>"Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is - a purely egoistic cause."
What on earth did he mean by this?
God follows his own desires, he can't follow a higher power because he is the highest power.
Desires are a spook though
Seems pretty self explanatory to me senpai.
Worthless post
God is an egoist, ergo you should be as well. Or rather even God is egoistic and self centered.
They're enjoyable spooks, though.
Worthless post
This is actually kind of interesting. Could desires actually direct God's hand? Doesn't that make him less than God? Or is that just nitpicking?
This seems like a category error.
Basically its saying god is egotistic and self serving. The part above would help you understand because it lays out why god is egotistic
He is saying that we are inside god's head and we follow his rules.
a) Maybe read beyond the first page?
b) Stirner is here making fun of the Christian paradigm within which most of his contemporaries operate. He isn't literally making a statement about God.
How does it feel knowing I've read very little of the mans work, yet I clearly have a better understanding of it than you do. Making fun of the Christian paradigm? He isn't literally making a statement about God? Lmao
Read more, you fucking dunce.
this is what happens when pseuds read books out of their depth
Serving the idea of God has a purpose for the advancement of the idea only, and serves no purpose for the individuals serving it.
If you would picture the idea as a person, it would be an egoist - not caring for anything but its own cause.
A category error is when a complex unity is incorrectly said to be independent of its constituent parts. How is this that?
I highlighted this on a pdf and screenshotted it just yesterday
fug it's not a pdf it's an html
no they're not. desires are spooks if they're manifestations of some idea outside of yourself that you've given authority over yourself.
stirner is saying that the god most people worship does nothing spooky. he's going to say that most things people have submitted to, like god, humanity etc., are themselves egoistic entities that demand submission but do not submit. then he's going to say, why not be like that yourself?
this might help you read:
motivations that come from outside of yourself are spooks. take family for an example. liking your dad and hanging out with him doesn't make you spooked. hanging out with your dad BECAUSE he is part of your family even though you hate him means you've been spooked by the idea of ‘family’, which comes from outside yourself. this isn't much more than basic criticism - he's pointing to society’s sources of values that tell you to do things and saying, “they’re all the same, all outside yourself, all as valid as 'commands' from a christian god.” what makes stirner unique is his solution. most critics dismiss one particular source of values and then replace it with something else that's also outside themselves; think of someone disparaging christian values, but replacing them with the just-as-spooky values of liberal humanism. stirner says the way to get back of spooks once and for all is to take motivation from only one place, from inside yourself: from the ego. nietzsche has a great description of how someone can start to live like this in thus spoke zarathustra when he describes the camel, lion and child. try to understand what he's really getting at it in the ego and its own, which is pretty revolutionary once the subtleties are understood, before you listen to how people have applied his reasoning to moral theory, political theory, etc. don't try to argue with his anecdotes or anything like that, they are just stand-ins for what he's trying to do, and can be replaced with whatever you'd like.
Yes, the external world which contributed to your brain chemistry and therefore your desires, etc.
stirner doesn't make any metaphysical claims like that - what you're saying is more like spinoza
What is your point? Are you claiming we should disregard all other works that are related?
How low is your IQ?
yeah, im really stupid
I suppose I was using the term incorrectly.
But what I was trying to say is that Stirner seems to be making a mistake in applying human attributes to an entity that's fundamentally not human. Or, rather, very far beyond humans.
Grow up
>t. Low IQ turbo pleb
...
>Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is - a purely egoistic cause
I love this quote precisely because I believe in God and realize there is nothing higher than Him. "Well, even if you believe God is meaningful, why?" --- Because He is.
Not if Kierkegaard's paradox of the individual and universal.
What would drive him if not desires?
If he seeks to obtain these things, why do we not call them desires?
Anything with will has to have desires, or that will won't manifest.