So I'm looking to get radicalised and become the supreme egoist, but in doing so I'm afraid of two things.
1. If I adopt Stirner's world-view, I'm okay with huge corporations exploiting workers because the leaders of these corporations are just really good egoists
2. What stops another egoist from killing me in persuit of his self-interest? I know I wouldn't kill people but I can't say this for all the egoists
any Stirnirites care to help
Other urls found in this thread:
dialectics.org
hiaw.org
hiaw.org
dialectics.org
dialectics.org
questionofwill.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
theanarchistlibrary.org
theanarchistlibrary.org
theanarchistlibrary.org
twitter.com
No, adopting Stirner thought would mean you are okay with the workers seizing the MoP and killing porky, because it is in your interest unless you are porky yourself. You are confusing Stirnerism with Randism aka sociopath hero worship, here
Presumably sanction from other egoists that stand to benefit from your continued state of not being dead
Don't become a Stirnerfag OP…Stirnerags are worst than nazis. Stirnerfags are anti-social anti-humans.
The first discovery human being did all those thousands of years a go was that if we stick together our chances of survival increased. In this world, a man for himself is nothing and achieves nothing. Stirnerfags deny this!
You type like a boomer. Also Stirner did not deny cooperation.
Stirner literally said that people would work together because of their self-interest.
On your first point, I feel like it doesn't address that If my ambitions are not of instilling communism, but of acquiring wealth, then I have to be okay with big corporations and their leaders. Which I am not. However I also do not wish for communism.
No.
Stirner is tripe.
Go read an anarchist with an actual point to make instead of a counterrevolutionary spammed by fascists to "debunk" Marx.
Stirner literally argues against revolution. So radical. Much anarchy.
I don't think Stirner intended EaIO to be some sort of theory for organization of society. That would run counter to his ideas actually. It's more like a self-help book. You can be a communist and still incorporate some of its ideas into your personal philosophy
read the ego book ffs
stop using edgelord strawmen of stirners arguments in place of, you know, stirners arguments
You can't have a thread about Stirner without brainlets that don't know the basics of stirner throwing a fit
this
Stirner probably viewed political philosophy as a spook.
We just had a massively autistic Stirner thread, give it a rest m8.
Basically do stuff that's in your self interest and you're an egoist.
Congrats. Welcome to the club.
Anyone know of any other nominalists/conceptualists like Stirner?
got a link to it?
st*Rner is a spook
Is whats "natural" a fixed idea in Stirner's terms?
What about the "normal"?
Class is a spook
Please read the Ego and Its Own. There’s no such thing as a “stirnerist” and everyone in this thread, including you OP, is an egoist, conscious or not. Stirner isn’t for people shopping for an ideology (although most “egoists” are exactly that) he’s just a cool guy who wrote a funny book that laughs at self righteous pricks.
Praise Stirner
So… basically everyone's an egoist?
Would it be in my own self interest to commit suicide so I can not pay taxes, buy commodities, pay interest , and not be miserable anymore?
No, if you adopt Stirner's world view, you decide what you're okay with
How does you being an egoist change this?
from Zig Forums today lmao
Not really, no.
TIL: rapists are egoists
Being an egoist does mean accepting all views and actions nor does it mean having to have an affinity for all egoists/egoist behaviour.
Almost all of same things that stops a non egoist from killing you.
As with most things its more an issue of how you approach and relate to it than the thing itself, natural and normal and be fixed ideas or they can be a persons property it just depends on the person.
Unfortunately, you are going to be met with a lot of stupidity from people who completely misunderstand the nature of Stirner's work in much the same way that Marx is misunderstood in many liberal circles. While Marx is characterised as a supporter of a brand of left-fascist authoritarianism in which people must submit to the party line (or more generally to the collective), Stirner is seen as an individualist who wants rules to die. Case in point: we have retards like who don't fucking understand that the post(/s) which they're mocking is/are far closer to Communism than what many leftists believe in!
It is seemingly-unthinkable Stirner is a much better guide to the modern Marxian Communism than many so-called 'communists' but when one has a look at what he actually wrote - including the mechanism of his critique of what was Communism before much of Marx's development of it - one finds plenty of things which are striking. For starters, Stirner destroys the supremacy of morals, but he does not advocate the immediate dismissal of them:
Continuing because I'm not done here. First, another charge might be levelled: that taking control of our knowledge like this will lead us in arbitrary directions which may not necessarily be Communist. This is stupid unless Communism is solidified and turned into yet another thing which we have the tools to formally represent. In fact, Communism - being representative of historical self-consciousness - is obliged to be dialectical and recognise that it is as a result of reproducing the nature of human thought itself, which is deeply dialectical. Moreover, with the consideration of this specific accusation in mind, this dialectical logic is actually a very definite logic, for dialectical negation simply considers the qualitative oppositions which have not yet been knowingly accounted for in the course of a mapping out of thought ( dialectics.org
But what about Marx? What of this supposed arch-anti-Stirner? If anything, he is even more radical. Let us read: ( hiaw.org
Continuing again.
