/lit/ - Literature

No, that's the whole point of le tall forehead doodle.

It's possible to act part one way and part another, so partly.

These dichotomies are always false. It's not either this or that. One or the other. You can do one thing with a bit of self-interest and a bit of altruism. That's how the real world works, not in black and white.

>>5380395
I thought he was just an ethical egoist.

>>5380410
Ultimately everything we do is for ourselves. We're nice to people so they will be nice back, we help people so we will be liked, helped, thought of in high regard etc. Examine your decisions, they are all driven by the ego. Altruism does not exist.

being selfless is meaningless, how would you ever act in a way that you don't want to act?

anyways you all niggas should just accept our Redeemer and Saviour, Aristotle, and embrace the doctrine of virtue ethics. It would make things easier

>tfw earth and air have the wrong symbol

Even if you act against your own self-interest you do it to prove something to yourself

>>5380423
Give me a quick overview of virtue ethics, then.

>>5380439
"Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

>>5380453
That's stupid. It's fine to say 'do good things', but how do we know what is good?

>>5380423
>how would you ever act in a way that you don't want to act
How does this make selflessness meaningless?

>>5380392
Define self interest.

>>5380475
Beneficial to the self.

>>5380439
" Further, it is not easy to get one's emotions in harmony with one's rational recognition of certain reasons for action. I may be honest enough to recognise that I must own up to a mistake because it would be dishonest not to do so without my acceptance being so wholehearted that I can own up easily, with no inner conflict. Following (and adapting) Aristotle, virtue ethicists draw a distinction between full or perfect virtue and “continence”, or strength of will. The fully virtuous do what they should without a struggle against contrary desires; the continent have to control a desire or temptation to do otherwise."

So according to virtue ethics, you are more virtuous when you act in a virtuous way and you enjoy it, not when you struggle to do "the right thing", so in this framework "selflessness", if you take it to even exist, it's not a virtue but is a result of lack of virtue.

>>5380472
Selflessness is impossible.

>>5380485
How so?

>>5380488
Because the Self spamming is relentless.

>>5380488
You can only act in self interest, you physically cannot do otherwise.

>>5380492

>>5380472
" Describing the continent as “falling short” of perfect virtue appears to go against the intuition that there is something particularly admirable about people who manage to act well when it is especially hard for them to do so, but the plausibility of this depends on exactly what “makes it hard” (Foot 1978, 11–14). If it is the circumstances in which the agent acts—say that she is very poor when she sees someone drop a full purse, or that she is in deep grief when someone visits seeking help—then indeed it is particularly admirable of her to restore the purse or give the help when it is hard for her to do so. But if what makes it hard is an imperfection in her character—the temptation to keep what is not hers, or a callous indifference to the suffering of others—then it is not. "

>>5380480
>So according to virtue ethics, you are more virtuous when you act in a virtuous way and you enjoy it
What is virtuous?

>>5380395
Stirner is actually his nickname, and was more of an insult that in German means "large forehead"

>>5380421
>We're nice to people so they will be nice back, we help people so we will be liked, helped, thought of in high regard etc.
Cynical nonsense. People can be nice or do things for others regardless of whether they will received well or what they will receive. Some gratify themselves simply by doing good or it's simply common sense.

>>5380497
Altruism and selfishness have nothing to do with self-interest.

>>5380478
Define beneficial. Are all smokers acting against their self interest? Whether something is beneficial to a person can only be estimate within the confines of a certain value system with a clear definition of the good.

>>5380507
>People can be nice or do things for others regardless of whether they will received well or what they will receive
Like when?
>Some gratify themselves
They're in it for self gratification.
>>5380512
Yes they do.
>>5380513
>Define beneficial
To their liking.
>Are all smokers acting against their self interest?
No, how could they be? They enjoy smoking and choose to do it. Even the addicted who claim not to enjoy it (liars) do it to satisfy their addiction.

>>5380528
>Like when?
All the time. Like tidy an area up regardless of the fact that anyone will know or not.
>They're in it for self gratification.
So what?
>Yes they do.
No, they don't. Self-interest does not equate to selfishness, that is a misconception.

>>5380560
>Like tidy an area up regardless of the fact that anyone will know or not.
nobody has ever done that, unless of course you're religious and expect to get to heaven because of it.

>>5380421
You can take this one step further (which is obvious): some people may not act in conscious self-interest from time to time, without longing for the reward to be liked by others. But even these people act based on their own will. Every action is egoistic because it is a manifestation of the acter's own will. Even if I put a gun against your head and force you to do something, you are still the one to choose wether to either follow my forcing or take the bullet.
This is not even about conscious versus subconcious decisions, this is about the human being a organic mechanism. A man does not act, a man happens. is necessarily "selfish", because this mechanism can't stop being itself - a causal chain of several occurences. Only iby outside influence can this mechanism act against itself, but would it then even be itself? Is this "self" ever even not under outside influence? Am I ever free from other occurences affecting my occurence? Or are weall just a giant cluster of passively interacting occurences.

My point is: human action, selfish nor altruistic, do not exist. But humans have defined them as such. So we might aswell apply these terms to what they are meant to be apply to: "selfish actions" and "altruistic actions".

>>5380568
>nobody has ever done that
I've done it, it's nothing special and I hate mess.
It's scary how narrow-minded you are, but I'll attest it to naivety.

>>5380560
>All the time. Like tidy an area up regardless of the fact that anyone will know or not.
Why are you really doing it? Because you don't like mess? To satisfy yourself as a humble person who does not seek reward? To fulfill the Christian ideal you were brought up with?
>No, they don't. Self-interest does not equate to selfishness, that is a misconception.
Acting only in self interest, as we all do at all times, is selfishness. A closer term would be egoism.

>>5380582
>I hate mess.
So you did it to satiate your own ego?

>>5380470
Read some MacInyre.

Virtues are decided by distinct historical people who regard what is best for them on that basis, not necessarily on what is "universally" good.

