Why does Stirner believe that one should be an egoist?
He says that "I for one take a lesson from them", so did he just see that everything and everyone acts narcissistically and decided to act in likewise fashion, if so then what's the justification?
Or is it because once one despooks oneself all one can think is for itself? If so then that's just retroactively justifying his egoism, what prompted him to think egoistically in the first place, why should one despook himself in the first place?
If the last question assumes a normative statement, then what's wrong with an fixed idea controlling you?
And for any retroactive justifications then how is that not sophistry? How can he assume that there's no truth and then "prove" that within his framework? Isn't that assertion a truth value itself?
>justification
heh...you just activated my trap card
>>8083849
>Why does Stirner believe that one should be an egoist?
Because he was extremely insecure that no one else cares about him so a philosophy in which carer for others is bad was appealing to him
Wonder if he ever talked about his relationship to his mother
New thought just popped into my head, is it because you can change rationality and reason to justify whatever you want, and even if you pick one that "contradicts" him you're still acting egoistically (to your own end)?
>>8083875
But then again that's just sophistry, he just says that you can change reason as you please but that statement is crippled by the fact that it metaphysically requires solipsism.
>every other thread you meming fucks stirnerpost
>when people try to discuss him nobody replies
OP status: rekt
>>8083858
ahahah
>>8084104
hes a loser nobody cares
>>8083849
>Why does Stirner believe that one should be an egoist?
I got the feeling that is one of those "well why not type things"
>He says that "I for one take a lesson from them", so did he just see that everything and everyone acts narcissistically and decided to act in likewise fashion, if so then what's the justification?
I think one of his main points in this area is that most people dont or at best beat themselves up over this and act hypocritically.
>Or is it because once one despooks oneself all one can think is for itself? If so then that's just retroactively justifying his egoism, what prompted him to think egoistically in the first place, why should one despook himself in the first place?
Despooking allows one to live an authentic life thats it no more no less. As for the justification for doing this in general I think the answer would be like my first point however as far as Stirner specifically goes he is just being consistent in the culture of critique of that time.
For instance in his time Liberals are had no problem seeing the spookyness of traditions yet stopped short of the spooks created out of equality and progress. For Stirner there is no sacred ground or value which has to be spared.
>what's wrong with an fixed idea controlling you?
Because the individual is not fixed and ever changing. A fixed idea might look after you for awhile but when you change it can cease to be a source of comfort and instead a source of torture or other problems. If it helps see fixed ideas as being like dogma.
>How can he assume that there's no truth and then "prove" that within his framework? Isn't that assertion a truth value itself?
Stirner doesn't say" there is no truth" so much as he says "why worship truth?"
>>8084519
top tier image my friend
>somebody says something I find irritating
>reply "100% spooked" and immediately close the thread
Another 4chan victory!
>>8083871
>Because he was extremely insecure that no one else cares about him so a philosophy in which carer for others is bad was appealing to him
A common misconception and a critque that would be more fitting of egoists like Rand who try to replace spooks with other spooks. Feeling bad about caring for others because "thats not what a REAL egoist would do!" or because its illogical is just as spooky as the view that all people have to care for others.
>Wonder if he ever talked about his relationship to his mother
Taking a look at his personal life he was a fairly introverted yet confident person in his interactions. Regarding his personal relationship with his mother the closest I can find is him saying that she had trouble with a certain fixed idea however I cant recall if this comment was made before or after her mental illness got her in hospital.
>>8084524
haha someone got spook cucked
>>8084523
feel free to make it your property
>>8083849
>What justifies Stirner's egoism?
JUST FUCKING GO READ HIS BOOK, HOLY SHIT
>inb4 I need that time to shitpost of /lit/
HONESTLY JUST READ THE INTRO AND FIRST CHAPTER THEN, YOU LAZY FAGGOT
>>8084560i already did without your permission
>>8084519
Some follow-up questions
If reason is a fixed idea are we allowed to use it as a means to an end?
Are we allowed to use it at all?
How does Stirner defend his rational egoism if reason itself is a fixed idea?
Why does he assume that truth must "be sacred" and not simply "be"?
Why does he think that because sacredness entails alienness that alienness entails sacredness?
How does he defend the solipsism he presupposes in order to do away with truth and reason (that is if he presupposes it)?
In "the possessed" where he's speaking of the mathematical truth not being sacred, is he saying that because it's not sacred, it's not alien, and thus still a part of us (and our world) which is why it's incontrovertible?
Or is he only attacking the pursuit of these truths for their own sake and not the truths themselves?
Earlier in the passage he says that "Every higher essence, such as truth [...] is an essence over us"
Does that mean any truth, even e.g twice two makes four, is a spook?
A bit before that he criticizes these "truths" for being "not for your senses", so if it's sensible (not spiritualized) is it okay?
>>8084594
What the fuck do you think I'm doing?
Imbecile
>>8084560
Don't tell me what to do.
>Stirner thread
>title contains a spook
epic.
>>8084807
>If reason is a fixed idea are we allowed to use it as a means to an end?
When you use a concept/idea/notion in that manner for him that would be making it your "property"
>Are we allowed to use it at all?
When you look at Stirner remember that hes not so much proscribing what people do as much as he is making observations.
>How does Stirner defend his rational egoism if reason itself is a fixed idea? Why does he assume that truth must "be sacred" and not simply "be"?
The truth isn't inherently spooky or sacred however its merely one of the ideas that is more likely to haunt people. Stirner is not some hyper materialist who tries to bash all abstraction.
Another way of looking at it, I can use the concept of justice for the sake of describing how I feel or view certain situations and that would not be spooky however the moment I start appealing to justice (Anon you should do X because...ect) as if it was something higher then I am getting spooked. - Think of Javert from Les Mis and his interaction with justice for instance.
>Why does he think that because sacredness entails alienness that alienness entails sacredness?
Im not sure if he thinks all alienness is sacred but to answer your question Im kinda fuzzy on it but I believe that its because the what allows something to be sacred is it being more important in that its "interest" to come before the individual.
The alienness could also come from the fact that unlike the ever changing and unique individual the sacred is fixed and unchanging. However this point is something im only loosely inferring.
He deals with this theme in an earlier essay. Its very short however its rather dense and clunky compared to his main work.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-art-and-religion
>How does he defend the solipsism he presupposes in order to do away with truth and reason (that is if he presupposes it)?
As I discussed earlier his thought doesn't abolish truth or reason only truth or reason being held as something higher and more important than the individual.
>[your last paragraph]
This kind of distinction is one im not entirely clear on at the moment. My current view is that when he talks of spooks he is only talking about concepts and constructs which "possess us" or held above us - hence synonymous with fixed ideas. The alternative view I picked up is that *any* such idea or a concept is a spook and that when they possess or are held above us they then become fixed ideas.
Does that help?
one last bump
>>8084981
Yes, thank you
http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001547/secG6.html
