How do you not be possessed by anything? It's impossible to distinguish between your sacred objects and objects that are the property of your will since for both you're willing to make sacrifices.The outcome is the same.You want something to feel good.
So how do I not be a possessed human being if ideals are everywhere?
jus b urself
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, AND WHO IS REALLY ME AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
"real you" is just a spook. You are what you do
So what does being possessed even mean?
It means you're unable to recognize spooks. Once you do, you arrive at the gates of egoism and are slave no more
I've been looking for this answer myself.
>how do I not be a possessed human being if ideals are everywhere?
Community sacrifice. Communities aren't tight-knit anymore and money has to keep flowing for the economy to survive so this'll never happen. No one will purge their environment of hostile, invasive ideals. That's why God will have to intervene.
reject lenguage
>once you do
Bruh i can't see the distinction. What I choose is fundementaly determined by the influences I've had all my life (including my genes). So how do I know if it's me that's doing the choosing and not the IDEAL that's choosing for me?
Yeah bro thanks for the riddle
>implying it isn’t all a game of linguistics
In the Upanishads, they talk about how the path to true freedom is razor-thin, and it's easy to stray. It's something like that. I feel ultimately that there's a certain mysticism to Stirner's idea, and that truly realizing it would entail a form of enlightenment.
>You are what you do
That sounds descriptive and lame. Not only can you not know what you do, meaning know the causal chain of effects that originates with this "you", but you can also not know that you don't know what effects are attributed to that you who is in question. The question is itself suspect, as in who is you when you ask yourself what descriptions and information can be given to secure a (you). The ideal self holds nothing because then it acts infinitely towards whatever ends it deems fit. But then can you desire your desires? If you can correct yourself to not have desires, are you doing so for yourself or for the ends of others? Can the infinite negation of language ever stop saying, "I'm thirsty, or I'm drowning." There is nothing enlightening about finding loopholes to nickle and dime people, or justify taking someone's innocence. Stirner is for tech-scribes what Rand is for the oligarchs. I prefer radical individualism only in my political institutions, and then only in relation to an educated public whose ideals can still be shaped by the environment of the region. Within that, Stirner is useless except as a motivational speaker for overly selfconscious twats and selfabsorbed anarchists.
That is literally the same problem i have with him. I cannot distinguish if my will and the desire of the ego are really from myself or from a idea drilled from a ideology.
For example. I hate cigarettes and smoking as a whole, when someone offers me one i get the urge to punch him in the face. In this case i could say it was my ego's wish to punch him in the face and not take the cigarette, but at the time i recognize that i holy hate smoking because i was taught to hate it and "ideolize" that feeling, i view smoking as the ultimate sin. How can one be sure he is acting truly on himself when everything he was taught and the ego bases off is from spooks and ideologies aswell? It seems impossible to escape spooks.
just recognize that reactive disgust isn't part of the ego's will. it honestly isn't hard user
You misrepresent Stirner's ideal. His whole point is primarily about personal authenticity, and not letting ideas become greater than you. To do so would require eschewing attachments, and becoming an ideologically formless, unconstrained entity. You could go anywhere, do anything, and be content as yourself.
Why isnt it? if it lies in his very will to do so. If he had a will to smoke or accept the cigarette but didnt because of a fixed ideal then he would be spooked.
What is the ego's will? He wants to punch, how does that not apply as a will of the ego?
It is, but you're not really helping me see the point.You're pointing at a dark forest end telling me that there's food somewhere in there even though I lack the skills to acquire said food.
Any alternatives you could propose? Do you know any books which would lead me on a different train of thought?
Why is it better to serve your own ego than other peoples'? If the good is defined as reaching the goals set by an ego, then what does it matter if it's your good or someone else's that is achieved, from an abstracted standpoint.
I agree with this dude
>not enjoying those things voluntarily through your egoism
turns out you are the spooked one
which things?
>Why is it better to serve your own ego than other peoples'?
Because the ego is your true self interest and by defenition is has always the reason aboves other people's reason. If it wasnt for that you would be a slave or dead.
>If the good is defined as reaching the goals set by an ego, then what does it matter if it's your good or someone else's that is achieved
Your good can be also the same as anothers, so in this case its a union of egoists. Anything from a child's play to friendship can be deemed as a "union of egoists" as long as you dont hold it as a sacred and be someone else's bitch agaisnt your will.
Wow its almost as if Stirred was a shitposter who's works were meaningless word salad made to fuck with his friends and justify banging whores.
nice spook nerd
Nope. Clueless as you.
is there someone who's heavily influenced by stirner but doesn't go full muh spook with everything?
Evola, unironically
>How do you not be possessed by anything?
''But am I not at liberty to declare myself the entitler, the mediator
and my own self? Then it goes like this:
My power is my property.