>>5380599
So if I think senseless killings are virtuous I am right to act on this thought? Are you sure about this?

>>5380584
>Why are you really doing it?
Maybe this and that. Guess it's in my self-interest.
>Acting only in self interest, as we all do at all times, is selfishness.
Incorrect, you're conflating the two terms when they don't mean the same thing. That's disingenous and clearly in want of having it both ways.

If one acts altruistically, it is just as reasonable to claim it is in their self-interest, as it is impossible not to act in self-interest. All acts cannot be selfish, as that renders "selfishness" meaningless.
>>5380589
Doing it would and it doesn't prove a thing.

>>5380622
*Doing anything would

>>5380608
No such thing as right or wrong exists.

>>5380622
>If one acts altruistically, it is just as reasonable to claim it is in their self-interest, as it is impossible not to act in self-interest. All acts cannot be selfish, as that renders "selfishness" meaningless.
They are terms which apply to perceptions of an action from the outside and, sometimes, at a conscious level of the individual committing the act. However, everything is, at its base, selfish. It is all for the self. Altruism cannot exist as anything more than a vague idea.
>>5380622
>Doing it would and it doesn't prove a thing.
Would you do t if you liked the mess being there and disliked cleaning up?

>>5380507
>People can be nice or do things for others regardless of whether they will received well or what they will receive.
"what they will receive" is inherent in the good act itself. They do nice things because they feel good for doing them. Karma, in the real Buddhist sense.

there is fMRI research that shows a pleasure response in reaction to donating money to charity in the same regions of the brain that are active when you receive money.

>tfw living in a world where doing good things feels good

>>5380668
And that is the only reason you do 'good' things.

>>5380681
>denying moral realism
best be trolling

>>5380691
Morality is a spook. The only thing one can possibly do is act for his own ego. Morality says 'thou shalt', the ego, the individual, says 'I will'.

>>5380668
It's part of your mechanism as a human. It is not a law of the world, and if humans worked differently (like many species do), doing good would not feel good for them at all.

Morality is a deal with society. It has nothing to do with values, but rather with "live and let live", and, to add to that "make live what makes me live". This however is so deeply ingrained into our culture and our minds that we do not notice it as a deal anymore, and rather see it as something "natural", as some universal law. If "good" was an actual value, rather than a description, then crime would not exist.

>>5380392
i dont think it is, but that doesnt matter much in my opinion. it is still possible to act in self interest and have someone else benefit from it and that is not a bad thing.

>>5380778
Go away Hobbes

>>5380392

No.
You can do so on more or less intelligent ways though.

>>5380504
It's an ironic kind of insult. Like calling someone "egghead" or "brainiac"

>>5380392
Yes, of course. The only people who answer no are ones who will pre-define all action as intrinsically self-interested, making the entire purpose of calling acts "self-interested" or not useless.

If you answer no, you are, very simply, not using the accepted societal definition of "self-interest."

Define "self-interest"

Can Stirner teach me to be more selfish? I always get rejected by sluts and whores because I'm too much of a nice guy.

>>5380392
Unconsciously, yes.

>>5381076
Define "

>>5381085
Stirner can easily help you repel women with a sense of unwarranted self-importance.

Why exactly is Stirner a meme ?

>>5381071
I don't know if you are aware of it, but that's the whole point of what Stirner says.

>>5381089
It's a quotation mark, used to quote people. I'm not making mention/use distinction here, but I will if you insist.

Define self-interest

>>5381094
Because reactionaries and marxists don't like him but can't prove him wrong. Like calling someone "fedora" or shit like that. It's a cheap way to dismiss something without having to prove it wrong.

>>5381096
Oh good, even more reason to never ever read Stirner.

>>5381102
I can prove him wrong.

>>5381097
Interest of the self.

>>5381108
That's not going to fly. You didn't define it, you paraphrased.

>>5381097
>Define self-interest

An interest in the works of WIll Self.

>>5381111
Then no, it isn't possible to act against self-interest.

It would just be too pathos.

>>5381104
A reason not to read him is he defends you should stop using bullshit excuses? Anti-intellectuals these days...

>>5381110
Check out the definitions of "interest" and "self" on the dictionary and... voilà!

>>5380503
It's in the name. It's acting in a way that is manly, that is, in a way that supports the group that supports you. Honor and honesty build trust and prevent strife and so on and so forth. Essentially, virtue is what makes a good hunting party or platoon function and it's equivalents in the city.

>>5381107
If one of these is true, then you can't:
>haven't read Stirner's book
>have read Saint Max and believe it gives legit reasons

>>5381125
So airport means a port made of air? C'mon. Are you so insecure in your ideology that you can't have a frank, good-faith discussion about it?

>>5380765
>It is not a law of the world
prove it

>>5381131
Legit reasons isn't enough to overcome a counterexample.

>>5381116
No, a good reason to read him is that I can apparently already come up with his arguments without having to consult him.

And Stirner is a meaninglessly minor figure in philosophical history, and it's fun to see how mad people get when you point that out here.

>>5381132
>airport
>like a port
>but to travel by air instead of by water

If you try to use your brain in a way that you can make sense out of it, it's not that difficult.

You really don't know what self-interest is? Because it really is the interest of the self. I can acept there are some metaphysical problems when it comes to the definition of the self, but let's take it's whatm I refer to when I say "you". Now, interest is something your will tends to, something your instincts or desires throught rationality want to achieve. Well, self interest is what you want to get for yourself.

>>5380503
https://www.carroll.edu/msmillie/ethics/nature%20of%20virtue.htm

"1. Virtues are dispositional feature of character: they make us good and make us do our jobs well-they affect our character, not just our lives. (They "actually engage the will"-moral virtues if possessed are (in the sense of must always be) used.) Therefore, we can predict how a person possessing the virtue will act and react in different situations. Some who acquires honesty is an honest person; honesty disposes this person to act honestly. [Unlike being sickly, 43 years old or married]

2. Virtues are voluntarily acquired: we aren't born with them, it is up to us to acquire them. As they are beneficial to us, we have as well reason to acquire them. [Someone who doesn't or even doesn't choose to acquire them is at least foolish, and may be bad. Unlike having perfect pitch or being good at holding liquor.]

