Actually decide to read the Ego and its Own

>Does anyone else know this feel?

Nope, not an asshole.

>Realize that Stirner is a superior Nietzsche

And what lead you to that conclusion?

Nietzsche made the refutation of pessimism, as a cause, his spook.

His philosophy is a pursuit, or a means, without an end. The Übermensch was also undeniably spooky, as a concept.

I still love Nietzsche, though.

You're a spook.

Nietzsche goes beyond Stirner in a lot ways, in my opinion. Stirner recognizes the supreme importance of our own subjectivity, and that we should not surrender our subjective experience to some "objective" right cause. Part of Nietzsche's philosophy is about recognizing other people's subjective experience, and rather than subordinating yourself to it or anything, it informs you and through it, you transcend. Dono. That is how I've understood the relationship.

Stirner asked the most fundamental question, for which there has not yet been a fundamental answer: Why should I serve any interests other than my own? Why should I be selfless?

The closest you can get is mutual self-interest; pursuing your own interests whilst 'happening' to serve another's - coincidentally, even. That's basically what Ayn Rand was advocating, if I remember right.

>Part of Nietzsche's philosophy is about recognizing other people's subjective experience, and rather than subordinating yourself to it or anything, it informs you and through it, you transcend. Dono

This sounds superfluous, really.

Stirner's point is that everyone is already an egoist acting completely selfishly, regardless of whether one is being so voluntarily or not.

Those who put race/religion/nation/whatever before themselves are still acting in self-interest, they just justify their actions as if they're serving something higher, a "spook". However, they're really just acting in a way that best makes them feel fulfilled.

Everyone puts themselves before anything else, only voluntary egoists acknowledge this.

I don't think so. Your subjective experience is one perspective, and understanding how you came to possess your particular outlook, informing it, develops it further, and it also helps you understand others. Nietzsche is the way of Max Stirner's borderline solipsism. Of course, most people who fellate Max Stirner don't want a way out.

>Those who put race/religion/nation/whatever before themselves are still acting in self-interest

Not really, because the entire reason he proposed the concept of a 'spook' is that race/religion/nation/etc, as causes, are frequently in *opposition* to our interests; detrimental to them.

Altruism, by definition, is acting in spite of your own self-interest; if this never genuinely happened, egoism would never have been proposed as it would go without saying.

Things like nationalism, religion, etc. have their origins in mutual self-interest, but a lot of people, for one reason or another, take it to an extreme where their own self-interest isn't served. You could argue that this is self-interest in the evolutionary fitness sense, but that's not something most people explicitly care about.

Solipsism is the belief that only the self exists.

What Stirner says, on the contrary, is that only the self matters. Understanding others is hardly antithetical to Stirner's egoism; the end result, or rather goal, is the same. Namely, that your own self-interest should still take precedence.

Hence why it is borderline and not full on.

>Nietzsche made the refutation of pessimism, as a cause, his spook.

Trips of truth.

I think Evola pointed this out, actually; just a shame he's only read by about 12 guys in the the internet's more obscure, forgotten corners.

So you had to call it "borderline snarl-word" rather than just "snarl word" even though they're not the same thing at all. Search yourself and think about why egoism makes you so uncomfortable.

You might perceive things labelled "spooks" to contradict your interests, but only because you denial of your own egoism.

People are altruistic because it makes them feel good. Whether they give up time, money, happiness or anything else, it is actually worth less to them than the feeling they get from knowing they've acted "altruistically" (regardless of whether or not it appears so to them on a surface level - e.g. if they are less happy). Altruism is a "spook" and involuntary egoists refuse to acknowledge this just as they refuse to acknowledge the entirety of their own egoism because that denial in itself makes them feel better.

>You might perceive things labelled "spooks" to contradict your interests, but only because you denial of your own egoism.

The D-Day anniversary was yesterday, right? Please enlighten me as to how teenagers were being selfish/egoistic when they stormed the beaches of Normandy to face almost certain death.

>People are altruistic because it makes them feel good.

Taking this thought to it's terminus, you would have to argue that every single case of martyrdom was simply someone wanting to feel good about themselves. If you want to try and make that argument, be my guest.

Bear in mind the conclusion, however: that the individual's greatest motivator, in your world, would be vanity - even unto death.

It doesn't. I've read the Ego and Its Own. I think there's a lot of truth to it, as you should've noticed by my acknowledging the truth of the supremacy of the individual's subjective experience. Too many people subordinate themselves to a cause, and then an uncomfortable tension develops, as it seems you've subordinated yourself to Max Stirner and now become a vicious little toad.

