Stirner was right Dualism is a lie Religions, nations and morals

Yeah, graduating high school

>>601964
Fucking kek. Stirnerfags on suicide watch.

>>601953
Nah m8 altruism is a myth, there's no argument but MUH FEELINGS.

At the end of the day morality is totally irellevant and arbitrary.

I can't even undstand why moral objectivism even exists.

>>601964
Is that the best you can come up with?

>>601980
>>601985

Go outside you miserable goobers. If I wanted to hear this shit I'd play a jrpg

>>601985
I always thought the secret was that even though morality is arbitrary, we comply with it anyway because of social pressure/convenience. Thus we accept the inherent absurdity of life, learn to live with it, and perhaps even enjoy it.

He was right about one thing: that every individuals inherent desire is to fulfill their ego.

How is the self any less of a lie than the family?

>>601994
>I don't rape and murder because it would be inconvenient to do so

Oh brudda

>>601964
Roasted on arrival. What are you gonna do, Stirnerds?

>>601994
I dont think we shoud live with it too
Although I believe we shouldnt be held down by it and should prioritize ourselves interest over the spooks

>>602007
No, I don't rape and murder because I don't want to. The additional threat of imprisonment plus loss of social standing is also a deterrent.

File: 1430947229625.jpg (51KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x450px

>world of strength

File: walter.png (291KB, 397x408px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 397x408px

>>602109
>Lawfags

>>602026
You don't rape and murder because (hopefully) it would make you very remorseful.

>>602158
That sounds like a selfish reason tbqh

>>602006
"The family" is also a spook.

File: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.jpg (101KB, 399x388px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 399x388px

If Stirner ruled the world, it would be one giant fucking wild west, with Jamal stealing your shit and killing your family.

No thanks. Fuck off, Stirner.

>>602006
The family is an extension of your ego. So it's not, as long as you're honest about it.

>>602183
>m-m-m-muh feelings
Just because you wouldn't like a spooky meaningless world doesn't mean it's not the one we live in.

>>602163
>not knowing what remorse means

So because deeply regretting killing someone is a negative emotion I dont do it to avoid bad fee fees like Pavlov's faggot, instead of the action which causes the remorse in the first place

File: 1420136467133.jpg (159KB, 468x587px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 468x587px

>>602194

It has nothing to do with feelings.

Laws are set in place to defend those who will be potentially harmed by others. If you do not find this idea virtuous, I need you to step outside, and seriously reevaluate your shit. I also need you to take your nihilism to countries like Somalia, where, I'm sure, you'd fit in quite nicely there in a world where laws are lax.

>>602203
I'm not saying laws aren't nice to have. I'm just saying that there's no objective reason to have them. Ever heard of Thomas Hobbes?

>>602203
>If you do not find this idea virtuous
It has nothing to do with the idea being virtuous or not. It is a description of reality.

>>602217
Why does there need to be objective reason?

>>601953
Even the self is a spook.

>>602201
Yeah, you basically described it. Morality is just an evolved form of our herd instinct. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is, and the sooner we accept it the better.

>>602220
There doesn't have to be. A state of government and organization is just better than the state of anarchy and disorder. I guess we're in agreement then.

>>602183
>If Stirner ruled the world, it would be one giant fucking wild west, with Jamal stealing your shit and killing your family.

Yeah instead we have people killing each other because they're possessed by the ghosts of "honour", "righteousness", "justice" blah blah blah. 90% of the evil in this world is justified by these so called "virtues". There would be no chairman Mao in a Stirnerian world.

>>601953
The world is ruled by memes.

He who controls the memes (Justice; Freedom; Equality; Faith), controls the universe. Even strength is a meme — the mightiest man on earth could be chained up if he fails to realize the true nature of the memes around him.

File: 56445.jpg (10KB, 200x237px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x237px

>>602183
>not forming a union of egoists

if you can't protect your property, expect it to be taken

>>602222
What is the self?

>>602284
creative nothing tbqh

>>602203
Might makes right in this world, laws are only relevant when there is a power that enforces them
Why should that power not be used for our self-interest instead of spooks like morality or justice?

>>601953
The only reason Stirner came up with his bullshit "philosophy" was because he was a literal cuck, so when he heard the bull fucking his wife in the other room he could tell himself "i-it's ok, marital fidelity is just a spook."

>>602298
Is cuckoldry all anyone on this site cares about I mean fucking seriously

>>602203
>I also need you to take your nihilism to countries like Somalia, where, I'm sure, you'd fit in quite nicely there in a world where laws are lax.

nihilism =/= anarchism. "virtue" doesn't exist and is often used to justify violence. States should be formed based on practical considerations, not ideology.

>>602298
Source on that?

>>601953
yes stirner was pretentious cunt, his modern equivalent are angry white trash 16 year olds who live in a trailer park and smoke marlboro who think theyre intellectuals cause they think everything is dumb.

>>602181
Right, how is the self any less of a spook?

File: bloodsport.jpg (36KB, 585x300px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 585x300px

The world rules by strength and operates as intended. However, one must not use his power over his wit, and must practice powerful understanding, wisdom, and grace to utilize his true potential and become invincible.

>>602298
Isn't that confirmed Marxist propaganda hmmmm?

>>602302
Yes, what the fuck? It's the only thing that matters?

Stirner was WRONG. There is something that is REAL. Cucks and Bulls. You're either a cuck, or a bull. Which one are you, son?

His entire philosophy can be summed up as "altruism of itself is not a form of altruism" which is less of a philosophy and more of a truism.

File: 1436847869848.jpg (74KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x450px

>>602315
Black and white philosophy like that is so silly. The definition of the universe isn't that easy to catch. Reasoning like that will get you little to nowhere.

>>602311
Most conceptions of "the self" are spooks.

>>602326
We're already nowhere, son.

(desu I'm just being facetious. I'm only a monist because I can't prove the existence of anything besides memes.)

>>602327
How is the unique one, any less of a spook than the family?

Teh catagorecal impearative

Why does everyone assume that stirner wanted everyone to fuck each other over?

Isn't the idea of accepting egoism to recognize the self-interest in all actions, and fulfilling your desires?

Can a person not desire peace, culture, affection and contentment?

Do people infer this from his view on "property"? He's right in saying we only own what we have as long as we keep it.

Also, why do people confuse emotions with morality?

t. master rhetorical questioner

>>602006
An individual is actually identifiable. While a family's defination and mode is subject to the society that constructs. The earliest families were an extension of a tribe, than there were generations were a family could have multiple wives, than a family as strictly a man and a woman. Now it's two adults of either gender.

Even whether a family is blood-related is subject to social whims with adoption having various degrees of legitimacy.

Than there is the whole nature of exactly when one transitions from one family to another. If a woman marries a man she now suddenly has a brother-in-law just because she signed a contract.

The 'self' as the vantage from point from which all reality is viewed is a concrete concept that is stable.

>>602330
the self is not a spook by definition. A spook is something immaterial which causes the self to act against it's own inclinations.

"family" as in DNA relationship, as well as close familiarity, etc. are not spooks but the cultural conventions surrounding family are indeed spooks.

