Thread replies: 87
Thread images: 43
Thread images: 43
File: egoism general.jpg (542KB, 1010x1010px) Image search:
[Google]
542KB, 1010x1010px
Hello, fellow egoists.
This general is for the discussion of Egoism, the ethical theory that treats self-interest as the foundation of morality.
Egoism is the next stage of humanity, following the “youth,” or “ideological” stage.
What exactly is egoism according to egoists:
>Egoism is the stage of human thought in which the egoist rejects artificial ideological concepts in order to follow their own will and serve their own interests.
>Egoism rejects spooks such as religion, nationalism, class, the state, and morality. Each of these institutions is itself egoistic and self-serving, therefore it makes no sense for the individual’s will to be possessed by them.
>Egoism in its full form is a spook-less, self-motivated society that follows no maxim whatsoever. Societal expectations are a spook, and serve only to take advantage of the egoist. Instead of a society or state, egoism proposes a Union of Egoists which would be entirely voluntary and would come and go based on the self-interests of the egoists involved. The union would not take any authority over any of its member’s own wills, and by definition depends on its members participating out of conscious egoism.
>To achieve such a mindset, Stirnerism mandates that the egoist must abandon all spooks, which take the form of “God’s Cause,” “the Good Cause,” nationalism, class, etc, and replace them with their own will, which is controlled solely by their own interests. Then, a period of inner mental struggle follows in which the egoist transforms from the unwilling, involuntary egoist into the willful egoist. When the spooks have been completely vanquished, there will be only one motivation, self-motivation, and eventually the will of the individual will become indistinguishable from the view of the world he beholds. False concepts such as “objective morality” will cease to possess him, as Stirner said.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner
>>
Stirner developed a post-modern individualist philosophy known as egoist anarchism, see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism
It is recommended that you read some of the critical works of Egoism so you can make an informed assessment of the ideology.
Resources:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-mcquinn-max-stirner-the-anarchist-every-ideologist-loves-to-hate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_egoists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchy
>>
File: atlantis aint free 01.png (50KB, 853x543px) Image search:
[Google]
50KB, 853x543px
>>128934515
>False concepts such as “objective morality” will cease to possess him, as Stirner said.
Can you refute this, subjectivistfags?
>Too often, the ethical-political meaning of individualism is held to be: doing whatever one wishes, regardless of the rights of others. Writers such as Nietzsche and Max Stirner are sometimes quoted in support of this interpretation. Altruists and collectivists have an obvious vested interest in persuading men that such is the meaning of individualism, that the man who refuses to be sacrificed intends to sacrifice others.
The contradiction in, and refutation of, such an interpretation of individualism is this: since the only rational base of individualism as an ethical principle is the requirements of man’s survival qua man, one man cannot claim the moral right to violate the rights of another. If he denies inviolate rights to other men, he cannot claim such rights for himself; he has rejected the base of rights. No one can claim the moral right to a contradiction.
>Individualism does not consist merely of rejecting the belief that man should live for the collective. A man who seeks escape from the responsibility of supporting his life by his own thought and effort, and wishes to survive by conquering, ruling and exploiting others, is not an individualist. An individualist is a man who lives for his own sake and by his own mind; he neither sacrifices himself to others nor sacrifices others to himself; he deals with men as a trader—not as a looter; as a Producer—not as an Attila.
Your egoist """"society"""" would collapse into Somalia-tier chaos instantly if everyone just acted according to his blind, irrational whims, rather than according to a rationally verifiable, objective ethics - the ethics of rights. I'm all for self-interest and hate collectivist gangsterism as much as you do, but please take the Randpill before spreading this unworkable Hobbesian cancer.
>>
File: ayn btfo.jpg (114KB, 507x768px) Image search:
[Google]
114KB, 507x768px
>>128935471
>one man cannot claim the moral right to violate the rights of another
>moral right
There are no "moral rights," there is only your will and the will of others.
>verifiable, objective ethics - the ethics of rights
What you have described does not and will not ever exist, it is a spook. You may pretend they are objective, but they are not. Because of this, it comes down to your will and the will of others, the pressure being placed upon you by concepts that dominate your life. Egoism is making the choice between what is yours, and what is nonexistent.
>would collapse into Somalia-tier chaos instantly
Stirner himself admitted that egoism isn't a utopian, happy world. However, it is the one that is most true to the individual. Society, the nation, the religion, the ethics... all of these things are artificial entities and seek to manipulate you, no matter how much they convince you otherwise.
