Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x=o)
    what's your reasoning? I'd have probably argued otherwise is all
    Actually I couldn't be arsed answering so never mind. I'll just say that any anti-statist sentiment you get from The Ego and Its Own (and I admit it's definitely there) is wholly and completely a product of his egoism.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Some fundamental general points:

    There is no such thing as an anarchistic state. And why do you assume that there would be universities?
    Why would there be books and schools? Because there would a demand for them ...

    In an anarcho-capitalist society, there is no central planning ... sorry!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    Actually I couldn't be arsed answering so never mind. I'll just say that any anti-statist sentiment you get from The Ego and Its Own (and I admit it's definitely there) is wholly and completely a product of his egoism.
    can see where you're coming from, but why does that matter? a number of other scholars derive their anti-statism purely from their commitment to liberty -- but are still labelled anarchists
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x=o)
    can see where you're coming from, but why does that matter? a number of other scholars derive their anti-statism purely from their commitment to liberty -- but are still labelled anarchists
    Well, I have two things to say about that:

    Firstly, Stirner never prescribes anything. He doesn't think people should follow what he says, because he's not trying to advance a cause; not of "liberty", of anti-statism or even of egoism. He writes only to satisfy himself. There's plenty of examples I'm sure you could find if you looked, but here is probably the most potent. He writes:

    I see how men are fretted in dark superstition by a swarm of ghosts. If to the extent of my powers I let a bit of daylight fall in on the nocturnal spookery, is it per-chance because love to you inspires this in me? Do I write out of love to men ? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought,—I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me.
    In this way, he's significantly different from non-egoist anti-statists.

    Secondly, if Stirner perceived that he would benefit rather than lose out from rampant statist stupidity, you can bet that he'd support statism (but only insofar as he himself could benefit from it). Stirner is NOT an anti-authoritarian (don't want to use the word libertarian, because it's rather a modern word); rather, he himself wants to wield authority over all things and smash any constraints upon his own (and only his own, he doesn't care a whit for his readers, and why should he?) self.

    These are sufficient enough for me to not class him as an anarchist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    Well, I have two things to say about that:

    Firstly, Stirner never prescribes anything. He doesn't think people should follow what he says, because he's not trying to advance a cause; not of "liberty", of anti-statism or even of egoism. He writes only to satisfy himself. There's plenty of examples I'm sure you could find if you looked, but here is probably the most potent. He writes:



    In this way, he's significantly different from non-egoist anti-statists.

    Secondly, if Stirner perceived that he would benefit rather than lose out from rampant statist stupidity, you can bet that he'd support statism (but only insofar as he himself could benefit from it). Stirner is NOT an anti-authoritarian (don't want to use the word libertarian, because it's rather a modern word); rather, he himself wants to wield authority over all things and smash any constraints upon his own (and only his own, he doesn't care a whit for his readers, and why should he?) self.

    These are sufficient enough for me to not class him as an anarchist.
    Do you happen to have access to a bibliography that I might be able to read through? I can't say I've read anything that claims his egoism doesn't necessitate anarchism, but am always open to being proved wrong
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x=o)
    Do you happen to have access to a bibliography that I might be able to read through? I can't say I've read anything that claims his egoism doesn't necessitate anarchism, but am always open to being proved wrong
    Just to interject temporarily I feel that Max Stirner's egoism was a bit too excessive, almost bordering on solipsism (though I have only read articles on him and not any of his actual works, it must be said; I do not know much about him). However, this is the sort of way that most anarchists should think anyway; to better themselves and their family first and foremost and find a way of living free from the coercion of the state and those around them, whether it be tax avoidance, avoiding (unnecessary) rules and regulations, etc. This is, in fact the best way to demolish the state; you yourself must live in anarchy in the here and now. Others will appreciate your good life and be soon to follow.

    However I think it is also important to at least try and help those who are willing and able to open up to the concept of liberty as long as you do not cause yourself discontent in doing so (i.e. try too hard); this can still be done so by helping educate others of your political beliefs (only if they themselves should be interested and willing to learn). Needless to say, it must be stated that all altruism is rooted in egoism. I do not care about others because my feelings, emotions, etc. are somehow externalised on to them but because I am self-interested and to see others suffer is to cause me, as a saint with 'externalised' compassion, internal suffering. Hence, I act upon my own self-interest to remove all personal discontent and raise my own levels of happiness by giving the poor starving man charity; bread, shelter, warmth and energy. In fact, I would go as far to say that there is no such thing as 'altruism' only 'compassionate self-interest' (for want of a better term). There is a buddhist belief and that is that in order to love and respect others, you must first love and respect yourself.

    Its interesting to point out that Marx devoted an entire section of the German Ideology to ridiculing Max Stirner and his ideology, it is called Saint Max; in fact this book marks his initial break with idealism as a whole. I find it arrogant but it is important to know the 'other side'.

    Cheers.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    anarchism != egoism.

    emphatic point that must be made. living in anarchy in the here and now is not about looking out for number 1 and number 1's immediate family. tbh i think anarchocapitalists should just start their own thread.

    psychological egoism strikes me as unscientific and unfalsifiable - you can always postulate some kind of personal "satisfaction" from any action which you can then appeal to and claim as "egoistic", as if humans could possibly act as anything other than subjects. the extension of the definition of egoism to cover acts taken because you feel bad that someone else feels bad is just a definitional sleight of hand. that's it - defining "altruism" out of existence by saying it could not possibly be motivated by a subjective mechanism (i.e. by simply defining altruism out of the sphere of possible human acts).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You would not voluntarily act (pleonastic term) to better someone else unless it was in your own interests somehow. In fact it is only physically possible to act if the actor believes it will satisfy his own ends. That is a fact and no play on words. People do not act 'altruistically' (if there ever was such a thing) under communism; their assets are seized and redistributed.

