather than the essential community relation of which some Biblical morality is an apparition.

>>5009252
The dialectic is not the community and the individual, its the 'real' and the 'unreal'. The community as a set of people Stirner wouldnt deny, hed deny the idea that you had to serve it. He'd also deny you had to serve the notion of God or Art which are not communal

It seems to me that you're trying to interpret him through your own philosophy, but that really isn't what he's saying

>>5009215
Let's take the soldier example. Is he dying because doing so would be in his interest? Perfectly egoistical. I might be wrong though, I'm only part-way through my exploration of Stirner.

I believe the issue of sacrifice has been expanded upon above in posts such as.
>>5009036

>>5009215
He says "There is no god," and then "That's not a good thing you did (as per no god); I'll not do it myself."

>>5009278
And this denial of that which obviously benefits the community at large (though that may not be the case in the given instances) is then supposed to rid the world of evil or some such....and there you find nonsense. Right and wrong are eternal, essential humanity.

>>5009274

So, basically, "everyone acts purely in their own interests because I say so, and if they don't its because they're delusional"?

>>5009294
No, no . . . he's a psychological egoist, not an ethical egoist, or some such. Who cares?

>>5009297
Seems spooky, right?

Can someone give me Stirner in a nutshell? And I don't mean a picture of Stirner in a nutshell, but you can give me that too.

Why do you folks like Stirner so much if the greatest possible egoist act is to reject egoism on the basis of your own ideas?

Is it because you're too unoriginal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-6WVp4FWhY&feature=kp

>>5009324

This, a thousand times this.

>>5009266

I'm not qualified to interpret him, as I have yet to read his book. I'm trying to understand what is being said about him here based on my understanding of dialectics in general. There are some problems with that, obviously, so I'll get around to reading it.

As for having to serve the community, that's just the rub. You do. Mankind is simply a communal species, and our development is very much conditioned by that. Yet, we serve community interests in order to serve our individual selves (as communal animals).

Based on what has been said here, it seems that Stirner is critiquing the forms of false consciousness of community, community as *against* the individual, positing instead the community as *for* the individual, and no further. The community dialectic, with the banishment of spooks, is then resolved into a 'Union of Egoists'. It's not World Spirit, but whatever.

>>5009297
Like I said, I'm no authority quite yet.

Religion is often a big 'ol spook, but if it serves your interests then go wild.

>>5009321
In absence of feminister: "You are always motivated by self-interest; recognise this". Stirner doesn't want anyone to follow anything, but he does want people to recognise the existence of spooks. From this, people have drawn the idea of Ethical Egoism, which says you SHOULD act in your self interest.

One argument of Stirner's I quite liked was roughly the following. A Christian should emulate God when possible and recognises God as the highest ideal. Therefore, if God is the upmost and greatest essence in existence. he should act towards advancing himself, as there is no greater thing to serve. Therefore, God would be (or is) an Egoist.

>>5009324
>>5009340

You two are retarded.

>>5009376
And you understand Stirner even less than feminister et. al.

She and others have claimed in this thread that he was a moral nihilist.

>>5009376
They seem pretty spot on to me.

>>5009199
>by dismissing morals you create a moral system.

>The moral man is necessarily narrow in that he knows no other enemy than the 'immoral' man. 'He who is not moral is immoral!' and accordingly reprobate, despicable, etc. Therefore, the moral man can never comprehend the egoist.

>>5009403
Is this your talking point? Simply because you have to respond to the moral question doesn't marry me to it.

If you can provide a coherent, defensible position on these reservations of valuation, I'll move on to the other problems with egoism.

>>5009207
Wai- why with the tongue? (dareidream?)

>>5009238
Wouldn't "the freeing of man" lead to some amount of danger as well? An improvement isn't necessarily a utopia

>>5009393
Egoism is not a set of standards to which you live your life. Egoism is the elimination of all external standards. It's akin to climbing up a ladder and then kicking the ladder down after you're at the top. We are not living by any Egoistic rules. Rather, we are living solely for our own sakes. There's no ten commandments of Egoism. Every Egoist is different, and Stirner specifically leaves the individual undefined because he understands that different people are unique.

>>5009391
What the fuck is the argument here?

>>5009391
That Stirner is not a moral nihilist. It wasn't immediately obvious?

>>5009418
You are denying moral nihilism and saying that moral nihilism is moralism. There is absolutely no reason to argue with you.

>>5009450
What? How did you come to this conclusion?

>>5009441
>Egoism is not a set of standards to which you live your life. Egoism is the elimination of all external standards.
None of that means a fucking thing but to tell the individual: "Yeah, sure, man; rape that bitch, it's OK."

>>5009460
No, I'm saying that when you have values, when you place actions or objects in hierarchical relation to each other, that is not moral nihilism.

If you think it is, you are just wrong.

>>5009391
Moral nihilism is often incorrectly attributed to Stirner. The ever-useful Standford encyclopedia provides a good analysis:

However, this rejection of morality is not grounded in the rejection of values as such, but in the affirmation of what might be called non-moral goods. That is, Stirner allows that there are actions and desires which, although not moral in his sense (because they do not involve obligations to others), are nonetheless to be assessed positively. Stirner is clearly committed to the non-nihilistic view that certain kinds of character and modes of behaviour (namely autonomous individuals and actions) are to be valued above all others. His conception of morality is, in this respect, a narrow one, and his rejection of the legitimacy of moral claims is not to be confused with a denial of the propriety of all normative judgement.

>>5009468
Going by 'standard morality', you could say that only a 'bad' person would rape a bitch.

Do you (assumedly) not rape people because morality tells you not to, or because it's in your best interests?

>>5009481

If you cannot understand why people just don't go around raping people (and its not because "it goes against their interests) then you are straight up autistic

Not even 4chan autistic, like, I mean medically speaking.

>>5009481
>empathy doesn't exist
>people who follow rules and respect the rule of law are robots
>unless they realize they are doing it for this capitalist ideological reason

>>5009481
I don't rape people because I have one major motherfucker of a god-complex/I'm just not wired that way. Egosim is completely extraneous to practicality, it's just (get this) spooky bullshit. There is no good or right or any benefit at all to it, but personal justification. I am better than god in simply being, the egoist bends the world around himself, justifies himself by god.