>Randpill
"I warned you about objectivity, bro!"
Even Rand's libertarian, somewhat anarcho-capitalist world would utilize spooks to manipulate the individual. You don't go FAR enough, you just "replace" your current master with the same master in a different suit.
>>
>>128934547
http://amzn.com/1943687900
>>
>>128937992
I provided a free link to a pdf of the Unique One and His Property above
>>
File: Lacan1.jpg (85KB, 642x720px) Image search:
[Google]
85KB, 642x720px
>>128934515
Sorry m8 but I don't think that Strinerism will ever get out of the meme politics/philosophy. Priamarily because its based on the good old capitalist premise of so called "self interest" and as we know from psychoanalysis and existentialism there is no self interest in humans. Striner is a nice reading material and certanly influenced some of the thinkers and ideologues but it's nothing beyond that.
Nietzsche is much more updated version of Striner.
>>
btw bump, this is a one of the rare quality threads today
>>
>>128937168
>There are no "moral rights," there is only your will and the will of others
You don't understand what rights are. 'Rights' are NOT moral primaries! Only the survival of man is a moral primary. Rights are not some disembodied, external ethical principle ('spook' to you) that must be obeyed in spite of one's self-interest, from a sense of duty. Objectivism rejects 'duty' as a subjectivist, faith-based trick. The key to understanding rights is that they are not a denial of self-interest, but an EXPRESSION of it. If you really believed that your self-interest lay in exploiting, killing, enslaving and robbing others, then it is true that you would have no reason to respect their rights - and, of course, they would have no reason to respect yours, and would shoot you as a criminal if you tried to act on your urges. However, the central point of Objectivism is that it is not in anyone's self-interest to kill, steal from, or otherwise reduce oneself to the status of a parasite living off the efforts of others. Man's nature is to produce, to use his mind to support his life, not to become a thug or a moocher. By making himself dependent on the slavery of others, it is the thug who has in fact made himself lower than a slave - for he is dependent on those he exploits to deal with reality for him. (This is why all thugs live in a state of constant terror, and often require the support of mystics, from priests to dialectical philosophers, to reassure them. It is reality that the thug fears, for he has surrendered his power to engage with it to those who hate him and whom he terrorizes.) It is only by the recognition of this principle - the principle that man, in order to act according to his highest values, real nature and true self-interest, must be a producer, not a parasite - that a community of rational men can decide on a system of rights. Rights are merely the formal, legalistic form of this principle in a social context.
>>
File: my property board game.jpg (642KB, 2138x2148px) Image search:
[Google]
642KB, 2138x2148px
>>128938965
>there is no self-interest
I would say that is still a matter of debate. An individual is driven both by his own will and the wills of others, and egoism seeks to remove the "wills of others and spooks" from the individual's mind. Could you provide some specific material that discusses this "lack of self-interest" in humans?
It's interesting that you bring up Nietzsche, since I also am interested in his philosophy of the ubermensch. However, Nietzsche most certainly was not a egoist... this is evident by his urging for "man to become the best that he is," which is preferable to nearly every other ideology in many ways. However, he still believed in some of the same concepts that Stirner criticized as empty. I would say both are great philosophers.
>>
File: 1496878766561-1833089833.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 3264x2448px
Fucking finally
God bless op for making this
>>
>>128938965
>know from psychoanalysis and existentialism there is no self interest in humans.
Speak for urself m8
Also
>(((existentialism)))
Literally the shittiest meme philosophy, I wish it would fucking die
>>
>>128938965
>calls Strinerism meme philosophy (using meme in a pleb fashion) while praising psychoanalysis
Wew, never go full retard cocaine junky
>>
>>128938965
>as we know from psychoanalysis
dropped
>>
File: spooks!.png (595KB, 652x1040px) Image search:
[Google]
595KB, 652x1040px
>>128939888
>then it is true that you would have no reason to respect their rights - and, of course, they would have no reason to respect yours, and would shoot you as a criminal if you tried to act on your urges
Yes, but the egoist would not care either way.
>However, the central point of Objectivism is that it is not in anyone's self-interest to kill, steal from, or otherwise reduce oneself to the status of a parasite living off the efforts of others
The main problem with objectivism is that it is still subjective. Objectivists will tell themselves that "duty" doesn't matter, and yet they will still uphold the duties of objectivism. They are bound by it, and since it is an ideological institution, it is just another spook.
