Debate Stirner

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/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

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?

Attached: 29313365_1996122810417715_6726845540694228992_n.jpg (698x658, 66.57K)

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/library/stirner-the-wise-guy
then; theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-philosophical-reactionaries

Then move onto the main work: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
^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?