Continuing a third time. Nowhere am I saying that Marx and Stirner are the same. Stirner does not give as detailed an analysis of class-based antagonisms. He also accuses Stirner of breaking into solipsism:
Good posts
not deflating your conferring praise, but be careful engaging that user unless you're prepared for multi-post autistic responses
That reduces your freedom and egoistic potential. It would be better for them to be destroyed for you.
Your self-interest to defend yourself? If you can't defend yourself, then you won't be truly free.
Stirner is shit-tier. Capitalism and sociopathy are the perfect examples of his retardation put into practice.
Fantastic, user.
brainlets pls go
Marx was kinda a brainlet on this part, he accuses Stirner of dethroning an emperor by not belieivng in his power but contrary, Stirner just says the power over his mind is a spook. The 'emotional response' set up is a strawman.
You made gr8 posts there, my property.
Your brain is a spook.
This is Marx accusing Stirner of being a solipsist (and possibly a subjectivist) in terms of the metaphysics that Marx says Stirner seems to suggest. For Marx, Stirner's 'man' (as opposed to the youth) is concerned not with the general and intersubjective reality of what is spectral for the youth (the example he gives is the Emperor), but rather his sole relation to what he once thought to be spectral. This implies that the Stirnerian man's knowledge of the real, despooked world is incomplete and that Stirner veers close to crude individualism. Marx writes in response to correct Stirner:
stirner would point out that reason is the source of spooks
This is true: we do not know of any 'ultimate' kind of knowledge, hence at every 'level' of reason above a given system or artefact of knowledge and above, that system or artefact of knowledge is spectral. This is true for anything which cannot justify itself - all such ideas depend on something else to be justified, hence all are spectral. Myths are spectral for religions; religions are spectral for philosophies (we find Stirner operating at this level); philosophies are spectral for sciences and so on. See: ( dialectics.org
What do you guys think of this perspective I've come up with:
Stirner's point of view may or may not make a desirable ethical system for a socialist, but it is the ethical system a socialist must imagine the citizens of socialism to live under. In other words, socialists seek to establish a society that can be fully egoist, while not necessarily being an egoist himself. He seeks to establish a way of organizing society where spooks have become unnecessary, and people can simply engage in egoist unions with one another as they please.
Another way to frame it would be as egoism + solidarity. We suppose that egoism is the natural and sensible ethics for a person to follow, and then try to reshape the world around us so that everyone can enjoy this ethical system. It is very much related to the Kantian categorical imperative for me. Instead of simply being out for yourself, you choose to protect other people's interests as rational egoists equally.
Even an egoist could follow this precept, given that he feels some deep sense of empathy and solidarity towards his comrades. Or maybe he wishes to be on the best possible terms with them, because they may then in turn want to benefit him. Or maybe he finds a satisfaction in rationally organizing society because of the fact that humans are in essence, a political animal, as Aristotle put it. Strengthening the egoistic reach of your neighbors may be an excellent way of expressing yourself in your society, the most meaningful kind of labor a human can engage in.
For me it is mostly the latter reason. I see it as a kind of reproduction of my own being in the entirety of our social system. It is hard to imagine something more egoistic. Yet, at the same time, I do feel a strong empathy to others. There is great potential everywhere in society that I would like to see unchained.
To directly answer your questions:
1. If you are a leader of these corporations, perhaps. It seems more likely to me that you would simply accept these corporations as a part of the world you find before you, and utilize them to shape life to your benefit. Unless you feel like expressing yourself in the social and economic conditions of society at large, you simply wouldn't care about wealthy capitalists. In themselves they are nothing to you. In practice they may become enticing opportunities or obstacles. That is all.
2. Unlikely. Under what circumstances would another human being benefit from your death? It is likely that this would make other people view him as dangerous, and give them reason to remove him from their society. Maybe you would be part of an egoist union that offers you protection against such maniacs. Further, murdering a person is an extremely unpleasant thing to do, people who feel drawn to it are invariably mentally disturbed, by definition almost. Again, it is likely that you would be protected / protect yourself, from such individuals.