>>602183
But Stirner already rules the dumb ass. He merely needs to acquire the power to make people obey his edicts.

Also so do I. You are my property.

>>602275
>Union of egoists becomes bigger, many families are in
>We bond together because of time spent watching each other's backs
>A community is born
>As the community grows, individual right is sacrificed for the sake of defending muh property
>Individuals born in this community now learn these values
>Soon they replace original founders and start electing leaders

Full circle senpai

>>602334
>Why does everyone assume that stirner wanted everyone to fuck each other over?

Because a lot of people didn't actually read The Ego and Its Own. He outright points out that interpersonal interaction is vital to self-interest, and that even altruism can be something worth pursuing provided it's done on your terms.

>>602334
>Can a person not desire peace, culture, affection and contentment?

Of course one can. A Stirnerian can desire just about anything as long as that desire is from their own ego rather than obeying a spook.

>Why does everyone assume that stirner wanted everyone to fuck each other over?

People coming from a Christian background (who are the biggest enemies of Stirner) are programmed to view humans as being innately corrupt because of mai fall. So for them someone that embraces their own ego is basically the Devil. Stirner also throws away concepts of good and evil which is a concept very difficult for a Christian to process.

>>602343
>the self is not a spook by definition. A spook is something immaterial which causes the self to act against it's own inclinations.

While you covered it by saying immaterial, I feel that I should add a spook is also defined by the fact they lack a life of their own if people choose to disregard them. The self doesn't fit this description, because even if you disregard it your self is still something that possesses a life of its own, the very act of disregarding it is none the less an act of self-will.

>>602347
It ceases to be a union of egoists when someone is forced into its membership or if someone sticks around against their own interests. If Stirnerian ideals caught on in a substantial sense, social organization would be continually dissolving and reforming.

File: fractal18.png (581KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 800x600px

>>602329
We're both everywhere and nowhere at once, our bodies formed of algorithmic patterning of the entire universe compressed into a specific fold itself. The thing about physics is that most of it's established ideas are now completely shattered. We built a framework for understanding the universe called laws. Through those laws, we have now discovered a system above those laws. This comes from heightened levels of understanding, meaning our catalog of the functions of the universe has gotten large enough that we're moving past some sort of wall that was in our way until this point. Our heightened understanding is pushing us into an age of insanity. Human society will collapse, becoming like a diamond ring. Beautiful, yet incredibly cruel. Yet we are ingenious, and shall move forward past our mistakes. We will build anew from the ashes of the destroyed system and form a different world than the one we had before.

We have become incredibly efficient at it.

While I do not agree with Stirner on everything, I will say that I am often very annoyed by people who speak out against egoistic philosophies, by saying "Well if you're not selfless, you'll just murder and rape and steal"

I can hardly even understand that logic, much less respond to it. If someone truly desired nothing more than the expansion of his own power, and the pursuit of his own happiness, on what FUCKING PLANET would mindless barbarism be regarded as the most efficient means towards that end?

It doesn't take a genius to realize that reciprocity and cooperation are logical extensions of the concept of self-interest.

>>602343
So you just have an axiomic definition of spook? What if I redefine it as "something immaterial which causes the family to act against its own inclinations"? The unique one is no more material than the family.

>>602420
Except the family ceases to be if people choose to disregard it, you do not. The very act of denying yourself would imply your own existence, as it would be an act of personal will.

Also, redefining someone else's terms isn't an honest tactic and you know it.

>>602467
You're missing his point. He's saying that the "Family" is a socio-linguistic construct according to Stirner's view, its a mere impression of the mind upon the world. It doesn't exist by itself, it exists as a concept we apply to a semi-arbitrary group of people.

But the logic can theoretically go deeper. The Buddha says that even the Self is just a semi-arbitrary grouping of cells and thoughts, almost every single one of which is eventually replaced, yet "the Self" supposedly still remains.

In other word the mighty Unique One is every bit as vulnerable to deconstruction as every other spook.

>>602420
You got your answer about how family's identity is subject to beign something that can be defined or redefined by culture.

The unique one is exactly that, unique, it is the only thing that truly exists regardless of culture or definition. As this guy pointed it out to do otherwise is to deny >>602467 yourself. And as Descartes as has shown us without a self the entire universe becomes undefinable.

>>602467
>Except the family ceases to be if people choose to disregard it
How so?

>>602482
>In other word the mighty Unique One is every bit as vulnerable to deconstruction as every other spook.

Not really, because it possesses a life of its own that is truly its own (as in, not a product of others providing recognition to it). This is the defining feature of something being a spook or not a spook.

>>602487
No, the unique one does not exist regardless of culture. From many cultural standpoints, doing somethings can be seen as "not you", demonic position even ("irresistible impulse" or "insanity" are the secular equivalents to these).

>>602495
Very simple, people stop regarding family as something distinct. Parents no regard for children, children no regard for parents, and siblings no regard for sibling, and under these conditions, the family ceases to possess any life of its own. The same cannot be said of the self.

>>602515
>From many cultural standpoints, doing somethings can be seen as "not you", demonic position even ("irresistible impulse" or "insanity" are the secular equivalents to these).

Except these are built on a limited understanding of human psychology. Acts of insanity are still ultimately acts of the self, which continues to exist even if the people surrounding choose not to regard it.

>>602504
No, it is a product of recognition. We are not one set of unified desires and drives, we are a set of conflicting desires and goals, most we're not even conscious of, operating in a diverse array of atoms. Stirner chooses to unify all these desires into one cohesive collective termed "the unique one", just like individuals can unified as families.

>>602529
Which self? You group all the selves of one body (arbitrary distinguished from other matter) as a unified entity, but that has no more substance than the family as a unified entity.

>>602533
>We are not one set of unified desires and drives, we are a set of conflicting desires and goals, most we're not even conscious of, operating in a diverse array of atoms.

You don't really know much about philosophy, do you? German philosophy was really big on this thing called will, and generally recognized that a single individual was composed of several wills, some of them conflicting. But they are none the less components of a singular self. You've tried this argument before, it didn't take, find a new one.

>Stirner chooses to unify all these desires into one cohesive collective termed "the unique one", just like individuals can unified as families.

No, he just points out that the most fundamental cornerstone of reality is ultimately the self, he doesn't deny that a person can have conflicting desires (otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to touch on the fact that even pursuit of personal pleasure can become a spook by which you become a slave). Again, the self continues to exist even if you deny it, because denial requires that the self act to do so.

>>602545
>Which self?

There is no which. It was an impulse of the self, which is composed of many components. You seem to be of the opinion that because a self is not singular, that it doesn't exist.

>>602572
Hmm, singular wasn't a good choice of term. Let's go with homogeneous or monolithic.

>>602559
>You don't really know much about philosophy, do you? German philosophy was really big on this thing called will, and generally recognized that a single individual was composed of several wills, some of them conflicting. But they are none the less components of a singular self. You've tried this argument before, it didn't take, find a new one.
Are you seriously going to use Hegel to defend Stirner when Stirner's treatise mercilessly mocks Hegel and the entire idea of Geist?