>Man's nature is to produce, to use his mind to support his life, not to become a thug or a moocher.
This is merely a claim, it isn't a truth. And truth itself is meaningless, since it is just another "belief" to hold. An objectivist would never refer to themselves as a liar, because they are firm believers in "the Truth," whatever that may be. An egoist doesn't care for what others call "the truth" because it is just another spook. What matters most is the individual, so any individualist philosophy that still touts about an objective moral code is being disingenuous.
Objectivists will attempt to make a great difference between themselves and the thugs they oppose, usually referring to socialists or criminals. However, the objectivist and the criminal are one in the same to the egoist, because egoism criticizes the entire nature of the ideology itself, not just the actions of its believers. A thug imposes his will upon you by parasitizing off of you, and the objectivist imposes his will upon you by dominating your mind with "objective rights," that serve to limit the behavior of the individual in a similar manner to the thug.
>>
File: santanism nazi rand civilization virtue.jpg (247KB, 790x894px) Image search:
[Google]
247KB, 790x894px
>>128934515
>not Judiasm
WHITE MAN YOU HAVE AN ANCIENT RELIGION
YOU STILL PRACTICE IT TODAY
IT'S CALLED SCIENCE/PHILOSOPHY AND NATURE:
Example of Aryan faiths:
>Stoicism (reason as divine)
>Buddhism (moral nihilism)
>Zen (anti-cult)
>Nietzsche's Overman (Will to Power)
>Naturalism (nature as divine)
>Cosmotheism (Dr. William Pierce, evolution as divine)
>Nazism (blood and nature as divine)
>Pythoagorism (numbers as divine, "man is the measure of all things")
All perfectly acceptable alternative to Semitic slave cults.
And for the more Esoteric fag who wants Spiritualism you have:
>Zoroastrianism (good replaced with wisdom of good, evil replaced with incorrect thoughts; the first philosophy)
>Vedda (Brahmanism)
>Wotanism (non-cucked chivalry)
>Druidism (nature as spirit)
>Mithra-ism (divine purity, Christianity stole most of its ritual from)
STOP WORSHIPING A JEW AS GOD OF THE UNIVERSE!
STOP WORSHIPING DECONSTRUCTIONIST PHILOSOPHY OF JEWS
>>
File: 1490117305526.jpg (48KB, 600x592px) Image search:
[Google]
48KB, 600x592px
this thread is a spook
>>
File: all mine.png (459KB, 549x542px) Image search:
[Google]
459KB, 549x542px
>>128941608
>self-sacrifice
haha
>>128941674
this anon is a spook!
>>
File: 1490163210840.jpg (63KB, 1200x1024px) Image search:
[Google]
63KB, 1200x1024px
>>128941837
your post is a spook
>>
File: check these spooks.png (88KB, 340x360px) Image search:
[Google]
88KB, 340x360px
>>128941938
these digits are spooks
>>
so uhh... you're basically nihilists, doing nihilist things or what durr?
>>
File: 1496523371959.jpg (47KB, 720x439px) Image search:
[Google]
47KB, 720x439px
>>128942217
nice spook quads
>>
File: big guy for me.jpg (526KB, 924x1037px) Image search:
[Google]
526KB, 924x1037px
>>128942285
nihilism is somewhat similar, but it is entirely pessimistic, even just an excuse for outright hedonism.
Egoism is the individual's will taking precedence over all other wills, so it is not nihilistic by definition. If the individual was a nihilist, it could be, but the individual would likely be under the influence of other spooks that cause him to have the negative worldview he has. An egoist is the world.
>>
>>128940227
>Could you provide some specific material that discusses this "lack of self-interest" in humans?
I would definitely recommend getting acquainted with Žižek, I learned a lot from " The Paralax" and I'm trying to get into Lacan right now. Both of them are a pretty good read. Oh, and Deleuze from what I've heard.
This concept of lack of self interest developed from radical form of nihilism which influenced young Sartre a lot and thus all of modern existentialists. After that a lot of French academics such as Foucault expanded on concept, trying to connect it with psychoanalysis (Lacanian one, that is) and viewed this notion of self interest or desire as a consequence of exterior factors.
To say it differently, they thought that humans might desire and might even be aware of their own desires, however this desire requires external pressure to function, in the sense that non-desire becomes not only complimentary, but the very condition required for desire to function.
