Seriously, how do you prove him wrong?

File: IMG_1699.jpg (93KB, 583x700px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 583x700px

By denying the ego as an illusion.

>>2519728
So... are you saying... the ego is a spook?

>>2519731
Bingo

>>2519722

NIHILISTIC FATALISTS —MATERIALISTS IN GENERAL— DO NOT NEED TO BE PROVEN WRONG; THEIR SPURIOUS IDEAS ARE SELFEVIDENTLY INVALID TO ANYONE SUFFICIENTLY CONSCIOUS; ONE MUST NOT ENGAGE THEM IN DISCOURSE, RATHER, THEY MUST BE PRECLUDED FROM REPRODUCING, AND ULTIMATELY ERADICATED.

>>2519728
How does that prove him wrong?

>>2519744
Shut the fuck up you fucking idiot

Can you prove him right to begin with?

>>2519728
This is probably the most inauthentic way to live.

>>2519762
Buddhist are doing all right, senpai.

>>2519770

NEGATION OF EGO IS NOT A PRINCIPLE OF BUDDHISM; TRANSCENDENCE OF EGO IS A PRINCIPLE OF BUDDHISM.

YOU ARE IGNORANT.

>>2519792
>TRANSCENDENCE OF EGO IS A PRINCIPLE OF BUDDHISM.
What is transcending?

>>2519728
The very act of denial presupposes the ego.

You'd basically have to prove some notion of realism in regards to ideas, essentially you'd have to solve the problem of universal. Stirner's whole point is that the ideas that we attempt to subvert our ego towards aren't things of substance, whereas we can be fairly certain that our own existence is something of substance (at least to us), so being concerned with that first is the most rational position to take (though rationalism is itself just another idea).

>>2519813
I thought the idea was that everyone was already concerned with that first, it's just that some people were concious of it and others were unconcious of it, and the degree of awareness of their actual motivations influenced their behaviour within that framework.

>>2519835
Stirner's view on psychological egoism is more complicated than that. The general idea is that if it's something you "want" to be doing, you're serving your ego, but if it's something against your immediate will, you can be considered going against your self-interest.

An example he brings up is of a woman giving up a lover because her family doesn't like him, he ultimately considers it motivated out of filial piety rather than egoism.

>>2519796
the same thing as negating the ego

buddhism is ego denying

>>2519851
Right, but in that case my understanding was that since "filial piety" has no independent existence outside of the woman and her family, when she serves that particular spook she is already acting to please herself, because she derives pleasure from considering herself pious. Now, she could likely derive greater pleasure from not serving the spook of "filial piety," or from understanding that it is simply a spook or by making a conscious choice to make the concept her property instead of serving it unconsciously, but at a basic level she and everyone are always pleasing their ego in some way with differing levels of efficiency.

>>2519813
If even those ideas are of substance, why should the ego serves these ideas? I thought that Striner's point wasn't so much that these ideas do not exist but that these ideas should not trump your ego

>>2519877
pleasure derived from serving a spook is badwrong pleasure

>>2519744

>idealism is true and mateiralism is wrong/bad

get a load of this dumb faggot

>>2519796

>What is transcending?

true, there is no transcendence. but that's something mr shouts-a-lot doesn't grasp yet.

>>2519744
WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING?

I have little understanding of Stirner but isn't his reasoning just a dead end?

If everything is a spook, then why not just end it all? Why even bother to write? It's almost circular

>>2519931
Because fuck it, you'll get more dopamine rushes alive than dead

>>2519931
Why end it all? Why is the only response to a lack of external/eternal meaning suicide?

>>2519797

technically buddha didn't affirm or deny the existence of ego, he kind of dodged the question on purpose. from a practical/everyday/conventional perspective, the ego does of course exist: it is a combination of things(skandhas) which make it recognisable to us as ego. but from a deeper perspective it doesn't exist in the sense that it has no independant existence outside of those things (just like any other object or thing in existence).

>>2519813

>so being concerned with that first is the most rational position to take (though rationalism is itself just another idea).

Yes, therein lies the whole point of his philosophy as a means of liberation to creative being.

>>2519744
You do realize that writing your nonsens in caplock wont make it more reasonable right?

>>2519937

WHAT? FUCK

>>2519731
ego is definitively a spook.
It's a cognitive system that forms from interactions with the world, probably some kind of neurological process that form networks of influential memories that is probably controlled by some kind of nueroprocess that has evolved to form a concept of self, I'm no neuroscientist, but damn, imagine what kind of epic story the evolution of self awareness, behavior and it's ecosystem Have to tell.
Man I'm way off topic I forgot what I was even replying to.
I've been vaping on the #dank yo,
I'm a fish btw, and yeah I brows 4chan
NO I will not show you my genital papilla

>>2519851
>Stirner's view on psychological egoism is more complicated than that. The general idea is that if it's something you "want" to be doing, you're serving your ego, but if it's something against your immediate will, you can be considered going against your self-interest.