The derogatory connotation of solipsism was deliberate, yes, and it was because to arrive at the end point that your self-interests are all that matters is glib and definitive. Nietzsche develops it further. Instead of questing me why egotism bothers me, which it doesn't, you should question yourself why it's so important to you (which would be a pretty Nietzsche thing to do, to be honest).

:^)

Not my world, but as Stirner would understand it, yes -- even martyrdom and those moments leading up to it in certainty is worth the coupled euphoria of vanity of those "possessed" by "spooks" of pride, honour, bravery, etc.

>Instead of questing me why egotism bothers me, which it doesn't, you should question yourself why it's so important to you

I'll take the George Bernard Shaw approach: Why shouldn't it be?

The burden of proof lies with altruists to explain why I should care about anything beyond myself, or put any interests before my own.

Literally no one in this thread gives a shit about you putting your interests before altruism. It hasn't been a point of contention at all, and yet you've repeatedly acted like people are trying to force you to act in a selfless way. The reason, then, it's important for you to question yourself why this is important to you is self-understanding, something which you clearly have not arrived at, so you don't continue on doing and saying retarded shit in a completely oblivious manner.

And you are your own spook.
Think about that, m8.

>Realize that Stirner is a superior Nietzsche

lmao

At every point on which they intersect, Nietzsche is far more profound and deeper.

Stirner puts as an example the girl that sacrifices her love because of the wishes of her family, and goes on to say that she actually acted in spite of her self interest for the spook that is "piety", no egoism in that.

Marx was such a loser.

Is there anything that goes beyond Stirner's philosophy?

unwillingness to die for your cause is the absolutely inverse meaning of the word noble

unwillingness to sacrifice is antithetical to life, as procreation always entails sacrifice

Marx

>implying the vast majority of philosophers weren't losers irl
And those that weren't, had shit philosophy.

>>
So literally, Anarcho-capitalism...
And here I thought there was something of depth in the philosophy. Though I'm forgetting, depth is a spook.

No, ancraps are all about muh property and insist on cucking your self interest for the sake of their property 'rights'.

I suggest reading Stirner before you call him an ancap.

Camus wasn't such a loser, and his ideas were great.

>His philosophy is a pursuit, or a means, without an end.
Pursuits need ends = the greatest spook of western thought, straighten your shit out pal

>Stirner asked the most fundamental question, for which there has not yet been a fundamental answer: Why should I serve any interests other than my own? Why should I be selfless?

>inherently privileging the individual as the location of interests, questioning, and analysis

ding ding ding you found the hidden spook that makes Stirner spookier than Nietzsche

Stirner would say altruism is just a spook; Ayn Rand thought altruism itself was problematic and needed to be fought. Rand was essentially advocating some form of calculating egoist utilitarianism to better yourself in her image.

Rand (and Nietzsche also) were attempting to set forth principles, which interfere with the pure ego, which still makes them bogie-worshippers and slaves to abstractions.

why should the ego be the center of attention

>Nietzsche also) were attempting to set forth principles,
you get an F and have to retake the class

Nietzsche was a slave to amor fati and his superman bogieman

Because people are all egoists at their core and by accepting and living this we can best achieve this outcome. Why be an involuntary egoist instead of a voluntary one?

I believe Camus just regurgitated ideas of old philosophers such as Sartre & Heidegger desu

>Because people are all egoists at their core
spook located. tell me more about this essential and eternal human nature, user.
how was he a slave to these things

please explain

>spook located
Not really, that statement I made isnt making any prescriptions based on an appeal to human nature.

...

>that statement I made isnt making any prescriptions based on an appeal to human nature.
accept that all people are egoists sounds like a perscription to me

Always post

>that statement I made isnt making any prescriptions based on an appeal to human nature.
You stated that people are ALL egoists at their CORE. You're not appealing to human nature, you're defining one. People are essentially egoistic is what you just said, hence a metaphysical abstraction, hence a spook. You're even postulating a core, or essence, removed from appearance by implying appearances of selflessness are involuntary according to a selfish essence. You're spook central rn pham.

yep, the milk pill changed my life

buddy i made that image
you can't meme me with it

What do you mean?
That image is my property

all that you thought was yours is merely mine
i have subsumed you and all your properties into my ownership
there is no escape from your fate

>accept that all people are egoists sounds like a perscription to me

Its more of an axiom, if you dont have to accept or reject it.

