Maybe you don't, but many do hold the idea Egoism as higher than their egoism. And every belief is made in blind faith as it connotes that it is something you are unwilling to criticize. To me, they are one of the same. To have faith in something is to believe in it. That is my definition of the word and the common definition of the word. you state that belief is not to have faith in an idea, but has no basis in faith. To believe in something is to make it a fixed idea. The flag thing was a proposition, I am not even defending my stance on a flag, but this faggot's>>2540404.
Maybe take it up with that guy rather than a bored out of his skull OP that made a shitpost thread because he is avoiding doing any work.
Egoism and Individualism and Sankt Max
Anthony Powell
Camden Sanchez
narcissistic asshole
Kevin Wood
OK, now I'm 80 percent sure you didn't read the whole book. Let me quote Stirner for you.
Criticism is the possessed man’s fight against possession as such, against all possession: a fight which is founded in the consciousness that everywhere possession, or, as the critic calls it, a religious and theological attitude, is extant. He knows that people stand in a religious or believing attitude not only toward God, but toward other ideas as well, like right, the State, law; i.e. he recognizes possession in all places. So he wants to break up thoughts by thinking; but I say, only thoughtlessness really saves me from thoughts. It is not thinking, but my thoughtlessness, or I the unthinkable, incomprehensible, that frees me from possession.
Elijah Carter
In essence, what I'm trying to get at here is that because being a possessed man is not pleasant state is self-evident to me, it doesn't require much thought on the matter. "Belief/faith" don't even factor in at this point.
Colton Barnes
That I am. It feels warm inside. Like a nice spiced latte on an autumn day ~siiiip~
I am not following a dogma, if anything this is exactly what I am saying. Be critical of yourself and accept external criticisms and avoid grinding yourself into your own rut/dogma founded on fighting a dogma, be free of dogmas and the idea entirely, of any thou shalt. I was saying that you could draw the flag to be exactly what you are accusing me of being and the dogma of anti dogma.
Perhaps my use of the word belief is different, but I do not disagree with this statement and I don't see where conflict is arising here.
I'm honestly lost at where the disagreement here is. I'm just saying belief connotes possession by an idea, and I tend to use it in that sense so I avoid using it. I don't believe in going against belief.
Zachary Howard
I think it's gr8.
No. Great shitposting value though.
Joseph Martinez
Because his points are literally irrefutable. Bullet-proof argumentation, very well thought out.
The only thing assblasted people like Marx could do was strawman him.
Charles Brooks
I accept external criticism plenty. The problem is most of it is bad, or attempts to create problems where there is none, like my predilection to discard sacred objects. The point of criticism for me is to reach a point where the ideas no longer need to be turned over in the head and ruminated on. I am at that point. I don't believe in criticism for its own sake. Although I think Marx may have attacked Stirner for things that were outside the scope of the original text of "The Ego and its Own", I still think he brought up some interesting points.
You were saying the flag could be made sacred, but that doesn't mean it will. If a flag is used by an egoist, it's most likely only as a tool, if he understands the philosophy properly.
It can, but that's not the way I'm using it. There's a difference between sacred belief, and belief that as owner of thought I've been lead to.
Brayden Gomez
praise jesus
Nathan Johnson
This is true. Ultimately, all of us want to do things but belief requires us a justification, Stirner's point was that this justification AND the belief was a spook, and so people can just do what they want without either. The egoist anarchist can reject anything. Even if someone tells you they're going to reject Stirner's point, they'll either need a justification which proves they're spooked, or they'll reject him outright without a justification, which only proves Stirner is correct. Stirner makes a point about there being a distinction about the voluntary and involuntary egoists.