It literally makes no sense to care about ANYTHING else other than yourself and your comfort

solipsism can't be true, clearly the other fleshbags I inhabit this universe with are like me

t. retard

Long term planning is the only way to go, you're literally saying it's okay to cram your face with ice cream every day, who cares if you become fat?

No it doesn't. OP is just being stupid and shortsighted.

If your country goes to shit, your quality of life will worsen. That's against your self interest.
Even if it's happening too slowly for you to notice it, your kids will.
>but I won't have kids
Then you're stupid. Kids are by far the best support network you could hope for in your old age. Plus they bring you enough positive feels by their sheer presence (and so influence on your biological instincts) to make them worth the resource expense.

How can you be sure said fleshbags actually exist? Couldn't they be figments of your imagination?

If they were figments of my imagination they'd try to make my life easier, which they don't

>solipsism is false because people aren't helpful
I don't even.

Was Stirner some kind of worse version of Ayn Rand?

>implying It's possibl to intentionally do anything other than for your own comfort.

If you decide to do something that means you are doing it because you decide that the alternative would lower our pleasure function more.

checkmate

Why do you care what others think if it's all about you?

Anyway, I'll bite. Being conscious of others - your family, your friends, your colleagues, your society - is important for a variety of reasons.

First of all, if you're a selfish, intolerable piece of shit, nobody is going to like you. Nobody will want to be around you, nobody will want to help you. You'll be lonely, and even if you don't care about that, you'll have nobody you could ever ask for a favor. Why would anyone do you, the cunt who only cares about himself and never helps others, a favor?

When it comes to the larger society it gets foggier, but it's based on the same principle. You contribute something to your society (IE tax dollars, or if you're more active, your time) and in return you get some fruits. Security, firefighting, roads, whatever. It's a quid-pro-quo, it's mutually beneficial. The problem is it's such a big system at the state-level that you get dipshits who think they can get away with reaping the benefits without contributing to the system that provides it, and on the margins you can get away with it. So you think it's okay, because society hasn't fallen apart as a direct consequence of you being a selfish, lazy piece of shit.

All the above said, I also don't think people should take it to such an extreme that you're expected to make grand sacrifices for your nation. It's a trade, an arrangement, it's supposed to be a two way street. Loyalty to one's country shouldn't just be a given, the state has to earn it by good governance.

other way round

Ayn Rand is spooked beyond belief. They're really not compatible at all, philosophically.

Stirner pretty much just says be yourself. Rand makes being selfish a moral imperative.

Maybe people love their country and the things it brings them you dumb faggot.

So Stirner would be fine with altruism so long as you genuinely found it pleasurable/fulfilling etc.?

>so long as you genuinely found it pleasurable/fulfilling etc.?
More or less. Altruism is fine as long as you realize that you're doing it because it pleases you and not because you have a moral obligation to do it.

>Long term planning is the only way to go, you're literally saying it's okay to cram your face with ice cream every day, who cares if you become fat?
If the fatness only affected future generations and not me then your analogy would be barely appropriate.

Besides, what have future generations ever done for us?

>So Stirner would be fine with altruism so long as you genuinely found it pleasurable/fulfilling etc.?
Yes, he more or less says this specifically.

If they were projections of my imagination they'd either be cynical misanthropes or the exact opposite, but they're just boring. And my thoughts are anything but

>Couldn't they be figments of your imagination?
There is no evidence of this, "you can't know nuthin" of course, but applying occam's razor I can only assume they are real and not a part of me. I might as well put on my fedora and ask "do you believe in goblins and fairies too?"

What reason do I have to assume I am a brain in a jar?

>solipsism is false because people aren't helpful
>solipsism is false because you can't control people
Technically even certain regions of your brain are not a part of you and you have no control over it. Those parts could be removed surgically and you would still be a conscious being.

So, assuming I am a brain in a jar, it could be said that figments of my imagination being fed to my neo-cortex by other parts of my brain are technically not a part of me.

While you are right to say that this doesn't disprove solipsism, this is more a question of what consciousness is anyway.

>Besides, what have future generations ever done for us?
My mother took excellent care of my grandparents in their old age. She expects me and my sister to do the same for her and father. I expect my kids to do the same for me and my wife.
>uh I don't need that
Yes you do. Just wait until you're sixty and can't keep up with society anymore.

name a single of Ayn Rand's spooks

Individual rights.

>I might as well put on my fedora and ask "do you believe in goblins and fairies too?"
Actually that would be me. You can't know nothing, you have no real proof I exist, yet you're sure I do? Do you believe in unicorns and Santa too?
Let's just agree that solipsism is ultimately irrelevant but effectively unfalsifiable. Stirner wasn't a solipsist anyway, what he means is that the ego is the only thing that matters.

But what if the ego doesn't matter or holds you back?

>ITT: spookees that don't realize the self is inherently a spook

Nobody really does

Humans can only care about 200 people tops

False

Pretty sure it's about 100 actually, it's how we're wired up

Living for something greater than your ego gives more meaning to life than living solely for yourself.
"Spooks" are more fulfilling than solipsism.

Have a fun life having no friends, son.

not an argument

...

Go meme elsewhere

Yes, this is the idea I follow. This is the best philosophy to follow, the only based on the fewest social constructs.
The only thing that matters is oneself. Everything you do should be because it is for you, no point doing anything for strangers.

>implying caring about others is against one's self interest

>Implying my country doesn't provide me with a comfortable life.