>No, he just points out that the most fundamental cornerstone of reality is ultimately the self
But the self is a concept created by humans just as much as the family.

>Again, the self continues to exist even if you deny it, because denial requires that the self act to do so.
The very idea of a self denying a self indicates a duality at the very least.

>>602559
>German philosophy was really big on this thing called will, and generally recognized that a single individual was composed of several wills, some of them conflicting

In general it seems like Christian philosophers really fucking hate the concept of Will and refuse to acknowledge it. The entire foundation of Christian philosophy is based on the indivual being one complete whole with no conflicting ideas. The idea of 'sin' and guilt becomes completly non-functioning under the idea.

What's funny though is science pretty much affirmed the Will defination of self is correct. It started out really simple with Freud describing the conflict between the conscious and unconscious mind, than the biologists directly proved that the mind is indeed a cooking pot of chemicals with their own 'will' all doing various functions.

>>602572
You seem to be of the opinion that because the family is not a singular, it doesn't exist.

>>602582
>Are you seriously going to use Hegel to defend Stirner when Stirner's treatise mercilessly mocks Hegel and the entire idea of Geist?

Yeah, actually. Stirner is still a Hegelian philosopher after all. He wasn't entirely in agreement with Hegel, but his intellectual heritage is Hegelian.

>But the self is a concept created by humans just as much as the family.

No, it isn't. It exists whether you choose for it to exist or not. The family only exists because its component members and the surrounding community choose for it to exist.

>The very idea of a self denying a self indicates a duality at the very least.

Not in the slightest. It just indicates that a self is being silly and trying to do something impossible. This is tantamount to arguing that stupidity disproves one's existence.

>>602593
No, I am of the opinion that family only exists because people choose to acknowledge its existence. Don't misrepresent my statements.

>>602585
Christianity isn't compatible with "the agency" as the only agency acting through multiple sources. Christianity asserts that agencies are distinct. In this sense, it is closer to Stirner than Nietzsche or Schop or Hegel.

>>601953

But then you can just collaboratively agree to use religions, nations and morals as a device. Top kek.

File: 800px-Thomas_Hobbes_(portrait).jpg (109KB, 800x843px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x843px

Shut up bitch, your meaningless life won't magically have purpose if you realize that society is bullshit. Just be grateful that you have the honor of forfeiting your life for the benefit and forwarding of society.

>>602596
>Stirner is still a Hegelian philosopher after all
No, he's not. Not at all. Stirner's references to Hegel are nothing but a series of jokes making fun of Hegelianism. "Spook" is a mockery of "Spirit", as I'm sure you know.

>It exists whether you choose for it to exist or not.
People can be sublated by a mob and turn into vicious murderers and rapists when as individuals they would never do such things.

>It just indicates that a self is being silly and trying to do something impossible.
You're superimposing a unity on conflicting schemes of pain and pleasure, which doesn't work here because according to Stirner, the self is defined by and beholden to pain and pleasure, it does only what pleases it, which it can either do voluntarily or involuntarily, but it must do nonetheless. But when you have various ideas of pleasure (many which you are not at all aware of) in conflict with each other to determine your action, the idea of unity collapses.

File: 1352523326243.jpg (100KB, 555x526px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 555x526px

>>602605
First Jesus was the ubermensch and now this

>>602653
Q5: Concerning Stirner's case for the irrelevance of God.

A5: Stirner says we are all driven purely by the bodily (“the spirit, which is not regarded as the property of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a ghost”) pain and pleasure. We make idols of ourselves, and do everything in latria to them (idol + latria), however else we try to rationalize it. This actually is the Orthodox perspective. According to the Philokalia, the “knowledge” (used as synonymous with sexual intecourse in Hebrew) of “good and evil” is about carnal good and evil, which are pleasure and pain. These are not bad things per se, but we became enslaved to them. Christians are indeed involuntary egoists, because Christianity is about escaping these things as our masters. Here is Saint Maximos the Confessor, as quoted in the Philokalia: “Since man came into being composed of noetic soul and sentient body, one interpretation could be that the tree of life is the soul’s intellect, which is the seat of wisdom. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil would then be the body’s power of sensation, which is clearly the seat of mindless impulses. Man received the divine commandment not to involve himself actively and experientially with these impulses; but he did not keep the commandment. Both trees in Scripture symbolize the intellect and the senses. Thus the intellect has the power to discriminate between the spiritual and the sensible, between the eternal and the transitory.
cont

>>602667
Or rather, as the soul’s discriminatory power, the intellect persuades the soul to cleave to the first and to transcend the second. The senses have the power to discriminate between pleasure and pain in the body. Or rather, as a power existing in a body endowed with soul and sense-perception, they persuade the body to embrace pleasure and reject pain.” God ordained us as absolute masters of the material (Hebrews 2:8), but we became enslaved by the deceit of hamartia, so that a veil is before our eyes, which can only be lifted by Christ, it has only be washed off by God’s Blood. See A6h of this FAQ for more on the post-fall material world.

>>602635
>No, he's not.

Yes, he is. For instance, his descriptions of the intellectual stages a human goes through very much bear a strong resemblance to Hegelian dialectic (Thesis: child, ancient; antithesis: youth, Christian; synthesis: adult, egoistic). He took of Hegel what was useful to him, and disregarded the rest. Will also definitely plays a role in his philosophy (again, there would be no need to address that one can act against their own interests even in the pursuit of their pleasure if this were not the case).

>People can be sublated by a mob and turn into vicious murderers and rapists when as individuals they would never do such things.

They none the less remain individuals and do so as individuals. They do not cease to be simply because they are part of a mob or because they did so out of a misguided emotional impulse.

>You're superimposing a unity on conflicting schemes of pain and pleasure, which doesn't work here because according to Stirner, the self is defined by and beholden to pain and pleasure, it does only what pleases it, which it can either do voluntarily or involuntarily, but it must do nonetheless. But when you have various ideas of pleasure (many which you are not at all aware of) in conflict with each other to determine your action, the idea of unity collapses.

Here's where your argument is starting to seriously fall apart. You're assuming Stirner suggests that the self is a fully unified concept, and that the unique one is itself interchangeable with self. He acknowledges that the self is composed of conflicting wills, owing to his Hegelian intellectual heritage, and suggests the unique one as a complete realisation of the self that puts nothing above or ahead of itself. but even the unique one is not a consistently unified or stable thing, this is why he talks of "dissolving" yourself, becoming an ideologically and mentally amorphous thing of constant change and growth.

It's both true and self-defeating. Yes, he's right, but fuck you, I will do what I want because I want to and I don't need any other reason.

>>602203
>Somalia

I live here and it's not mad max. There are police and prisons.

>>602701
> For instance, his descriptions of the intellectual stages a human goes through very much bear a strong resemblance to Hegelian dialectic
Yes, because he's spoofing Hegel. Just like his racial dialectic is a spoof of Hegel, placing Negro as as lacking true egoism, the Mongoloid as more developed, and the Caucasoid as the refinement of total selfishness. It's a spoof of Hegel applying historical dialectic to race.