Tl, dr spooks are not you desire but the condition of your desire that you are unaware of.
> However, Nietzsche most certainly was not a egoist... this is evident by his urging for "man to become the best that he is,"
I'm glad that you noticed that, many people don't. Nietzsche is becuse of that regarded as proto existentialist - there is no true desire, nor the reason to live but we have to do it in order to accomplish the pourpose of Ubermensch.
>>
>>
File: epPaN8C.jpg (75KB, 720x660px) Image search:
[Google]
75KB, 720x660px
>>128934515
Stirner is the best meme
>>
File: d8a8fc16e8c04d13a8d40b2506f386ee1592447bc68b7db3eafed6ebe12c8705.png (19KB, 444x444px) Image search:
[Google]
19KB, 444x444px
This is my kinda thread
>>
>>128942663
>there is no true desire
What is Will to Power?
Fucking Leftist plebs and their cult lense filter
>>
File: Facebook-ed6fd6.png (105KB, 500x574px) Image search:
[Google]
105KB, 500x574px
>>128934515
Seriously bumb
>>
File: 1496608358453.png (36KB, 1200x800px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 1200x800px
National Egoism is the ultimate ethos
>Nationalism
The entire universe is the border, which belongs to me
>Traditionalism
The tradition of creating myself anew and dissolving in myself is maintained
>Ego Identity
I am the creative nothing that unites me and my property as a nation of indescribable individuals united by our voluntary union
>Imperialism
Our nation of egoists will conquer and expand by the destruction of spooks
Literally name me one thing that's wrong with is ideology. PROTIP: You can't.
>>
File: annil1_by_comradepepe-dae0u3z.jpg (10KB, 214x200px) Image search:
[Google]
10KB, 214x200px
>>128934515
BUMPP
>>
>>128942663
To say it in other words, desire appears there where tension between outside and inside factors occurs. However none of these factors are existant by themselves but require each other.
This is just me trying to explain Zizek and I apologise if I sound silly to some of the non newfag Zizekians if such exist on pol
>>
File: self-pride.jpg (77KB, 960x720px) Image search:
[Google]
77KB, 960x720px
>>128934515
Unloading here
>>
>>128934515
Based spook master, praised be!
>>
File: 220px-Schopenhauer_1852.jpg (16KB, 220x280px) Image search:
[Google]
16KB, 220x280px
>>128943063
Will to power isn't a desire, its just a senseless, focusless will. Desire requires object of desire to function while will to power is pourpose to itself. It is something that everything stems from and something to which everything yearns.
You should rad Schopenhauer before reading Freddy
>>
>>128942589
nihilism plus insanity, got it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AEMiz6rcxc
>>
File: objectivism 1.png (179KB, 1126x911px) Image search:
[Google]
179KB, 1126x911px
>>128941328
>Objectivists will tell themselves that "duty" doesn't matter, and yet they will still uphold the duties of objectivism. They are bound by it, and since it is an ideological institution, it is just another spook.
>Having principles is a spook
If I observe that wood always burns and mud does not, I can use my mind to form the principle that wood is fuel, mud is not. If I then am confronted by the choice of building a campfire out of mud or out of wood, I will choose to build it out of wood - not from 'duty' to obey the 'spook' of the theory of combustion, but because principles, or abstractions, are what allow me to understand the universe and thus decide upon a course of action.
Similarly, if I am confronted with the choice between buying a car with money I've earned, and stealing a car, I make use of value-abstractions - principles - to guide my choice. I might desire the car, on a low whim-level of value-awareness. However, none of my values exist in a vacuum. Every one of my values exists in a logically ordered hierarchy. Why do I value the car? Because it will allow me to transport myself quickly. Why do I want to transport myself? Because I want to be able to move between different locations that hold different values - home, work, etc. Why do I value these? And so on - until I get to the ultimate value, the key to all the others, which is my life. Why do I value my life? At this point, the Stirnerite or Nietzchean hits a brick wall. He can give no answer, except some ineffable, mystic, animalistic 'will'. The Objectivist can answer. He values himself because he is a being of a specific nature - a being of MIND - and he is a being who is alive. This nature of his, which is immutable, combined with the truths of logic, is what decides for him his rational, comprehensible, true self-interest. Any 'self-interest' outside rationality is not self-interest at all, but (by definition, as it is IRRATIONAL), self-destruction by whim. See pic related, my OC
>>
>>128941608
I strongly prefer Abrahamic religions as they are more collectivist opposed to very individualist religions such as buddhism
>>
File: 1464917146713.png (36KB, 870x545px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 870x545px
Stirner posting is the best thing to come out of /leftypol/
>>
File: 1491177119180.jpg (91KB, 599x564px) Image search:
[Google]
91KB, 599x564px
Anyone else pump for the new translation that has just been released?
