Is atheism necessary for the unique one?

How's that Egoism than?

Yes and no.

Yes in the case of an anthropomorphized god who requires prayer or another form of servitude, as there would no doubt be a clashing of interests between yourself and your deity's wishes.

No in the case of a Deistic, impersonal god that created/sustains the world and requires no allegiance whatsoever, allowing your ego to do as it pleases.

>I was only 9 years old
>I loved Stirner so much, I had all the treatises and recensions
>I pray to Stirner every night before bed, thanking him for the life I've given myself
>"Stirner is love" I say; "Stirner is life"
>My dad hears me and calls me a radical bourgeois
>I know he was just jealous of my devotion for my cause and my property
>I called him an involuntary egoist
>He slaps me and sends me to go to sleep
>I'm crying now, and my face hurts
>I lay in bed and it's really cold
>Suddenly, a warmth is moving towards me
>It's Stirner
>I am so happy
He whispers into my ear "What I have in my power, that is my own."
>He grabs me with his powerful unique hands and puts me down onto my hands and knees
>I'm ready
>I spread my ass-cheeks for Stirner
>He penetrates my butt-hole
>It hurts so much but I do it for myself
>I can feel my butt tearing as my eyes start to water
>I push against his force
>I voluntarily want to please Stirner
>He roars in a mighty roar as he fills my butt with his love
>My dad walks in
>Stirner looks him straight in the eyes and says "I have made Nothing my cause."
>Stirner leaves through my window
>Stirner is love. Stirner is life.

No, no, rephrase it like this.
>I'm going to do stuff that appears to others that is good and in the bible so that if hell does (on the off chance) that it does exist that I won't go there, and I will do it on my own volition.

No, as that would be imposing an artificial constraint on the unique one, trying to force yourself to not believe for the sake of being "genuine" is spooky behavior.

Good to see your reading of him has improved, I recall early on in this boards history you argued that Stirner's creative nothing was God and based on references to Greek Mythology.

To clarify the point that poster was trying to make if you practice the faith and its tenants because it is something that you enjoy/comes naturally to you then yes you are being an egoist, however if you feel yourself committed (or under some moral obligation) to act that way irrespective of your feelings you are spooked.

>I'm going to do what the Bible tells me so that I can avoid going to hell.

When it comes to understanding Stirner and the Tripfags example of the devil here its helpful to use the relationship ones has with the state as an analogy.

We live in a state based society, accordingly the egoist tends to obey the laws of the state because if not they will face punishment. Hence they ascribe no legitimacy to the state or its laws and feel no compulsion to obey them outside of the states ability to compel them to. (for example the egoist would not feel any guilt for driving through a red light on an empty road or say sheltering persecuted people). Accordingly you would be considered a bad citizen.

Now when it comes to the religion example he used you have the same relationship as the devil does with God; you don't acknowledge God as being legitimate you only acknowledge him as being more powerful.

Given that most branches of Christianity require you to see him as legitimate not just powerful you run into trouble.
For the same reason why the relationship advice of "being yourself" is valid. His book is 500 pages of that effectively. The other reason is that like Neitzche, Hume, Aquinas/Aristotle his ideas can be used to smash common conceptions about reality

>I recall early on in this boards history you argued that Stirner's creative nothing was God and based on references to Greek Mythology.
I said its was Chaos (which translates as "void"), which is what the Greeks thought reality came from. That's pretty much the opposite of the Christian concept of God.

Yeah which is why I didn't say something like "Constantine said that Stirner was a crypto Christian"

That said was my expansion of your example accurate to your intentions?

Has anyone read the Cambridge edition of his work? Is it different than the other editions annotation wise?

Exactly, he simply disowns god whether he's real or not and labels him as an egotistic asshole regardless.

egotistic = asshole my spooked friend

bump

> I recall early on in this boards history you argued that Stirner's creative nothing was God and based on references to Greek Mythology.
Early on in this boards history, Constantine was an entirely different person that this guy waifufagged so hard, he scared her off the board, and he decided to take her trip and wear it, like Buffalo Bill.

>the unique one?

what do you mean by that?

Is egoism a spook?

No, it's the farthest you could get from a spook.

Our atheists are pious people

>live your life like this because you read it in a book
>not a spook

>i learned what a spook means from memes and have never read Stirner

read the bible next

Kek

kek'd louder than i should have

Following Christianity is definitely out of the picture, since it's foremost command is "love God ahead of yourself."

Not exactly, and not all religions are out of the picture either. Something along the lines of modern neo-paganism, in which you don't have to place the gods ahead of yourself are entirely within the realm of possibility.

Did Stirner plagiarize Emerson?
His entire philosophy seems like it could have come from Emerson's Essay of Self-Reliance.
> Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.

That being from the essay.

The spooks should fear the egoists

Yes. Stirner tells you to be your own man and not bother with what other people think; if you follow this advice, then you have disobeyed, if you disobeyed it, then you have followed it; it's a contradiction which really makes stirner irrelevant if not the biggest asshole ever (which I guess was his point) as I said here everything stirner said was first said by Emerson.
emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm

It reminds me of a dialogue I once observed between members of my debate team.
>Person A insults person B
>Person C says to person B "are you going to stick up for yourself?"
>Person A says to person B "are you going to let person C tell you what to do?"