>They none the less remain individuals and do so as individuals
(Completely arbitrarily) individual bodies, but the impetus driving these bodies is hardly "individual", it's a typhoon of conflicting schemes struggling with each other, you are just calling the one which triumphs (for its time) the true reflection of the individual drive, but it hardly is anymore than the patriarch of a family represents its desires.

>He acknowledges that the self is composed of conflicting wills
But that they are all beholden to what pleases. Thus some people are "involuntary" egoists, they do what pleases them even though their will struggles against it, and others are "voluntary" egoists who willfully embrace what pleases them..

Stirner does not subscribe to Hegelian Geist, he thinks it's nonsense, Stirner is a pure materialist.

>>602751
>Yes, because he's spoofing Hegel.

It seems to play a pretty consistent role in his book, and is used repeatedly to demonstrate his points.

>(Completely arbitrarily) individual bodies, but the impetus driving these bodies is hardly "individual", it's a typhoon of conflicting schemes struggling with each other, you are just calling the one which triumphs (for its time) the true reflection of the individual drive, but it hardly is anymore than the patriarch of a family represents its desires.

The difference here is that the self continues to be, it's a self that joins that mob, and a self that takes part in its destruction, all driven by its own impulses. You make a pretty big assumption in assuming that I think it is the "true" self that drives this individual, rather than simply one of its component wills. The individual chooses to be a part of that mob, and can choose not to be a part of that mob, neither action changes the fact that they are indeed an individual.

>But that they are all beholden to what pleases. Thus some people are "involuntary" egoists, they do what pleases them even though their will struggles against it, and others are "voluntary" egoists who willfully embrace what pleases them..

They are none the less, conflicting components of the self. You just acknowledged that your claim of him claiming arbitrary unity is false.

>Stirner does not subscribe to Hegelian Geist, he thinks it's nonsense, Stirner is a pure materialist.

Only in the sense that it represents anything more than an idea, he was none the less of the opinion that a self is not a singular unified whole.

>Only the self truly matters
This statement reminds me of the dark ages. Morals and cooperation is what keeps societies together, allowing scientific and general progress and growth.

>>602803
You can cooperate and hold moral values as an act of self-interest. Any fool can see that we're better as part of a social organization that separate.

>>602751
>Stirner does not subscribe to Hegelian Geist, he thinks it's nonsense, Stirner is a pure materialist.

To call Stirner a materialist is to fundamentally miss his point. Materialism was to him the first stage of intellectual growth, and a rejection of materialism the next stage. The final stage was acknowledging the material and immaterial as they are of interest to you.

>>602794
>It seems to play a pretty consistent role in his book, and is used repeatedly to demonstrate his points.
No, it's used to ridicule Hegelian's logic. Stirner doesn't employ it to demonstrate any validity to his philosophy, he uses it to show how Hegelian dialectic can be applied to any framework to make the conclusion look inevitable.

>The difference here is that the self continues to be
You mean the body. That particular scheme of pleasure might last no longer than the mob does.

>and can choose not to be a part of that mob
One scheme might very well not want to be, but loses out. The scheme that loses might object very strongly to the mob scheme, and in fact detest it before, during and after, but it is conquered by the patriarchal scheme.

>You just acknowledged that your claim of him claiming arbitrary unity is false.
Indeed, taken far enough, each scheme itself can be taken as incoherent. When it comes down to it, the scheme of "self" is just as arbitrary as that for "family".

>he was none the less of the opinion that a self is not a singular unified whole.
He refers to it as the Einzige

>>602859
But "you" for Stirner is purely material. Ideas is property of the material (and ceases to exist when it is not). Material exists in a higher sense, because the ego is material, whereas ideas are never the ego proper, but only its property.

>>602871
>Stirner doesn't employ it to demonstrate any validity to his philosophy

Except he does just that, consistently, in literally every single chapter of The Ego and Its Own.

>You mean the body.

Look buddy, if you don't want people to think you're just a particularly erudite shitposter, you're going to have to stop putting words into people's mouths. No, I mean the self. There is still a distinct person that joined that mob, driven by emotional impulses that are a component of that person.

>One scheme might very well not want to be, but loses out. The scheme that loses might object very strongly to the mob scheme, and in fact detest it before, during and after, but it is conquered by the patriarchal scheme.

But none the less remains a component of the self, how hard is this for you to get?

>Indeed, taken far enough, each scheme itself can be taken as incoherent. When it comes down to it, the scheme of "self" is just as arbitrary as that for "family".

No, I mean that your assertion is false, you schmuck. You claim he applies arbitrary unity to the self, implying that it's a monolithic whole, when he does nothing of the sort (otherwise there would be no capability of an individual to act against itself in pursuit of an internal drive, such as pleasure, I really hate to sound like a broken record).

>He refers to it as the Einzige

Now you're going to nitpick about names? He refers to it as such because these components are still components of a distinct thing, this doesn't get rid of the fact that it is not unified in will or purpose.

Anyhow, Constantine, I've got other places to be, I feel oddly rude in doing so, but I'm off.

>>601953
God is the mightiest and therefore He makes the rules.

File: HURR DURR.png (16KB, 273x537px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 273x537px

>>601953
Strength in numbers will always outweigh the lone asshole.

Also pic related.

>>603145
Not if the lone asshole blends in while still serving his own interest

>>601953
UBP explains universal morals

File: d4b9fe3875affeba13a9556d1b2fdb5c441f5525.png (52KB, 700x419px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 700x419px

>>602203
>Somalia
falling for pol's memes. Topkek.

>>603145
Why not everyone be nice? Crime and injustice are reactions to society's actions.

File: Raider1.jpg (47KB, 600x382px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x382px

>The world is ruled by might
Except that's absolutely retarded if you want to rule the world. Any group that tries to impose it's will by force alone will collapse as soon as another entity wages a substantial war against them, and their subjects will likely hang them by their entrails. That is why the mongol, soviet and ottoman empires are hated by everyone outside their core, while the romans and persians, despite also doing a lot of shitty things are praised by their former subjects and the entire world as awesome and looked upon with rose-tinted glasses. That's why 50 spaniards suddenly found themselves with tons of allies and an entire army at their disposal when they came to the new world, and why ISIS is begging for people to come live in their lands, because they all left when these brutal bastards took governance over them.
Dear God, even the Mafia and shitty street gangs with a bit of brains know that.
>>602340
>An individual is actually identifiable.
Unless his left hemisphere and right one start acting on their own and stuff like that.
>>602407
>on what FUCKING PLANET would mindless barbarism be regarded as the most efficient means towards that end?
Umm.. Earth? These guys had a lot of fun and success with that method.

>>603940
"Might" comes in many forms, it isnt just physical strength
Skill, charisma, knowledge and intelligence are all forms of might

>>603953
yeah, but you can't win on that alone.
Simply making people into doing your will(even with wits, words and charisma) while fucking them over will make them call you a scam-artist of some sort and make them want to have nothing to do with you.
This stuff needs to be mutually beneficial for most people to work.

>>602420
>So you just have an axiomic definition of spook?
I don't, Stirner does. He "coined" the term.

>What if I redefine it as "something immaterial which causes the family to act against its own inclinations"?
Feel free. If you think families are subject to superstition, then you could easily say they are spooked. You'd have to write a different book though, because that isn't what Stirner was talking about.