Also is it accurate to say that fixed Idea = spook
>>
>>128944046
>>128944007
>>128943951
>>128943811
>>128943623
>>128943324
>>128943193
>>128943164
>>128942663
>>128942589
>>128941608
>>128941328
>>128940540
>>128940471
>>128940227
>>128939888
>>128937168
>>128935471
>>128934547
Wew; this kind of effort posting is ruining /pol/ please take your autism to : >>>/x/
Sage'd & reported
>>
File: 1464910622891.png (23KB, 694x578px) Image search:
[Google]
23KB, 694x578px
>>128944280
>/x/
Fuck off spook
>>
>>128934515
>The oldfag Max Stirner
>"In a world of scarcity, people can be selfish..."
He is truly enlightened..
>>
File: absolutelyirrational.jpg (222KB, 600x450px) Image search:
[Google]
222KB, 600x450px
>>128941328
Also, wish I could debate this more - this is why I come to /pol/. But I have to go to sleep coz exams
Basic point is that Stirnerites hold that ANY restriction on their actions constitutes a 'spook', or oppression. They wish to live in a universe where they could act without reason, consequences or principles. However, this leaves wide open the question of WHY, then, are they going to act? In pursuit of values? How are they going to decide what is a value and what is not, without a standard - a moral principle, derived from objective reality - against which to judge their values? The Stirnerite, in fact, advocates action WITHOUT recourse to principles or rationality - which means, for a rational being who must decide his values by a process of reason, WITHOUT VALUES at all. Then, why act? From instinct, random whim, biological urges, according to faith, or simply randomly? You deliberately sever your values from any connection, any basis in reality, preferring to allow your feelings and whims to drag you along whatever suicidal course seems expedient -
and yet you call me a subjectivist?
>>
>>128943951
Why do values by necessity need to be self reinforcing even to the extent of an individual dying for ?
Why does the individual value himself because he is a being of a specific nature - a being of MIND - and he is a being who is alive and how do we know this to be the case?
>>
>>128946036
Just before you leave,
>Basic point is that Stirnerites hold that ANY restriction on their actions constitutes a 'spook', or oppression.
Is not consistent with Stirners work, a spook is simply and idea/concept you hold above your own interest.
>They wish to live in a universe where they could act without reason, consequences or principles
Maybe you have met some bad ones but that isnt an idea or consequence of Stirners thought
>>
>Egoism
Is when society inverts and speeds backwards into utter desolation.
>>
File: at first i was like.png (36KB, 342x238px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 342x238px
>>128943164
>our nation
>our
spook!
>>128944219
Yes you are correct that fixed ideas are inherently spooks. Anything that is held to be "sacred" serves to control the individual in one way or another.
>They wish to live in a universe where they could act without reason, consequences or principles
I disagree, the only reason, consequences, and principles that exist to an egoist are their own. If you are a slave, and you disobey your master, you will be beaten. You are not free in a corporeal sense, but you OWN the beating you were given. It is yours. An egoist simply refuses to hold an outside concept above their own interests.
>>128946346
Every ideology says this of its opponents, and egoism is the antithesis of collectivist thinking in general.
>>
>>128947310
Egoism by it's very nature can't be agreed upon collectively.
If it were compatible with humanity, you wouldn't be bothered coming here to convince anyone of it.
>>
>>128946115
>>128946339
>Why does the individual value himself because he is a being of a specific nature - a being of MIND - and he is a being who is alive and how do we know this to be the case?
Read the pic related >>128943951, I can't really put it any more clearly than that. Also, read 'The Objectivist Ethics' and Atlas Shrugged if you'd like to know more. Literally life changing.
