When you did realize that stirnerism is just the epic emptiness of capitalism taking to it's fullest conclusion?

...

we are nothing complex molecules aiming at reproducing chemical reactions, drifting away in a piece of rock that is somewhat fit for these chemicals reactions to happen

Sorry, I meant incompatible. It's a false dichotomy.

How does chemistry and physics nullify anything?

It's like responding to an argument by stating "Oh, but those are just sound waves coming from your mouth"

It's like you don't have qualia.

Obviously we're using egoism in the Stirnerist way (which tbh I disagree with because "ego" is a poor translation that should be "unique," causing the English version of Der Einzige to use ego in an with a different definition than the way it usually used in psychology, but for the sake of argument we'll stick with it); we're debating about Stirnerism. On the other hand, I don't see how we're using the term "selfish" in a way different than it's normally used, to mean acting in one's own interest. Even if it is being used in an atypical manner, it doesn't nullify the argument.
But we essentially do. In any given instance, one acts to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Just because everyone isn't impulsively acting for short-term pleasure doesn't mean we don't act in this manner; we've just evolved enough that we can take the long-term into account (some better than others). Even then, humans routinely act in their short-term interest for pleasure at the cost of long-term interest. The climate crisis is a good example of this.

shut the fuck up OP & leave this place

how does it ratify anything?

The difference is Buddhism says nothing is real, so nothing matters.

Stirnerism says only I am real, so only I matter.

While it can be used to free oneself from guilt when destroying the planet through bourgeois capitalism, it can also be used as an inspiration to fight for a better way of life for yourself through communism.

Less work, less worry, more leisure and an abundance of commodities one doesn't have to worry about affording? And I don't have to soak my hands with the blood of the innocents to get them or fight my way up the class ladder to get there? And I can live in peace and quiet in a world on the road to paradise instead of destruction? Why that sounds quite dandy, I'll put my effort into that instead of a 9 to 5!

Selfish doesn't really mean to act in ones interest (interest being desire) if that interest isn't seen as a bad thing, a person who does good because he desires to do so isn't called selfish, quite the opposite.

I know German well enough to be able to translate Einzige as something akin to "the only one", but even then it's regular use in German differs greatly from how Stirner uses the term metaphysically.

A common sense observation shows that we don't and if you don't like that stuff there's the entirety of psycho-analytic theory for you. If people really only wanted pleasure, they wouldn't have desires leading to misery, or anything else but endorphin chasing or game theory focussed on gaining a maximum of happy points. You wouldn't have made this post, for you could have spend your time more pleasurably, or used it to develop strategy for something more pleasurably.

Being-in-the-world

Where is our Eastern tripfag anyways? I feel like he would have a lot to add to this discussion.

...

If you took Christianity to it's logical conclusion, it would be that we should kill children because then they would go straight to heaven instead of there being a chance that they grow up to be sinners and will never get there.

Christianity requires a level of disbelieve to be able to function.

I don't think you're grasping this.

Our bodies are made up of the recomposed dead. We kill other recomposed dead things to keep our recomposed dead body living a little while longer, but in the end we become the dead that gets recomposed into other living things that will do the exact same thing. Also, along the way we get to be host to billions of microscopic insects that feed on the bits of us that die off and don't get to become the piles of dust in our houses. And when we feed, we are merely processing the dead into compost that will become soil and dirt, the same soil and dirt our young play in and make castles and mud pies out of.

Everything on this planet is death and reanimated death. Any meaning or attachment or moral code you find in it is completely subjective.

This is a statement of what is, but not why we ought to feel a specific way about it.

hell is temporary

I already knew about the circle of life from the lion king.

Since we are limited observers, with our senses having evolved for survival, not for the understanding of any objective reality that might or might not be out there, this is a truism that doesn't mean anything other than that that we observe and how we process this is, is reliant on us.

I do find it particular that egoist nihilists seem to have dead and composting as a big other.

We do things because we wish to change circumstances such that it would please us more to be in a world we changed than one we did not change, and the pursuit of "higher goals" is still the pursuit of a world that we would like to be in.

The altruist finds pleasure in others finding pleasure, and the suicidally altruistic find the same type of pleasure as they feel that what they will do will lead to a happier world, and that pleases them and makes them go ahead.

What did he mean by this?

The entire first half of your argument is just semantics. They're just the most convenient words to use. Make up your own if you don't like them, it doesn't matter. What's important is the concept they are meant to refer to.
But when people act against their apparent self-interest, it is due to unconscious desires that are directed towards pleasure or avoidance of pain. You have to take into account the fact that we attempt to act to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, but not always in a rational manner (which accounts for the psychoanalytic side of things as well; even problems in psychoanalysis are usually trying to realize some unconscious desire). We don't always use game theory because we aren't computers, and we essentially are chasing those happy chemicals all the time, just in a semi-long term interested manner.