> The unique one is no more material than the family.
If you want to deny that you exist you've got your work cut out for you.

>>603961
There is nothing wrong with mutually beneficial arrangements, that's what Stirner recommends

Most of the time using might to further your interest wont fuck over someone else but when it does you'll have to weight the risk and the reward

>>603987
Sure, but so do people on the economic far-left and right and others that long for a more primitive ad darwinian world, and we know how well that has worked out at certain times.
Anyway, this was also a rant against edgy morons with an caveman style "MUH WEEK CRUSHED BY THE STRONK" view of history.

Le 4chan philosopher.

>>604003
the world is still ruled by might just like the caveman days
its just that the mighty arent usually big brutes and the losers usually arent getting their heads cracked open

>>604029
>the world is still ruled by might just like the caveman days
>its just that the mighty arent usually big brutes and the losers usually arent getting their heads cracked open
True.

>>603971
>If you want to deny that you exist you've got your work cut out for you.
If you want to claim the existence of a transtemporal self, you got a lot more work cut out for you.

>>604029
>the losers usually arent getting their heads cracked open
They are. The mighty just don't show it to you on Television.

Is there anything new by the edgy philosophers such as him and Nietzsche that was not said by Callicles?

>>604096
they don't have to crack heads open, just dock their pay

>>604096
The loser is the poorfag, the loner, the unsuccessful. Anyone that fails wherever there is competition much to his own frustration

What is the ego or the self to be revered? As its become obvious, the self is not monolithic. And if its a mess of different wills, how do you identify self? The fact that something continues doesnt mean much when all its properties change.

Viewing the world as self-or-not-self only gets you so far

Religion is a be social necessity. It gives meaning to the life of the everymen and keeps them from degeneracy.

>>604143
>>604108
Yeah, if you think that, you haven't a fucking clue who the losers are.

>>604152
>degeneracy
/pol/ please

>>604108
>>604143
No struggle for liberation can bear any noble fruit as long as people always define the yoke in terms of themselves, for when you do this, you are no different than a millionaire outraged over his high taxes.

>>604166
Nobody gives a shit about your "nobility"
Rejecting your real wants, hiding from frustration and disappointement and seeking refuge in religion is for cowards who want to die without ever having lived

>>604193
>real wants,
if your wants are yours, then why do not control them, in making them disappear at your wish, make them appear at your wish and why are you sad if you do not realize them ?

>>604193
What makes one want more "real" than another?

>>604258
>mfw wants are not truly the property of the unique one, but spooks

>>601953
the funny part is no, but everyone will prance around their ideology hoping philosophy will make (a) god real.

then you have cucks like these >>601964 who filtered out their nihilism since they need to survive and mock anyone that comes close to it

well, stirner is wrong (as much as everyone else) since gnosticism is objectively right, but without having mystic inner-reveleations then stirner is right

>>604265
How does that make gnosticism objectively right if it involves a subjective experience not available to everyone?

>>604258
That degree of self-control isnt easy to achieve for most people

>>604152
>meaning
Spook.
>degeneracy
Spook.

>>601953
Max Stirner was literally a cuck
the ideology that no things matter superseded his physicality of reproduction of the fittest
in one way, his only semblance of a real goal (ie a form that follow functions) was spooked by the concept of spooks and thus he became a cuck.

>>604334
More like he married the girl for her money and didn't care about anything beyond the finances in the relationship. Maybe you are just jealous because you can't open a milk shop.

>>602533
>Stirner chooses to unify all these desires into one cohesive collective termed "the unique one", just like individuals can unified as families.

Not him but you should actually read the book.

Stirner never says anywhere that the Unique one is a cohesive set of desires that makes the Unique one itself, in fact, the whole point of the book is that he defines the Self as something so indefinable linguistically, that we cannot grasp what it is, something he for simplicity's sake calls "the creative nothing".

>>604265
>Gnosticism is objectively right
>I'm kind of ugly and fat therefore the universe is evil lmao

OK chief

>>601953
List of things that bait /his/:
>atheism
>John Meem
>Stirner
>"Hey guys no /pol/ answer please"
>Dialectics
>le ideology man
>Communism/socialism

Am I missing anything?

>>605007
The Holocaust
Constantine threads

>>605007
african kingdoms

>>605007
Something about Christianity being the one true religion.

>>601980
>Nah m8 altruism is a myth, there's no argument but MUH FEELINGS.

Yeah that and evolutionary game theory, paleontology, history...

>>604146
>Viewing the world as self-or-not-self only gets you so far

In my opinion, it gives you a good point from which to build from, from where you determine what you value and why you value it. If you build your beliefs from a standpoint of "how is this of interest to me?" you're more likely to hold those beliefs from a genuine standpoint, and less likely to wind up facing self-resentment at a later date because you didn't place something ahead of yourself.

>>604258
Stirner advocated taking control of your desires as much as anything else, your conflicting whims can easily become a spook to be possessed by as anything else. One thing I think people miss about Stirner's philosophy is that to apply it would take considerable introspection and evaluation of who you are and what you want, with no ultimate answer in sight as the self is something that can't be fully known.

>>604972
He defines it as bodily, and considers it a helpless slave to doing what pleases it.

>>605494
According to Stirner, everyone already follows his philosophy and can't help but do so, it's just a question of voluntary vs. involuntary.

>>601953
How about the fact that most advancements in human history are a result of some form of collectivism?

The myth of the genius is silly. Ideas never come in a vacuum and society cannot exist in principle if everyone is solely self-concerned. There has to be some give to go along with the take.

Stirmer presents a good case for not being consumed by institutions, like Kafka, and for struggling against hegemonic, totalizing systems. However, there has to be a point at which we surrender part of ourselves to the Social Contract. Most of the world cannot be fully autonomous or individualistic with success.

>>605501
>He defines it as bodily

Where does he do that?

>considers it a helpless slave to doing what pleases it.

Oh my fucking god, read the goddamn book.

>>605523
>However, there has to be a point at which we surrender part of ourselves to the Social Contract

He acknowledges that. When describing his union of egoists, he outright states that you're probably going to be giving up some of your freedom and autonomy in the name of pursuing your self interest through this social organization.

No, but there's no reason the self is more important than the ones surrounding him, to believe so is to say the world only exists as far as your eyesight reaches.

in the end, worth comes from emotions and all consciousnesses are the same regarding to the mechanism of how they experience emotions, you merely have additional characteristics that filter and regulate which emotions you feel in the form of a personality.

>>605501
>>605506
The difference between an involuntary egoist and a voluntary egoist in Stirnerian thought is that an involuntary egoist acts in pursuit of a "higher" cause, but is ultimately still just acting upon their own individual desires. They are not necessarily pursuing pleasure, however.

>>605530
>Where does he do that?
“the spirit, which is not regarded as the property of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a ghost”
-The Ego and Its Own

>Oh my fucking god, read the goddamn book.
I have. He groups everyone into voluntary and involuntary egoists, but states that everyone is ultimately an egoist, if they think otherwise they are just deluding themselves.