3. Virtues involve acting with judgment-they blend emotion and judgment. They are an "emotional perceptiveness"-involving "hitting the target," in the right way, at the right time, etc. Courage is the blending of reason with fear, so that we learn to respond appropriately to our feelings of fear, maybe to run when appropriate, and to stand fast when we should. [Unlike spelling or knowing who wrote Hamlet: spelling correctly isn't a context dependent.]

4. Virtues are needed for living well: Without a virtue, our live would be spoiled. No one would choose a life without the virtues. [Unlike ability to play chess]

5. Virtues are pervasively relevant to all roles in life: central in all areas of life. Success at any project in life will require moderating our fears appropriately, being honest with ourselves, being fair, objective, etc. [Unlike being able to swim or sing in tune]

6. Virtues involve acting with a proper motive: you cannot exercise a virtue for the wrong motive. Some motives, like greed, malice, spite, envy, are completely incompatible with virtue. [Unlike being curious, cunning, shy or energetic]"

So in short you can never be truly happy if you aren't truly virtuous

>>5381152
So self interest is whatever I want to do, very vaguely?

>>5381146
lol you sure can. But not as well argumented as him. It's only useful if you are not an egoist. If you are, well, it can give you arguments for a debate against others, but that's all, just a fun read.
It is a minor figure in the sense that the most famous philosophers tend to follow some kind of line of influence and he doesn't. But he's the protagonist of one of the most important books of one pretty influential philosopher. And it's still talked about (nowadays more than on his time) on academic circles and used as a reference on some political theories (even though you can still say those political theories are minor and meaningless themselves).

>>5380392
>Is it possible to act NOT in Self interest?
Doesn't look too good right now, but I'm hopeful for the future.

>>5381160
What you specifically want to do. As in, not for the sake of some external principle.

>>5381185
>Stirner
>Not entirely influenced by both Hegel and the Young Hegelians
OK

>>5381194
Okay. Have you ever read Oedipus?

>>5381198
Odeipus Rex? No. Is this stuff referenced there?

>>5381197
He's basically saying hegelianism is bullshit. In this sense you can say he's been influenced, but that's all.

What if I strap myself to a robot that acts for me and change my idea after two weeks but there's no way to unstrap me from the robot anymore and I can't act in my best self-interest. What then Stirner? Suck my balls

>>5381185
What book is he the protagonist of? Before I went to /lit/ and saw daily shitfits about him the only thing I knew him from was Marx's German Ideology.

>>5381231
lol silly Marx and Engels. They needed that long ass part of The Holy Family to do what some anon did in a single post.

>>5381208
Yes. Oedipus spends his whole life actively trying to avoid the oracle's prophecy that he will kill his father and fuck his moms, but unwittingly does exactly the opposite, exactly what he didn't want to do.

>>5381208
>>5381248
I can give you more concrete examples of how our ineptitude or lack of knowledge can cause our actions to do the opposite of what we intend if you would like. You will probably modify your definition at this point. I'll gladly give you examples contrary to that as well.

>>5381234
It's the longest part of the book.

>>5381214
Actually he is much more subtle than that. Have you ever read Hegel. Stirner actually employs the dialectic, intentionally, in TEAIO.

>>5381248
>>5381261
Oh, okok, the tragic hero. Well, that's not a good counterexample for egoism. Being an egoist doesn't mean your acts will always end up giving you what you want them to give you. The results don't depend on you. It's just a matter of morals.
This >>5381231 isn't a refutation to egoism.

>>5381277
He uses it mocking Hegel. You can say Max Stirner was very influential to Karl Marx too, he mockingly used the structure of his book.

The mysterious origin of Oedipus, found hanging on the tree of Cithaeron like a bleeding fruit, recalls the symbols of Moses and the narratives of Genesis. He makes war upon his father, whom he slays with- out knowing – tremendous prophecy of the blind emancipation of reason apart from science. Thereafter he meets with the sphinx, that symbol of symbols, the eternal enigma of the vulgar, the granite pedestal of the sciences of the sages, the voracious and silent monster whose unchanging form expresses the one dogma of the Great Universal Mystery. How is the tetrad changed into the duad and explained by the triad? In more common but more emblematic terms, what is that animal which in the morning has four feet, two at noon, and three in the evening?

Philosophically speaking, how does the doctrine of elementary forces produce the dualism of Zoroaster, while it is summarized by the triad of Pythagoras and Plato? What is the ultimate reason of allegories and numbers, the final message of all symbolisms? Oedipus replies with a simple and terrible word which destroys the sphinx and makes the diviner King of Thebes: the answer to the enigma is MAN! . . . Unfortunate! He has seen too much, and yet through a clouded glass. A little while and he will expiate his ominous and imperfect clairvoyance by a vol- untary blindness, and then vanish in the midst of a storm, like all civilizations which – each in its own day – shall divine an answer to the riddle of the sphinx without grasping its whole import and mystery. Everything is symbolical and transcendental in this titanic epic of human destinies.

>Is it possible to act NOT in self interest?

no

any act is inherently selfish just by virtue of the fact that YOU find it beneficial to act

>>5381288
You call it mockingly, but why do you think that. I've read both, and I'm not sure what gave you that idea.

>>5381282
So you are modifying your definition to acting out of PERCEIVED self-interest?

>>5381282
So you are modifying your definition to acting out of PERCEIVED self-interest? In a descriptivist sense?

>>5381404
The Ego and Its Own could make any irony detector explode. Marx's isn't even ironic, he's like one step away from calling Max an ass-hat.

