I finished The Ego and its Own. AMA

[Anonymous No.12078039]

[Anonymous No.12078041]

Why are you lying?

[Anonymous No.12078101]

I’m not lying

[Anonymous No.12078145]

>>12078101
Liar

[Anonymous No.12078221]

>>12078039
How many nigger cocks have you fellated in your lifetime?

[Anonymous No.12078228]

>>12078221
Just one: my Own

[Anonymous No.12078500]

how long have you been on /leftypol/

[Anonymous No.12078505]

>>12078039
What would you do with my penis if it dangled in front of you?

[Anonymous No.12078721]

>>12078039
What did you learn besides what the memes say?

[Anonymous No.12078770]

Is the ego a spook?

[Anonymous No.12078797]

>>12078770
The ego is the only thing that's not a spook to be honest. (not OP btw).

[Anonymous No.12078807]

>>12078797
What's the ego?

[Anonymous No.12078819]

>>12078807
ich bin das Ego

[Anonymous No.12078824]

>>12078819
scary

[Anonymous No.12079048]

why does leftypol espouse ideological ownership of Stirner’s ideals only to preach about equality/diversity/privilege?

[Anonymous No.12079075]

>>12079048
have you ever been to leftypol? They dont care about diversity/privilege, the only thing that matters is class and the destruction of it. They care about equality because they want a fair world. Many admit communism is an egoistic ideology by nature.

You might be confusing liberalism with leftism

[Anonymous No.12079123]

>>12079075
liberalism isn't about some autistic obsession with equality either. even as late as j.s. mill liberalism was pretty racist. america's founding fathers were liberals etc etc.
egalitarianism is some vaguely-on-the-left phenomenon that has exploded in popularity since the end of wwii. qualitative discernment=literally another holocaust.

[Anonymous No.12079135]

>>12079123
well yes you are referring to classical economic liberalism I was referring to political liberalism, the so called liberals of today who care about issues such as gay/transgender/minority rights and spend their free time arguing on twitter

[Anonymous No.12079401]

>>12079075
Case still remains, why care about fairness

[Anonymous No.12080430]

>>12079135
those people (locke, hobbes, washington, mill) were political liberals too, in that they believed in "live and let live, because people are generally good and things will work out in the end" kind of stuff.
what people call a "liberal" now is just a zogbot npc who cucks to minorities for no reason other than it being fashionable. what the term connotes is nothing like what the word actually means.

[Anonymous No.12080446]

>>12079401
Coz you will have more than what you already have?

[Anonymous No.12080453]

>>12080446
an ecosystem doesn't become fair, people just find other venues to compete for resources and social status if one place is leveled. life is always on some pareto distribution bullshit

[Anonymous No.12080461]

>>12080453
>mistaking natural hierarchies for artificial ones

[Anonymous No.12080472]

>>12078228
Fuck off niggerlover

[Anonymous No.12080473]

>>12079075
>Many admit communism is an egoistic ideology by nature.

I really don't understand that. Communism severely restricts your personal freedoms. How is that compatible with Egoism at all? Egoism is Individualism on steroids, Communism literally advocates for the individual to submit to the group through collectivization.

[Anonymous No.12080490]

>>12080473
t. doesn't know what communism or Striner's Egoism is about
Daily reminder that Striner 's only real contention with a communist is that the latter thinks those who work on the field deserves it while he thinks those who controls it by force deserves it.

[Anonymous No.12080498]

>>12080461
there are no natural hierarchies or artificial ones, there are only hierarchies. they're created by appealing to libido and one of the most powerful desires is to be seen as slightly more desirable than the rest. we'll just find another activity to excel at if we aren't allowed to compete freely for space/money/resources

[Anonymous No.12080549]

>>12080498
>there are no natural hierarchies or artificial ones
My nigga we make artificial hierarchies every single day. Compare Reddit's up/down voting system and 4chan's (You)s system.