As to the question of how we know this to be the case, this is epistemology, which is a whole field in its own right. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is a hell of a dense read, but it lays down the basics. Essentially, the Objectivist epistemology (theory of knowledge) is that reason acts on sense data (perceptions), integrating them into concepts (logical categories), and then acting on these concepts to produce meta-concepts, and so on. Example: Dinner table, table, furniture, man-made objects, objects, entities, existents. The mind can also do this with regard to values, producing value-concepts, otherwise known as moral principles.
>Why do values by necessity need to be self reinforcing even to the extent of an individual dying for?
An individual's physical life is very high in his value-hierarchy, but it is not at the apex. If a man dies in order to save the love of his life, he is actually acting in self-interest, a very high and pure self-interest. He is not sacrificing himself - he is acting according to the value-fact that, if he were to preserve his physical existence at the price of his love's, life would not be worth living anymore and he would not be able to hold any values. The same goes for freedom or honor. It is not in a man's self-interest to grovel in the dirt before a tyrant. How can he value anything truly or permanently in a state in which he may be killed or have everything taken away from him at any moment by jackbooted policemen? Far better and more selfish to make a stand for his freedom.
>>
>>128946339
>a spook is simply and idea/concept you hold above your own interest.
That would make 'spook' synonymous with duty or faith, which the Objectivist rejects. Objectivism is the theory of RATIONAL self-interest. It is not in one's rational self-interest to become a thug, a moocher or any other kind of parasite; thus, it is selfish to act according to moral principles such as respect for the rights of others. Stirnerites like >>128941328 reject ANY moral principle as an affront to their freedom, which they hold to be the freedom to act exactly as they please - again, without regard to reason or consequences.
>>
File: images.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search:
[Google]
11KB, 225x225px
>>128944280
>Leaf
>Understanding a thread about self interests
>>
>>128948684
This reminds me of those news articles which explain you why it is healthy to have sex and why you should have it and such. In the end it's just another ideology, but in which everything that you do needs to be explained through the modus of self interest instead of objective good/ ultility and such. Truth is we only use excuses to explain our desires while our desires are not really ours nor knowable to us.
>>
File: levels.png (378KB, 501x500px) Image search:
[Google]
378KB, 501x500px
>>128948119
>a very high and pure self-interest.
That would be a spook in nearly all cases, a man who sacrifices his life for a loved one is doing so because he is putting the concept of love above his own self-interest.
>Dinner table... entities, existents.
There is a big difference between objects in the physical world and concepts in your mind. A painting does not inspire you to champion a cause, or fight "the good fight." The ideas in your mind already present will do this, after you look at the painting. The spook manipulates you and your world to put itself above you.
>freedom and honor
Both very subjective concepts that can be used to get an individual to act out of their self-interests.
>It is not in a man's self-interest to grovel in the dirt before a tyrant.
An egoist refuses to recognize any authority but his own. To him, the prince is the same as the peasant, in that they are both nothing. They are not him. Likewise, the boss of a company is just as nothing as a lowly worker. The institution that gives the boss his credibility is a spook, as the egoist likely had nothing to do with its creation or the boss's ascent to power. It is always more selfish to act for yourself, which is why the willful egoist does this consistently.
>>128947457
There are different scholars, but by definition an egoist is someone who places their self-interests above anything else. Stirner actually discusses the two types of egoist- involuntary and willful. An involuntary egoist is an individual who wishes not to be an egoist, he wishes to be free and think for himself, yet he still acts under the motivations of whatever spooks he possesses. This could be fear, uncertainty, etc. He does not see himself as the ultimate authority of his life. The willful egoist sees only himself and his world.
>>128948684
>rational objectivism
It is not rational to hold spooks above yourself. An objectivist can be considered an egoist who won't finish his journey.
>>
in what way (if at all) did stirner conceptualize the self and or the soul?
is there a necessary advocacy for a specific type of political alignment?
how does he approach the concept of 'preference'?
>>
File: spook chasers.png (944KB, 600x887px) Image search:
[Google]
944KB, 600x887px
>>128952536
Stirner made the difference between the individual's will (self, ego, the unique one) and outside concepts that would take control over him (spooks). Your "self" is what. As far as religious beliefs, I don't know if an egoist by definition holds nothing above themselves.
There is no necessary advocacy of any political alignment, although you'll probably find more left-wing people talking about Stirner than right-wing. This is likely due to the fact that Karl Marx wrote a lengthy autistic rant about how much he hated Stirner's philosophy.
>preference
What do you mean by preference?