>>5009507

So YOU'RE that one atheist who Christian fundamentalists won't shut the fuck up about...

>>5009510
I should hope so. I'm the fucking antichrist bitch

>>5009468
No, it's not. That's a very rudimentary way of going about Egoism. If I didn't have any personal objection to rape and did so, even discounting law, I would probably get my shit kicked in by people who knew the girl I raped. I'm not invincible, I'm still mortal, "I cannot fly". The best thing for me (keyword: me) would be to be nice to people who matter, as I gain more out of that (goodwill, reputation, an interesting conversation) than I do being an asshole.

Since I've embraced Egoism I've been nicer, more outgoing, and more concentrated at work, all for my own selfish cause. I got MVP of the quarter and my boss told me that all the higher ups are talking about me. Just because you're an Egoist doesn't turn you into a feral idiot, though I suppose that's hard for a feral idiot to understand.

>>5009470
Oh my god this is so stupid. Stirner says morality doesn't exist, therefor act for yourself. I don't even know how you came to your conclusion. Are you saying that placing myself as highest priority creates a morality of me? I don't.. This is as dumb as "immorality is morality".

>>5009515

*tips pentagram*

>>5009518
>No, it's not. That's a very rudimentary way of going about Egoism.
So what exactly is the point bro? We're waging war on Christianity by having them call us sociopaths, is it? Straight up, "right" and "wrong" are viscerally realised, and that's not changing, just go with it.

>>5009488
You forget the part that once you eliminate the spooks you are no longer ruled by them, you can use them as you wish. A man may hesitate to kill someone because killing is wrong, thus getting killed himself. An Egoist would have no qualm with killing. A million more spooky scenarios and I hope you'll get the ideas.

>>5009526
But Feminister takes an egoist stand, she becomes a Trip goddess in hope that other females follow, leading the masses into self-importance (as if everyone isn't fucking self-important anyway).
delusional

>>5009519
OK, I appreciated this.


>>5009526
Yeah, I was right. This is pointless. I'm done wasting my time. "You can say right and wrong don't exist but they do lel". Have fun with those spooks buddy.

>>5009238
I imagine that but in a purely speculative, imaginative sense. The only reason the idea of "if everyone where a conscious egoist" is ever brought up, is as a parry to attacks of, "If everyone were a conscious egoists, everything would collapse!" Conscience egoism doesn't GIVE you anything, it just abrogates barriers. Even if everyone were a conscience egoist, that doesn't meant that few couldn't plan and successfully oppress many, it just means that resistance and action would face far less hindrance. A union of egoists is not a state of things, but an action of egoists cooperating. Egoists simply living near each other is not a "union"; egoists cooperating is, and in that sense there could be many unions existing at many times, some momentarily, others for days, a few for years, with participants dropping in and out at will, and participating in many unions at once. A union of egoists does not require anarchy or a state or a society, it can exist today, it does exist whenever two egoists work together for a common goal.

It is very important to note that there is no "should" to an egoist, there is only desire. Even if you *want* a certain type of organization, it is not a should, it is a desire, like money or a makeover. Multiple egoists working to organize their world is the same as multiple egoists robbing a bank together, it is because their desires intersect; there is no, "A bank *should* be robbed", if you can actively pursue robbing it and you desire to with the risks involved, then you do, but you don't say, "It would be for the best if the bank were robbed"--if talk of robbing banks without action, it is fantasy, and you acknowledge it as such.

>>5009215
Because it is what pleases them, or because they are avoiding the discomfort of guilt.

>>5009252
Morality properly isn't a spook; Right and Wrong and Good and Evil are. Just like there is religion, but there is no God.

>>5009321
>essences do not exist, there is no atoms making them up
>believing in essences is therefore like believing in non-living spirits inhabiting things
>Good and and Evil and Right and Wrong are essences of actions
>therefore they do not drive us except as manifestations of the imagination
>which means that when we choose to do something it is because we seek pleasurable feedback of one sort or another
>we are nothing but the bodily
>an individually functioning body is a unique one (translated as "ego")
>if you do something in the name of an essence, or don't, it is akin to not going in your room for fear of a monster under your bed
>Property as a Right or a Truth does not exist, we can control something or not but if you do not control something it is not yours in any sense of Right
>neither does might make Right, because there is no essence to might

>>5009433
>Wai- why with the tongue? (dareidream?)
Only you can tell you that

>>5009391
He was. Actually a total metaphysical nihilist

>>5009538
You're a dumb cunt.

>>5009518
>Oh my god this is so stupid. Stirner says morality doesn't exist, therefor act for yourself. I don't even know how you came to your conclusion. Are you saying that placing myself as highest priority creates a morality of me? I don't.. This is as dumb as "immorality is morality".
No, it isn't, if you fail to see how moral systems are systems of valuation, and valuing yourself falls under that category, it will be extremely difficult to have a rational discussion.

All these "gains" and "profits" type testimonials of egoism has done x for me reek of ideology. You have no grasp of what any of Hegel's students were trying to do, including Stirner.

Bit slow typing here, juggling.

>>5009487
I'm not trying to be an edgemeister, but people will do many things if the action serves their interests and will not compromise future interests. The reason we all cooperate so much is because, for most of us, it creates an evironment that suits our interests. Refugees flee their unstable societies so that they might continue and further their actions of self-interest. See below for a further explanation.

>>5009488
Why can't I be emaphetic while working in my own self-interest? You may be thinking of Egotism.

Belief in spooks create compulsion and inhibition. I'm not saying that this is devoid of emotion (see: 'robot') and often legislation is created on emotional grounds. Legisatlion is often created on emotional grounds.


As for the rape topic: I will not rape someone someone under current conditions because I don't believe it would benefit me. I would be brutalised by the action, my life in society would be jeopardised, I don't think I would gain much pleasure from it; a whole range of reasons. If I believed that immense pleasure would be gained from the act and that my long-term interests would not be jeopardised (regret, law enforcement, etc) then I probably would attempt to rape someone. At this time I am not that person.

>capitalist
Nobody NEEDS to be capitalist, or any particular economic ideology, I never asserted such. I would say that, in my country at least, participtaing in a capitalist society at this time has the greatest potential to fulfil my current goals of self-interest.

>>5009470
I suppose that depends on what you mean by hierarchical. Are you saying that "this has more physical volume than that", is morality?

