What's your excuse for not being a proponent of psychological egoism?

Why is Veeky Forums so obsessed with this dude?

He's like the top meme after DFW and Derrida.

How does that not make you a proponent? Assuming you're just having sex to get off, that's totally out of self-interest.

And if you say you enjoy you enjoy being generous in bed, that seems as though you're just competing against other selfish sexual partners. Is that also not egoistic?

i am anti-meme

"All men desire only satisfaction."
"Satisfaction of what?"
"Satisfaction of their desires."
"Their desires for what?"
"Their desires for satisfaction."
"Satisfaction of what?"
"Their desires."
"For what?"
"For satisfaction"—etc., ad infinitum

basically he feeds the young-male ego-need to dominate conversations in a very easy way: all they have to do is post the spook meme (at least that's what plebs who have never read the damn book do with the stirner meme)

I don't get the spook meme, guess it's because I've never read anything by Stirner.

Could you explain it to me or direct me somewhere or anything? Please.

I just love seeing how 3/4 of threads these days boil down to dismissing authors of the past without much engagement of their ideas.

Take Plato himself for example. He lived some 2500 years ago, and yet, after 2500 years after his death there are people, such as OP, that, despite the immense pile of knowledge that humanity has accumulated over this time, STILL fail to raise any interesting objections to Plato's work. He had all the time in the world to accomplish this, to read and study the best of the best critiques of Plato, and yet, all he is capable of saying about Plato, is a vague one-liner on a Chinese image board.

spooks are ideas that you pursue, essentially.

Self improvement can be a spook. "the good life" is a spook. Being a good christian is a spook.

the key is that spooks aren't bad so long as you recognize them as what they are, rather than "the only thing in the world that is worthwhile/makes sense" which is how people tend to view their pet pursuits.

There's no such thing as the "desire for satisfaction", jackass.

Thanks for clearing that up.

So, everything is a "spook"? Everything is just a social construct? Did he think that "nothing matters" or what?

Sounds like some mix of anarchism and nihilism.

What should I get by Stirner?

Because it gives individuals the idea of being just that... individuals.

Which is never good, at least not for the line of work I'm in.

I thought Stirner was a genius too, when I was underage.

In reality Stirner is in NO WAY different than any edgy 14 year old going "fk the parents".

ywelcome
>So, everything is a "spook"
all those memes, ya
>everything is a social construct
I wouldn't say that but you can if you want I suppose.
>did he think that nothing matters or what
He thinks you matter. Stirner is about you recognizing your relation to your spooks, and taking responsibility for that relationship as a fully actualized human.

ego and its own is the book, but the translation is pretty horrific imo

Thanks a lot, that helps.

this is just some yung cunt trying to look good against a famous person: classic trying-to-get-laid behavior.

tragically hilarious to see it here, where it will never pay off.

Stiner was not a psychological egoist. This is an easy misunderstanding to make. Read Hegel.

>Read Hegel
don't do this

i act in a kind and giving manner, for my own sake, yes. it makes me feel good to give and be generou; however, i do so in the hopes that other people might see me as an example and themselves become giving and charitable for the sake of others. i lead by example, and im not perfect, but i live simply and wish for others to live well for the sake of their fellow man.

all acts and intention is derived from desire; to act, to gain, to give, everything. with all things given, something is gained. and all things that are received, something is offered. we are man, in the ebb and flow of our own being we reciprocate the desires projected on us by those that we each project on others.

this cant be contested. even an argument on the internet is to serve ones own desire to validate ones ideals to serve a purpose to reinforce your beliefs so that you can gain for yourself what you wish to take from me, my very own thoughts..life is nothing more than a battle of wills, and manipulation of the environment in the world and the mind is the only tool.

Actually he is. Read Kant and Delueze.

>Read Kant and Delueze.
also don't do this

hi Heidegger

'to be satisfied' i wish to be; satisfied. i desire to be satisfied by means of satisfying. satisfying of what, one might ask. my desires. what does one desire/ to be satisfied. by what, the desires i feel.

you're right. you can not feel satisfied by mere desire. longing brings no reward if it is not achieved.

What does Deleuze have to do with Stirner and psychological egoism?

Stirner explicitly stated that his egoism is distinct from psychological egoism.

You'd understand if you read Das Kapital all the way through.

>Why is Veeky Forums so obsessed with this dude?
He's got extra-spicy meme potential.

Fuck you.

>Plato
muh """forms"""

>he hasn't read being and time backwards and found the hidden message.

I believe in psychological egoism, I think everyone's a psychological egoist even if they don't know it.

Everyone's done out of self interest, etc, etc. But what about feeling sorry for someone? This is one thing I don't understand, because I sometimes do genuinely feel sorry for some people even though I have nothing to gain from it? Is it somehow again related to myself?

if you help someone out of compassion the idea is that 1) they might help you, and 2) others will see you helping someone out of compassion and think of you as a good person.

so compassion is completely self interested
but it's also still compassionate

When we pity someone, we are thinking about what it would be like to be in his/her situation and feeling sorry for them but really, we are feeling for ourselves (what would it be like to be in their position).

>I used to be an edgy fourteen year old but now I'm better guys see look watch me make fun of this obscure 19th century German philosopher I'm not projecting right now please notice me

no, this doesn't translate well enough into object-level life-advantages.

it's all about getting something, a la
>if you help someone out of compassion the idea is that 1) the person you helped might help you later in return, and 2) others will see you helping someone out of compassion and think of you as a good person. (and will therefore go out of their way to hook you up with good shit because of your good person status)

Why does it matter if it's all done out of self-interest or not?