You are doing it for a good cause, helping the children achieve heaven faster

God loves you so he will understand

There is no particular way you ought to feel about it.

I just said I am the dead, it can't be an other if it is me.

Where do you gain this conclusion from?

You take the position that happy-points are the end of everything, and when it doesn't seem like it is so, that we then just don't understand this because it works in mysterious ways.

This is a very limited, one dimensional conception of our emotions, desires, morals and character. It is not pleasure seeking when one jumps into an icy lake to save someone else, it is by all means not a pleasurable experience, nor an act of an implicit utilitarian strategy.

None of this is specific to stirnerism, the empty conception of our being, being that of an actor in a hedonistic playground, with ideology being limited to a set of cliche's only occupied with hedonism and privacy is today's standard liberalism, libertarianism and progressivism. Stinernism is just the final deletion of what is left of the superego.

Semantics is relevant to the argument when words are given an entirely different meaning to do away with their connotation.

Here the same problem arises, all we do is collecting happy point, and if we don't, the mechanism is faulty or we don't understand the mechanism. It's begging the question.

sinners go to heaven if they have faith

The reason that is the big other, is exactly because it is you.

Alright, for the sake of the discussion I am going to assume that what Heidegger means is that no concept is isolated from reality, and therefore the logical conclusion is that you can't isolate from the concepts

however I don't think that contradicts striner at all, He initially makes the claim that we have been told the ego concept is bad as its egoistical, he doesn't mean the ego is a fake concept, an irrational one, but that it's the only rational one, as its the only concept you can be sure of its existance

just because a concept exist and can't be isolated from reality doesn't mean you should in anyway celebrate the concept, even the ego, however, we can make an argument on how, if you had to celebrate a concept, it must be the ego

Then use different words lol. Who cares. It doesn't nullify my argument.
But we do understand the mechanism to the best of our ability, it's called psychology. And pretty much all faulty systems for obtaining "happy points" as you put it, are based on either the desire to obtain pleasure or the desire to avoid pain, according to what psychologists understand. Unless you have an alternative psychological theory that bases our actions and unconscious drives on something other than self interest, that's how it stands.

It might be more desirable in the long term - in the sense that it averts guilt or brings a sense of satisfaction in "having done the right thing". There's the key thing: it's not necessarily about visceral pleasure. It can also be about fulfillment and knowing you're on "the right side" of things. It is entirely possible that the rescuer isn't consciously aware that they're doing what they're doing for (in a roundabout way) their own satisfaction, but that's why it's called unconscious egoism.

This fedorafies the concept of rationality, making it an absolute from which an adherence to the concept itself follows, instead of a term to describe problem solving skills. In actual life, this absolute is almost meaningless, following it as such is getting lost in words.

I am sure I exist, because descartes, everyone I know might be an illusion, virtual, a trick. This however, doesn't change anything, if it is virtual reality, a dream or the hardest and simplest newtonian objectivity, my observation is as real as is my self-consciousnesses.

It's still begging the question and ad hoc reasoning. It's even more lacking than the evolutionary psychology trope that everything we do is ultimately tied to reproduction, since there is more solid scientific base for that view. This isn't the base of psychology as scientific finding, but as an ideology to which psychology needs to adhere to be accepted.

Then why limit fulfillment and duty to the same category of visceral pleasure, why not instead see our being as much broader than the switch neurons of a slug?

Everyone here simply assumes the egoist position a priori, and then reasons from that.

It's not so much about neurons (Stirner wasn't a 21st century biologist) but rather the much more abstract concept of the creative nothing that cannot be named, the intangible font of the river, that which will do what it can and wills to do. The nothing is as deep or as shallow as it happens to be, or as it prefers to see itself as and happens to see itself as. As far as I am aware, most nothings do generate actions of duty and fulfillment and see them as different from actions of pleasure, as they want to do and are capable of doing.

To clarify - running is in one of the same categories as flying, the category of "ways to move". Despite this, they are unlikely for most people to be equal or similar. Such is the case with duty and pleasure, two things in the category of "what flows from the well of einzige"

This creative nothing is indeed a nothing, it simply doesn't mean anything apart from a central point of reference akin to The Universe or the mysterious all-encompassing god. It's an emptied Hinduism.

I know that the einzige is seen as the source of everything and therefor the explanation of everything. What I lack is an argument for this a priori.

