How well does egoism go along with eastern philosophy, more

>>1646700

DEFINE "GOING ALONG".

>>1646706
What common points do they have? Can one be a follower of daoism while also being an egoist?

>>1646706
It is Dao.

>>1646714
>What common points do they have?

VIRTUALLY NONE.

>Can one be a follower of daoism while also being an egoist?

YES, BUT ONE WOULD BE ETHICOMORALLY, IDEOLOGICALLY, AND PHILOSOPHICALLY, INCONSISTENT; ID EST: ACTUALLY, ONE WOULD BE NEITHER A TAOIST, NOR AN EGOIST, SINCE ONE WOULD NOT BE GENUINELY PRACTICING EITHER IDEOLOGY, YET, THEY CAN BE SIMULTANEOUSLY PRACTICED HYPOCRITICALLY.

>>1646700
In Buddhism not only there is no Ātman, the immortal Self, there is no lower-case self either, the ego is presented as the spookiest of all spooks, wake up sheeple and start following the Dharma *blows candle out*
- made for Stirner's wrath

As for Confucianism, it's a system of virtue ethics that puts loyalty, rites, filial piety and other forms of obedience above the individual ego for the purpose of creating a harmonious society.
- made for Stirner's wrath

Daoism's endorsement of less rigid rules and even moral skepticism is often confused for something that is egoist-compatible. It isn't. Fuck your ego in particular if you desire to go against the flow, don't do that. Wu-Wei is also quite the self-denial.

Yang Zhu (Yangzi), who is an influence to Daoism, was your ethical egoist. We have secondary sources of him in the Liezi and in Mengzi.

Yangism is the ethical egoism that should attract the attention of the Stirnerian the most, Durant summarizes Yang Zhu in Our Oriental Heritage:

>"Life is full of suffering, and its chief purpose is pleasure. There is no god and no after-life; men are the helpless puppets of the blind natural forces that made them, and that gave them their unchosen ancestry and their inalienable character. The wise man will accept this fate without complaint, but will not be fooled by all the nonsense of Confucius and Mozi about inherent virtue, universal love, and a good name: morality is a deception practised upon the simple by the clever; universal love is the delusion of children, who do not know the universal enmity that forms the law of life; and a good name is a posthumous bauble which the fools who paid so dearly for it cannot enjoy. In life the good suffer like the bad, and the wicked seem to enjoy themselves more keenly than the good”

Mencius says:
>What Yang Zhu was for was self. If by plucking one hair he might benefit the whole world, he would not do it

This guy, not Zhuangzi or Laozi, is who you're looking for.

>>1646769
I didn't mention Legalism but it's obvious, fuck your ego, nobody is above The Law.

Ultimately much of Eastern philosophy concerns itself with liberation FROM the ego, not putting it on a pedestal.

>>1646790
Idk, Zhuangzi has a dynamic and open view on individual “self,” considering individuals as changing and unique beings rather than fixed and interchangeable “atoms”; he sets the unlimited Dao as the ultimate source for individuals to conform to, thus releasing individual mind into a realm of infinite openness and freedom. The Zhuangzian individualism is “inward” rather than “outward,” concentrating on individual spirit rather than material interests and rights in social reality. The individualism in the Zhuangzi provides a spiritual space for the development of individuality in ancient China. It also provides an alternative understanding of individual as an existence.

>>1646807
If a man is crossing a river
And an empty boat collides with his own skiff,
Even though he be a bad-tempered man
He will not become very angry.
But if he sees a man in the boat,
He will shout at him to steer clear.
If the shout is not heard, he will shout again,
And yet again, and begin cursing.
And all because there is somebody in the boat.
Yet if the boat were empty.
He would not be shouting, and not angry.

If you can empty your own boat
Crossing the river of the world,
No one will oppose you,
No one will seek to harm you.

>an alternative understanding of individual as an existence
Yeah, by getting rid of the individual, m8.

He will flow like Tao, unseen,
He will go about like Life itself
With no name and no home.
Simple is he, without distinction.
To all appearances he is a fool.
His steps leave no trace. He has no power.
He achieves nothing, has no reputation.
Since he judges no one
No one judges him.
Such is the perfect man:
His boat is empty.