>>5009540
>He was. Actually a total metaphysical nihilist
Wow, I've never seen such a poor reading.

You do realize the ego is a metaphysical construct, right? That individuation is the product of social interaction, a social phenomenon?

>>5009545
No, I mean the set of actions which are better than others to achieve some end, even if that end is in line or subordinate to connatus.

>>5009549
Stirner's "ego" is purely "bodily ego". He specifically says any idea of a "spiritual ego" is a spook.

>>5009540
I agree with many things I've seen you state Feminister, but I don't believe that he was a moral nihilist.

How do you respond to this anon's quote from the Standford? It seems to state that Stirner was not nihilistic.
>>5009471

>>5009552
That's not really morality. To say, "If I desire my bread toasted, toasting it would most likely achieve this," is hardly morality in any meaningful sense.

>>5009538
sounds like you're dealing with a example of eidolons
an occurrence of the occult
a bundle of bodaich

>>5009540
Feminister, you are no doubt an odd proponent of egoism, you realise that, right? Stirner sings a tantalising song for the oppressed indeed, but have you ever thought that for others the tune is different?

>>5009555
There is no bodily ego. Human's are not just bodies, this is fairly demonstrable vis a vis both a number of thought experimenta and actual situations.

You should make a deeper exploration of the philosophy of mind. Then perhaps you would apprehend Stirner a bit better.

>>5009564
There are a lot of components of the oppressed who have dreams of merely a different kind of oppression.

>>5009567
Excuse me, but what are humans besides bodies?

>>5009558
Yes, it is. Because greater situations and implications are composed of those smaller ones.

Let's say you could achieve more if you had slaves to cook your toast for you. That is a stance on an ethical issue based on valuation.

>>5009215
scared to death, scared to look, you shook
cause aint no such thing as half way spooks

>>5009573
Minds

Do you think you are less of a person if you lose a couple of limbs?

>>5009573
And you dream of what exactly? Enlightening man to the "rightness" of his rape fetish?

>>5009471
How is Stirner not denying the propriety of all normative judgment?

Reworded, so I can be sure we're both parsing the same way: How is Stirner not denying the conformation to established norms of all standardized/normal judgment?

>>5009581
Standardized/normal judgment =/= normative judgment

>>5009574
You might achieve more toasted bread, but if distressing someone distresses you, then that is not practical. It is not an ethical stance though, anymore than the desire for toast is, or the idea bread that isn't toasted being unethical.

>>5009578
Minds are made up of brain cells.

>But, if the spirit, which is not regarded as the property of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a ghost, then the Man too, who is not recognized as my quality but as the proper I, is nothing but a spook, a thought, a concept.

>>5009579
dude what

>>5009587
Yes, but if you deny your thoughts and concepts, you deny your ability to do any higher-level functioning, and thus your ego. The ego isn't a bodily ego. Or do you think you are somehow married to your physical form? Just because something is a phenomenon or a result of physical processes does not make it any less of a non-physical thing. Especially when we are talking about experiential phenomenon, those of consciousness.

>>5009586
>normative
>establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior.

What do you think normative means?

>>5009587
>Minds are made up of brain cells.

the mind cannot even hope to be exhaustively explained, or even sufficiently explained, by appealing solely to brain cells

>>5009587
To put it in Stirner's own words:

"My concern is neither the divine nor the *human*, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine [das Meinige] , and it is not a general one, but is - unique [einzig], as I am unique

>>5009595
Read further down, under the entry for "Philosophy."

>>5009592
I don't deny thoughts, I simply assert that they do not exist as more than encoded data in my brain.

>>5009599
No, you're right, it comes from chakras and tantra and auras

>>5009601
Yes. His brain and nerves are not physically connected with others, as a cohesively functioning bunch they are distinct from other cohesively function bunches.

>>5009542
I didn't mean for it to be a testimonial, I meant for it to be a personal example of how people don't just turn into blithering assholes.

> The term “morality” can be used either

> descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
> some other group, such as a religion, or
> accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

But it's obvious that Stirner was not against morality. I mean, the fact that he rallies against spooks and denies describing the ego doesn't mean shit.

Please, tell me, what were Hegel's students trying to do? How is Stirner a student of Hegel's?

>>5009589
What you're doing, Feminister, is trying to carve out a new god. Wishing after harmony between weak and strong, and by no force, but random choice. Your appeals are as though a man's appeals to god, more akin to the common man's righteousness than the common man's egoism, just you do not see it, oppressed and hopeful as you are. Your dad is a really nice guy, huh?

>>5009605
However, that encoded data in your brain is where the ego resides, if it has a spatio-temporal location in a physicalist model. Not your body. In other words, the phenomenon of ego could be understood to be identically similar if arising from the same data on a different medium.

>>5009609
Or...was, perhaps...or a girl can dream. Whichever, I more respect the female who levels infinity against man.

>>5009609
I'm not appealing to righteousness at all.

My dad is unfortunately dead, has been for some time.

>>5009621
Yeah, I figured. And so the fascination with all these old scholars. I'm sorry.

And you are.

>>5009616
The ego doesn't "reside" in the brain. These aren't Freudian terms. An "ego" is simply a distinct biological entity.

>>5009603
OK, reworded again:
How is Stirner not denying the conformation to established norms of all ought (concerning right/wrong) judgments?

That seems to be even more incorrect?

>>5009625
That's an interesting conjecture, you should be very proud.

>>5009605
>No, you're right, it comes from chakras and tantra and auras

well i don't know about you but i find it highly doubtful that we'll be able to put a neuron under a microscope and see the idea of a tree or the mental image, or the meaning of "tree" or belief, desire, any first-person oriented thought at all, etc. forget the chakras. that's what i meant by saying that the mind can't sufficiently be explained just by appealing to neurons or neural networks; there's something extremely perplexing about how such subjective phenomena can be connected or related somehow or other to the brain. so yes, there is or seems to be a strong connection between the mind and the brain, but they are very different things and can't be reduced to one another with any satisfaction

>>5009609
>new god
Stirner is specifically against this (although he refers to it as a 'new heaven' I think.)

Refer to page 90

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34580/34580-h/34580-h.htm

>>5009627
I'm afraid you misunderstand what is meant by ego. Of course we aren't talking about Freud. However, Stirner and Freud draw from the same source, Hegel.