In real life, "spooks" are most often the root cause of murderous feelings in mentally healthy people. Thus, an egoist society would see considerably less murders.
To address the first part of your post:
And why not any other? You're saying that people would default to this under socialism, how would you back up this claim? If anything, it is far likelier that they'll be clinging onto some doctrinaire moral framework, approximating the Communist programme as being related to it in some way. One must also remember Communism is itself a doctrinaire programme at the level of religion but based on philosophical, scientific and 'psychohistorical' theory (see ). You might be making a more subtle point that we should assume that all religions eventually end up in egoisms and that Communists must grasp this, or at least the common factors between doctrinaire bodies of knowledge. It is actually the case that we have to account for reasoning at all known levels. For this, we have Marxism.
Spooks are as yet unavoidable. Stirner's point is that we are the masters of whatever is spectral; none of the artefacts of reason need to be outside an individual; progressing from him to Marx means generalising this to all possible groups of humans. This is empirically-verified based on a lack of empirical claims to suggest that reason can be reduced to the same kind of formal algorithms which we find in conscious animals ( questionofwill.com
I have long held that even subjectivist egoism necessarily leads to Communism as a result of mutual aid, but this is simply at the level of scientific ideology since such explanations are reducible to matters which concern beings which we can formally represent (i.e. 'at closest' to humans, non-rational social animals) and not humans, who escape all formalisms just as reason itself does. Strict empirical science does not suffice here; only Marxism can provide a useful explanation. That we are to be rational if we are to truly maximise our freedom was not, I believe, unknown to Kant. Egoism necessarily transforms into an adherence to the strictest and most developed reason - hence it leads through the sciences into Marxism from its own development, driven by its self-approximation and self-negation. Reason is irreducible to any one being or group hence individual freedom transforms into collective freedom and the reverse process occurs in thought too, hence the Communist identity is in fact the uni-category of both, representing the destruction of the dichotomy between the two ( 1.bp.blogspot.com
it depends on how much you value your own life.
if you're asking someone else you fail at egoism
Even if that's true Marx forgets the ultimate conclusion of egoism in that the egoist doesn't have to accept the world or even Marx's criticism despite whatever grounds it has to be on, even if it is solipsism or crude individualism. It's a case of "your word v.s mine" applied to the world. Besides, even if that weren't true, solipsism isn't necessarily a bad philosophy, Marx just seems butthurt it doesn't agree with him but doesn't refute the grounds of solipsism itself and so he resorts to a type of philosophical chauvinism which relies on a personal hatred of solipsism itself to 'persuade' the reader; can you prove to me you aren't a figment of my imagination, how do I know you outside of my senses if you truly are a material thing in itself? a moving object?
Also, did you make sure to read Stirner's critics?
There's a name for this philosophy; en.wikipedia.org
This is the state of Zig Forums in 2018
You're viewing things within politics. You would not be okay with CEOs exploiting you, but you'd be okay with exploiting others.
I haven't read stirner, but from what I've heard people talk about, it doesn't sound like anything I already don't know.
Did I get it right? Is it really that retarded? I don't wanna read the book if i don't have to…
No, you have to read the book.
What's the concencus on illegalism?
Because it would be useless to assume that one's mind is the only mind - for that matter, nothing else might exist. Where did the thoughts in one's mind come from? Just because someone says something doesn't mean that they're correct.
Excuse me, but: en.wikipedia.org
If I wanted to read The Ego and its Own should I read Stirner's Critics first? Also I heard there's a new translation that is better than the old one. Anyone care to confirm/deny?
I see Stirner's egoism as a revolution of the mind. I fully recognize that this makes me not an actual egoist, since I accept egoism on a descriptive level, but not a normative one. However, I also think this is essentially the same way leftist Stirner followers like Emma Goldman and Peter Kropotkin took him.
It's critical to throw off the limiting beliefs that hold us back, to see through the illusions. This is a very Zen concept, and one that Stirner articulates very well. I strongly recommend egoists check out Dogen's Soto school of Zen.
lol saved
As someone's whose read the entirety of Stirner's works, you should read these first or you're going to get the wrong idea:
theanarchistlibrary.org
then; theanarchistlibrary.org
Then move onto the main work: theanarchistlibrary.org
^This is the old version but it holds up just as well Wolfi Landstreicher released an updated translation but I haven't read it yet.
Anarcho-communism is compatible with egoism. If we destroy capitalism and everyone forms a union of egoists while regardeding their own labour as theirs and freely associating with eachother without domination, at that point how is it any different than ancomism?