    Furthermore it is a mistake to call praxeology psychological; human action is an irrefutable axiom deduced from psychology.

    All altruism is necessarily deeply rooted in egoism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Its interesting to point out that Marx devoted an entire section of the German Ideology to ridiculing Max Stirner and his ideology, it is called Saint Max; in fact this book marks his initial break with idealism as a whole. I find it arrogant but it is important to know the 'other side'.
    Ah yes, Marx's infamous polemic against Stirner which contains not a hint of an argument because Stirner was right, and his single little book essentially refuted Marxism. There's really nothing to be gained from reading this.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Why would Stirner read Say and Smith?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Furthermore it is a mistake to call praxeology psychological; human action is an irrefutable axiom deduced from psychology.
    Wtf? Psychology and praxeology have very very little to do with each other.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    Ah yes, Marx's infamous polemic against Stirner which contains not a hint of an argument because Stirner was right, and his single little book essentially refuted Marxism. There's really nothing to be gained from reading this.
    I apologise for my earlier polemic against you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    Why would Stirner read Say and Smith?
    'Cause he was a clever guy.

    (?)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    Wtf? Psychology and praxeology have very very little to do with each other.
    That's what I was trying to get at, no?

    Actually thinking about it, the axiom of human action is not deduced from psychology.

    The study of human action was influenced by psychology, though. I got this info from Mises' Human Action. Perhaps I misunderstood...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Just to interject temporarily I feel that Max Stirner's egoism was a bit too excessive, almost bordering on solipsism (though I have only read articles on him and not any of his actual works, it must be said; I do not know much about him). However, this is the sort of way that most anarchists should think anyway; to better themselves and their family first and foremost and find a way of living free from the coercion of the state and those around them, whether it be tax avoidance, avoiding (unnecessary) rules and regulations, etc. This is, in fact the best way to demolish the state; you yourself must live in anarchy in the here and now. Others will appreciate your good life and be soon to follow.

    However I think it is also important to at least try and help those who are willing and able to open up to the concept of liberty as long as you do not cause yourself discontent in doing so (i.e. try too hard); this can still be done so by helping educate others of your political beliefs (only if they themselves should be interested and willing to learn). Needless to say, it must be stated that all altruism is rooted in egoism. I do not care about others because my feelings, emotions, etc. are somehow externalised on to them but because I am self-interested and to see others suffer is to cause me, as a saint with 'externalised' compassion, internal suffering. Hence, I act upon my own self-interest to remove all personal discontent and raise my own levels of happiness by giving the poor starving man charity; bread, shelter, warmth and energy. In fact, I would go as far to say that there is no such thing as 'altruism' only 'compassionate self-interest' (for want of a better term). There is a buddhist belief and that is that in order to love and respect others, you must first love and respect yourself.

    Its interesting to point out that Marx devoted an entire section of the German Ideology to ridiculing Max Stirner and his ideology, it is called Saint Max; in fact this book marks his initial break with idealism as a whole. I find it arrogant but it is important to know the 'other side'.

    Cheers.
    "You are to me nothing but- my food, just as I also am fed upon and used by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of utility, of usableness, of use."

    Do you suppose quotes such as the above represent a definitive break with the anarchistic tendencies described in your second paragraph?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by x=o)
    "You are to me nothing but- my food, just as I also am fed upon and used by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of utility, of usableness, of use."

    Do you suppose quotes such as the above represent a definitive break with the anarchistic tendencies described in your second paragraph?
    Loaded question much?

    Possibly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    x
    (Original post by x=o)
    x
    (Original post by Hy~)
    x
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    x
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    x
    (Original post by LordHysteria)
    x
    I'm back (or just arrived for anyone who's not seen my posts before).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I'm back (or just arrived for anyone who's not seen my posts before).
    Well Lord Hysteria has left, I'm hardly ever on and Anarchist Nutter is pro-capitalist.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Well Lord Hysteria has left, I'm hardly ever on and Anarchist Nutter is pro-capitalist.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    That stung me like a poison tipped bullet.

    Truth be told, I won't be on this very much either. Just to update you, I've also become more libertarian too but to be honest, my ideas are fairly up in the air at the moment. Lord Hysteria has really left the entire forum? It'd be nice to get all four of us back on here at some point for another - maybe final - debate about our ideas.

    Well thanks for the heads up Jake. I hope you're doing well.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    That stung me like a poison tipped bullet.

    Truth be told, I won't be on this very much either. Just to update you, I've also become more libertarian too but to be honest, my ideas are fairly up in the air at the moment. Lord Hysteria has really left the entire forum? It'd be nice to get all four of us back on here at some point for another - maybe final - debate about our ideas.

    Well thanks for the heads up Jake. I hope you're doing well.
    Ouch! I love how you guys left me out of this little love-in... I might not be an anarchist, but you know!

    That being said, I'm still feeling rather smug about the AnarchistNutter thing, I can remember (fondly and nostalgically) to those very annoying and long-winded debates...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.