Egoism is the problem, not the solution.

Is your boat empty yet?

>>1646823
Again, what you want is Yangism:

one of Mozi's contemporary philosophers,
Yang Zhu, with the same goal, promoted the theory of selfish love as a
way of obtaining universal benefi ts. Yang Zhu argued that if everyone is
intrinsically self-interested, when they all work toward their own self
interest, society will benefit since society is simply the sum of individuals. In Mencius' time, Mohism and Yangism were the two rivalries that
challenged Confucianism from the perspective of benefi ts. It is no wonder that Mencius would often remark: Why does one need to discuss
benefits? One should just focus on righteousness.

>>1646700
Yang Zhu

It actually fits Taoism fairly well, provided you're pursuing Taoism for your own benefit. Taoism doesn't have a lot of rigid rules, and the idea of pursuing philosophical Taoism fits well with Stirnerian egoism, which held that the pursuit of glory and wealth ultimately brought more trouble than anything else. As with holding any religious ideal dear in a Stirnerian framework, there would be a loss of sincerity to it, as you'd have to make ready to abandon it when it didn't suit your interests.

>>1646769
Yang was a Taoist teacher, and pieces of his philosophy appear both in the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu.

Laozi likely didn't exist, and even if he did, almost certainly didn't write the book that's attributed to him.

Within the Chuang Tzu, the classical opinion is that large chunks of it are Yangist philosophy (or did you forget the bit where he refuses rulership by comparing the idea of becoming a ruler to a sacred turtle being taken from its environment and killed, when it almost certainly would have preferred to continue to live out its days in the mud?).

People have a weird opinion of Stirnerian egoism, and I'm not sure why. He didn't say rid yourself of abstractions and pay no consideration to anything but yourself, he said ensure that these abstractions help you, and that your considerations of others are taken from a standpoint of genuine, self-interested concern rather than obligatory duty.

>>1646823
The problem with claiming that passage as anti-Stirnerian is that it suggests ridding yourself of ego to serve an egoistic end, which isn't in opposition to Stirner's thinking. It doesn't say "rid yourself of ego because having ego is wrong" it says "rid yourself of ego because it's better for you in the long run."

>>1650052
>it doesn't say "rid yourself of ego because having ego is wrong"
Yes, it does.

All these Eastern philosophers find in the ego to be the source of the problem.

But Yang Zhu - and the Yangists who may have edited all these texts - did not.

>>1650039
>he refuses rulership by comparing the idea of becoming a ruler to a sacred turtle being taken from its environment and killed, when it almost certainly would have preferred to continue to live out its days in the mud
Yang Zhu is not the advocate of Wu-Wei.

>you'd have to make ready to abandon it when it didn't suit your interests
And this is where the incompatibility of Daoism and egoism is most evident.

Freedom from the ego and following the Dao vs freedom of the ego and following the ego.

I can envision Yang Zhu drinking tea with Stirner and talking about the society of egoists driven by selfish love, but Zhuangzi?

Zhuangzi wouldn't join them, he'd be sleeping near the lake, next to your favorite koan zen master who's fishing without fishing equipment.

Zhuangzi would be too busy doing nothing.

>>1652011
>Yes, it does.

That specific passage? No, it doesn't. The only conflict in this passage is that it would be advocating involuntary egoism, but it's still advocating a fundamentally egoistic premise.

>Yang Zhu is not the advocate of Wu-Wei.

He was a Taoist teacher. Like it or not, Yang Zhu is part of the tradition. That bit is also straight out of the Zhuangzi.

>And this is where the incompatibility of Daoism and egoism is most evident.

It's the fundamental incompatibility of egoism with anything. But I for one highly doubt even Lao Tzu would advocate pursuing the Tao if doing so would equal your destruction.

>Zhuangzi wouldn't join them, he'd be sleeping near the lake, next to your favorite koan zen master who's fishing without fishing equipment.
>Zhuangzi would be too busy doing nothing.

And Stirner would find absolutely no reason to oppose the man, because he's still pursuing an egoistic course of action, and even Zhuangzi would likely be able to admit that doing so is to his benefit and for his benefit.