>>5381414
Modifying my definition? You are the one who added consequences into the equation without it having anything to do with it.
Self-interest never implies you're not gona fail horribly. Does it? Because I think your point is 10% bullshit, like in I can't even imagine how can anyone get things this wrong without trolling.

according to socrates it isn't possible to knowingly act against your will

>>5381091
Stirner was actually great with the honeyz. He even dedicated the Ego and its Own to his girl at the time. Such a loving soul :3

>>5381436
>10% bullshit
Welp, there goes my funniest typo of the day.

>>5381436
You still don't have any other clear reasoning other than, "it's mocking because I said so." Or do you actually have some passages to corroborate his supposed distaste for Hegel?

>>5381443
Oh you mean the one that left him and became a nun?

>>5381456
Well, against this I can't say anything. Some people are just autistic to get irony. it's just something you get or you don't.
Also, there's something that might make you suspicious, he uses pseudo-dialectics to get to a totally different conclusion than Hegel's.

>>5381436
Well you literally said that self-interest is "what you will for yourself . . . what you want to achieve . . . what you desire . . . very specifically"

If that is the definition of self-interest, than acting in a way that fails those criteria, in your words failure, is acting against that self-interest. You don't want to fail do you?

>>5381470
So? People use the same type of arguments to reach different conclusions all the time. That isn't enough to say that Plato was mocking Socrates simply because he was inspired to utilize some of his methods.

what about a guy that gives his life to save another one? like di caprio in titanic... that's a selfless act because he's going to die so it doesn't matter if he does it to be all manly

>>5381481
>That isn't enough to say that Plato was mocking Socrates simply because he was inspired to utilize some of his methods.
Of course it isn't enough. it would be enough if he used tongue-in-cheeck expressions every now and then, and reached the opposite conclusion.

>>5381515
What's the opposite conclusion? It appears you haven't actually read Hegel.

>>5381475
You act according to your desire. You NEVER act against your self-interest. Your actions are the ones you want. The results THE RESULTS of your actions may not be what you expected. if you always get the results you want from your actions then you aren't self-interested, you are God.

>>5381522
No the actions are not the ones you want if you are trying to do some specific thing and you think you know what you are doing but you don't know what the fuck you are doing.

>>5380392
>NOT in self interest
Yes. People sacrificing themselves for others, for example.

>>5381519
I'll give you a clue: the state ;)

>>5381538
>thinks Hegel is a statist

>>5381536
You wouldn't sacrifice yourself if you didn't want to. There's nothing especially exceptional about it to exempt it from involuntary egoism. Sacrificing yourself for someone because you wouldn't be able to live with yourself if you had not, or you would not think live was worth living without a specific person, and so on.

>>5381544
What's your itnerpretation on his morals then? It's not like there were stateless forms of collectivism back then.

>>5381573
It's a good thing Hegel wasn't advocating some particular known form of government or set of moral laws.

His morality rests on the idea of liberation of the will. You really should read Hegel if you like Stirner even a little. There is a reason his thought was so fecund and prolific.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/prmorali.htm

>>5381601
>some particular known form of government
Frederick William III?
>or set of moral laws.
Categorical imperative?
>His morality rests on the idea of liberation of the will
Which is only possible when it goes accordingly with the Geist.
I read it parts years ago on a course at my uni. Pretty sure it's nothing to do with anarcho-individualism.

>>5381621
Yeah, he wasn't working to legitimize the state. Your course must have been shit.

>categorical imperative
LEL

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about. Like half of his students wanted to start revolutions. You should try getting your Kant and Hegel straight before you speak on the philosophical tradition that Stirner came from. Hell, you might even walk away with a better understanding of your favorite philosopher!

what is a suicide bomber?

>>5381879
Even this is self-interest.

>>5381886
how? what is a soldier? what is the case of the doctors that stayed in the hospitals wroking with ebola patients, tell me

>>5381894
Many, many possibilities exist.
The suicide bomber wants to make a statement and/or punish infidels, among other possible interests.
The soldier wants to serve country, earn college tuition, prove his manhood, ...
The doctors want to help people, solve a tricky problem, prove that the bf/gf that dumped them was wrong about them, ...

>>5380412
No, he's a psychological egoist.

>>5381962
Sheer tautology. Everything you typed just boils down to semantically tautology.

>HURRR DURRRR IF HE DID IT HE WAS INTERESTED IN DOING IT THEREFORE EVERYTHING WE DO IS IN SELF-INTEREST

I'm getting sick of these Dale Gribble threads.

>>5382187
You only ever do what you want to.

Whats with all the gibberish and discussion here lit? The answer is obviously no, move on.

Thats like being asked "does fire burn?", being thrown at a fire and, while burning, start to explain why it does not.

>>5382198

>>5381497
He does it to satiate his conscious.

>>5381497
a deathwish can be selfish. living with guilt can also be not preferable to death in some cases.

>>5382354
>You only ever do what you want to.

So all arguments in favor of capitalism that hinge on "the pursuit of self-interest" are meaningless since such pursuits are not only possible but obligatory under any system?

>>5382439
>>5382475
would you shut the fuck up already. nobody cares and this guy >>5382187 pretty much pointed out why you're a massive faggot.

How old are you? You cannot be out of high school if you think this is actually proving anything

>>5382494
Economic self-interest is a narrower concept than self-interest as brought up by OP.

>>5382525
>narrower

So more precise and less full of bullshit.

>>5382529
That too maybe, but I was saying the economic term is less broadly applicable.

>>5382518
Who says I'm trying to prove anything? I'm merely answering a guy's question as to in what ways a certain thing could be considered selfish.

>>5381443
feminister detected

It is; however, you'd have to be completely apathetic to do so.

>>5381094
Because he's the jester of philosophy

>>5381097
>Define self-interest
That which gives us pleasure and/or avoids pain. Pain is only sought when it's required to avoid greater pain, or because it is rewarded with greater pleasure.

