Isn't Egoism the solution for people with low self-esteem?

Isn't Egoism the solution for people with low self-esteem?

Attached: Max Stirner.jpg (771x1037, 88K)

Other urls found in this thread:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Just read Stirner. The Ego and Its Own is not that long. His writing is beautiful. Even if you disagree with his ideas at the end at least you can say you confronted them. Right now it's painfully obvious you're an ignorant shitposter.

No

pretty much
low self-esteem is produced by spooks

What's a good edition?

find out by yourself

Attached: n49pw9iuq0hz.png (350x341, 76K)

Low self-esteem typically isn't unwarranted. Egoism doesn't solve whatever problem an individual might have, it just deludes them into thinking it doesn't exist/matter. The correct thing to do is acknowledge the issue and try to fix it.

Fuck you.

Attached: sickles.jpg (700x467, 88K)

The Steve Byington translation is the best

all the copies on Amazon have one star for being shittly made.

what is the difference of truth and facts?

Or more importantly, the difference between truth and the word Stirner uses in this context. Watch out for translations, user.
I’m not sure how to answer your concerns.

German speaking person here.
Does English have a word for "zutrauen"? Which e.g. means believing that somebody might be capable of doing some thing. The dictionary gives me "confidence", but this doesn't actually seen to capture the word well. Confidence is a kind of hope and less used for situations where the person hasn't yet done things of that particular kind. Zutrauen also derives from trauen, or trust. Zutrauen is also more speculative - to zutrauen doesn't necessarily mean being confident about it, but is more speculative - he/she could do it, but it's just a guess (and not guess in the sense of hope, which is normative). You can also zutrauen someone to be capable of doing an evil deed.
Thx

Attached: i-dont-want-hope-hope-is-killing-me-my-dream-39945595.png (500x772, 244K)

There is a difference between
>I am confident.
and
>I am confident in him finishing his supper.
or
>I'm pretty confident I can beat you in a game of chess.
or
>I have confidence that he will make a great fisherman one day

The first is an emotion of sorts. Confidence as generally seen in all the self help garbage.

Being confident IN someone or yourself means you believe they are able to do the thing.

So it's confirmed then that if I want good discussion on Stirner, I should head to Warosu.
Thanks indirectly, OP.

Attached: 1478154952055.gif (480x238, 415K)

Have sex.

Byington at least tries to convey stirners wordplay and style

yes, capable is the word you're looking for

You misunderstand. Stirner says truth is a spook not because he believes that there is no such thing as objective truth. When he says it can be used as a spook he means when it is venerated and lifted above the individual. We are asked to be humble before the truth and serve the truth instead of letting the truth serve us. For example when some philosophers say we should never lie they treat the truth as a goddess -- at that point it becomes a spook.

sounds retarded

To put it in simpler terms, Stirner believes in hypothetical norms and not universal norms.
"If you want to get at the truth, you should use logic and reason and evidence." would be a hypo-norm
"You SHOULD get at the truth, therefore you SHOULD use logic and reason and evidence" would be a universal norm

universal norms he calls spooks

From an intellectual distance. You'll end up there eventually.

I tried it, became confident, got me a girlfriend, then got dumped for being an 'entitled prick'. She wasn't wrong tho. I genuinely gave myself a superiority complex in order to compensate for low esteem and did not care how other people felt. Now I don't really need egoism cause I know what I can do.

Better to be an entitled prick than to be a soi faggot