Why don't I ever see better critiques of Stirner than

in my experience, Stirnirism consists of calling fucking everything a spook.

Didn't Marx wrote the German ideology as a rebutal to Stirner?

yawn

Yeah, why would someone relevant like Marx care enough to write 300 pages of damage control and then decide to never publish it?

Would link yourself to a pleasure mechanic and live in a virtual world where your "ego" can enjoy himself until you die without the possibility of escaping this mechanic ?

Here enjoy this masterpiece for yourself my nigga

Talk shit as you want imagery subject

Praxelology also assumes that people will behave rationally in any given circumstances and we can thus these two axioms to make economic predictions, which is very different.

Which is the mystery if alturism which pretty much no philosophy seems to be able to explain other than people want to do good or at least feel good after doing it

Yes. We are performing a bastardised version of it right now by ignoring our reality in favour of Holla Forums.

This isn't an elaboration, what does he say that disputes Stirner?

...

Stirner's concept of the individual doesnt account for why we want the things we want. Our "ego" is deeply affected by the society around us. He inevitably falls into idealism by elevating himself to a plane above the material. Thats why Marx calls him "Saint Max". This is what people mean when they say the ego is a spook. By looking at an individual outside of his environment he makes the individual into a fixed idea.This "independent ego" simply does not exist. Marx takes Stirner's notion of egoism and looks at how our self interests change depending on our material conditions. Also,in an ideological society, our very basic desires are dictated by social authority. There is no escaping consumerist drives under capitalism, which means that often, perceiving our desires as our own volition equates to naturalizing social relations.

There is no such thing as true altruism. As you already mentioned, it's fulfillment of the ego. Either you value the emotional response that comes from aiding others, seeking to behave in a manner that lines up with the idea of the person you want to be, to be seen in a certain way by others, or to achieve some higher valued goal over a lesser one.

happened more than once

This is because it is based off a poor reading and misunderstanding of Stirner. Marx was the humanist, not the other way around. Stirner does precisely the opposite of looking at the individual as separate from the environment.

This reads like someone who hasn't read Stirner, only Marx's critique of Stirner.

And never published it because he knew it was a turd with literally no arguments in it.

daily reminder that psychological egoism is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless

...

Morals are spooks. Ethics are not. :^)

Actually, Stirner acknowledged unselfishness existed, but it was an article of fashion.

That's because its a priori. :^)

Because most people don't have enough knowledge of him or philosophy in general to critique him. Also because his ideas are decent, at least as a stepping stone.

Even if your ego is hopelessly influenced by society there's nothing else to you than your ego.

Binary dubs checked
I don't think a christian can say other's philosophy is a 'stepping stone'.

Let him be.
He's at leat acknowledging Stirner is decent, which is more than he usually does

Least*

Oh man those are some good digits huh?

Why not? It seems you're implying that christianity is a "stepping stone", but I don't think you've understood that I, like Kierkegaard, am trying to destroy christianity in order to keep the ideal of "Christian" free.

You havent read the verry first chapter, proprietor/ragamuffin/Begin of Humane chapthers and the chapther of my self enjoyment havent you….

Lack luster 'criticism'' try again.

Also this, barely anyone ==ESPECIALLY HERE== 'understand' Stirner. Also criticism on Stirner is also impossible to do as he has decontructed most styles of what criticism is in his chapther on the humane. Criticism (A bad one wich is most citicism) is always an X interpitation based on a set of ideas criticizing Y interpitation based on a set of ideas for not being X interpitation based on a set of ideas.

Criticism of what is in the Ego and his Own is an impossible task as Stirner destroys Idealism with Subjectivity and the only method we can criticize an interpitation (Like Subjectivism) is by idealism and that can be reduced by stirner to mere subjectivism or an echo of idea's of an interpitation wich you abide to. (Wich to is subjective as the orgin of those ideas is by a subject who is influenced by other subjects that have created ideas and so on and so on and so on)

Critique is part of the rhealm of idea's and that can be destroyed by ease by the creative nothing as its nothing in itself within the rhealm of ideas.

Perhaps only critcism that could be presented is the assumption of the conciousness to be absolute in creation of idealism when we have the influence of the subconciousness present and shit. And even so how can we know the existance of sutch as the sub conciousness and its influence, only by idealism. (Materialism and Postivism both are forms of idealism)

I think the only actuall good criticism is within eastern philosophy but no one here knows jack shit of that.

Can Stirner beat the Heidegger man though?

Well that's stupid. We might as well embrace nihilism and atheism too since that will also kill Christianity.

It can only ignore (destroy) or addapt (consume) his ideas and make it his own.

The thing with Stirner is that even IF you think you have the ultimate critique. The only thing you are doing is giving the creative nothing food for his own conciousness and the conciousness of the creative nothing has the choice to take possession of the idea's or disregard them. Thus any critique within the rhealm of idea's can be considerd as food to eat and use or just shit to ignore for the creative nothing. All idea's are property that can be taken or destroyed. Cause if you want to boil down egoism for WHAT IT IS (According to my interpitation/subjectivity) then its simply Self Theory.

Self=Creative Nothing (Self/Ego itself is a creation of the Creative Nothing thus actually making it his property, thus the ego MUST have its property to exist cause the ego itself is a property)

Theory=His property (Idea that has been taken possession of by subjectivity, it doesnt mather where the idea came from. Its now yours as you consume it and use it not for its orginal intent or context or any intent of another but for the intend you command it to have from your own subjectivity)

Shoo shoo passivity man. Killing christianity does not kill religion.

So why not drop Stirner and embrace that much cooler essay?

Cause Stirner offers mutch more if you study his work and all who are inspired by him. Wouldnt mind Grandpa Walks Alot but coolness is subjective to be honest femfamfammelan. =^3 *Pomf*

OwO okay~

self-theory is Kierkegaardian faith prove me wrong pro tip you cannot

Thats just a change of langauge to be truthfull with the content of my idea's fellow member of the self-propagating system of family *ironic smily face of anime/furry fandom erp implication*

You're mistaken if you conflate hedonism and egoism.

So your ego have another way to decide his needs and preference other than the hedonist pleasure principle ?
k

You forgot this
i can close this site and do whatever i want. in that pleasure machine you can't