[Anonymous No.12080560]

>>12080498
>one of the most powerful desires is to be seen as slightly more desirable than the rest

>>12080498
>one of the most powerful desires is to be seen as slightly more desirable than the rest
This is beta logic, viewing everything in terms of win-lose, and it is a vice caused by cowardice. The logic of the leader is win-win, where someone else who is excelling in their field isn't a competitor but a collaborator: their success is the success of the mutual cause. The beta male in power (the "alpha") must always point at themselves as a threat to retain power, the leader retains their position by pointing at others and facilitating others' abilities. The leader willfully gives power to one who proves themselves better, as the shared goal is what's important, not self-aggrandization. If you place all value in yourself, all value dies with you, if you place it outside of yourself it outlives your temporary existence.

You won't be able to understand this until you get over yourself, to face your inner cowardice not as a foe but as a valuable teacher. Courage is the virtue from which all others spring, and courage isn't the absence of fear but one's reaction to it: a will to face it in full despite suffering.

[Anonymous No.12080624]

>>12080473
Egoism/Communism obviously appear as opposites to anyone historically situated within the historical line of development of Anglo-Saxon political theory, as most loud mouth idiots seem to be.

If you're earnest about taking only your individual interests as your starting point then you really shouldn't worry yourself about any of the issues of "legitimacy" surrounding the institutionalization of positive or negative rights and such as liberals seem so concerned about. You should notice so many who claim to be concerned about self-interest are really humanists and interested in some form of altruistic mission to better the lot of humanity, as wrong or right as their premises may be e.g. Thomas Sowell wants to improve the lot of poor exploited inner city ghetto rats from ivory tower libtards who wrongly think they know what's best for them and Murray Rothbard thinks he has discovered laws of nature which must be respected and rebels need to be physically removed or everyone will suffer.

Self-interest as a real starting point means disregarding any form of "social science" and simply forwarding your own interests... how people use each other today is just a very complex rationalization of subjection of everyone to everyone. True Egoists wouldn't need any of this rationalization and would use each other in a more unpompous fashion and this might be "communistic" in so far as natural hierarchies would assert themselves and this is the most primitive form of interaction which "dialectically" speaking is the most advanced.

[Anonymous No.12080627]

>>12080490
Can you not be so snide and actually explain to me how Egoism is compatible with Communism? I'm genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.12080639]

>>12080549
what's artificial about it? it's a very real selection process and it affects the discourse and the discourse affects its participants and they change their behaviors to some degree. as far as humans are concerned, there are no "natural" hierarchies

>>12080560
not sure what you're trying to say. collaboration games are still just games. sometimes they're more beneficial and fruitful than other games, sometimes they're not. I'm saying that this utopian view of fairness limits your perspective of what might happen after everything becomes "fair". by ending a bunch of games ("you don't have to compete for employment, you don't have to compete for housing, you don't have to compete for X, Y and Z") you're just opening up for other kinds of competition. we might begin playing other more fruitful and ennobling games but we might also start playing more obscure and destructive games. maybe the kind of environment you're proposing is a fertile breeding ground for religious sentiment and extremism. again, think of it like an ecosystem, an animal could easily outcompete another animal if you have a distorted view of fairness.

you might think it's fair that house cats are allowed to exist and flourish but at the same time house cats are to blame for killing off 33 species around the world.

[Anonymous No.12080664]

OP here

>>12078500
never been there
>>12078505
cut it
>>12078721
I don’t think I can summarize everything but basically Stirner is based
>>12079401
Stirner’s idea of association isn’t based on fairness. You are in this case actively taking part on the association because it benefits you. It’s more of an anarcho syndicalism type of organization.

[Anonymous No.12080682]

>>12080639
>what's artificial about it? it's a very real selection process and it affects the discourse and the discourse affects its participants and they change their behaviors to some degree. as far as humans are concerned, there are no "natural" hierarchies
If there's a relationship formed regardless of the intent of any two individuals it's natural and the two are not necessarily equals strictly speaking. Most natural hierarchies are of course biologically formed differences between individuals which place them in fundamentally different relations to one another whereas "artificial" ones (probably not the right word) are social constructs... they are artificial in so far as they can actually be dissolved which is an empirical question where the whole nature/nurture issue and such comes in.

