H-he's wrong right? Why can't I prove him wrong?

It was actually to keep primal super gophers from competing us out of existence in our early days.

>right and wrong
>atheist-nihilist-egoist
You don't have to prove him wrong, nothing obliges you to be logical, moral, consistent or truthful from his perspective.
Just declare yourself the victor, no justifications required.

Being subservient to logic or truth is enslaving to Stirnerists, just bend them to your will, lie, cheat, steal, deceive, it doesn't matter. Get a sex change tomorrow and fight with your father.

Attached: brains.png (467x443, 34K)

Look, nobody is ever right or wrong, because these very concepts are just illusions of our overdeveloped ape brains. Reality is absurd, and as a creature born with a curse of observing that absurdity you're forced to build patterns out of it. Ultimately, whatever you build is a sand castle, ready to be swept away by the next wave of absurd arguments. Just get a boulder to push and imagine yourself happy. Or mcfucking kill yourself, it changes nothing. Me, I'd say any philosophical position which presupposes one a priori correct (like egoism) is flaccid and weak.

Attached: this_is_my_shit.jpg (500x409, 61K)

>stirner's problem was that he was only good at destroying ideas, not at creating them.
You just explained every philosopher's problem

Why would you need to? His position is the kind of thing you can choose to accept or deny without really any bearing either way.\

His point was primarily about personal authenticity anyway, and he wasn't really opposed to any specific idea, just ones held as inviolable and sacred.

/thread

>implying narrowing the possibilities is a 'problem'

I read half of his book but forgot it because I didn't find it interesting enough. It meant nothing to me, and thus it is worthless.

literally just posit God and you beat him

"fistfight your dad" -mack sternum

Why do you want to prove him wrong anyway? He isn't saying much to begin with.

Psychological egoim can not explain all human actions.

"Imagine a man who is on the verge of suicide. He literally has a cocked and loaded gun in his mouth with his finger on the trigger. As he begins to squeeze the trigger, he realizes that he has no life insurance policy, has racked up $20,000 in debt, and would leave the entire mess to his wife if he killed himself. Out of concern for his wife, he takes the gun out of his mouth and decides to continue living.

The psychological egoist has a major problem with this thought experiment because it doesn’t seem as if the man could possibly be acting out of his own self interest. His wife’s predicament should play no role in his decision if he is an egoist. Even if he would feel guilty for hurting his wife or acting immorally, he can’t feel these feelings if he is dead. If death is better than living before the realization, then death must be better after the realization"

distributedrepublic.net/archives/2007/05/08/psychological-egoism/

Yet the Jews thrive

Having empathy and caring for others is still a egoist act. The actions the man did to save his wife were also on his self interest to give him a relief.

The same way two lovers are also egoists on their own. They care about their companion because seeing their companion happy also brings happiness to them. When a person makes a "sacrifice" for another was because in his head the emotional reward or virtue would be bigger than not doing the sacrifice.
True altruism doesnt exist.

Attached: Striner_love.png (269x187, 12K)

I already work like that.

>Damn, that's a big lump. The operation is free, but sadly I must inform you that our clinic doesn't serve egoists. Will you kindly renounce your egoistic views and swear to be a kindhearted, altruistic person? The polygraph test is right over there

Attached: depositphotos_10295643-stock-photo-pensive-female-doctor-looking-at.jpg (1023x844, 81K)

He's correct, but it doesn't matter that he's correct.
Nothing happens as a result of it agreeing with or understanding his philosophy; he's essentially worthless. I suppose that's okay, but he don't expect to use anything he says as proof or an actual argument.

Stirner wasn't a psychological egoist and sets that proposition up only to knock it down.

In his work there seem to be two senses of egoism. The first is the obvious "working for your benefit" and the second seems to be more an acknowledgement that you're the primary motivator of your actions and so everything you do is somehow of an interest to you. But Stirner states very clearly, that altruism as a negation of the first does absolutely exist.

>implying polygraph tests are worth a damn

>'true altruism' vs 'I did this for myself but also'
seems like a semantic and utterly unimportant distinction. you could argue this for any scenario, but you would have to make inappropriate, reaching assumptions along the way.

he's wrong
u suck dick

Chipping down at an infinite block of alternatives does nothing.
You are trying to choose a right direction at an intersection of infinite roads, and at your side stands Stirner, smugly asserting that this road, this one and that other one are, for sure, the wrong ones.

Just what have you accomplished, now that your choice still comes down to infinity?

I actually like Stirner and his ideas, I just think your defense of his attitude was really weak

Typically the egoism/altruism distinction focuses on whether or not you benefited from the action in question. All actions you undertake are motivated by you in some capacity, and so are your interests in some fashion but not all actions can be really said to benefit you. So one who does something because they've been possessed by filial piety is still appeasing an interest of theirs, but they're still acting for the sake of something other than themselves, because they're sacrificing their own overall satisfaction for an interest based on something external.

I get his argument and I don't think he's necessarily wrong. I just don't find it important.

It reminds me of discussions on whether or not "everything is political." Yes, you could argue that everything is -- but is it political enough to really be an accurate statement?

I really don't think that's a bad thing. He destroy their intrinsic validity as constructed systems, but leaves you free to believe what you like. In this respect, Stirner managed to most purely capture the idea of existentialism. I think in trying to construct something out of the rubble, Nietzsche runs straight back into the trap those other philosophers sent themselves into.

In this case I feel it's relevant to the discussion since someone is trying to frame him as a psychological egoist to discredit his ideas, which I feel is unwarranted because one of the senses of eogism he uses is so far removed from the notion of egoism that's being undermined as to be completely unaffected by the argument (Stirner would in fact likely agree with the article).

Sounds like there could still be conflicting class conflicts with his unions of voluntary egoists. He did want the proletariat to stand up for themselves though.

Attached: images.jfif.jpg (290x174, 7K)

It depends on what you want out of studying philosophy. Do you want an answer/direction? Or just understanding? Both?
Striner only provides one of those. So if you go into it expecting a solution, you will be disappointed.

He didn't want equality, and in fact specifically rejected the idea.

I can't really imagine pursuing philosophy for answers. It seems to me that anyone really dedicated to it would by the very nature of the pursuit be after the means to create their own answers.

I'd give her a big lump.

It has nothing to do with equality, it's simply creating a system that isn't based on exploitation of other classes

Marx autistically BTFOd him literally line by line, read The German Ideology.

That's morbidly hilarious in retrospect.

Nah his rant was mere autistic screeching. He didnt understand his philosophy and spent most of the time trying to correct him on Stirner's short resume in the history of philosophy.
Anyone who has read his rant and understood Stirner knowns that it didnt disprove anything.
But its mostly thanks to Marx that Stirner became famous and known in history tho.

Tbh i think Stirner does in fact give us an answer. Deleting the external spooks and following your own desires is the answer anyone would be looking for. People who say no to this are the ones who still want to have some power over others.
Nietzsche, in short, grabs himself to the will to power and tries to create a system of values that affirms this will to power. But he does this in a vague and complicated way leaving the readers and even other philosophers to guess what the fuck is he sometimes trying to refer to. He makes some very good observations and insights but you still have to pass through his dogmas and vague subjective shit. He made such a boogeyman out of christianity and "muh slave morality" but praises many pagan and hellenic values that are also present in christianity. Or yet he fails to realise that christianity was made based around the european pagan values in order to spread more easily, so they are many times just as master values.
He's a cluster fuck of a philosopher.