>You stated that people are ALL egoists at their CORE. You're not appealing to human nature, you're defining one. People are essentially egoistic is what you just said, hence a metaphysical abstraction, hence a spook. You're even postulating a core, or essence, removed from appearance by implying appearances of selflessness are involuntary according to a selfish essence. You're spook central rn pham.

Do you think spook = any "metaphysical abstraction"

>mine
There is no "yours" only mine.
Also I got trips that confirm that I'm right.

>Do you think spook = any "metaphysical abstraction"
It can and often does take the form of a metaphysical abstraction. I figure you're smart enough to not need egoism as a socially compelling construction explained.
>Its more of an axiom, if you dont have to accept or reject it.
Arbitrarily and uncritically accepted presuppositions? Boom, spook. See, axioms usually just work in philosophical projects that don't concern themselves with dispersing apparent axioms.

you mean I got trips to confirm that i'm right, mini-me

Nope, I was talking about

>It can and often does take the form of a metaphysical abstraction. I figure you're smart enough to not need egoism as a socially compelling construction explained.

I think you are misunderstanding the relationship element that defines the spook rather than its abstractness.

>Arbitrarily and uncritically accepted presuppositions? Boom, spook. See, axioms usually just work in philosophical projects that don't concern themselves with dispersing apparent axioms.

Yeah now Im fairly sure you do not understand what is mean by spook. A spook is defined by it being held above the person - its "interests" taking prominence before that of the individual. Indeed it is like a spook because like a ghost they can only interact with the world by possessing people

>A spook is defined by it being held above the person - its "interests" taking prominence before that of the individual.
Very well, by this account Stirner isn't merely contradictory but has nothing to contradict, tabling of course the uses to which precisely this individualism and egoism have been put as a spook. Spooks justify what they presuppose based on what they presuppose and no critical explanation is given for why what is presupposed is presupposed.
>muh its an axiom
>muh essence

>Very well, by this account Stirner isn't merely contradictory but has nothing to contradict, tabling of course the uses to which precisely this individualism and egoism have been put as a spook

I dont get at what you are trying to describe here

>pooks justify what they presuppose based on what they presuppose and no critical explanation is given for why what is presupposed is presupposed.

Spooks do not "justify" anything though. All Stirner does is show how they are distinct from the individual and why they cannot meet the desires of the individual.

Psych major/babby-Freudian here. I think that if we assume Stirner's voluntary/involuntary egoism dichotomy to be true (which does agree with Freud's ideas), then we could use this as a framework for better understanding neurosis and neurotic behaviour. Think, how much dissonance could arise if one constantly denies ones own egoism? What length will one go to repress their egoistic nature? Stirner's philosophy could be the path to psychological well-being. Thoughts?

>Spooks do not "justify" anything though.
ok now you're just memeing

>ok now you're just memeing
No memeing here, the only justification comes from the self. Its literally the first line in his book.

I think CBT tends offer a pretty practical way to apply Stirners thought to ones life for reasons akin to that

>Stirner's philosophy could be the path to psychological well-being. Thoughts?
I think it goes a long way. No longer feeling yourself spellbound by exterior 'oughts' goes a long way to diminish anxiety.

when you say "all people are egoists" it´s a spook you are surpassing the term.

basically stirner put like a requisite that we all are egoists. (he explain, more or less his views on this) if you don´t think that, you are in total contradiction with stirner book and vision, and you use spook to other end… like some kind of war against generalizations or so...

someone can explains me this…

>Page 163: “That society is no ego, which could give, etc., but an instrument from which we can derive benefit; that we have no social duties, but only interests; that we do not owe any sacrifices to society, but if we do sacrifice something we sacrifice it for ourselves — all this is disregarded by the social [liberals], because they are in — thrall to the religious principle and are zealously striving for a — holy society.”

The following “penetrations” into the essence of communism result from this:

1. Saint Sancho has quite forgotten that it was he himself who transformed “society” into an “ego” and that consequently he finds himself only in his own “society”.

stirner say society is no ego

marx say stirner (saint sancho) transform society into an ego. what the fuck?. how can exist this misunderstanding?…

marx was a hothead grasping at straws because stirner ruined the fun he was having believing in bullshit

Sounds like Crowley and the rest

>when you say "all people are egoists" it´s a spook you are surpassing the term.

Once again I dont think you are grasping what a spook is. Its all about the relationship it has to the individual, and idea cannot have a spook nor can a spook have a spook as they lack agency and intelligence.