[Anonymous No.12080724]

>>12079048
>>12079075
lol no-one on leftypol likes Stirner other than retarded anarchists. Marx was explicitly against Stirner and as a Marxist-Leninist I just find his ideology childish and pointless.

[Anonymous No.12080726]

>>12080682
the most powerful mobilizing forces for social and political change are "artificial" then. and no, they can't be dissolved, at least not by heady appeals to nature. the only thing that can combat a company/religious organization/nation state is another more well-organized and effective social entity. "artificial" hierarchies are more effective at delivering the libidinal goods and that's the reason they're more real than mute cavemen self-organizing themselves in some anarcho-syndicalist commune according to their innate god-given abilities or whatever

[Anonymous No.12080745]

>>12080724
>as a x
>appeal to status
>we
>they
>ideology
>point

[Anonymous No.12080753]

>>12078039
what do you think of Dr Bones and his podcast? Do you think he represents egoist anarchism well?

[Anonymous No.12080778]

>>12080745
I mean I don't entirely disagree, but you might be doing a bit of a disservice by ignoring why that made sense for anon to respond with (considering anon probably saw that as an attack)...
> Assume ideology
> Ascribe ideology to a presumed homogeneous group
> Appeal to status
> You
> They
> Point

... My guy.

[Anonymous No.12080788]

>>12080778
>my guy
Stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.12080836]

>>12080753
>egoist anarchism

[Anonymous No.12081047]

Welcome my egoist brother. We should corroborate in egoist unions to fulfill each other’s self-interest.

[Anonymous No.12081531]

>>12079075
>fair
>equality
>class

Nice spooks faggot

[Anonymous No.12081544]

>>12080446
What does this even mean?
What if i the things i already have aren't fair because some spooked bearded asshole say so in the past?

[Anonymous No.12081551]

>>12080490
>he thinks those who controls it by force deserves it.

This is literally the definition of capitalism, how the fuck can egoism be compatible with marxism then?

Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.12083088]

>>12080639
Its artificial because it is ultimately decided upon the rhetoric and not substance.

[Anonymous No.12083210]

>>12081551
O.k. not who you're responding to and I don't think an Egoist would really be to concerned about anyone elses "deserts" but obviously nobody defines capitalism in that manner... most people would probably tell you it's just mutually beneficial voluntary exchange between owners of property or Marxists would say the state of affairs when the majority of the people have to rent themselves out to employers to survive but nobody would claim it's just brute force conquest!

Egoism obviously isn't compatible with Marxism... Marx explicitly criticized Stirner and developed his ideas against him. Egoism doesn't necessarily entail "communism", and definitely not Marxism as a theory of "necessary historical developmental stages", but communism simply as being the most natural of relations between people and a more direct emphasis on use-value very well may emerge once everyone stopped being so spooked.

[Anonymous No.12083692]

>>12078039
Why do retarded anarchists think Stirner was one of them

[Anonymous No.12083750]

Did it turn you gay or were you gay to begin with?

[Anonymous No.12083774]

>>12083088
rhetoric is substance

[Anonymous No.12083994]

>>12080627
Not him, and I can't speak for him. But Stirner's egoism has a little more nuance than the memes let on, so sure, everything I have power over is mine, but that isn't always the be-all end all. He allows egoists might pursue ideas like love as doing this is 'In their nature'. Things can be for the egos satisfaction rather than for pure material advantage. sure you could say any given thing is a spook, but the idea isn't to destroy all spooks (I don't think it's possible to do much reasoning at all without SOME mental constructs),it's to recognize them to not become trapped by them.
Im not a stirnerite, but pretty far left of center. An egoist whose nature leads them to be particularly empathetic or simply derive pleasure from altruism could strive towards a utopian ideal for some practical end. You could say, I firmly believe I would best satisfy my ego by ending world hunger, then you could conclude the only way to accomplish that was to reorganize society such that you stopped displacing so many, for instance.
Real "If we ask for the impossible, it is only to avert the unimaginable" type thing

[Anonymous No.12084098]

>>12083210
would proudhon and steiner be bffs?