>>
>>128953197
with what i've read about crowley's work (sifting through the imbeciles that ironically make up for the majority of its present-day activity), the concepts presented here sound familiar (though far more poetic through the lens of crowley)
regarding preference:
http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=112
this writer often brings up the different forms of 'resistance' one might encounter. the difference between 'defining constraints' and 'restricting constraints' being those that are imposed on you in some form of external conditions versus those that are being unnecessarily invented and followed (spooks?)
i'm simply interested in determining the similarities and differences between the two, as stirner is completely new to me
>>
File: vaporwaving spooks.jpg (110KB, 777x437px) Image search:
[Google]
110KB, 777x437px
>>128954937
I'm not very familiar with Crowley enough to give you an exact answer, but from what I've ascertained I would say that the concepts are similar. Stirner focuses more on determining the differences between the individual's will and the will imposed by spooks, and then the egoist rejecting spooks in favor of their own will. He mentions only that the regular person (at his time, the Christian, or the Liberal) would be opposed to the egoist, he doesn't mention the specific resistances imposed by society as a whole.
>as stirner is completely new to me
I would recommend checking the links posted above, I have included two of Stirner's most well-known works as free pdfs. They sound similar in theory, but I'm going to assume Stirner would consider many of the societal restraints that Crowley brings up to be spooks.
>>
File: 1494060685489.png (125KB, 480x480px) Image search:
[Google]
125KB, 480x480px
>>128947310
nationalism requires a nation
sorry, but anarchist egoism is the wrong ethos
>>
File: stirner shitposts.png (227KB, 566x635px) Image search:
[Google]
227KB, 566x635px
>>128956419
The nation is the spook, unless you are proposing the grandest coincidence of all time... a Union of Egoists on the national scale?
>>
>>128958395
if everything is my property, the nation is a nonexistant ghost, and the nation is generally said to own its property, then everything that consents to my will without coercion or force is part of my nation
>>
File: 1494381702039.gif (401KB, 128x330px) Image search:
[Google]
401KB, 128x330px
>>128950013
A few more questions
What is Stirners conception of the self?
What is his relationship with Hegel and Dialectics?
>>
>>128934515
The ego is the biggest spook of them all.
>>
>>128960364
How can you place yourself above yourself?
>>
>>128960558
idk I just like to piss off stirnerfags.
>>
>>128960651
ah, Im might give that a try later on his/lit any advice?
>>
>>128960845
I haven't read his theory so idk lol.
>>
File: expected.jpg (156KB, 1338x556px) Image search:
[Google]
156KB, 1338x556px
>>128960015
The self, in Stirner's vision of egoism, represents the most basic and pure interests of the individual. It develops over time, much like a child growing up. He discusses this in more detail in Ego and His Own, but the gist is this:
>boy- the boy concerns himself with the physical world, he must play with toys and games in order to keep himself stimulated. He is told to believe in things by his parents, whom he believes are the highest authority.
>youth- The youth abandons the physical world in favor of the ideological world. He no longer sees his parents as infallible, and he may doubt what he was told to believe in. Nonetheless, he busies himself with ideologies and grand concepts. He will go to war for his nation, he will preach the bible to passersby, he will fight the good fight. He is more concerned about thought and "the next world" than the physical world, and he is influenced by spooks.
>man- egoism, the man thinks of and for himself. Some may call him selfish, but he is the master of himself and his world. He disregards the childish nature of the boy, and likewise has no use for the grand ideological illusions of the youth.
Stirner was associated with Hegel, more closely to Karl Marx's camp since marxism was left-wing and egoism rejected many right-wing concepts such as morality, religion, and nationalism. However, Marx disliked Stirner's egoism because it likewise declared class, communism, and "the will of the People" as spooks.
>>
>>128934515
I like morality, don't believe in God but I do have empathy. Morality is not a spook or bad thing, it makes groups able to work together.
>>
>>128961166
>The self, in Stirner's vision of egoism, represents the most basic and pure interests of the individual.
And just to be clear what is the individual in his understanding?
>Stirner was associated with Hegel, more closely to Karl Marx's camp since marxism was left-wing and egoism rejected many right-wing concepts such as morality, religion, and nationalism. However, Marx disliked Stirner's egoism because it likewise declared class, communism, and "the will of the People" as spooks.
Interesting, which of these figures was a more correct heglian?
Also what are the greatest counterarguments or flaws to Stirners philosophy?