>>5382518
Why does the fact that you are selfish make you angry?

>>5383247
You're pretty stupid, huh?

>>5383296
You're somewhat butthurt, eh?

>>5383201
Is that possible?

>>5380570
>Every action is egoistic because it is a manifestation of the acter's own will.

Thread should have ended here.

Anyone who answers "yes" to the OP question is an idiot who doesn't even understand the terms used in the argument.

>>5380392
I've never met anyone who has disagreed with this part of Stirner

I consider it an axiom at this point

>>5383852
You've never met an altruist or Asatruer?

>>5383871
Now that I think about it, my uncle is an altruist. His argument began and ended with 'I don't agree'. I feel that if he did agree it would impact on the satisfaction he gets from altruism.

Asatruism isn't exactly a budding movement, so no.

>>5383852
personally I consider it axiomatic that all action is altruistic

>>5383924
Why? Explain yourself.

>>5383928
He's just being ebin

>>5383928
it's self-evident to me. people are altruistic all the time, they just don't realize it. people might say they're doing something for themselves but it's actually altruism. can you name any action that isn't altruistic?

>>5383924
you would be an idiot then

>>5383949
stop shitposting

>>5383924
>>5383949
Butthurt "altruist" who can't accept the fact that self-interest is built into the dynamics of action/will.

>>5383955
I think you can't accept that altruism is built into those

>>5383960
>I think

How selfish of you to impose your will like that!

>edgy high school tautologies

>>5383962
How generous of you to educate me about your viewpoint.

>>5383445
Nah, you just said something really dumb. I thought I'd let you know.

but what about people that die to save other people they hardly know?

>>5383995
Please read or at least try to skim over threads before replying

this is by far the dumbest thread on /lit/ right now. Fuck anybody taking this thread seriously. Especially, especially OP

>>5384002
woe fucking is me. i have shitted up the thread.
i'm sorry. i normally would have done such as that.
i'm just so fucked up i dont' even know wh you are.

>>5384013
it's a bad thread and your first post was better than 90% of it honestly

>>5383995
They are saving themselves from the guilt of doing nothing and fulfilling their own 'moral' ideal.

>>5384011
Why?

>>5383968
>edgy 4chan memes

none of the things that are either comes to be or passes out of existence, because what comes to be must do so either from what is or from what is not, both of which are impossible. For what is cannot come to be (because it is already), and from what is not nothing could have come to be (because something must be present as a substratum).

1. For something to come into existence, it must either come from what is or what is not (nothing).
2. It cannot come to be from what is, because what is is already.
3. It cannot come from what is not, because nothing can come from nothing.
4. Both cases are impossible, therefore nothing can come into existence.
5. Motion requires change.
6. Action requires motion.
7. Motion is impossible.
8. Action is impossible.
/:. You cannot act, either in your self-interest or against it.

>>5384038
I hope you didn't spend time writing that

>>5384031
ayy lmao

>>5384057
I didn't. Time is an illusion.

>>5384038
Are you stupid?

>>5384061
Are you?

who here is /nicki/?

>>5384063
No, I'm not a retarded faggot who thinks reality isn't real.

>>5384089
I never said that, and I don't believe that. Why are you on a literature board if you can't comprehend the things you read?

>>5380507
pleb post.

>>5384074
i kinda hate thongs like that, i can't enjoy her ass since i'm just imagining how discolored and smelly that thing must be

>>5380582
You do it because it is in your interest to do it. You "hate" mess. Therefore you "like" cleanliness. You're acting in your interests. Self interest. Stop being a faggot.

>>5384094
You did say that, you said time is an illusion.

Only under a very broad definition of self-interest

>>5384113
Abstract concepts require abstract definitions

>>5384112
So? Time is something we perceive. It supposedly began at the big bang, and is not a fundamental part of "reality" any more than space is. Time as we perceive it involves change, but I just proved to you that change is impossible. Therefore time is likely just an appearance and NOT reality.

>>5384117
Time and space cannot exist independently of one another, this is why we use the term space time continuum.

>>5384136
Which is EXACTLY my point

>>5384145
No it isn't, if you deny time you deny reality.

>>5384150
So you are claiming reality began at the big bang?

Why don't you go back and read the argument again.

>>5384155
Reality did begin at the beginning of the expansion of the universe, though.

>>5384166
What makes you think that? Are you saying the big bang came from itself?

>>5384172
Reality didn't exist before then, so yes.

>>5384181
So your argument is:
1. There was no reality before the big bang.
2. The big bang started reality
/:. There was no reality before the big bang

Do you see the problem?
For the big bang to cause itself it must first exist, it must be real. Therefore reality must precede the big bang. Or are you saying the real can come from the unreal, or that something can come from nothing?

>>5384018
thanks for the encouragement anon. i appreciate it really

>>5384192
Why can't something come from nothing? Reality IS space and time.

>>5380392

well yes, if you're a failure at life, then your actions will likely most often be not in your interest

but it is not possible to act for some purpose that is not self-serving in any way

>>5384226
Firstly, even if you take appearances to constitute reality, spacetime does not account for the whole of it.

Do you have any reason to think that something comes from nothing other than that it follows from the very thing you want to prove? There are plenty of reasons to think otherwise. Not the least of which is complete lack of any evidence or proof that it can, while we have plenty to the contrary.

>>5384275
I'm referring perceived self interest, because no objective values exist you cannot judge what is in the interest of someone else.

>>5384192
>something can come from nothing
Bossons and shit, mate. In 100 years we'll be teaching that shit in high school but nright now it's next level as fuck.

>>5384294
Yes you can. What is relativism?

>>5384287
All matter began to exist at the big bang, that was the only time matter was created.
Space and time are what allow for matter to exist.

>>5384301
You cannot judge what is better for them and call it self interest, that is your interest. If we can only act in self interest you are only guiding someone to your reality tunnel in YOUR self interest.