The first time I encountered Stirner, which was on halfchan /lit/. I've read people like Nietzsche and Heidegger before, so the notion that there is some ego and "its own" as the ultimate foundation seemed completely preposterous and old fashioned.

Because many fall into the trap of choosing the simplest way to think and the easiest ways of pleasing oneself, despite them not always being the best methods.

Even now, we argue because either we find it fun, we wish to convince someone, or simply defeat a proposition counter to our own.
In all cases, these would be pleasurable outcomes to ourselves should they happen tot us.

Do you mean metaphysically speaking, or do you mean magic that doesn't follow any logic at all?

Nah, not everything. Just what I am going to do. The nothing can't exist outside of itself, but there may be things outside of it that exist.
The creative nothing is that which generates assumptions and puts things forwards when everything fixed has been dissolved (hence "creative" nothing). It's what moves when the wheels in the head have been removed. It's the nothing which comes before the something. It's behind the thoughts thought and the actions acted. If it isn't nothing (and, borrowing a page from Taoism, not a tangible concept of nothingness), then what do you propose that it is?

I need more than empty hyperbole as a foundation of this creative nothing. I don't propose that it is anything other than a meaningless big other stuffed away behind untouchable undefinedness.

Yeah, I know. It's just hard to explain. It's like this, I guess: fixed ideas are factories which manufacture ideas and actions. The creative nothing is the workman who built and maintains the factories.

Sorry I can only use dumb hyperbole and such, but my workman is kind of bad.

Also I don't know who the workman really is. Brain chemicals? God? Something beyond its own comprehension? I don't know, but whatever it is it fills the same basic role. So I call it der einzige, that one and only unique thing between the factories that spends its time building them.

Maybe it is a big other, but it's hard to see how that's possible when I don't act according to it as an externality. It isn't a standard or guarantor of anything. It just does what it will do.

Are you talking about the process through we experience qualia?

lolno. If everyone stopped believing in morality capitalism would crumple overnight.

I'm not philosophically literate enough to tell you with certainty. From what I understand about qualia, though, I'd say it's possible. It (the nothing) apparently has power to generate actions outside the context of response to specific experiences, however. Like when something "just pops into your head".

One thing that's bang on is that the nothing is more process than entity.

So it basically means "that what is there, but of which we can not speak".

Using this in the context of stirnerism means nothing though, every ideology could place a supreme source there and claim that all follows from it.

Stirnerism is people finding a goal to make a cake and then taking a great big shit on it.

I think there will be perpetual ambivalence between nihilism and a state of mind where something is important.
A polarity memetically.

It goes 2 ways.

a perpetual moral dilemma.

That said, they aren't the same in reality.
By killing X you assure the end of X.
But by avoiding killing, there's a chance that something can survive.

that's not what happened after the chinese cultural revolution

I suppose that's true. Although to be precise, when I say "the nothing" it's shorthand for "what's behind it all, whatever that happens to be". I don't make any assertions about what its character is, and it isn't a justification for anything. Kind of like when you see a car on the side of the road and you speculate that somebody parked it there, but all your information about that somebody's identity is "they parked a card there". I'm not saying Frank or Martha specifically.

So unlike a conventional ideology where there IS [specific thing] and it does [specific thing], egoism is more like there IS [something] and it will do whatever it is that it does.

It's the literal opposite dumb slavposter.

It's the only way to fill the hollow. Ideology feels like it could fit, but it doesn't, it's soft and foamy and collapses like an aero chocalate bar. But Stirnerism is strong, like…a normal chocolate bar. Shit, I'm getting something to eat.

ie, unfalsifiable

pure ideology

Wrong Satan.

...

That people can be doing things without really realizing or acknowledging what they're doing is an unfalsifiable idea?

No such thing. The unconscious is an agency completely opposed to the ego's delusions of wholeness, where you believe that your actions are merely for purposes of pure pleasure with no one else involved.

Jouissance and the death drives does not abide by this, and once jouissance goes beyond what one can accept, it becomes an horrible experience, as much as it might originally have been pleasurable. Please look into the concept of the death drive and abandon this simplistic and imaginary notion of the ego.

I don't really know how to mount a defense of the concept in psychoanalytic terms, but from what I've just briefly read about the death drive, I'd say:

"The Ego" in "The Ego and its Own" isn't the Freudian ego, or much like the usual concept of ego at all. It's a poor translation from German.

The "Ego" as it stands refers to the preconditions of the mind, that which generates impulse. That which does what it feels it ought to do. "What it ought to do" does not necessarily line up with its own preservation or enjoyment, but exactly what it wills, in which it fulfills itself.

Regardless, I will read more about it. Where should I begin?