It would be helpful if you understood Hegel as an idealist, and Stirner as responding to Hegel. In other words, you would gain some understanding of the ideas if you understood their place in history.

>>5009630
I'm not. But truth is truth, and you're delusional.

>>5009629
Normativity in the philosophical sense doesn't have to do with established norms, at least not exclusively with them.

>>5009631
Artificial technology is vastly behind the brain, you can't use a magnifying glass and an earhorn to watch the movie off a DVD.

>>5009636
I understand that Hegel is an idealist. Stirner was certainly not, and he was probably the one who influenced Marx to become a materialist.

>>5009645
Yes, but we are certainly not talking about a body when we are talking about the ego. Perhaps we are talking about a physical phenomenon, but physical entities have spatio-temporal locations. Hence you should refer back to my earlier post.

>>5009654
YOU can use the "ego" however you want. If we str are talking about Stirner, though, it is defined bodily.

>>5009641
Oops, left some trash in there.
How is Stirner not denying the conformation to some ought (concerning absolute right/wrong) judgments?

If this is wrong, can you just write how you're parsing the statement, then answer the question?

>>5009656
Okay, so your ego is diminished when you lose a limb or cut your hair?

You're a pretty person, Feminister, but so, so wrong.

>>5009642
the point is that the mind and brain are totally different kinds of thing and can't be reduced to one another. AI being behind the brain and seeing the brain as the mind in this respect will always fail to create anything greater than an elaborate input-output system. and don't say that that's all we humans are

>>5009660
In the sense of a limb, you might well consider it the loss of a portion of your ego, your "self", yes. Hair is kind of already head, though, isn't it?

>>5009659
Not all normative claims are ones of absolute rightness or wrongness either.

He espouses a moral relativism, that the value of an action is in relation to the ego. While that does indeed mean it is an ethical framework, it is still a far cry from established norms or codes of conduct.

It is still however, a moral stance, not nihilism. Things do have value in relation to something (relativism).

>>5009629
I belivee (from a novice level of knowledge) that Stirner doesn't say that you ought to do anything. I think that, following the Ethical Egoism that some Stirnerites seem to adopt, you can follow all the established norms as long as they serve your self-interest.

>>5009642
As a (part) comsci student, comparing computers and brains doesn't really work. Apples and oranges.

>>5009668
Your body is composed of lots of dead things. Unless you value life for some reason?

>>5009668
>already dead, though

>>5009666
The mind is manifestation of the brain, mainly the functions above instinct and automatic motor response.

>>5009670
>As a (part) comsci student, comparing computers and brains doesn't really work. Apples and oranges.
Wrong as fuck.

>>5009677
Oh I'm sorry, brains are digital now? They have the same structure as computers?

>>5009673
If you want to consider the dead cells of your body as a part of it, then by all means, do so. It is inconsequential to me whichever way you consider it.

Almost everything we eat is life taken.

>>5009680
That is avoiding the question, because it leads to a conclusion you don't like.

>>5009678
Oh, I'm sorry --as if anything you just said has any meaning/is of any significance?

>>5009670
Ethical egoism is not compatible with Stirner's philosophy, because it is an "ought"; a superfluous one at that, since Stirner thinks everyone is already an egoist.

I didn't compare them except in terms of complexity. We can't "read" brains with our current technology for the same reason you can't watch a DVD with an earhorn and magnifying glass. But there is no reason to say that the technology needed for brain reading is inherently impossible.

>>5009675
>The mind is manifestation of the brain, mainly the functions above instinct and automatic motor response.

yes i know, i agree. i'm saying that though the mind is a manifestation of the brain, as you said, or very strongly connected to the brain as i did, they are still not the same thing and cannot be explained sufficiently by one another. it's the same as saying that the feeling of anger is not the same thing as certain neural responses in the brain, though they are connected to one another. qualia, intentionality, semantics, and all that good stuff

>>5009684
I don't value life, no. Some life gives me pleasure, but I don't value pleasure, pleasure simply pleases me because, well, it's pleasure. There is no value to pleasure other than pleasure.

>>5009669
Very interesting! However, I still don't understand why people keep saying that the valuation of things in relation to other things is by definition morality. Stirner doesn't create a code of conduct for egoists. He tells egoists to act for themselves, but never says what that act is. Could you explain that logic a bit further?

Hey Feminister, thanks for introducing me and so many others to Stirner. You're a cool lady.

>>5009691
The mind does not exist apart from the brain.

Anger is the same thing as neural response, it's just what sort of response qualifies for the term is subjective.

>>5007330
>believe in hollywood movies love
still try to criticize stirner seriously.

why don´t you rob a bank for try a hooker?.
you just think in minor things... you look for transcendence deep in your heart. hurrr

>>5009702
why thank you anon

>>5009702
stop stroking her ego

>>5009705
>The mind does not exist apart from the brain.
i never said it didn't, in fact i said multiple times that this is the case. anyway, we aren't getting anywhere with this so i'll spend my time elsewhere.

>>5009689
Well yes, Stirner does 'set his course on nothing', ethical egoism being 'something'.

You say you follow Psych egoism and no justification is needed for actions in this case, but what motivates these actions; personal interest?

>>5009696
If pleasure is an end unto itself, that makes it distinct from, and converse to, the ego. We really don't need to do a Euthyphro type dilemma here, do we?

Ditto for life.

In this case, the body cannot be the full and exhaustive definition of the ego, because then a dead body becomes, by definition, an ego, even though there is no mind or activity to speak of. By the same token, a fully sentient AI, or even a brain in a vat, does not fit the definition of an ego. This doesn't even account for the discrepancies between what counts as a "body" and what doesn't. It very quickly meanders into the absurd.

>>5009730
Ethical egoism does no follow when you think that everyone is already an egoist. Stirner is not an ethical egoist.

Depends on the action. Instinct (yanking your hand from something hot), automated bodily action (breathing, for instance), avoidance of something disagreeable in one way or another, or pursuit of a hoped for gratification.

>>5009735
Pleasure is not distinct from the ego anymore than the frontal lobe is distinct from the brain.

>>5009697
When you act according to some rule, even if that rule is, "There are no rules; I do what I want" that is an ethical prescription.