>>5384302
Yes, but spacetime has to exist for matter to exist, and neither comprise our fundamental understanding of physics. For spacetime to exist, existence must be coherent, existence must exist. Being before essence.

>>5384300
There is a reason to question the quantum realm as irreducible, especially given our incomplete understanding of QM. You are correct to point out that a quantum state(s) is what we believe likely to be the initial condition of our big bang though.

>>5384310
Yes, you can. Or do you think you are the only one capable of communicating your self-interest, or that your interests never align with others? What happened to your notion of a temporary egoist union?

>>5384322
>For spacetime to exist, existence must be coherent, existence must exist. Being before essence.
[citation needed]

>>5384336
That would be union interest, not self interest.

>>5384338
So you are saying spacetime doesn't need to exist to exist? That's what literally follows if it can precede existence.

>>5384346
It doesn't precede existence, existence began at the big bang.

>>5384349
So you are saying the big bang didn't exist, then it did, and it existed ever since?

>>5384344
You can't have union interest if others don't have a self-interest as well. Derp.

>>5384354
It was an event that spurred the expansion of time-space and this created matter.

>>5384360
But events happen, and nothing can happen without space and time?

>>5384359
When did I claim others don't have self interest. In a union the interest of the strongest prevails so it is in the interest of the others to submit to it.

>>5384367
Event is just the closest fitting term. We have no terms to describe timeless states.

>>5384369
>so it is in the interest of the others to submit to it.
>you cannot judge what is in the interest of someone else.
Go on...

captcha: isarylh interests

>>5384378
I'm describing, not judging.

>>5384376
If a state exists and is timeless, then there is existence without time. Are you starting to see the problem with saying that reality cannot be uncoupled from spacetime?

>>5384384
Time is simply the expansion of the universe, so I don't see how that is possible.

>>5384383
Well it seems like the sort of thing you can't describe any more than you can judge it. If you know what it is, that's the same thing. Or are you vascillating between the definitions of judge now?

>>5384390
Because something happened that caused spacetime. That something had to exist for it to cause anything. Why is this so difficult?

>>5384391
By judge I refer to making the decision for another.
>>5384394
The big bang was self caused.

>>5380392
no. any attempts to prove otherwise would serve the interest of disproving an idea that you dont like or proving one that you do.

any "selfless" act serves to make us feel better

>>5384405
>By judge I refer to making the decision for another.
>In a union the interest of the strongest prevails so it is in the interest of the others to submit to it.
Ok, but you just said you can do that.

>>5380392
yes but we wont enjoy anything

>>5384409
The stronger doesn't force the weaker to submit, the weak do so themselves out of self preservation.

>>5384405
>The big bang was self caused.
Nice one, Aristotle. How about joining us here in the 21st century? Things can't cause themselves, because things must first exist to cause anything.

>>5384412
No, because by attempting to act not in your self interest is still an act of will. Every time you make a decision it is a manifestation of your will, which is a selfish act. Even if you attempt to act against your perceived self-interest you're still acting.

>>5384426
The laws of physics are reliant on spacetime, they cannot apply otherwise.

>>5384417
Ok, but they are still conferring to your judgment of what is best for them, so that entails that actually being able to happen.

Stirner was not a psychological egoist. You have completely missed the point. Read Hegel.

>>5384433
No, read your quantum mechanics. This isn't accurate at all. In fact, there is reason to believe otherwise.

>>5384434
I didn't force them to, though. They acted as I predicted of their own volition.

>>5384436
Someone who understands

>>5384443
[citation needed]

>>5384445
>Predicted
>telling people what to do is the same thing as predicting their behaviors
Okay, I'm done.

>>5384454
I never told them to do it, at all. I predicted that the choice I would make in that situation is submission for self preservation.

>>5384451
The big bang was a physical, material event. Spacetime began with a physical, material event.
Therefore physical and material things were before spactime.

I'm not about to explain QM to you. It would be tedious, mathy, and it's late. If you doubt my credibility at this point, you can go check it out yourself.

>>5384457
I accept your surrender.

>>5384460
It's not a surrender. There's still the above argument, which is not an argument from physics.

I'm also a little suspicious that explaining QM would be a lot of work for little-to-no headway given how the discussion has gone so far.

>>5384471
You're either too lazy or you're giving up.

>>5384472
>spoonfeed me

>>5384496
Clearly you don't know what you're on about, then.

>>5384498
That wasn't me, but I do. Spacetime is a component of a natural law, but not any fundamental natural law (if you accept that the big bang was a natural event, which I take that you do at this point). You can either respond to the above argument,
>>5384457
or accept it and I can go read.

>>5384509
Got any citations?

>>5384510
What, that the big bang was a material event? That spacetime began with the big bang? Really? Now you are just being petulant.

>>5384514
Hey, man, I'm just trying to learn. I have no reason to trust that you are correct, and even then I would like to see some reasoning.

>>5384519
All I've been doing is laying out my reasoning. There are a number of different models for how the big bang might have happened. Some involve multiverse or prior universe theories. Some involve string theory, and one of the more popular ones appeals to QM, the lattice theory.

Basically, you can't discard that the big bang was a material event without discarding materialism (assuming that some things are immaterial, all the dualism and other things you probably associate more with arguments for the soul or God or Platonism). Since there had to be material (or a quantum state, which is materialist) of some sort which was the source of the big bang, spacetime is not necessary for either the material world or existence. That is why I'm claiming that spacetime is not a necessary condition to qualify something as real. In light of that, my original argument might make more sense. The conclusion, a paradox of motion (and hence change and action) is not supposed to be a palatable one. It flies in the face of normal experience, but what we experience and what is the case are not always immediately reconcilable (see all of physics in the 20th century).

>>5384537
Got any literature on this? I'm interested.