>basically stirner put like a requisite that we all are egoists.if you don´t think that, you are in total contradiction with stirner book and vision

Not at all, see

"All Stirner does is show how they are distinct from the individual and why they cannot meet the desires of the individual."

>, and you use spook to other end… like some kind of war against generalizations or so...

Once again if you can "use" a spook it is not a spook but in fact your property

Honestly if you are too lazy to read his book at least skim the wikipedia or Stanford page on him before post about about his ideas.

Heres a short lecture if you arent a fan of reading.

youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs

>marx say stirner (saint sancho) transform society into an ego. what the fuck?. how can exist this misunderstanding?…

I get the feeling that marx is trying to out Stirner with Stirner here along the lines of saying

"you criticize/mock liberals for worshiping a construct (in this case society) yet you go on and worship your own construct: the ego"

Had Marx been working on the English translation alone I could understand this mistake being made but given he wasnt it seems like a rather weak criticism.

Have you seen any other interesting criticisms of Stirner in the German Ideology? I havent read it yet myself

>People are altruistic because it makes them feel good. Whether they give up time, money, happiness or anything else, it is actually worth less to them than the feeling they get from knowing they've acted "altruistically" (regardless of whether or not it appears so to them on a surface level - e.g. if they are less happy)
do you have a single fact to back that up

I = the one

I or me is everything

there is less separation between you and a rock than between you and other people / yourself as you probably think of it.

>falling back upon postivism
please present facts verifying the inverse

What is the difference between rocks and people then?

Rand is completely different from Stirner and problematic. I'll try to explain
Ayn Rand's problem is that her egoism is normative: it is ethical to be egoist and you have a moral duty to do so. She elevates egoism into a spook
A Stirnerist might practice altruism, but with full conscience that it's for his own sake (because it feels good, or because of some interest, etc. Stirner's conception of love is quite lovely in this sense ('I console you because your pain is may pain, your happiness is my happiness etc')). A Randian would cuck him/herself into not practicing altruism because Ayn Rand told them to

I think it's pretty much an a priori truth famalam

>Please enlighten me as to how teenagers were being selfish/egoistic when they stormed the beaches of Normandy to face almost certain death.
Aren't you actually obligated to join the army in times of war? Muhammad Ali died recently and most people remembered him for his controverse refusal of fighting the vietnam war

lmao ya asshole

Has it ever once occurred to any of you that the ironic distance you all place between yourself and your memetic, petrified caricature of Stirner is a byproduct of the very thought it purports to represent? That Stirner did not really believe a single word he wrote? That instead he was writing for an ideal community of obsessive bourgeois individualists who would make him immortal, never imagining the nightmare shape it would take when the corrupting virus of materiality tainted its Platonic majesty, yielding not a collective of autonomous Egos but rather anonymous ones, namely Veeky Forums itself?

thelema?

bump

OP, have you read kant?

people love to cling to some devoted ideology to better hide to themselves that they are heodnist and in fact failures in hedonism.

There is no "living through" his philosophy. All it's worth of is for this idea of spooks, which themselves should have zero impact on how everyone lives.

Stirner himself falls victim to his philosophy by laughing at people who are unvoluntary egoists. If he allows himself to say that what they do is wrong, he automstically creates dichotomy of good and bad and thus falls in an involuntary spook himself. All he can do is laugh, for nothing is higher than anything if we follow his philosophy.

You are no better off knowing Stirner's pointed out "spooks". Even Stirner in his last chapter said one must control spooks and use them for their own benefit. But doesn't this seem awful lot familiar with what everyone else does? The spooks come to us in various shapes and forms, it's up to us to decide which to follow. If there is any "good" in being voluntary egoist, by being such you suddenly become an involuntary one.

You didn't get him. Read his book again.

It's rather you who didn't get him and wanted to use the idea of spooks as an excuse for your own beliefs, or at least it's what I generally see here people do.

You are free to elaborate what I didn't get, though.

Not that guy, but I think you misread Stirner if you try to see him as an attempt of a prescriptive compass or something like that. He does not say "this is what you should do", he says "this is what i do", while poking fun at and pointing out contradictions of people who do, in fact, try to be a moral compass. It is written for the individual, the "creative nothingness", not for society as a whole.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but if you would reread my post, you would see that this was my point, that all he can do is laugh, anything further than that and he succumbs to his own philosophy. Also, among other things, my post was a reaction seeing people posting about "living through" his philosophy, which, as I said, goes against philosophy.

[Citation Needed]