>>601953
>and morals are a lie
Morals are the pillars of the societies of humans at Earth.

>>605554
Yes, they are. According to Stirner, they are acting on a higher cause because it gives them pleasure, and if it did not, they wouldn't be acting on it.

>>605555
>“the spirit, which is not regarded as the property of the bodily ego but as the proper ego itself, is a ghost”

Well, I feel a fool now.

>I have. He groups everyone into voluntary and involuntary egoists, but states that everyone is ultimately an egoist, if they think otherwise they are just deluding themselves.

An egoist isn't necessarily pursuing pleasure, however. It's acting on its own will. The difference with an involuntary egoist is very simply that they delude themselves into thinking that they aren't acting as directed by their own will and are instead acting in pursuit of a "higher" cause. This is not the same as being a slave to what pleases them.

>>605540
Right, but he would consider something like the Constitution of the US to be a spook because it establishes a set of concrete laws that exist external to the will of the individual.

At a certain point, when you accept that you belong to a society and reap the benefits thereof, you also agree to recognize its authority and abide by its laws. Even if a country is a construction, it's a convenience that needs to exist in order to create a structure so that we can gain the benefits of not living in Anarchy.

The unions Stirmer describes are anarchies, essentially. Or guilds.

The laws in each would differ based on the needs of those who belong to it. You need something larger and more forceful than that, which is something Stirmer refuses to admit. In his mind, any institution that flexes authority against the individual is immediately discounted as a legitimate entity since it needs to use force to convince others of its existence. But sometimes the state does need to use force and that usually arrives in the form of law and justice systems.

>>605565
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>605575
>An egoist isn't necessarily pursuing pleasure, however.
Yes, he is. That, to Stirner, is what defines them as an egoist. Involuntary egoists are only hampered in that they factor things into their equation that don't exist, such as right and wrong. They do not do "wrong" because it would make them feel bad, not because of any higher reason, and in this they are egoists, but they are involuntary egoists because wrong doesn't exist, being a spook. But if you say, "I do not wish to do this because it would be me feel unpleasant," as opposed to, "because it is wrong," then you are a voluntary egoist.

>>605575
>>605565
Actually, rereading about involuntary versus voluntary egoism, I think I've gotten mixed up here. Yes, an involuntary egoist does ultimately pursue gratification. But I wouldn't call this being a slave to pleasure. People pursue what they want to pursue, or at the very least pursue what they dislike to pursue the least.

I'm not exactly sure how this makes us a slave. Even you pursue your Orthodoxy because you believe God's love brings you a sense of contentment.

>>605594
Yeah, sorry about that. I was getting mixed up. I can admit being wrong. I was just trying to underscore that his thought is different from most takes on hedonism, which could themselves be spooks.

>>605603
I've already addressed all this in my pastebin, in the atheist FAQ, Q&A 5: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x

>>605501
Ok, but how is that salient to his point? Those are just two attributes of the self, not a complete definition.

>>605623
Not reading that. You can either post it here or fuck off.

>>605610
Stirner would call hedonism a spook when it claimed to be "right". Just like he says, "might makes right" is spook, because not even might can make right, nothing can, there is no right. For Stirner, hedonism is a fact of reality, it is neither right nor wrong, but is. That is why his brand of egoism is not "ethical egoism" but "descriptive egoism", and it differentiates him significantly from egoists like Ayn Rand and Sade.

>>605632
>>602667
>>602673

>>605629
For Stirner they are, since if they were not, his philosophy falls apart. Because without this substance "the unique one" is no less arbitrary of a grouping of wills, desires and identities than the family, society, the state, and so on.

>>605623
That didn't make any fucking sense.

>>605655
Stirner demonstrates that everyone is beholden to what gives them carnal pleasure. The Orthodox Church agrees, that is our post-fall condition. What we don't agree is that it is better to embrace it than to be freed of it.

>>605646
>For Stirner they are, since if they were not, his philosophy falls apart. Because without this substance "the unique one" is no less arbitrary of a grouping of wills, desires and identities than the family, society, the state, and so on.

Not really. There's a very clear line where the self ends and the "not-self" begins. Further your self very clearly exists, and is something you have no power to doubt the existence of because you're currently experiencing and know that this can't be a deception, since experience requires something to experience it.

Question: do you ever stop trying to tear down everything that isn't Orthodoxy?

>>605668
>What we don't agree is that it is better to embrace it than to be freed of it.

But you can't be freed of it. Even if you pursue the cause of God, you're ultimately doing it of your own and in accordance with your own aims.

>>605669
>There's a very clear line where the self ends and the "not-self" begins.
The same could be done with the community.

>Further your self very clearly exists, and is something you have no power to doubt the existence of because you're currently experiencing and know that this can't be a deception, since experience requires something to experience it.
The same could be said of my family.

>Question: do you ever stop trying to tear down everything that isn't Orthodoxy?
Question: does Stirner ever stop trying to tear down everything that isn't materialist egoism?

>>605673
>But you can't be freed of it.
You can be.

>Even if you pursue the cause of God, you're ultimately doing it of your own and in accordance with your own aims.
Indeed we do, and it only pleases us because of God's grace. But regardless, it leads to escaping being enslaved to material egoism.

>>604910
a cucks a cuck, cuck.

>>604980
Nah bro.
Remember how that guy who never got laid claimed that we would never be able to know the thing-in-itself and attacked every position of knowledge trying to say that knowledge may be only possible as long as it can come to us a priori? well, mystic revelation of the gnostic kind is sort of like that. you'd think you knew shit, until you actually experience gnosis. then you're absolutely certain of a thing (gnosticism). too bad our language sucks ass and telepathy doesn't exist.

>>605682
>The same could be done with the community.

Not really, because the recognition of any community hinges on subjective perception. Family, the one you've been focused on is perhaps the most inconstant, with wildly different considerations of what qualifies someone as family or not family varying with culture.

>The same could be said of my family.

No, not really. You can doubt your family quite easily. You can doubt that there's an external world at all, or that there are mathematical truths, you cannot doubt that you exist.

>Question: does Stirner ever stop trying to tear down everything that isn't materialist egoism?

He wrote a book about it, and then he died. So presumably he does. But you didn't answer my question. You seem to do nothing here but try to tear apart everything that isn't Orthodoxy, seem to be quite willing to twist any idea to justify how this lines up with Orthodox thought in a process very reminiscent of early Christians trying to claim Greek philosophers were touched by God, or that Pagan gods were actually Christian saints.

>>605690
>You can be.

No, you blood well can't. The only thing you have access to is your own will, this is something that has been adequately proven by materialistic understandings of the human mind. Your brain is entirely contained within your skull, and your every thought a product of it, when your brain ceases, you cease to will.

>Indeed we do, and it only pleases us because of God's grace.

No, it pleases you because your brain releases chemicals that tell you to be pleased.

>But regardless, it leads to escaping being enslaved to material egoism.

Not reallly, it just deludes you into thinking you're acting of something distinct from yourself.

>>605720
>Not really, because the recognition of any community hinges on subjective perception.
So does the self. I could create multiple selves out of myself with ease, from my subjective PoV. Others might see me as multiple selves in one body. They just don't.