Everyone judges you by your actions, not how you feel inside. Your intentions hold little value. You're defined by how you treat people, not by how you justify your treatment of them.

calling someone selfish is a move in a social game where the person using the insult attempts to ruin the social credibility of the target. OR paint themselves as non-selfish by comparison.

basically it's hypocritical as all fuck

So many spooks ITT.

Read Heidegger first.

Materialism is a baseless presumption.

Why would you say this?

it's too thinky

>'We are all individuals!' crowed the fans of Stirner, in unison.

Because it makes physics easier.

How do you deposit one of those big checks

...

The whole thing is bullshit because I know that I really love being good to other people and helping them. Nothing selfish about it.

Not being honest with yourself about your "wanting to feel superior on the internet" spook. 14 year olds literally have brains too under-developped to get Stirner or most other philosophers that comment on the self.

>14 year olds literally have brains too under-developped
Even though Hal was only like 12 he was able to quote entire dictionaries, so you're wrong.

Then truly live a life of asceticism and devote every waking hour to other people. You literally hurt my feelings with your post I hope you feel terrible about that.

>You literally hurt my feelings with your post
?

Selfish and self-interest aren't the same.

I can read into your post as being posturing yourself as being better than those who give credence to Steiner's views.

But really I'm probably just a shit poster here to make your stay on Veeky Forums worse.
(I leave this thread now)

Very much this. But it is very human to be attracted to the "inside" which doesn't really matter or even exist.

Just like the old story of a painting contest between Zeuxis and Parrhasius. They competed in painting realistic pictures; first, Zeuxis brought in a painting of grapes. A bird tried to eat the grapes, so realistic were they.
But Parrhasius was more intelligent: he brought in a painting "hidden under" curtains, and the other painter asked him to show the painting already. The curtains were the painting. Parrhasius won by having deceived Zeuxis to think that there was some hidden piece of art under there.

Because I hate myself

>implying birds are not important

They're not as important as the curtains.

curtains:grapes::humans:birds, user. grapes are the only one important to birds and humans.

>the key is that spooks aren't bad so long as you recognize them as what they are
Isn't this sort of like cheating, though...

Sort of like "its all ok as long as I maintain a calm feeling inside me". "Its ok as long as I pretend that I don't really care, no matter how I actually act".

I would argue that if your actions do not change, nothing really changes. You may be inventing a new story for yourself, but that story is not the truth.

And, to a degree, I would argue that a damn lot of people today are already like that. Look at how ironically people do things. Cracking self-aware jokes, yet acting absolutely as they would without them. Half the consumerists or workaholics will joke about their actions, they'll say that it doesn't really matter; yet look at their actions.

Irony is seriously destroying everything.

Glad DFW didn't live to see this.

>Half the consumerists or workaholics will joke about their actions, they'll say that it doesn't really matter; yet look at their actions
What do you mean?

Oh my god, you *literally* DESTROYED them, user.

The best way to understand spooks is to see them as social constructs or fixed ideas that a person places above themselves. Hence the person will continue to act for that idea even if it no longer benefits them.

Accordingly something like "the good" or "justice" are not necessarily spooks however they tend to become spooks to people who subjugate themselves to these concepts.

>the person will continue to act for that idea even if it no longer benefits them
Any examples?

>Sort of like "its all ok as long as I maintain a calm feeling inside me". "Its ok as long as I pretend that I don't really care, no matter how I actually act".

The whole point of his thought is freeing you are having to "pretend". You have to do a lot of pretending when you are haunted by spooks.

Think of the person who feels great pressure to marry a women he does not particualry like because that is the "manly' thing to do.

Whilst he was young he might well have enjoyed living the manly the life however in his later years this ceases to be the case, yet he feels compelled to live up to its requirements.

Another example, think of the person who idolises logic and reason, the kind of person who views Spock as the ideal person. Now living according to this rigid view may well benefit a person in their work life, however if this person is a romantic at heart in their social life they will then suffer as they have to repress this desire of theirs because it conflicts with their idea of logic and reason.

Why do they repress themselves when it is thier power to act as they wish? Simply because they have placed the idea or spook above themselves. Serving that idea is more imporant than serving themselves

Sometimes it's so hard to get rid of those spooks, tho.

Well take solace in that the power to change that lays wholly with you

This is a very good post, thank you for typing it out.

People can act according to an idea without "really believing" in that idea. I will argue that this is extremely common, especially today. And I will argue that if you act according to an idea, that is what reveals that you do believe in it, no matter what you tell yourself.

In fact, you may very well act _more_ according to that idea if you take that small, ironic, deep, thoughtful distance to it. Most people aren't stupid enough to blindly believe in some idea imposed on them, or if they do, they may drive themselves toward a breakdown. But they may be able to believe the idea by not "really believing" it.

Imagine the consumerist who jokes about his habit, "doesn't take it seriously"; he'll probably be happier and less likely to break down than the person who "really believes" that consuming is the road to happiness. Thus, he is the better/worse consumerist, by not "really being" a consumerist "deep down inside".

Oh, if you take this thinking to the level of actions, it is a wholly different deal. In that case, I have more problems with it, but I can't be arsed to go into them right now.

But if you only recognize the spooks as spooks and continue to act just like a "real believer", that is just cheating yourself. You can not truly change how you think without changing how you act, though it does also function the other way around, can't change how you act without changing what you think. Which is a chicken-or-egg kinda problem, yes.

>But if you only recognize the spooks as spooks and continue to act just like a "real believer", that is just cheating yourself.

Which is pretty much Stirners point.

>People can act according to an idea without "really believing" in that idea
Aren't we all like this about so many things? Maybe even everything...

Fuck you

im not 14

take it to a big bank :^)

>People can act according to an idea without "really believing" in that idea.
Not really.

>Being a proponent of anything

A spook.

Go back to bed ayn rand