Why should I care about you?

It's called a condom

"if"

I am the substance of the question.

...

Is it just me or has this thread been made three times in the last day?

Does the flagellant not adore the whip?

Well I'm alive and you're not

>QueerVanguard
Literally didn't even bother reading.

> not realising wanting to make babby is out of love

kill yourself desu

Because the self/other distinction is a spook.

no it isnt lol the ego is the actual

Le all of you are le spooks I'm so clever xD

Everything is le spook if I disagree with it

>Stirner
Didn't even bother reading.

t. hasn't read Stirner

awesome pic

reading is a spook and so are you

"Whiteness" is a spook

Memes aside, is there a valid rebuttal to Stirner?

It comes down to which axioms you want to accept.

the spook itself is a spook.

I really wish people would fucking read Stirner before they talk about him.

1. "Spook" refers to "fixed ideas" that attempt to control people and make them act outside of their interests, or based on things other than the world around them. Stirner was concerned that, for instance, the ideal of "humanity" could distract people from the actual human beings around them, or that the idea of "freedom" could be used to impose tyranny. After all, if you're actually free, nobody has to tell you.

2. Stirner didn't believe in morality in the sense of "rules imposed by society," but he did have a kind of ethics, in that deep down, you're a unique person, and you have desires and things you love and hope for, and given that you want to be happy, it follows that you should do certain things.

3. "The Unique" (which is often unfortunately translated as 'ego' despite it not being an accurate translation) refers to the fact of each thing in the universe being unique. When he says something is his property, he means that it is a property of him, as a unique thing in the universe. If I say that I care for you and you are my property, I mean that I care about you, and thus, my relationship of caring with you is a property of me, not that you are a thing over which I have (or ought to have) absolute power. In fact, Stirner thought slavery was nonsensical because the fact that the slave felt pain when whipped proved that his or her body was still his or hers.

4. Stirner actually wrote in "Stirner's Critics," a response to many criticisms people had made of "Der Einzige Und Sein Eigentum" that he felt a great love for all people; he just didn't feel like he was obligated to.

5. The Unique can be thought of as like the Tao, in that he didn't argue that people necessarily had an "essential self" but just that everything in the universe is its own thing, a part of the whole but also real. In fact, he once said "The Unique is just a name, and not the true Unique."

>slave feels pain proving it's' still his body.
Question if I drug someone before raping them so they dont feel pain am I violating another person's unique?

The point wasn't about who's being violated. He wasn't arguing that it's wrong to enslave someone in any objective sense (though I do think he seemed disgusted by slavery). Just that ultimately their body is still theirs since they're the ones who feel pain in it when whipped, and they're the ones who make it do the movements, even if they're following orders.

If you drugged someone and then raped them, that would just be the material facts of what happened. Drugging them deprives them of control of their body to some extent, for a period of time. You'd definitely be affecting them in some way. But you don't have a unique, you ARE the Unique. It refers to the being-a-unique-thing-in-a-specific-time-or-place of literally anything in the universe, from a rock to a puddle of cat piss to you. The rock is fully the rock and has rock properties. The puddle is exactly what it is. You are exactly what you are, but are told that some of what you are is bad and you should be more like some other thing.

Because the ego isn't real, it's an illusion that misleads you. The actual self is Brahman. Therefore you should act out of compassion.

Not OP, who clearly hasn't read Stirner, but see Ego is a shitty translation.

He has an idea of the self but it's imperfect is what I'm getting at. Stirner acknowledges that the self is beyond thoughts, yet his philosophy was devised by using thoughts, or the mind, and not the self and thus is full of flaws. For example, he maintains the idea of property, that anything in the world belongs to self. Believing that anything material belongs to you is directly enacted out of a sense of false ego.

The only way your acts can be intelligible is if they are understood against the backdrop of property claims, such that your freedom to act presupposes inalienable goods in your exercise; you make a property claim on yourself. This is undeniable.

To uphold the expectation of action is to then extend this same inalienability to other beings, for if you do not, you deny yourself and are thus inconsistent.

Thus, other beings have inalienable goods that are presupposed by freedom of action; your freedom can only be intelligible in a woven fabric of corresponding property claims. To act in a way that denies these goods to others is inconsistent, you deny yourself.

Therefore, you must care for others (uphold inalienable goods that confer freedom), faggot.