>No, not really. You can doubt your family quite easily. You can doubt that there's an external world at all, or that there are mathematical truths, you cannot doubt that you exist.
You're obviously not familiar with Buddhism.

>You seem to do nothing here but try to tear apart everything that isn't Orthodoxy, seem to be quite willing to twist any idea to justify how this lines up with Orthodox thought
Everything that is true lines up with Orthodox thought, everything that is not, doesn't. Christ is the truth by definition. I'm not a relativist. Truth is truth is truth is truth is truth. The degree which a philosophy is true, is the degree which is lines up with Orthodox Christianity. For a philosophy not to line up at all, it would have to be a complete lie, which even Satan doesn't promote (it being more effective to lying with streaks of truth).

>No, you blood well can't. The only thing you have access to is your own will, this is something that has been adequately proven by materialistic understandings of the human mind. Your brain is entirely contained within your skull, and your every thought a product of it, when your brain ceases, you cease to will.
But I believe I am more than just all that, I believe I am a spiritual as well as material being.

>No, it pleases you because your brain releases chemicals that tell you to be pleased.
And it is God's grace which makes our brain release such chemicals for this.

>>605742
>So does the self. I could create multiple selves out of myself with ease, from my subjective PoV. Others might see me as multiple selves in one body. They just don't.

But those are all products of a singular self. You can delude yourself into thinking all kinds of things, but it wont make it true.

>You're obviously not familiar with Buddhism.

Not particularly, but as outlined earlier in this thread, doubting you exist would imply your own existence as it's an act of self-will.

>But I believe I am more than just all that, I believe I am a spiritual as well as material being.

You do so without proof then.

>And it is God's grace which makes our brain release such chemicals for this.

Electrical impulses, actually.

>>605742
>And it is God's grace which makes our brain release such chemicals for this.

Wait a minute, even if you claim it's God's grace that gives you pleasure from being a Christian, you're still Christian because it brings you pleasure to be Christian. If it's God's will acting on your brain to bring you pleasure, it's still a material pleasure.

>>605781
>But those are all products of a singular self. You can delude yourself into thinking all kinds of things, but it wont make it true.
Whose to say the singular self is not a product of the multiple selves?

>You do so without proof then.
I experience it as surely as I experience my own existence.

>>605857
>Wait a minute, even if you claim it's God's grace that gives you pleasure from being a Christian, you're still Christian because it brings you pleasure to be Christian. If it's God's will acting on your brain to bring you pleasure, it's still a material pleasure.
Which is something we work to transcend being beholden to, but yes. That is why God had to become materially incarnate, because our spiritual cognition was so fugged he had to commune with us materially.

>>605907
>Whose to say the singular self is not a product of the multiple selves?

Because the singular self is just an umbrella term to describe the conflicting sets of wills that compose an individual. It's not a cohesive thing, but it is a thing.

>I experience it as surely as I experience my own existence.

I don't, one of us is wrong.

>Which is something we work to transcend being beholden to, but yes.

Something you cannot transcend, rendering the entire effort moot. Have you transcended it? Has any Christian (that wasn't supposedly also God) actually transcended it? Is there any proof to their claims?

>That is why God had to become materially incarnate, because our spiritual cognition was so fugged he had to commune with us materially.

The story makes no sense. Why would an omnipotent God bother with such an ineffective way of communication? Why not write it on the moon in a language that he can make us all understand?

>>605944
>Because the singular self is just an umbrella term to describe the conflicting sets of wills that compose an individual. It's not a cohesive thing, but it is a thing.
So is society.

>I don't
You don't directly experience my existence either, so I'm unsure of your point here.

>Is there any proof to their claims?
What would qualify as proof, for you?

> Why not write it on the moon in a language that he can make us all understand?

2: Dostoevsky felt this was about faith being a choice. If God’s revealed truth were as clear and objective as the earth being round, there would be no choice in faith, which would deprive it of love. In my opinion, God also wants to make Christians seem (and feel) fools--they don’t just appear fools today, they looked like fools from the beginning, and the NT says God wanted it so. For everyone to see you as a fool is good for one’s humility. Too many Christians are already too prideful as it is, if Christianity were more blatantly supported, Christians might be unbearably obnoxious. But as it is, reasonable Christians cannot feel hubris about their faith because they have nothing to affirm it beyond personal experience, they have nothing they can show off and use to make others appear stupid--if you are plagued with doubt yourself, it is much more difficult to berate someone for being skeptical.

>>605964
>So is society.

Yes, but society ceases to be when you stop recognizing it.

>You don't directly experience my existence either, so I'm unsure of your point here.

I'm saying that although you experience spirituality, I do not. One of us is wrong in this. I see no proof of a spiritual existence.

>What would qualify as proof, for you?

Objective proof that they weren't acting out of some misguided pursuit of their own gratification. You are after all trying to dictate how I should live my life (you wouldn't proselytize otherwise) so I should expect something more valid than you feel it really, really hard. Otherwise I'd have to grant the crazy guy that bums change and rambles about how the vatican is out to get him equal say on my beliefs.

>If God’s revealed truth were as clear and objective as the earth being round, there would be no choice in faith, which would deprive it of love.

That's demonstrably wrong. There are in fact flat-earthers who reject the notion of a round world. Faith would still be a choice.

If all you have is personal experience, why bother? I have never felt the faintest hint of a spirit within me, and don't give me that "you have to open your heart to God" thing, because I've tried. The fact is I see no reason to believe in God or indeed anything beyond this material reality, and likely never will. I know I'm not the only person out there who feels this way, and people who feel differently will likely come to spirituality on their own.

>>606005
>Yes, but society ceases to be when you stop recognizing it.
As much as the unified self does.

>I'm saying that although you experience spirituality, I do not.
I do not experience you.

>Objective proof that they weren't acting out of some misguided pursuit of their own gratification

Do you be saying you want empirical materialist proof of non-materialist factors?

>That's demonstrably wrong. There are in fact flat-earthers who reject the notion of a round world. Faith would still be a choice.

Can you choose to believe the world is flat? I don't think you can. Some people believe it, but I do not see it as a choice.

>>606041
>As much as the unified self does.

You keep saying unified. What you're doing is tantamount to saying that the universe has many things in it, ergo the universe doesn't exist. It's stupid. Even if there were multiple selves in a single individual, they'd still have to operate through the same terminating point of that individual's body, which is a very clear, objective point.

>I do not experience you.

Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that one of us is wrong. Which one is it?

>Do you be saying you want empirical materialist proof of non-materialist factors?

Objective proof; proof that would exclude the possibility of the people claiming to have risen above egoism to not be lying.

>Can you choose to believe the world is flat?

Sure, I can doubt anything that isn't my own existence.

>>606736
>What you're doing is tantamount to saying that the universe has many things in it, ergo the universe doesn't exist. It's stupid.
But that's exactly what Stirner does with the family and society and so on.


>Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that one of us is wrong. Which one is it?
Just because I don't experience you, doesn't mean you don't exist.

>Objective proof; proof that would exclude the possibility of the people claiming to have risen above egoism to not be lying.
You have to give me some example criteria to work with here.

