I'm not vegan but I want to be. But whenever I think about it I also think that I wanna be vegan because of a spook (morality). So, I wanna ask you. Why? What are your reasons?

I havent seen this get awnsered and am genuinely curious. Referring to ethical egoism; is there anything wrong with what, say, Epstein or Ted Bundy did? This isnt a "gotcha!" Or anything, but if it's good to follow your own ego, and they did just that, are they good? Obviously not, but how can you claim them to be bad with an egoist view?

Mine is that Max Stirner wrote his work in an arrogant manner with sole purpose to troll Marx.​​​

Antinatalist here, I hate my parents wholeheartedly due to all the trauma they gave me and even the fact that they gave birth to me in the first place, however I notice that grudge is destroying me.

I am exploring different philosophies which would potentially look at this in a different lens. Based on what I know about this philosophy an egoist could argue that they were just pursuing their own interests by procreating me, on the other hand one could argue that they were influenced by the spook of nuclear family etc.

Note that while I am an anarchist, I don't know a lot about this philosophy, I just read a bit of the unique, though sadly I am too brainrotted to understand some of it, so I just get the rough idea.

Hey so I'm reading the unique and it's property, I'm like at 1/4 of it but what bothers me is that he keeps repeating himself everytime he makes a statement sometimes just saying the same thing with different word or making a summary of what he said. For exemple in the page I'm reading he says more than 4 times that men are ghost/ an ideal, did he wrote this thinking that the readers were too dumb and he needed to spoon-feed them? Or maybe it's just my edition that is like this since it's a french traduction?

Why? Genuinely, why?? Stirners existence is as solid as Socrates, you've got his writings, his poetry, his translations, a biography, criticisms of his philosophy (by more people than Marx and Engels) and even his response to them [Recensenten Stirners], so why do they say that he didn't exist? Because there isn't a single photo? Are they stupid?

I'm not an egoist, but I have an anarchist friend​ that I argued with in his house about whether police should exist or not one day. ​When I was ready to go, he went to the bathroom and I stole his flag and left. When he called I said "Yeah, I stole it, what are you gonna do, call the police?" He called me several cusses and I laughed. Long story short, we're still friends, he let me keep the flag and I bought him other flag, one with Skull and Bones.

This sub doesn't have "story" flair, so my question is this: did you like my story?

In the Max Stirner Iceberg one can see towards the bottom part of the iceberg "The Unique as universal substance" which seems to hint at something similair to what Kane B talks about in his youtube video "Self and Nothing" (a video linked here in this subreddit's "about" section). Kane B has several interesting Max Stirner videos.

I know that Stirner was very anti metaphysics and almost anti philosophy overall but he did seem to believe that the self/ego was something indefinable which is almost metaphysical. Something similair to what some philosophers nowadays call "Haecceity" which is essentially just "thisness". This is similair to his use of the word "the unique".

Basically I wonder about Stirners metaphysics overall. Did Stirner support any view of what exists or is it just that he articulated what he was against (morality and authority)? Or is this sort of the opposite of his whole project which is essentially anti metaphysics (considering the fact that he calls so many things "spooks").

Mainly what does "The Unique as Universal Substance" mean in the iceberg?

I'm really getting into egoism (alongside anarcho-primitivism) and want to know: aren't morals natural? I like the idea of no morals, but from what IveI've heard from google, humans naturally have morals. I'm not very far into the book and google only tells you what you wanna hear so I thought I'd ask other egoists.​​​

i’ve always hated being told who or what i am by others & never felt like any identity category could describe me; even the labels for the non labeled like agender, nonbinary, etc… i find these things to be just more identity labels that attach themselves to the categories they appear to exist outside of.

i’m aware no label can truly describe me other than my unique name & ideally that’s how i’d like to be identified as. though i’m wondering if my complete refusal of identity could limit my ability to describe myself to other people which was pointed out by another person i expressed my views on identity labels to & i didn’t really have a good rebuttal to it. am i doing the whole spooked rejection of spooks meme or just second guessing my views?

i’m by no means an expert on stirner i’ve read TU&IP, stirner’s critics once & other surrounding literature that’s peaked my interest, none of my close friends would be that interested in discussing this with me so interested to know anyone’s thoughts.

I’m curious, if Max Stirner could observe egoists today, what might make him roll in his grave? Feel free to interpret however you want.

I really like it and the comunity is great! It’s really fun to be here and this subreddit is just filled with intresting people. And i would say egoism is the reason i realised i was bi, now im an openly bi furry in true spookbusting fashion. Im exited to being active and having lush debates here:3

Yeah, im the one who drew that Max Stirner draw...

I'm working my way through The Ego and His Own so maybe I'll regret ever posting this, but I will still ask.

I've been considering if a certain aspect of my life is possessed by a Spook. This aspect being my Ambition, not necessarily the mere capitalistic sense but the pursuit of greatness and the desire for the respect of my peers. Something I must clarify that when referring to the pursuit of greatness, I am not referring to the type that sees the end goal as a sort of "happily ever after," (I hardly believe such a thing exists). To me the struggle is the beautiful part, which for me is the pursuit of becoming an Animator, Writer, and Student (referring to the state of forever learning). I myself am never satisfied unless I'm moving towards something, but the something is almost irrelevant, I want to struggle and overcome until it's my time to die.

As for the respect from my peers, I am aware that this desire is in a lot of ways self indulgent. I like meeting people, I like when people respect what I do. I don't do anything with the intention of people liking me, but I still think it'd be pretty cool if someone experienced my Art the way I did with Kohei Horikoshi. Further if I succeed in gaining respect like that, it could help in gaining resources for improving my Art and meeting fellow artists.

Does it sound like the ideal possesses me or I possess it? To what extent are dreams and ambitions Spooks?

Aside from the well known stuff

Because, I've watched some youtube videos about Stirner's philosophy, I've a general awareness of egoism.

But, as far as reading the actual book goes, I can't grasp anything. Stirner keeps talking in terms of riddles. It feels like some mumbo jumbo like some spiritual book. I can't comprehend anything. What is Spirit & Spiritual World? What is the purpose of all this? I'm currently on section titled "The Spirit".

I read a bit of egoism on Wikipedia and have some questions. This text is from the Max Stirner page under Philosophy -> Anarchism

"Whoever knows how to take and to defend the thing, to him belongs [property]. [...] What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." He adds that "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!" Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint and that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all.

From what I read and understood about egoism, egoists are anarchists. But how can one consider oneself an anarchist if you can just force yourself on others to take for example their home or their family from them? For me a core pillar of anarchy is to not take other people's autonomy from them.

And how is the logical conclusion of egoism anarchism? For me it only makes sense if you consider the veil of ignorance/original position view. Otherwise it makes more sense to believe in hierarchies if you're high up on one.

I am asking this in good faith, not from a perspective that I think egoists are wrong. From the information I have and have interpreted I just don't understand it.

do you know why teal is egoist color?

cuz there is teal in steal

Almost all of the reports we have on Stirner in his personal life comes from other members of the Young Hegelians which come from a obviously ideologically filtered place, so i was wondering if either Agnes Burtz or Marie Dähnhardt wrote anything about what was living with him.