Give me one rational argument against Stirner's egoism that isn't based on blind faith in societal values or religion

Give me one rational argument against Stirner's egoism that isn't based on blind faith in societal values or religion

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Gp-rIfsoCoU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>he's a materialist
lol

N-No... t.. this is the power of reading Wikipedia?!

there is none, he BTFO moralfags forever.

>rational argument
>one line of greentext
lol

>implying rational arguments aren't spooks

Well, no one's read him, so that's a win for you by default.

>rationality
lol

If you actually love something/someone, you aren't able to just discard it as soon as it no longer serves your interests.

Stirner's idea of the Ego as a Creative Nothing is not logically coherent, and what is not logically coherent cannot be a basis for Ethics or Epistemology as he sees it. The question of Ultimate Reality, Being and the Subjective Self is not properly discussed in his works in a way that would be compatible with what we know now about the universe and human evolution. I would be hard pressed to find any reason to follow his dictates with consideration of the behavior of tribes, collectives and large societies taken into consideration as well. Exactly how does one not cause global genocide the moment an egoist decides that he owns the Korean Peninsula and wants to rearrange it with H-Bombs? How does one prevent an egoist from raping their kids or stealing from their cupboard? The union of egoists is predicated upon a whole population being familiar with his ideas, which are not at all self-evident (a very poor way of selling presuppositions such as his), therefore no matter how attractive the arguments he makes and no matter how much I agree with his claims I cannot ultimately recommend or see as actionable any of the conditions that would be actualized by the Union of Egoists.

Additionally, I would consider his ideas a kind of personal heuristic for behavior but not something I'd want others to know I was using to guide my actions. Again he seems to not understand the evolutionary instincts we've developed that go against his wishes

>muhhh lawwwwjikkkkkk
Oh look, a philosophic illiterate. kys please
>muh le science
K
Y
S

You are the kind of person who gives philosophy a bad name.

Good. My aim is to tear it down.

>How does one prevent an egoist from raping their kids or stealing from their cupboard?

Well gee wizz I never thought of. It sure is swell that today we have no rape or bombings of the Korean Peninsula because there are no egoists around! We better keep that ol' devil Max "Baby rape is ok with me" Stirner away!

You know mai boi you remind me of a great quote.

youtube.com/watch?v=Gp-rIfsoCoU

>Non-arguments

That's already been done, you're beating a dead horse. I'm sure you'll be a successful professor of philosophy at a minor American university sometime in the next couple decades.

I'm not American. Try again.

>loving someone isn't serving your interests
use ur brain man

And what happens if the person you love is bad for you?
Reprogram your emotions?

>arguments are good

Stirner reads like a book written by some dude missing a part of his head. Like good description of the world is based on half-truth but his views on empathy tray or like it's nonexistent, which seems like a pretty big innacuracy. And considering the only thing we know about him is that he was made fun of for a weird forehead shape, I'm still sticking with my "missing frontal lobe" theory

retard

Empathy doesn't exist.
>truth
Doesn't exist.

There is a coherance to it in the sense that he takes the deconstruction of the humanists and takes it to its logical conclusion.

>xactly how does one not cause global genocide the moment an egoist decides that he owns the Korean Peninsula and wants to rearrange it with H-Bombs?
His brand of egoism doesnt mandate anti social behavior.

...

You're clearly a newfag

>Neechee say science bad so I say science bad lol

he didn't say Science is bad you fucking faggot, he had critiques for scientific types and didn't believe in objective truth or morality

It can be, but when you allow yourself to fall in love you're basically letting yourself get spooked and betting that it will turn out in your favor, because if you break up or she dies or you have to make big sacrifices for her, you won't be able to shrug it off with "a-all things are n-nothing to me." Basically I'm saying the following isn't possible:
>I am not unselfish so long as the end remains my own, and I, instead of giving myself up to be the blind means of its fulfillment, leave it always an open question. My zeal need not on that account be slacker than the most fanatical, but at the same time I remain toward it frostily cold, unbelieving, and its most irreconcilable enemy; I remain its judge, because I am its owner.
The more zealous your love it, the less power you have to get rid of it.

>The more zealous your love it
*is

Lmao my parents are just blinded by spooks

I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT

>I can kill them, not torture them
what did he mean by this?

Torturing is for moralizers that are interested in 'justice', 'penance', or 'retribution'. When Stirner kills someone it is simply because he doesn't like having them alive.

>Thinking that power over ones attitude to ideas = worldly power
>Ouch

love is a spook

I never thought I would be saying this, but Humanitiesfags are almost more annoying than STEMfags at this point.

Becuase spooks exists to serve the ego. The whole reason we have morality is becuase we prefer to have it than not have it. The spook that all spooks needs to be abandoned is the metaspook to spook all spooks.

>The spook that all spooks needs to be abandoned is the metaspook to spook all spooks.
And funnily enough one that he argues against in his book with his notion of "property".

...