>Sure, I can doubt anything that isn't my own existence.
You can doubt, but to actively believe the world is flat? I don't think you are capable of that.

>>606790
>But that's exactly what Stirner does with the family and society and so on.

No, it's not. Stop misrepresenting ideas. He says family and society don't exist because they lack substance of their own if people disregard them. Are you being intentionally stupid now?

>Just because I don't experience you, doesn't mean you don't exist.

That's not what I fucking said. I don't experience spirituality, and all you have to support your beliefs that you insist are god's fucking truth is your own fucking subjective experience of this supposed "spirituality" (which I would argue can be better explained through neurology). One of us is wrong.

>You have to give me some example criteria to work with here.

Figure it out for yourself, you're the proselytizer.

>You can doubt, but to actively believe the world is flat? I don't think you are capable of that.

The human mind is capable of convincing itself of all kinds of insane shit, you're here after all.

>>602372
Interbet prophet

>>606817
>No, it's not. Stop misrepresenting ideas. He says family and society don't exist because they lack substance of their own if people disregard them. Are you being intentionally stupid now?
Again, the same applies to the unique one. The unique is simply a bonding together of wills and desires and personalities and identities under one or together for a common goal, just like family. If you did not apply this organizer to the unique one, it would lead to you immediately acting out your every whim or fancy without cohesion, an anarchy of the self, so to speak.

>I don't experience spirituality
And I don't experience you, that doesn't mean you don't exist. If you are blind, I can't objectively prove colors to you, and that is how the spiritual consciousness works. It's like dirty goggles that have to be cleaned.

>Figure it out for yourself, you're the proselytizer.
Evangelist, maybe. Not proselytizer. No, I have to know from you, because your criteria might widely differ from my own, and I can't keep guessing as to yours.

>The human mind is capable of convincing itself of all kinds of insane shit, you're here after all.
For how many seconds can you sincerely believe the world is flat, and not a globe? Give it a shot and report back to me,

>>605580
>state
What Stirner is rallying against is the ideal of State, or Liberty, or any other concept taken as the new God and made into a french statue. There is no Man and therefore law for Man is not law for the individual. One can have contracts, but they should serve the individuals and not some spook the individual has been possessed by. It's about being on the other side of the meme compared to the rest of human history. The meme should serve the men that agree to it and not serve to create some ideal Man.

>>602006
The common concept of the self doesn't resemble reality whatsoever imo. The self exists in the same sense that the family does; with very blurry boundaries.

>>602298
>marital fidelity is just a spook

It's not even a spook, it's a fucking unicorn.

>>605646
You sure love talking to yourself.

>>605907
>I experience it as surely as I experience my own existence.


You have to understand, man, for people who don't believe in souls, hearing about "spiritual experiences" is like hearing people talk about being abducted by a UFO or seeing bigfoot. I know that sounds rude but that's honestly what it's like. People can be very self assured of experiences that just aren't convincing whatsoever to others.

>>601953
The cooperation on a societal level are the west possible way to achieve stirner's ideals of willful egoism

All he said is ultimately moot

Why is "muh feelings" a bad argument in the first place? Isn't morality about living life properly anyways, and isn't a proper life a life where you feel good?

You don't rape people because that wouldn't be fun, and even if you are the kind of dude who would think that is fun, you would be spoiling the fun of someone else, so much you would be put in jail, so your fun would be spoiled as well.

Can we seriously stop accepting "spook" as appropriate terminology. Saying spook doesn't make you superior just because it means you (might've) read some edgy contrarian of a philosopher. Calling X a "spook" makes you seem fucking autistic.

>>607149
>Can we seriously stop accepting "meme" as appropriate terminology. Saying meme doesn't make you superior just because it means you (might've) read some edgy contrarian of a philosopher. Calling X a "meme" makes you seem fucking autistic.

>>601953
>Religions, nations and morals are a lie
careful with that edge

File: 10479862_441484976020110_1085908256195367192_o.png (581KB, 1100x375px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 1100x375px

>>607195
but they are. They are man-made and exist for a reason. Keep people enslaved. I could accept a debate on morals since it's a complicated matter but religion is just fairytale and nations were created quite recently in history and have no actual effect on a person's existance.

>>606837
>it would lead to you immediately acting out your every whim or fancy without cohesion

What fucking basis do you have to assume that? Got some psychology to report back about it?

No, the self does not become a total chaos of following whatever impulse you feel if you don't recognize it as such, it just simply isn't recognized. It continues to be regardless. Get this through your fucking skull, you goddamn fucking fanatic. The self doesn't stop existing just because you say so, even though you really really want it to, since that would grant your brand of insanity legitimacy.

>And I don't experience you, that doesn't mean you don't exist. If you are blind, I can't objectively prove colors to you, and that is how the spiritual consciousness works. It's like dirty goggles that have to be cleaned.

What makes your "spiritual consciousness" any different from any other delusion?

>Evangelist, maybe. Not proselytizer.

Wear what boots fit.

>For how many seconds can you sincerely believe the world is flat, and not a globe? Give it a shot and report back to me,

Why would I do that? The fact there are flat earthers already proves my point and you know it.

>>606837
Constantine where can I learn to practice Taqiyya like you?

>>607149
It underscores his point in his book, but I largely avoid it outside of discussing the book or his ideals themselves.

Also, calling a philosopher edgy or contrarian doesn't devalue their work.

>>607612
>Also, calling a philosopher edgy or contrarian doesn't devalue their work

If you think about these are traits pretty much required to be a philosopher worth reading. All the rock stars of philosophy were incredibly contraversial for their time. A philoosphy that just says the status que is right about everything is completely worthless and contributes nothing.

>>602295
I have just determined that my self interest involves torturing you for my own amusement. When I break into your house at night to do this, don't call the cops. They're spooks, after all

>>608058
>When I break into your house at night to do this, don't call the cops.

Why shouldn't he again? He'll be asking them to lend their might to his aid in pursuit of their own self-interest as part of their employment.

>>608058
The physical cops that will beat your head in are not spooks. The concept of 'cop' is a spook.

And as this guy pointed out >>608084
it is to the ego's own self-interest to see you getting your face smashed in.

File: 1453331567114[1].jpg (85KB, 460x471px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 460x471px

>>601953
What would Stirner say about the NEET culture and using government funding to stay at home all day reading books, listening to music, watching films, playing vidya and masturbating?

>>608942
Same everyone but the NEETs say. They are beholden to their own spooks. Or possessed by demons. Or subject to their own memes. Even the hedonists knew one needed to have more secure means for achieving hedonism.

Just as others are driven by their spooks of hard work and determination and a biological drive to reproduce, the NEET is driven by the spooks of failure and distrust, the demon called I WANT that masquerades as I, and a biological drive to reproduce that can't be acted upon. They are just as mired in samsara as everyone else.

Can we get an objective definition of a "spook" it seems everyone here has an opinion of what it means.

>>609509
Something which possesses no substance of its own if ignored which people put ahead of themselves in pursuit of a "higher" cause.

just spook my shit up to be quite honest, familia