>>5384547
Sure. Here are a few good things I can recommend:
A Universe from Nothing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing
Why Anything? Why this?
http://www.sfu.ca/~rpyke/cafe/parfit.pdf
SEP QM
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/
SEP Zeno's Paradoxes
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/
SEP Parmenides
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/
Intro to Metaphysics (Heidegger)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Metaphysics_(Heidegger)
SEP Spacetime Singularities
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/
http://www.space.com/17217-big-bang-phase-change-theory.html

This should start you off. It would be easier to recommend specific things on physics if I knew what your technical background was. Much of it is very technical and jargon heavy.

Even some of the SEP articles can be really difficult for people who don't have a background in physics or math.

yeah if you save someone's life and sacrifice yourself.

>>5384581
No because you deciding that you need to insert yourself into a situation and do something good for someone else is inherently selfish.

>>5384580
Cheers, I'm a maths major by the way.
>>5384581
That is for satiation of the conscience.

>>5384581

m8, u can't prove the person who threw themselves on a grenade didn't decide they were sick of this cruel world and did what they did in the hopes that death is the end to all of this suffering. The fact that they took it away from their team m8s makes it even more selfish.

>>5384586
Oh good, here are a few more things then, specifically relating to big bang speculative physics and cosmology:
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960
http://www.awesomeanimator.com/bigbangstatevector.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/

>>5384580
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

it's interesting but be careful with your lecture, when they refer to "nothing" they don't refer to actual nothing, they refer to a quantum vacuum with plenty of properties and physic laws already in work.

>>5384621
Which is precisely my point. Most models of the Big Bang and even those that speculate on the first Planck time following it assume there are physical laws at work. Many also stipulate physical laws prior to the Big Bang. For ones that don't, you have to fill in the gaps with metaphysical assumptions and arguments, which I also provided some. There are both strong philosophical arguments and appeals to physics why we shouldn't assume the universe came from absolutely nothing, caused itself, etc. Some of which I gave in some form earlier in the thread, and many of which are also in the links that I posted.

>>5384714
There is this thing called guilt, you feel it if you allow for someone else to die. We aren't creatures of pure instinct.

>>5384586
When you use the word 'for,' things get murky. We can consider two results that may come of sacrificing one's life for another: the satiation of the conscience and the securing of another person's life for reproduction. Evolutionarily, the behavior of sacrifice will develop not because it gives some animal a momentary peace of mind before its demise, but because it secures an organism to live on and reproduce. So the act will become commonplace because it is 'for' the survival of the other, since that is the only physical way it can become commonplace. If anything, the conscience-sating is a minor phenomenon rewarding the general act of bravery (survivable sacrifice), but it's far from the established 'purpose' or why we have come to do it. So it is classifiable as an altruistic act since it's demonstrably not done for mental or physical self-interest.

>>5384722
Guilt is an instinct.

>>5384743
Wrong.

>>5384743
No it is not.
http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/shinlab/documents/pubsShinActivation.pdf

>>5380392
if i'm in a war and a grenade gets thrown into the room where i and several others are residing, and i throw myself onto the nade, killing myself but ensuring others don't get harmed, how am i acting out of self-interest?

>>5384847
You are emotionally attached to the others in the room, and/or you have a sense of duty to uphold, so that you would feel guilty not jumping on the grenade.

>>5384847
>>5383787

>>5384853
But if it's the emotional attachment or duty which prompts me to do it, then it is quite trivial to say 'ah, but you did it out of self-interest!', and if i didn't do it you'd say 'aha, out of self-interest!', which doesn't explain anything about why i did or did not do it. see below too

>>5384854
But that just means that a person does what he wills, so everything a person does is 'egoistic' or 'selfish because 'egoistic' here means whatever it is that you will. So, that actually doesn't tell us anything at all when it comes to explaining a person's actions, does it?

>>5384911
>But if it's the emotional attachment or duty which prompts me to do it, then it is quite trivial to say 'ah, but you did it out of self-interest!', and if i didn't do it you'd say 'aha, out of self-interest!', which doesn't explain anything about why i did or did not do it. see below too
Explain why you would do it, then?

>>5384911
>So, that actually doesn't tell us anything at all when it comes to explaining a person's actions, does it?
yep, that's the point, it's just empty rhetoric to speak about egoism or selflessness in this manner

>>5384911
First off, duty is a spook.

>>5384911
>So, that actually doesn't tell us anything at all when it comes to explaining a person's actions, does it?

What is there to explain other than "Every action is egoistic because it is a manifestation of the acter's own will"? It is built into the language of "action". It is literally axiomatic.

There is no "action" or "decision" without a "self", therefore every "action" or "decision" is "selfish". How you personally define the "self", however, is another story entirely.

>>5384926
>empty rhetoric

Are you one of those retards who think that 1+1=2 is "empty rhetoric"?

where did the spook meme come from

>>5384945
but egoism never meant that, you are making up words

>>5384952
>but egoism never meant that

Good because I'm not talking about "egoism".

>>5384957
>What is there to explain other than "Every action is egoistic because it is a manifestation of the acter's own will"? It is built into the language of "action". It is literally axiomatic.
>>Good because I'm not talking about "egoism".
the only reason this is polemic at all is because you are mixing self-interest with the negative connotations of egoism as in "being excessively conceited or absorbed in oneself"

when you act you do what you will, yeah, that's the meaning of acting and it's what agents do. it has nothing to do with egoism

>>5384925
I'm not saying that the emotional attachment or a sense of duty can't be proper elements to explain the action, I think they can be. What I'm saying is that stating it is done out of self-interest doesn't explain anything. 'Why did I decide to jump on the nade? out of self-interest.' 'Why did i decide not to jump on the nade? out of self-interest'.

>>5384931
doesn't mean you can't act out of the sense of obligation it gives you.

>>5384945
>It is literally axiomatic.
Sure, but then it's just trivial and doesn't explain any action. See my first paragraph.