>>
File: flaming ego.gif (150KB, 245x320px) Image search:
[Google]
150KB, 245x320px
>>128961864
The individual in his understanding is just the person, experiencing the world. He doesn't go into any great detail, it's assumed you already know what an individual is as compared to "the group." He rejected most forms of spirituality and religion, although he does refer to the egoist's will as the spirit, and sometimes calls spooks 'spirits' as well.. It could be a translation thing, he does a lot of wordplay that only makes sense if you know German and the popular references of the 1800s.
>Hegelian
Stirner was not a very typical Hegelian, I would go as far to say he was the least Hegelian of the group. His book garnered a lot of attention when it was released, by many different philosophical thinkers.
I've heard "but what about raising a proper family" as a counterargument to egoism, since the only real organizations in an egoistic world would be Unions of Egoists. If a family member felt that their self-interests were being denied in favor of the group's benefit, then they would leave the group. However, I would say that children do not have enough of a concept of themselves to leave, and an egoist would only father (or mother, I suppose) a child if they felt it was in their direct best self-interest. So it's not that much of a problem.
>>
File: man in the glass ego.jpg (720KB, 1000x1333px) Image search:
[Google]
720KB, 1000x1333px
>>128943623
>Will to power isn't a desire, its just a senseless, focusless will. Desire requires object of desire to function while will to power is pourpose to itself. It is something that everything stems from and something to which everything yearns.
>You should rad Schopenhauer before reading Freddy
No retard that's will to live. That's why you meantioned that pleb Schopenhauer
Will to Power is where go and desire come from.
You
re
so
vain
you probubly think this post is about you
dont you
dont you
>>
>>128963709
> He rejected most forms of spirituality and religion,
Is that a personal thing or a component of his philosophy?
>>
File: pacman vs spooks.png (100KB, 499x560px) Image search:
[Google]
100KB, 499x560px
>>128964786
Since his philosophy was about placing the individual's self-interest above all other concepts and institutions, it wouldn't make much sense for an egoist to believe in a higher power above himself.
>>
File: stirner.jpg (14KB, 384x384px) Image search:
[Google]
14KB, 384x384px
From memes, the end result of Stirnerism is being distrusted and hated by everyone for being an evil faggot.
You end up with a shitty, meaningless life.
Perhaps my understanding will change after reading him, but for now, physically remove all Stirnerfags.
>>
>>128966486
After reading this thread and scrolling to this as the last post, yeah. Looks like a bunch of infant cunts obsessing over their favourite philosophy of the year.
Not interested.
>>
>>128965104
Yeah but if you use that logic then things like gravity or hygene would be spooks
>>
File: anonsortyourselfout.jpg (40KB, 375x736px) Image search:
[Google]
40KB, 375x736px
>>128967127
I don't dismiss it casually, because the arguments are sound.
I have not been able to disprove Stirner, and he is definitely evil.
Perhaps Stirner accurately explained the methodology of rational evil, which makes him worth looking into, for the sake of avoiding evil people.
>>
>>128967498
What arguments? Meme pictures with a smoking black and white faggot? Convincing.
>>
>>128967319
"some “constraints” serve to restrict the will, and others serve to define it. A resistor may restrict the flow of electrical current, but if those electrons are not compelled to move through a well-formed circuit in the first place then there will be no current at all, and nothing to restrict"
>>
>>128967127
Jesus was an egoist you know, likewise most anyone who reaches self actualisation is regardless of their politics.
The memes are pretty misleading.
>>128967127
> Looks like a bunch of infant cunts obsessing over their favourite philosophy of the year.
What gives you that idea?
>>
>>128967883
No he wasn't you dumb cunt.
>>
>>128967819
But if a certain religion is indeed correct its laws and morals are just as true and hard as the movement of those electrons.
>>128967498
>he is definitely evil.
What do you consider evil to be?
>>
>>128967975
He was,
>I love men too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.”
Jesus was not bound by any duty and followed only his will to love others - this is a Stirnerite position
>>
>the bigger the ego...the smaller the intelligence.
>>
>>128964721
you're literally saying what I was saying and that is that there is no true desire and then you asked :
> what is will to power? >>128943063
then i explained and you wrote this confirming what I said
> Will to Power is where go and desire come from.
Tl, dr desire and will to power are not one and the same. Learn to read.
> you probubly think this post is about you
don't get it
Thread posts: 87
Thread images: 43
Thread images: 43