My quandary

[JazzRemington]

Over the past few days, I've been increasingly attracted to Stirner's Egoism. I haven't read The Ego and Its Own yet, but I've read small bits and pieces of it, enough to get a general idea of the belief. But, I have problems accepting a few beliefs that Egoists have, since I consider myself a materialist.

First, we have the idea that the Ego exists. Since Stirner rejected all concepts outside the self as spooks, how can we justify the existence of the Ego at all then? Do I just happen to one day say, "My Ego exists!" and let it be?

Second, the concept of anything that comes from the self is truth and right. What about science and logic? Can not these justify an objective truth? And what about the subjective nature of what is right and wrong and what is truth and falsehood? I believe science is the only sure fire way of discovering truth, or discovering as much as we can of it.

Third, the rejection of the material world as basis for social life. I mean by this that I cannot fully bring myself to believe that every concept, idea, belief, and "spook" is independent of the material world. I accept the fact that I must ignore authority as part of the way to experiencing true satisfation of my Ego, but how can simply ignoring something make it go away?

I simply do not know what to do. At this point, I'm half materialist, half Egoist. I've tried reading The German Ideology, but I cannot get a clear critique of Stirner because of the large amount of ad hominems. I was told RedStar2000 was knowledgeable of such things, but at this point I'm willing to accept any aid at all.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jaz, I am not sure if this will help (especially as I have not read Stirner, and from what you report of his ideas, I am rather glad I haven't!), but I find 'philosophers' like him help themselves to too many ideas (which they then turn into 'objects' by reifying them - i.e., assuming that because a word exists there must be something in reality answeringt to it). I have never really trusted such easy a priori results: from words we are supposed to be able to get superscience; I think not.

"First, we have the idea that the Ego exists."

You need to ask "What exactly is it that is said to exist here?"

Some would say that because we have the word "I" in the language, then that means the 'ego' exists. [You should always be suspicious of such easily won 'knowledge'.]

But that is to assume that "I" works as a name; but does it?

I think not, and I'd like to see the proof that it does.

Next, even if it did work as a name, that would not show that whatever it named existed, otherwise you would have to start believing in the 'tooth fairy'.

So, we do not as yet have any proof this 'entity' exists. Certainly, no scientifically acceptable evidence.

[Can you imagine scientists accepting the existence of, say, electrons just because someone invented that word?]

"Second, the concept of anything that comes from the self is truth and right."

What an odd idea.

First, concepts cannot be true, only indicative sentences can. Second, we produce many false sentences in our lifetime, by error, omission or to deceive. [An excellent example of this: any randomly selected ruling-class politician. Check out most of what George W Bush says. Whatever his 'ego' told him, none of us would accept it as true, or right.]

Of course, this odd statement might not mean this, but then what does it mean?

I suspect it is vacuous like most of the things that philosophers have said since Thales was a lad.

[They come out with these sage-like sayings, and we all treat them with undue respect, never asking what the dickens they mean. At my site, I try to show that they are all directly or indirectly linked to ruling-class ideas and priorties, and thus make no material sense whatsoever.]

"Third, the rejection of the material world as basis for social life."

Let's try something a little less ambitious: presumably you read a material copy of Stirner's ideas?

If so, you had to use this very material object (this book) to grasp his idea that you should not in this very social setting -- try reading something with no social history or setting to it, indeed, try to imagine a world of books without a social history to have produced them -- use that material object (or social setting) as a basis.

If so, Stirner's 'thesis' self-destructs; in order to access his ideas you need the very thing he says you should deny yourself: an education, an economy to pay for it, and to produce such useless books, and someone to share your thoughts with -- as here.

Now, it is possible to reduce every philosophical thesis in this way to nonsense.

My advice: stop reading traditional Philosophy.

Or if you must, take it all with a pinch of salt.

Do not let it rob you of your materialist good sense.

http://www.anti-dialectics.org