>>5384964
>when you act you do what you will, yeah, that's the meaning of acting and it's what agents do. it has nothing to do with egoism

You are the only one here conflating "egoism", which is a system of ethics (talking about "should" instead of "is"), with the axiomatic implications of personal action.

>>5384975
>Sure, but then it's just trivial

You can call it trivial if you want but it's not more trivial than anything else.

>It doesn't explain any action

Because it's not an explanation it's a description.

>>5384975
>doesn't mean you can't act out of the sense of obligation it gives you
Which is what Stirner calls an "involuntary egoist". You don't *want* to do things for pleasure or to avoid pain--you can't help it, of course, but you make yourself neurotic in order to avoid it. So you begin to act to avoid the paid of breaking with your self-imposed (or externally-imposed) neurosis; duty on some levels has much in common with OCD's.

>>5384983
those are ad hoc explanations that make no sense from that point of view of self-interest

>>5384986
They do. For further expansion on this, you can read Nietzsche. Spooks are the primary tool used to tame humans: you make the very idea of caring about yourself psychologically painful through conditioning, and you make people neurotic (guilty). We can't help but seek pleasure, but the route we might choose is deliberately spread with nails of pain to make us more pliable, to make it easier to direct us down a path that allows us to be utilized to the fullest by others. Duty is a prime example of this: the path of duty is clear of pain, but all other paths to pleasure are filled with psychological pain. Duty is chosen because it is the only gratification (though it may be relatively paltry) that doesn't come with overwhelming psychological pain.

>>5384997
how does Stirner define what is a true pleasure and what is not? with humans being basically useless at birth time it would be very difficult to argue that there can be any actual pleasures that doesn't derive from societal influence

how does he argue that some societal influences are wrongly aligned with self-interest and others are rightly aligned without that psychological pain?

>>5384997
can you answer this question please?
>>5384951

>>5385006
"Spook" is a tongue-in-cheek term used by Stirner to refer to philosophical essences (because they "haunt" things). Moral Right and Wrong are action and/or result essentialism.

>>5385010
>"Spook" is a tongue-in-cheek term used by Stirner to refer to philosophical essences (because they "haunt" things)

so kind of like zizek's "ideology" then?

thanks btw

>>5385005
There is no such thing as a false pleasure.

>how does he argue that some societal influences are wrongly aligned with self-interest and others are rightly aligned without that psychological pain?
He doesn't believe in Right or Wrong in any moral sense.

Minchia Max

>>5385012
Yes, it's like Zizek's ideology. Or Nietzsche's idol (except "idol" refers exclusively to revered spooks, whereas "spooks" includes the despised as well).

>>5380392
Of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbWVFiEA9hU

>>5385015
gotcha

>>5385020
>You will never reach the mass of self serving egotists that plague this spec of dust we call Earth. Most of them are imbecilic dullards like gratex and pyrrho. They remind me of primal semi-human apes who with heroic mental effort, have figured out how to count to three. They encounter four pebbles and think they've found infinity!

my fedora is tipping on its own!

>>5385023
lel, did random youtuber hit a nerve, anon?

>>5385013
but then what makes societal values different than selfish values that are still completely influenced by society? he seems to have plenty of opinions, not being merely descriptive.

i mean i guess he could be arguing that selfish values are no different than societal values but he seems to judge societal values in a harsher way

>>5385035
>but then what makes societal values different than selfish values that are still completely influenced by society?
The former is reified.

> he seems to have plenty of opinions, not being merely descriptive.
Most of his opinions are descriptive. The rest are merely his desires, his defense of his desires, and his explanation of how we could still function without spooks.

>i mean i guess he could be arguing that selfish values are no different than societal values but he seems to judge societal values in a harsher way
Because they're built on a false premise.

What's a good place to start with Stirner?

>>5385043
The Ego and Its Own

>>5385038
>Because they're built on a false premise.
seems hard to believe he is able to build any value if he denies society. I mean even if you just accept the value of avoiding death that gives you a base to build society from there. Even if it's not your preferred way of living, and if he doesn't even accept that value i find it hard to believe that he is able to accept anything else to build from.

>>5385059
>I mean even if you just accept the value of avoiding death
He doesn't, except for subjective, temporal, individual purposes.

> if he doesn't even accept that value i find it hard to believe that he is able to accept anything else to build from
But he doesn't want to build society. If anything, he wants to destroy society.

"The falls of peoples and mankind will invite me to my rise."

>>5385083
>fall

>>5385083
>"The falls of peoples and mankind will invite me to my rise."
yeah but he accepts his rise then, what are the arguments to support his rise?

>>5384436
Do you have a source to back your claim? Otherwise your comment is useless

>>5380392
Cutting off your peeny with rusty safety scissors and setting yourself on fire

>>5385327
What is the motivation?

>>5385341
Hallucinogenic drugs making you think you're giving a haircut :^)

Practically speaking yes, you can act in others interests or for no fucking reason whatsoever. If we're being pedantic here though then you can just say that acting in others interests is in fact acting in your interest since thats what you want to do. The people around you are unlikely to be too concerned about this conflation.

>>5385368
Then you are attempting to satisfy your desire for a haircut.

>>5380507
>some gratify themselves
there you go

>>5385175
That he will no longer have to conform with a collective identity.

>>5385321
Stirner was certainly a psychological egoist, I can quote plenty to back that up if that's what you're asking. If you mean a source that he wasn't also an ethical egoist, I don't have that, but that would go against his major point that normatives are bullshit.

>>5386761
>That he will no longer have to conform with a collective identity.
but how has non-conforming any more value for self-interest than conforming, that part doesn't seem to follow from him descriptive premise and be a mere personal opinion

>>5386796
It is a mere personal opinion, or rather preference. Stirner feels that without spooks, there are more options for his own pursuit of individual pleasure. He says he doesn't care if that applies to others or not (he even says it might well cause most people more misery than happiness, but he doesn't care).

The reason he includes this in the work, is because he was explaining what his motivations were in writing.