I'm not saying I think it conforms to my ideals of morality, but I'm rather saying that it conforms to some ideal of morality. In fact, I find it morally repugnant, but that's not what I'm addressing here. I'm addressing the inaccurate portrayal of egoism as "beyond normativity."

It isn't. Even further, once this is realized, one of the inherent inconsistencies in egoism is laid bare.

>>5009487
actually are people go around raping people

>>5009746
I don't think you've grasped what a spook is. Metaphysics is the realm of spirits.

>>5009745
But you claimed that the ego was wholly and exhaustively defined by the body.

So pleasure is part of the body itself? That seems like a strange notion.

Is pain also part of the body?

It seems very strange indeed to say these things are the body itself rather than states that the body experiences.

>>5009747
I don't think so. I think "Rational Egoism" can be called normative, but Egoism itself must be beyond normative. Stirner's Egoist can do anything they want, they can even do irrational things. From Stanford:

>In the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations.

Then it's very clear that Stirner is decidedly amoral, not moral.

In the end the argument boils down to "amorality = morality", no? Or is it "amorality cannot exist"?

>>5009747
He does not tell anyone to do anything, he merely sets out to show that Right and Wrong and Good and Evil don't exist.

>>5009753
They are information being transmitted.

>>5009757
Stirner is not indifferent to Right and Wrong, he actively denies their existence. Amoral is sort of like an apatheist, whereas a moral nihilist is like an atheist who consciously denies the existence of God.

>>5009757
No, if you read back up to my earlier posts now, you will see the actual issue.

If you have no reason to act, there is no reason to act. Jumping off a bridge is equal to saving a drowning child. In fact, there is no reason to feed yourself.

However, there is valuation there.

>>5009758
Oh, but he does. By telling people not to do something, or that their reasons for doing it are different than what they actually are, he is showing something as "bad."

Something can't be bad without their being something "less bad."

>>5009764
So they are information as well as a part of the body? We have violated the law of identity a few times now, should we examine that, and why that type of reasoning is problematic?

>>5009757
Stirner makes a statement that a moral person can only see things as moral or amoral. Stirner rejects that.

>>5009773
>Oh, but he does. By telling people not to do something, or that their reasons for doing it are different than what they actually are, he is showing something as "bad."
He's not telling anyone not to do something.

>>5009773
>So they are information as well as a part of the body?
Yep. Same as words in a book are part of the book.

>>5009773
However, I still don't understand why people keep saying that the valuation of things in relation to other things is by definition morality. If one values themselves more than others, how is that a moral act? Especially given:

> The term “morality” can be used either

> descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
> some other group, such as a religion, or
> accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

and

>n the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations. All of those who use “morality” normatively also hold that, under plausible specified conditions, all rational persons would endorse that code.

>>5009773
However, I still don't understand why people keep saying that the valuation of things in relation to other things is by definition morality. If one values themselves more than others, but goes on to act according to no code of conduct whatsoever, how is that morality? Especially given:

> The term “morality” can be used either

> descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
> some other group, such as a religion, or
> accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
> normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

and

>n the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations. All of those who use “morality” normatively also hold that, under plausible specified conditions, all rational persons would endorse that code.

edit because i could see the holes in my phrasing

>>5009784
He openly describes things as flawed types of reasoning and motivation.

Pointing out a type of reasoning as flawed is akin to "don't do this."

This really isn't a difficult concept.

>>5009796
I'm not reducing what I'm saying to "this is morality." I'm also not equivocating. Placing value on certain things above others is either an ethical stance or stems from one.

>>5009799
But why? Why is placing value on certain things above others an ethical stance?

>>5009803
Because it governs your behaviour.

>>5009799
>Pointing out a type of reasoning as flawed is akin to "don't do this."
No, it is not. Stirner explicitly says that he attaches no metaphysical value to reason.

>>5009788
What you are describing isn't a whole/part relation.

You experience pain and pleasure, but you said these things are you, simply because they are experiences that you have. By this same line of reasoning, everything in the world that you experience is no different, because they are you. It seems more than just a little uncanny to speak about a statue or a dog or other people in the same way that you speak about yourself. To identify with a state you experience as yourself.

>>5009812
And yet, somehow, it doesn't make sense to do things because God, or the sultan, or mankind tells you to.

>>5009819
Behaving for yourself is restricted. It is also a principle governing your behaviour.

>>5009812
Lol, yes it is, Feminister
I loved the emphasising, though.

>>5009818
No, it doesn't. Yet Stirner says deifying reason is the same as serving it, just with morality or God or whatever.

>And among thinkers the cause was—reason, that which, like State and Church, gives—general laws, and puts the individual man in irons by the thought of humanity. It determines what is "true," according to which one must then act. No more "rational" people than the honest servants, who primarily are called good citizens as servants of the State.

>>5009806
>Richard William Paul and Linda Elder[who?] define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures".[3][relevant? – discuss]
>The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word ethics is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual."

But Stirner denies that our behavior needs to be governed by anything. He only says that the behavior needs to be done /for/ the individual. Furthermore, each individual is different. There is no generic "individual" or "self" that the behavior is done for. Rather, each individual is unique, so even the reasoning for the behavior is different. Finally, the behavior itself is also unrestricted.

The idea of a generic individual is a spook, Stirner says. Maybe that's where we're having the hang-up?

>>5009821
Sorry mate, sometimes I post too hastily, then realize how terrible the argument I made was.
Please read my new post posthaste:
>>5009829

>>5009829
No, the behaviour is restricted. It excludes things which actively harm the ego.

This is consistent with valuation, and also means that there is prescriptivism going on here.

>>5009836
But Stirner says that we can do whatever we like, even harm ourselves, as long as it is US who is making that choice and not a fixed-idea.

I could kill myself, as an egoist, if I truly wanted to.

>>5009836
You forget that harming oneself is serving an impulse. Your thoughts and desires are not unified, you might lift weights and draw pain and gratification simultaneously.

>>5009844
"As long as it is US who is making that choice"
This is placing a moral burden on the will, on choice

>>5009847
Yes, and if you aren't acting for serving either the gratification of your desire or some perceived long-term good for your ego in the future, you aren't acting egoistically.

>>5009852
But that isn't what morality means. If you define morality to be what one wills, then of course Egoism is going to be a moral system. But morality is:

>In the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations. All of those who use “morality” normatively also hold that, under plausible specified conditions, all rational persons would endorse that code.

