Redpill me on Stirner, Veeky Forums

Redpill me on Stirner, Veeky Forums.

What are the arguments against Stirnerian Egotism?

>What are the arguments against Stirnerian Egotism?

There are none. Stirner is the logical conclusion to philosophy.

I heard that Hegel was the logical conclusion to philosophy, and that Stirner, Marx and Bakunin represent a shift from just interpreting the world to being an active subject.

There are none that aren't just Ideologues shitting themselves and misinterpreting Stirner's work.

There aren't really any, but there also isn't a huge argument to be made in favour of it. You either consider the self to be the focal point of your existence or you don't, and in a Stirnerian sense you're probably still the center of your own existence, you're just not owning up to it even if you choose to reject egoism.

The whole concept of Stirnerian egoism has very little in common with what we would consider egoism in the usual sense. It's more akin to Jean-Paul Sartre's notion of radical freedom than it does any egoism that would familiar to us from Ayn Rand. In choosing Stirner's egoism,, you acknowledge that the resting point of all of your decisions is yourself, you're never really obligated to do anything: you simply prefer the alternative less to what you're doing. Acknowledging this fact leaves you in a position to assess your state of affairs and consider alternate possibilities that you may not have considered when believing yourself obligated to do otherwise. Rejecting this egoism and your own freedom of choice is basically lying to yourself (Stirner calls this involuntary egoism, Sartre calls it living in bad faith), and in the end you can still only act as you see fit.

So you can either go with it or not, it doesn't really matter either way.

>logical conclusion to philosophy
user, why don't you think for your self a little. You can read all the books you want; you will just be an autistic researcher of philosophy as history.

I said that "I heard", not that it was my belief. Please don't bully me!

...

Thinly veiled foolishness.

>Redpill me on Stirner
Mainstream morality identifies an ill of the world and proposes some moral for people to follow to remedy it. Stirner posits the inverse, if the masses were unspooked it would be very difficult to oppress them and if they have any inclination towards being a good person they will have a better idea of what's good.

>What are the arguments against Stirnerian Egotism?
A proven scientific theory is not a spook, it follows that other ideas with a decent basis are not spooks either. Like many leftists, Stirner is dimissive of certain cold hard logical truths about our world and so their systems often fall apart after the revolution. Instilling individualism among the "proletariat" is one thing, however if afterwards they do not respect each other's individual rights they will end up deferring to a "people's republic" or some other spooky entity.