Egoist-communism

Any other egocoms here? If so, in what way do you interpret the idea of "egoist-communism?"

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/COpLj).
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I appear to be one (see: , post and thread archived here: archive.is/COpLj).

Egocom reporting in

...

Gulag the spooks?

gULAG

In essence, this is what an egoist does anyway. Standard prisons don't make use of people; forced labour camps do.

...

I'm an anarchocommunegofrappucino

(checked)
????

what the heckers i'm an anarchocommunegofrappucino now

engels appears only once

it's (from left to right) marx engels lenin stalin mao stirner

what did he mean by this?

can someone explain what an egoist communist society look like in comparison to a non egoist one?

I still can't understand why people likes Stirner, the ego and it's own is only a great rant about "muh spooks". Egoism is just an edgy name for people who are to lazy for read actual philosophy.

Just because it was too deep for you doesn't mean that nobody can understand it

Nice meme user

guilty as charged

egocoms of the world unite

reducing all of a philosophy's points and ideas to just "lol it's just good for spook rants xddddd"

referred to the wrong post end my fucking life

I was one before it was cool

mfw unironic ego-com

MUH EGO DIK

I like myself some tea instead.

Incoming word salad; I might trip over my terminology. I don't care if this is a shitposting thread.

Egoism is precisely what forces us to adopt scientific modes of analysis with regards to practical reason not only because they are useful but also because moral systems:

1) often make inaccurate judgements regarding how people act;
2) cross the is-ought gap in a fallacious manner;
3) often impair mutual progress when they aren't as useful as other solutions;
4) are of little use when compared with science itself, the most-actively-developed way of understanding how circumstances work - the modelling process is mirrored to a crude degree by almost every single moral system I've come across;
5) appeal to things which can and often will be ignored by the most powerful and/or knowledgeable people in society.

What we refer to as the subject of 'ethics' becomes nearly superfluous because of its generalisations; it is currently - for the aims of the majority of people - only worth considering outside of the scope of scientific analysis, yet anything that is outside is often either postulated or a quirk of the logic and semantic scopes which we currently use to explain the universe. 'Ethics' is inherently normative in its judgements even with regards to teleological systems; at its most libertarian, it assumes that something is useful for someone's aims to traverse the is-ought gap. These absolute 'somethings' are the cores of all 'fixed ideas' which Stirner critiques.

With regards to doing what is useful, this idea can be said to be 'truly' fixed given that people would always be willing to follow their aims (or at least what they imagine to be their aims hence the distinction between 'voluntary' egoists who follow authentic aims and 'involuntary' egoists who don't); whatever is most useful out of their circumstances changes with their aims (and it can be predicted within a 'reasonable' tolerance - for example, the chances of building a rocket-powered people-carrier within five minutes to beat the traffic are currently extremely-slim so this can be ruled out in the vast majority of cases). 'Ethical egoism' cannot be ignored on a practical basis for even to ignore it is to change one's aims and still falls within its scope.

Egocom here

Egocom only makes sense if you have a genuine opportunity to join the party bureaucracy/Nomenklatura.