Please explain your reasoning a little more. 9 words is hardly enough and I think you might have something interesting to say.

>>5009852
>Yes, and if you aren't acting for serving either the gratification of your desire or some perceived long-term good for your ego in the future, you aren't acting egoistically.
Yes. But your desire might be affected by spooks: if you don't go into your room because you think there is a monster under your bed, then you are acting on personal fear. So no matter what, you are acting on desire, it's just what you factor into reality, what you think exists. You can think God exists and it is your desire to serve him.

>>5009656
I what sense is ego bodily? I was always told it was part of the brain too. Id, ego, super-ego. They want to do things for the body of course... Is this about mind/brain distinctions?
(I'm sorry, falling behind)

>>5009862
Those are Fruedian definitions. Freud popularized the term "ego". It was later chosen for one reason or another as the English translation of Stirner's term, but a literal translation would be "unique one". Ego as Stirner terminology is very different from ego as Freudian terminology.

>>5009858
I've already defined morality for you.

I'm not redefining it again, what I'm doing is showing you how the phrase "As long as" is denoting normative content in this sentence. In this case, it is indicating a valuation based on the will, on "free" choice. This is a very Kantian valuation, and a very big shift from the spirit of Stirner, so this valuation probably isn't even present, in spirit or in word, in Stirner's writings.

>>5009859
No, there are cases where you don't act out of desire, but out of duty. Or out of respect for duty. Or out of regards for any number of things. Please don't go through this act where you attempt to reduce my observation of moral duty to that of the behaviours and motivations of the egoist. Please spare us.

>>5009862
Goddamnit you are dumb.

The Ego and His Own was actually just an edgy title by Byington, the anarchist translator. The literal translation would be "The Sole One and His Property"; I've also heard "The Individual" and "The Unique One". Ego is probably the worst term to use, since it's usually connected with Freud's id/ego/super-ego and "ego"-tist (not to be confused with Egoist)

Please remember, reading Stirner threads is not a substitute for reading Stirner.

>>5009876

>>5009881
What were you expecting? I've practically written a whole essay in the context of this thread already. If you still aren't getting it, I'm not sure what else I can do for you. It sure isn't for a lack of consideration on my part.

>>5009876
>No, there are cases where you don't act out of desire, but out of duty. Or out of respect for duty. Or out of regards for any number of things. Please don't go through this act where you attempt to reduce my observation of moral duty to that of the behaviours and motivations of the egoist. Please spare us.
Since duty doesn't exist anymore than God does, you can't act on its behalf any more than you act on God's behalf.

>>5009886
You're too spooky for me, is all. Also twenty fourteen believing kant etcetera.

>>5009894
This is called "begging the question."

You have claimed duty doesn't exist, yet you've done nothing to establish that. Combining a sneaky premise with an analogy is still bad form.

Duty does indeed exist. It's the reason you understood what I was talking about immediately. The analogy you gave is a conflation of physical existence with conceptual existence. It is likely that God does indeed exist on par with duty, as a conceptual existence. Simply because you deny Platonic metaphysics hardly means that all concepts like love and duty are empty ones.

>>5009909
There is a vibration called Sowaah which powers everything and knows more than you do and feeds me truth. Establish that doesn't exist.

>>5009915
I don't have to. You just fabricated that, while duty is a long-established linguistic expression attached to a concept whose long history and existence are easily established.

How about you establish its existence?

>>5009920
Okay. Sowaah is God, Sowaah is duty. Therefor Sowaah eixsts.

>>5009873
Makes perfect sense now.

>>5009877
I never claim to know much.
>Please remember, reading Stirner threads is not a substitute for reading Stirner.
Not substituting it. Look at that response I got from Feminister. Concise, polite. What is the matter with you?

>>5009922
God and duty aren't the same thing and never have been, even conceptually.

Since a =/= ~a,
something can't be a & ~a
Therefore b can't be a & ~a
therefore b doesn't exist as you defined it.

B is Sowaah.

>>5009925
God is everything.

>>5009925
Some infinities are bigger than others.

>>5009929
In your terms
Duty ⊆ God

>>5009932
No, I never said God was everything.

Those aren't my terms.

>>5009933
But I did, and many others have, so it is quite true

>>5009922
Who cares, Feminister? God is not metaphysical, but societal, always has been, always will be. You can't talk people out of being frightened into moral considerations.

>>5009936
Metaphysics are socially created. They are a dream world, things made out of ideals instead of atoms.

>>5009935
Someone saying something doesn't make it true. In fact it would be best not to talk about truth, since I would wager you aren't too keen on that topic.

>>5009936
Acting out of duty isn't acting out of fear.

>>5009942
>Someone saying something doesn't make it true. In fact it would be best not to talk about truth, since I would wager you aren't too keen on that topic.
You actually indicated that a well-established concept equates to truth. Unless you just mean that the concept itself exists, in which case Sowaah clearly exists in the same way, it exists as a concept I created, just not as popular as many other concepts.

>>5009947
Well, your concept can have equal existence as a concept. Which is actually exactly what I meant, and I'm glad you caught on.

Though I would wager that you hardly act out of accordance with this concept.

>>5009942
>>5009936
>>5009920
Just get in

>>5009953
Conceiving of something does not cause it to exist apart from conception.

Which is not important. If I think a monster is under my bed, and I act in accordance with that, there is still no monster under my bed. The same applies to God, ghosts, and spooks. Religion exists, yes, God does not. Morality exists, yes; Evil does not.

>>5009959
Rude.

Maybe if you ever suspend your devotion to demagogues, you will see that this
>>5009324
was right all along.

>>5009941
Wrong. Metaphysical considerations are intrinsic to our existence. No being born into infinity shuns infinity entirely. Hence, Christianity and all its solipsistic strength. Even smoking, I think, comes with metaphysical consideration --kids dreaming of love triumphing over pain; "peer pressure", then, making for quite the inadequate term. This is what you're dealing with. Remember that psycho who convinced all those people to commit suicide for communism? Not everyone is so grounded by death, Feminister.

>>5009965
Not really. Everyone is an egoist. "Great" doesn't exist.