My power gives me property.
My power am I myself, and through it I am my property.''
>It's impossible to distinguish between your sacred objects and objects that are the property of your will since for both you're willing to make sacrifices.The outcome is the same.You want something to feel good.
''A human being is "called" to nothing, and has no "mission;' no
"purpose;' no more than a plant or a beast has a "calling." The flower
doesn't follow the calling to complete itself, but applies all its forces
to enjoy and consume the world as best it can, i.e., it sucks in as much
of the earth's juices, as much of the ether's air, as much of the sun's
light, as it can get and accommodate.''
idk, actually read the book.
I could write something which convinces you to try and behave a certain way, my words are acting upon your condition, engendering all sorts of references and affects. Doesn't this just prove Stirner's point. There is no remedy or prescription in any of this. Its quite arbitrary.
Understood.I did read the book btw, I'm just a brainlet.
>That is literally the same problem i have with him. I cannot distinguish if my will and the desire of the ego are really from myself or from a idea drilled from a ideology.
Stop and question what ''you'' are.
''The belfry bat has a lot of other formal aspects, some of which it
might be useful to briefly mention here.
Thus, self-denial is common to the holy along with the unholy, the
pure and the impure. The impure person denies all "better feelings;'
all shame, even natural timidity, and follows only the desire that rules
him. The pure person denies his natural relationship to the world
("denies the world") and follows only the "aspiration" that rules him.
Driven by the thirst for money, the greedy person denies all warnings
of the conscience, all feelings of honor, all gentleness and all compassion: he puts every consideration out of sight: the desire carries him away. The holy person desires in the same way. He makes himself the"laughing-stock of the world;' is hard-hearted and "strictly righteous"; because the aspiration carries him away. As the unholy person denies himself before Mammon, so the holy person denies himself before
God and the divine laws''
Your looking for your ego is the same as looking for any other source of right to arbitrate you. ''What, then, is called a "fixed idea"? An idea that has subjected people to itself.'' So lets take your thing with smoking here, its an idea, a memory, a reference which appears every time the proper stimulus is before you, and causes by association, this anger towards it. For Stirner, ideas do not exist without corporeal forms. This idea is in you, existing in that moment where you want to punch a smoker. You are always the mediator for whatever idea. What Stirner does, is stop at the moment of himself, and therefrom he arbitrates by what makes himself up, i.e. his property, which gives him power. The question then, from what point should we arbitrate? Here the thing folds back on the initial issue. Thus:
>It seems impossible to escape spooks.
A spook is something somewhat different. What you describe in your post is something Stirner calls ''fixed ideas''. And yes, you cognition is made up of these fixed points. But let me ask you, if you were afraid of the water, but wanted to swim, which fixed idea would you oblige? What measures this is your interest, which one overcomes the other. Same with your thing about cigarettes. Say a person you respect and like, just lights up one in front of you. You will notice now, a conflict between two fixed ideas.
>How can one be sure he is acting truly on himself
There is no actual, essential self. Its all made up of fixed thoughts.
Why do you think he writes ''I have based my affair on nothing''?
No I didn't. I merely showed you the absurdity of calling his ideal an endpoint for an unconstrained entity. The very formulations of eschewing attachments is suspect for anyone involved in casual actions, meaning everybody always throughout history. The language you use to validate your circlejerk attempts is pitiful and weak, and all because you can't stand to be the one who has to do the hard things, make choices for people and eat the shit that comes along with that. Stirner is a copout for philosophy majors that want Kant to be wrong without having to read him. Prove me wrong.
well a simple way is you just have to become like a wild animal
become so unintelligent you lose all sense of identity and self awareness
Not him, but: Sure, why not. Formulate your clams concisely and define your terms.
So, what you are saying is that the user should listen to his desire to throw a punch at the smoker depending on his interest and power to do so on that very situation? And follow the fixed idea depending on his desire? If it was a friend lighting up one in front of him then, since his desire was little, he would drop the fixed idea naturally.
Am i getting this right?
I'm not saying he should do anything.
>If it was a friend lighting up one in front of him then, since his desire was little, he would drop the fixed idea naturally.
Anything could happen, depending on the conditions in place in that moment.
Read the book if you're interested. Here's the last bit from it.
''I am owner of my power, and I am so when I know myself as unique.
In the unique the owner himself returns into his creative nothing,
from which he is born. Every higher essence over me, be it God, be
it the human being, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and only
pales before the sun of this awareness. If I base my affair on myself,
the unique, then it stands on the transient, the mortal creator, who
consumes himself, and I may say:
I have based my affair on nothing.''
Prove yourself right.
As far as I've seen, Stirner is just distilled existentialism that touches on ideas similar to those seen in the Tao Te Ching or the Upanishads in it's description of the self.
You seem awfully bothered about nothing.