>just be urself, follow your desire

what a chad

>>2519877
We're getting into territories of egoism that may as well be "follows the laws of physics." He doesn't consider it egoistic because it's not really something she wants to be doing. To contrast this might be a Christian giving to charity because it makes them feel good, it's something they'd like to be doing and they dress it up in a non-egoistic guise.

>>2520260
There's a reason he's considered an influence on existentialism.

File: C.S. Lewis5.jpg (40KB, 314x426px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 314x426px

>The Existential Problem & Religious Solution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw36V_iXR2k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkh2TXCHpNs

>The Laws of Nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

>Mere Christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>The Origin (or 1,2,3,4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw9biRRv_bM

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>The Rival Conceptions of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

>The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A

>Why I Am Not a Pacifist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jreq3mVvDgc

>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

>Sexual Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI

That was easy.

>>2520297
I dream, that someday, there will exist a world where you'll just make the arguments yourself, you lazy turd.

Also
>morality is objective because the nazis are evil LMAO
Apply yourself.

>>2520297
>the laws of nature
, had a good cringe.
Nigga needs to learn about entropy and synergetics lmao

>>2520297
HAAhahaa these are completely retarded

>>2519744
>>2519744
best baiter I have seen in a while
I can always rely on an anon named
ري هقوص R Y · H V Q V S give supply the keks

>>2519792
Fair enough. But >>2519935 is more what I was tying to say.

File: 1470707491330.jpg (21KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 600x337px

>the only thing that not a spook is the ego
>the ego turns out, is a spook

>>2519728
But Stirner points out the ego as a spook, he calls it ''the creative nothing''.

>>2519722
Because I don't care whether something is a spook or not, I care about whether it allows us to co-operate, tell the truth, suppress free riding and as a result of those things, succeed. Whether something is a spook is of absolutely no concern to me.

>>2521054
How would you really argue with any worth that you (your own self) don't exist?

File: tolkien.jpg (28KB, 617x355px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 617x355px

>>2520297
>C.S. Lewis

File: Zomboy.png (476KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 600x800px

>>2520297
You took my words, fagglet anon.

>>2519762
not at all

how can choosing to follow your brain's whims, as opposed to being robotically driven by them, be inauthentic? if anything impulse control is all by denying the ego for the observer's ego ( who is observing the will of the ego )

you can go about arguing that the superego is the extant control but then how does one affirm logically conclusions that go against your super ego? basically spltting them up into those segments is pretty dumb in the first place

File: image.gif (15KB, 350x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 350x300px

>>2520144
Now that I'm not nodding off. I actually think I was on to something big here.

The ego is just a neural network of memories that have been influential in understanding self awareness. It's I network in a panarchy, it only exists as an institution.

Let me use my favorite pic related to explain this
Here the bottom layer is perception, either information from the outside world, or information from abstractions produced in the next layer.
the middle layer can be viewed as the self, the seat of reason, what it does is reason the information being interpreted, and then it moves on to the next layers which is memory.
The middle reasons with information from both perception and from memory. But how does it reason?
That is where the ego comes in. As the middle reasons the mind it takes the form of the information it processes. neural networks connect imporant memories about self awareness, rules, , after all interpreted from perception from the filter of the "memories of your experience that are used as a processor to reason the information that being interpreted from the environment/ abstracted from memory, influenced by biochemical signals.
This processor quickly becomes your ego, because it is how you reason, it is the vessel you use to interact with the world.
This isn't a real representation of you.
It's is a mental institution, no, more like a heuristic to veiw the world with, a spook.

Now what happens when the middle layer is wiped clean and the memory and perception are left to be reasoned without being filtered through the lens of ego.
It's ego death, I've experienced it several times while saturating my brain with psychedelics, apparently heavy meditation works too.
What happens is any concept of myself is completely lost but I still know everything I know, you see things with true pragmatism, once i was contemplating property ownership while on ego death. It didn't make sense. Still doesn't

>>2522099
This is in line with the philosophy of the mind I favor aswell.
The spread mind theory.
The brain just interprets, reasons, and remembers information. The information is code, not ones and zeros, it's memories of experiential phenomenon.
The programmer is the mind, the mind is the external world being interpreted by sign relations that are a programing language, our gentics are the operating systems.
The mind is external
The brain is a biocomputer
The ego is just the user-interface