>>5009962
But conceptions do exist. Your self, since you don't seem keen on discussing the "ego" in the way it's used in Stirner but rather as a physical body, is simply the sum of your thoughts and experiences fashioned into a concept, and exists in the same way that duty does.

>>5009942
>Acting out of duty isn't acting out of fear.
Religion takes its nourishment only from fear; love, duty and all that nonsense but fluff.

>>5009967
>metaphysical considerations are intrinsic to our existence
No, they aren't. I don't need to consider the metaphysical in order to exist. And if I do consider it, I need not take it seriously.

>>5009970
Then when I say you are "bad" at philosophy, it doesn't mean anything does it?

Feminister, you're probably the ultimate in naive idealism, to be quite honest. Not that it isn't endearing, though.

>>5009980
Duty, love, etc. =/= religion

>>5009977
Well, no. If you encoded all my thoughts and experiences onto some other data device, that wouldn't make it me.

>>5009988
So if you turned out to be a brain in a vat right now, you would be a different person than you were before you knew?

>>5009982
Your philosophy is mired in the metaphysical, Feminister. No philosophy has any footing without defining that which surrounds it.

>>5009987
I know. Religion = fearmongering

>>5009923
I fucking hate you, or was that not apparent in that post?

>>5009984
It means something, just like the Easter Bunny means something

You might say that I am incompetent in exercises associated with philosophy, such as reason, or you might say that I am relatively lacking knowledge in philosophical ideas. Saying I am "bad" at philosophy isn't really a potent statement

>>5009990
No. My prior concept of myself would simply have been flawed

Do you like dogs, Feminister?

>>5010004
No, it actually means something because "bad" is a thing, even if it is a conceptual thing.

The bad is real.

>>5010006
Then your self is not dependent on the body, and when your consciousness might theoretically be transferred to something else, the same would be true. It wouldn't be that you wouldn't be you, but rather that what you thought was you wasn't you all along.

>>5010008
>there are people who like dogs

>>5010013
Dogs are literally the best thing ever, dude.

>>5010012
And the Eastern Bunny is a conceptional thing

The Easter Bunny is real

>>5010012
Conscienceless can't really be "transferred" without moving biological components. You can't remove the conciseness from a brain and leave the brain behind, you have to take something out.

>>5010008
I got my dog to like my vayjayjay when I was fourteen, I kind of enjoyed it. I don't own a dog right now, not really a dog person or any kind of pet person, but I don't dislike pets either

>>5010022
Why do you think this is true?

Do you think you would be something else if you needed an artificial attachment in your brain to continue living?

The Easter Bunny as a concept is indeed real. You are conflating what it means to be a concept and corporeal reality. The Easter Bunny doesn't have a corporeal existence, and neither do most concepts, even "you" when referring to the phenomenal you.

>>5010025
>lick

>>5010025
Wtf

>>5010028
>not putting peanut butter on your genitalia of choice for your rainbow parakeet to lick off

r u srs, Feminister?

>>5010025
How can one girl be so based?

>>5010029
I guess I've always had enough in being sexually attractive to women, anon. My dog does try to get me to wank him off a lot, though, but I never do it (it's hilarious, he'll like try to sneakily roll over and rub his cock off my leg and shit).

>>5010025
I guess that's one way to adjourn. Best of luck and try not to rape.

>>5010026
Because the Easter Bunny does not exist apart from concepts

In the sense that I would be something more.

Yes, as a concept. I can invent any number of conflicting concepts that exist solely as concepts.

I don't exist in any spiritual or metaphysical sense, no.

>>5010042
Feminister, do you think we should teach egoism to dogs?

>>5010042
>I don't know what metaphysical means

>>5010030
uh, yeah

>>5010032
by being the unique one...and her own

>>5010012
The "Bad" may be a commonly understood term, but what it references is nonexistent until one specifies the context. What is bad for me may not be bad for you. "Bad" in it of itself does not exist, only the references that are signified with the sense "Bad".

>>5010045
Funny thing, though: I do in fact succeed quite well in relating my feelings to my dog; we've got that "fellow-feeling", him and I (Not wanking him off, though).

>>5010045
Dogthought must be suppressed, lest we risk their culutral supremacy

>>5010045
Dogs are egoists, all entities are. Humans are the only species that is complex enough to create metaphysical ruses to veil it

>>5010048
>uh, yeah
That's hot. Butterfly, now, is like "How does she do this shit!"

>>5010049
Wow, finally some effort.
Yes, all language and concepts are context dependent, they are relational.

However, when something has a relation to a common frame of reference, then communication is possible.

>>5010056
How do you know? I've witnessed my dog's existential crises; they're quite profound.

>>5010061
Regardless of how deep dogs might happen to be, they don't think in metaphysical terms. And you don't need metaphysics to be profound anyway.

>>5010061
I was watching a documentary one time about this Russian prince who'd been born with a lame arm. Dude's fetishes pretty much mirrored my dog's fetishes exactly --both fascinated by hands. Dogs are not so dumb. I think they're closely philosophically aligned with women, to be honest. You know, that whole bit in the bible about women having fallen furthest? Lesser creature than man, basically.

>>5010065
Feminister.......please. Metaphysics is intrinsic to existence.

>>5010070
Sowaah is intrinsic to existence.

>>5010070
Well, our thinking and free existence, that is (besides when it comes women and dogs who have gods over them in this world to be concerned with).

>>5010071
Sowaah is a dude you made up. Uncertainty, wonder, hope and FEAR are reasonable.

>>5010058
But communication about "bad" still doesn't cause "bad" to exist. When we talk of "bad" we may decide to signify the same things, but there is no way these "bad" things are absolutely "Bad" (capital B) , only "bad" as we understand it. "Bad" does not exist, only conceptions of "bad". Thinking that "bad" draws from "Bad" is incorrect. Only "bad" exists, "Bad" does not.

>>5010078
Sowaah is not a dude, it is a metareal vibration.

Those are emotions. Emotions are not metaphysical.

Feminister, it is absolutely fucking hilarious that you did that with your dog. You shouldn't tell me those things, I will use them undermine you.

>>5010083
>implying that doesn't just make her cooler on 4chan
>implying we'll ever see her tits
>implying she's in London

>>5010082
Emotions bring about metaphysical consideration, DUH. I've said it before: the initial frame of reference is solipsism, by pure dint of simply existing as independent in this world.

