Seriously, how do you prove him wrong?

NEGATION OF EGO IS NOT A PRINCIPLE OF BUDDHISM; TRANSCENDENCE OF EGO IS A PRINCIPLE OF BUDDHISM.

YOU ARE IGNORANT.

>TRANSCENDENCE OF EGO IS A PRINCIPLE OF BUDDHISM.
What is transcending?

The very act of denial presupposes the ego.

You'd basically have to prove some notion of realism in regards to ideas, essentially you'd have to solve the problem of universal. Stirner's whole point is that the ideas that we attempt to subvert our ego towards aren't things of substance, whereas we can be fairly certain that our own existence is something of substance (at least to us), so being concerned with that first is the most rational position to take (though rationalism is itself just another idea).

I thought the idea was that everyone was already concerned with that first, it's just that some people were concious of it and others were unconcious of it, and the degree of awareness of their actual motivations influenced their behaviour within that framework.

Stirner's view on psychological egoism is more complicated than that. The general idea is that if it's something you "want" to be doing, you're serving your ego, but if it's something against your immediate will, you can be considered going against your self-interest.

An example he brings up is of a woman giving up a lover because her family doesn't like him, he ultimately considers it motivated out of filial piety rather than egoism.

the same thing as negating the ego

buddhism is ego denying

Right, but in that case my understanding was that since "filial piety" has no independent existence outside of the woman and her family, when she serves that particular spook she is already acting to please herself, because she derives pleasure from considering herself pious. Now, she could likely derive greater pleasure from not serving the spook of "filial piety," or from understanding that it is simply a spook or by making a conscious choice to make the concept her property instead of serving it unconsciously, but at a basic level she and everyone are always pleasing their ego in some way with differing levels of efficiency.

If even those ideas are of substance, why should the ego serves these ideas? I thought that Striner's point wasn't so much that these ideas do not exist but that these ideas should not trump your ego

pleasure derived from serving a spook is badwrong pleasure

>idealism is true and mateiralism is wrong/bad

get a load of this dumb faggot

>What is transcending?

true, there is no transcendence. but that's something mr shouts-a-lot doesn't grasp yet.

WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING?

I have little understanding of Stirner but isn't his reasoning just a dead end?

If everything is a spook, then why not just end it all? Why even bother to write? It's almost circular

Because fuck it, you'll get more dopamine rushes alive than dead

Why end it all? Why is the only response to a lack of external/eternal meaning suicide?

technically buddha didn't affirm or deny the existence of ego, he kind of dodged the question on purpose. from a practical/everyday/conventional perspective, the ego does of course exist: it is a combination of things(skandhas) which make it recognisable to us as ego. but from a deeper perspective it doesn't exist in the sense that it has no independant existence outside of those things (just like any other object or thing in existence).

>so being concerned with that first is the most rational position to take (though rationalism is itself just another idea).

Yes, therein lies the whole point of his philosophy as a means of liberation to creative being.

You do realize that writing your nonsens in caplock wont make it more reasonable right?

WHAT? FUCK

ego is definitively a spook.
It's a cognitive system that forms from interactions with the world, probably some kind of neurological process that form networks of influential memories that is probably controlled by some kind of nueroprocess that has evolved to form a concept of self, I'm no neuroscientist, but damn, imagine what kind of epic story the evolution of self awareness, behavior and it's ecosystem Have to tell.
Man I'm way off topic I forgot what I was even replying to.
I've been vaping on the #dank yo,
I'm a fish btw, and yeah I brows Veeky Forums
NO I will not show you my genital papilla

>Stirner's view on psychological egoism is more complicated than that. The general idea is that if it's something you "want" to be doing, you're serving your ego, but if it's something against your immediate will, you can be considered going against your self-interest.

>just be urself, follow your desire

what a chad

We're getting into territories of egoism that may as well be "follows the laws of physics." He doesn't consider it egoistic because it's not really something she wants to be doing. To contrast this might be a Christian giving to charity because it makes them feel good, it's something they'd like to be doing and they dress it up in a non-egoistic guise.

There's a reason he's considered an influence on existentialism.

>The Existential Problem & Religious Solution
youtube.com/watch?v=iw36V_iXR2k
youtube.com/watch?v=jkh2TXCHpNs

>The Laws of Nature
youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

>Mere Christianity
youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>The Origin (or 1,2,3,4)
youtube.com/watch?v=tw9biRRv_bM

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>The Rival Conceptions of God
youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

>The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A

>Why I Am Not a Pacifist
youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo
youtube.com/watch?v=jreq3mVvDgc

>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

>Sexual Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI

That was easy.

I dream, that someday, there will exist a world where you'll just make the arguments yourself, you lazy turd.

Also
>morality is objective because the nazis are evil LMAO
Apply yourself.

>the laws of nature
, had a good cringe.
Nigga needs to learn about entropy and synergetics lmao

HAAhahaa these are completely retarded

best baiter I have seen in a while
I can always rely on an user named
ري هقوص R Y · H V Q V S give supply the keks

Fair enough. But is more what I was tying to say.

>the only thing that not a spook is the ego
>the ego turns out, is a spook

But Stirner points out the ego as a spook, he calls it ''the creative nothing''.

Because I don't care whether something is a spook or not, I care about whether it allows us to co-operate, tell the truth, suppress free riding and as a result of those things, succeed. Whether something is a spook is of absolutely no concern to me.

How would you really argue with any worth that you (your own self) don't exist?

>C.S. Lewis

You took my words, fagglet user.

not at all

how can choosing to follow your brain's whims, as opposed to being robotically driven by them, be inauthentic? if anything impulse control is all by denying the ego for the observer's ego ( who is observing the will of the ego )

you can go about arguing that the superego is the extant control but then how does one affirm logically conclusions that go against your super ego? basically spltting them up into those segments is pretty dumb in the first place

Now that I'm not nodding off. I actually think I was on to something big here.

The ego is just a neural network of memories that have been influential in understanding self awareness. It's I network in a panarchy, it only exists as an institution.

Let me use my favorite pic related to explain this
Here the bottom layer is perception, either information from the outside world, or information from abstractions produced in the next layer.
the middle layer can be viewed as the self, the seat of reason, what it does is reason the information being interpreted, and then it moves on to the next layers which is memory.
The middle reasons with information from both perception and from memory. But how does it reason?
That is where the ego comes in. As the middle reasons the mind it takes the form of the information it processes. neural networks connect imporant memories about self awareness, rules, , after all interpreted from perception from the filter of the "memories of your experience that are used as a processor to reason the information that being interpreted from the environment/ abstracted from memory, influenced by biochemical signals.
This processor quickly becomes your ego, because it is how you reason, it is the vessel you use to interact with the world.
This isn't a real representation of you.
It's is a mental institution, no, more like a heuristic to veiw the world with, a spook.

Now what happens when the middle layer is wiped clean and the memory and perception are left to be reasoned without being filtered through the lens of ego.
It's ego death, I've experienced it several times while saturating my brain with psychedelics, apparently heavy meditation works too.
What happens is any concept of myself is completely lost but I still know everything I know, you see things with true pragmatism, once i was contemplating property ownership while on ego death. It didn't make sense. Still doesn't

This is in line with the philosophy of the mind I favor aswell.
The spread mind theory.
The brain just interprets, reasons, and remembers information. The information is code, not ones and zeros, it's memories of experiential phenomenon.
The programmer is the mind, the mind is the external world being interpreted by sign relations that are a programing language, our gentics are the operating systems.
The mind is external
The brain is a biocomputer
The ego is just the user-interface