If humans are natural egoists as Stirner said...

If humans are natural egoists as Stirner said, and that all "selfless" acts are really acts of egoism for physiological satisfaction and validation, how does Stirner explain sacrificing oneself, for people you love or for a noble cause you believe in. To die is to remove any form of satisfaction or gain through good deeds or bad. How can everybody be an egoist if people will die for causes they believe in and people they love?

did you read stirner?

Yes. Did you?

>a noble cause you believe in.

yes. he doesnt at all hodl the view you've given him

He does, he believes that everybody is a natural egoist, and all supposed acts of selflessness are really egoist acts in disguise i.e. spooks.

no, he doesn't

I suppose the immense amount of satisfaction in living on through others’ memories is what drives people to do that. Stirner can still be considered correct, even in this case, because the person making the sacrifice does not believe that they will truly die. They will only die physically; their spirit will live vicariously through those who remember them.

you gauge the pleasure that sacrificing yourself for a SO or a "noble" cause as greater than the potential cost. no inconsistency there

Then what does he believe?

To die for a loved one, you will eventually die from memory. This is not necessarily a grand event that will go down in history. But simply an act of love. That person will die and so you will eventually die, eternally forgotten.

Not everybody follows a cause for pleasure, but how can one have pleasure if he is dead?

No you didn't. Your answer is right there on the first fucking page.

Stop making threads about books you havn't read. I know you want (you)s but there are less stupid ways of doing it

>i can't provide a counter argument so i'll just tell you to get educated doooooode

Wrong.

What is it with you lit fags and not understanding how to debate?

You know why i can tell you are a pussy?
You have no concept whatsoever of glory/vainglory.

Why save my own ass an be remembered as a coward,when i can steal all the glory trying to save my squadmates, or striking a decisive blow to the opposition.

Soldiers are ment to look beyond pain, what lies beyond pain is glory and sadism.

No glory for the forgotten dead.

From what i hear people who save lives are often compelled to act. The self doesnt even seem to come into play. Other than (hopefully) unyielding desire to win.
Athletes fuck themselves up hardxore for the game. Competition though appears to be a social construct to me.

> explain sacrificing oneself, for people you love or for a noble cause you believe in
Terror management theory

>Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist ... in short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, and abases himself (combats his egoism), but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of "being exalted", and therefore of gratifying his egoism. Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake... [on] this account I call him the involuntary egoist. ...As you are each instant, you are your own creature in this very 'creature' you do not wish to lose yourself, the creator. You are yourself a higher being than you are, and surpass yourself ... just this, as an involuntary egoist, you fail to recognize; and therefore the 'higher essence' is to you – an alien essence. ... Alienness is a criterion of the "sacred".

Go join your community college debate club, pseud.

>believe in and people they love
Those are egoistic things. Even if just habits and unconscious appeasement of your biology.

To avoid the immense sense of guilt of not doing it, it may be irrational but so are humans. Also sometimes love requires an ultimate sacrifice even if it's for oneself as love is egoistic. It's how we 'do the right thing' even if it doesn't cause us immediate pleasure, just on a grander scale. The knowledge that one is good is far more important than temporary pleasure.

>debating someone who didn't read the material
Come on senpai

>To die for a loved one, you will eventually die from memory. This is not necessarily a grand event that will go down in history. But simply an act of love. That person will die and so you will eventually die, eternally forgotten.
Read The Denial of Death. Becker goes into a lot of detail about how nobody, even if they are aware they are going to die, do not truly BELIEVE they are going to die and so they act as if they make "selfless" sacrifices as if they were immortal. It's hard to explain but if you give his book a read it just amplifies Stirner's point exponentially

read the book.