>>5010079
Yes it does. Since it is a term that has meaning, it exists at the very least as both a term and a concept.

It can be defined in relation solely to the English language.

However the concept itself is not bound to the language. The concept is a universal one, meaning it has reference to something other than to language. Even if it is self-referential, that in and of itself is existence. It is a concept that has meaning, if communication is possible, that isn't dependent on that communication, but merely dependent on an idea, a universal one.

There doesn't have to be a form of the Bad for there to be "badness"

>>5010084
She just keeps piling on the interesting, for sure.

>>5010085
Oh, sure, they probably do. For humans. That doesn't mean we can't also figure out metaphysics are bullshit.

>>5010089
Materialism is metaphysics, though.

>>5010092
In fact, it's only the utterly mundane that escapes the charge of being metaphysical consideration, and only because nobody gives a fuck. Not that I don't subscribe to materialism, however, but that subscription too is mired in purely metaphysical consideration.

>>5010092
Materialism is actually much the same as physicalism

>>5010098
It's like in House M.D where he wont accept any diagnosis which precludes a cure, basically. And because fuck god.

>>5010100
Anchoring it to some other word that I've not accosted serves no purpose but self-delusion, Feminister.

>>5010105
Materialism denies the metaphysical, is what I'm saying. Thoughts and feelings are not metaphysical, even if they can be concerned with it.

>>5010100
>>5010089
>>5010082
Feminster, please educate yourself and stop making Stirnerites look bad:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

>>5010111
No it doesn't, it's another metaphysical consideration.

>>5010112
>Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.

>>5010112
I don't think Stirner could have any more glorious an advocate, actually.

>>5010113
Yes, it does. By definition. It denies anything outside (meta) the physical

>>5010116
Take two kisses and a glass of scotch, then call me in the morning.

>>5010121
No scotch, I'm dangerously full of opiates.

>>5010124
Coffee, then?

>>5010115
My! What a selective reading you've done! Did you perchance miss the part where you are talking about metaphysics when talking about physicalism? Or that it is a metaphysical assertion? Or that the term physicalism itself comes out of a linguistic metaphysical investigation? Or that physicalism =/= non-physical things aren't real?

>>5010116
Actually, the best advocate is a devil's advocate. Stirner himself would have found Feminister and anyone playing apologetics for egoism to be disgusting and enslaved.

Remember that time you said you'd do the pity fuck thing, Feminister? You're so given to this egoism thing, lol. And you shun metaphysical consideration as nonsense, eh?

>>5010127
No, I simply assert that physicalism denies metaphysics. Moral nihilism is a consideration of morality, but clearly not a moral stance except in the sense that atheism is a religious stance.

>>5010128
I said I considered it.

A moral nihilism society would be so much fun, think of all the things you could talk about.

>>5010133
Yes, you did assert that. It was as wrong then as it is now, and you should read the article to understand why.

Moral nihilism is a moral stance.
Stirner is not a nihilist.

Atheism is a stance on God, not religion. There are plenty of religious atheists. There are also plenty of non-religious non-atheists.

>>5010138
Moral nihilism doesn't posit that morality doesn't exist, it posits that the values morality is built around don't exist.

>>5010141
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/

No, it doesn't. Moral nihilism posits that there is nothing morally wrong. That is not Stirner's position, as evidenced by the way he describes things.

>>5010141
Why would you add in a stance that isn't there? Especially one that is under the type of intense scrutiny as moral nihilism? Isn't egoism edgy enough without the baggage you are adding on it?

>>5010147
That is Stirner's position, since he says Wrong is a spook and doesn't exist.

>>5010154
Stirner's egoism is rooted in moral nihilism, values are spooks, that's a major component of the argument.

>>5010155
Yes, and what he is talking about is "Wrong" not the inability for one thing to be worth more than others. He is talking about reference to a universal standard. I guess it's easy to misread that if you have no training in philosophy, though.

>>5010157
But values aren't spooks anymore than spooks are spooks. Claiming that we should recognize spooks or not evaluate them is valuation. How is that so hard for you?

>>5010159
Worth would be an essence.

I'm not making any claim for what you should do.

>>5010164
Yes, but you are making claims on what you shouldn't do. Which is the same type of thing.

>>5010167
No, I am not.

>>5010169
Really? So you should adhere to things like duty which you think don't exist, rather than to your own ends?

>>5010172
No. I am not positing any "should" either way.

>>5010173
Then you think you are in the business of description?

That wasn't what Stirner was doing at all. It was a polemic.

>>5010176
You haven't read him. If you did, you'd know he deconstructed oughts and shoulds.

>>5010179
Yes, I have. Deconstructing something doesn't make sense when you are doing the same sort of thing. It is inconsistent, and thus it is flawed. At least you understand the problem a little better though. Asking the question, "Why should I do this?" recurs throughout the entirety of the work. What are my motivations?

If there is no ought, then there is no point to asking these sort of questions, and there is no point to caring if you are acting in your interest or not.

>>5010187
I don't ask these questions because I ought to, I ask them because it pleases me to ask them.

>>5010188
And that's completely irrelevant unless you ought to do what pleases you.

>>5010135
It was qt3.14.

>>5010189
I don't think you know what "ought: means
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ought
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought

>>5010192
Oh, I do.
I don't think you understand that you are following a dogma.
Even worst that you are following one based off of a misreading of a work that few people that care about this discourse even care about at all.

Go read some Bakunin or Kropotkin or, God forbid, Hegel.

>>5010194
>The individuality of the body is the negative unity of the concept, which is not self-positing simply as an immediate entity and an unmoved generality, but only in the mediation of the process. The body is therefore a product, and its shape a presupposition, for which the end that it will ultimately achieve is also presupposed. The particularisation of the body, however, does not stop at either mere inert diversity or the opposition between different attributes and their tension within the body's pure selfhood. Rather, since the particular attributes are only the reality of this simple concept, the body of their soul, of light, the entire corporeality moves into tension and the process which is the development of the individual body, a process of isolation; — the chemical process.

I'll pass, thanks.

>>5010196
Too dense for you? Or can you not wrap your head around process philosophy? It's okay, Stirner didn't understand him that well either.

>>5010199
I don't feel like reading a work where 30% of the words and 60% of the letters are terminology defined by the writer to push the philosophical equivalent to Valentianism.