[Anonymous No.12084207]

>>12084098
He shits on Proudhon in the book

[Anonymous No.12084235]

>>12078039
>The Ego And Its Own
>not The Unique And Its Property
Phantasm.

[Anonymous No.12084654]

>>12080664

> Be OP
> Read or pretend to read a meme book in between sucking cock
> Make a Reddit-tier attentionwhoring AMA post
> Don't even have anything interesting to say about said book
> Probably didn't even read the book; much less understand any of it
> Can only regurgitate "BASED SPOOKMAN"

Why fucking bother, begging to suck rancid cocks is less demeaning than this. You don't even have anything interesting to say about the book, it might as well have been a VCR-manual. Most people would be embarassed for their shortcomings, not OP though, he wears his stupidity proudly, like a retard that won a gold medal at the special olympics. In all honesty, I hope you can look back at your post in a few years and cringe, that would mean that you would have at least learned something.

[Anonymous No.12084921]

>>12084098
Nah Proudhon's Utopian communalism conflicts with Stirner for obvious reason. Friedrich Engels called Bakunin's philosophy something like 'Stirner diluted with a bit of Proudhon' and he was quite right.

[Anonymous No.12085138]

>>12084654
Not OP but I have actually read both translations several times and would consider myself a top stirner expert (not that there is much competition for that, probably less than 10k people have actually read the book)

AMA

[Stirnerman No.12085146]

>>12085138


I'll be back in an hour to answer any questions

[Anonymous No.12085168]

read the german ideology next

[Anonymous No.12085256]

>>12085146

Did you feel like you have wasted your time on this? Honestly, it's not such a great book, taking Stiner's work at face value seems crippling. Stirner's views basically end in solipsism.

[Stirnerman No.12085282]

>>12085256
It wasn't that long and it was worth reading, my conclusion after reading it was that there's no reason I shouldn't be a nationalist (for example) if I want to, I'm a christian now because I need something greater to believe in and it makes me feel better, I'm sure Stirner would approve

I think the best takeway from the book is to examine any behaviours or beliefs you have that you believe because you are told to believe them and that don't make you happy/other thing you truly value (have to seperate the programming from your real values), and eliminate them

[Anonymous No.12085460]

>>12081551
>This is literally the definition of capitalism
>not that those who controls it coz the State said so

[Anonymous No.12085505]

>>12084098
No, no, no. Proudhon was an anti-semite, sexist and had a very communitarian vision for society, he was very much the opposite of Stirner.

[Anonymous No.12085548]

>>12085282
Isnt being a christian or nationalist putting the collective's desires(that were formed by others too) above your own?

[Stirnerman No.12085583]

>>12085548
I desire to be happy and putting the collectives desires above my own makes me happy

for example, giving money to a beggar might not be rational or inherently in my own interests, but if it generates more happiness than spending that money on something else it makes perfect sense

>Isnt being a christian or nationalist putting the collective's desires(that were formed by others too) above your own?

it may appear that way but if my desire is to be happy and believing that makes me happy than it isn't, hope that makes sense

but stirner never actually said you should do what is in your own best interest, it just makes sense

[Anonymous No.12085999]

>>12085282

> I think the best takeway from the book is to examine any behaviours or beliefs you have that you believe because you are told to believe them and that don't make you happy/other thing you truly value (have to seperate the programming from your real values), and eliminate them

While I agree with the sentiment; this isn't a remotely new or profound insight that only Stirner could have provided. One could argue that this can be extracted from almost every philosophy.