What are your thoughts on egoism?

That is, the assertion that secular ideas such as the concept of inalienable rights, morality, democracy, humanism, nationalism, socialism, capitalism, the state, the law, society, ect, are just as dogmatic as religion and religious concepts, and that the rejection of all these concepts is crucial when it comes to liberating oneself from what amounts to a form of intellectual enslavement. 

Is there more to this concept? Because based on that description, I find it to be pretty ridiculous.foxhound_fox

 Well, this idea of secular dogma is really the brain child of the 19th century philosopher Max Stirner and wrote about it at length in his book The Ego and its Own, and he defends his position in a later book titled Stirner's Critics. There are other inter-related concepts that have to do with this idea of secular dogma, but the description that I layed out is more or less the central concept of Stirner's philosophy.

Anyways, what about it do you find so ridiculous? 

Well it all depends on whose definition of egoism you are adopting -- in this case of the one discussed in the OP, I would positively deny any such assertion which demonises the state, law, and society to the same position as religion.

However, having said that, I do not disagree with the egoism which asserts the danger's of liberal dogma which assumes that 'all men are equal', and that inalienable human rights have any objective meaning in society. I would almost take the Nietzschean line of view that these are ploys to undermine the individuality of man and reduce him to mediocrity; in essence, how can one reach the state of becoming proud and great when we are indoctrinated to believe in our own baseness, and privation of strength.

I don't see how they can be dogmatic. Those ideas are all necessary to liberty and a comfortable state of existence. 

I don't see how they can be dogmatic. Those ideas are all necessary to liberty and a comfortable state of existence. 

 

Frattracide

And Stirner would reply by saying that your concept of liberty is equally as dogmatic.  

Anyways, what about it do you find so ridiculous? -Sun_Tzu-

This is definitely an intriguing, albeit ridiculous concept.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Anyways, what about it do you find so ridiculous? foxhound_fox

This is definitely an intriguing, albeit ridiculous concept.

Well, he would argue that these concepts prevent an open-minded interaction with the world, the way it really is. Not through the blurry eyeglass of a Christian, or a Muslim, or a capitalist, or a nationalist, or a communist, ect. 

Well, he would argue that these concepts prevent an open-minded interaction with the world, the way it really is. Not through the blurry eyeglass of a Christian, or a Muslim, or a capitalist, or a nationalist, or a communist, ect. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

I don't see how they can be dogmatic. Those ideas are all necessary to liberty and a comfortable state of existence. 

 

-Sun_Tzu-

And Stirner would reply by saying that your concept of liberty is equally as dogmatic.  

I've never read Stirner.  

When he talks about dogma what does he mean exactly? When I talk about dogma I am usually referring to a position that is maintained for its own sake, regardless of any external influences. i.e. regardless whether it is right or wrong. Liberty is desirable because of the benefits it provides an individual, and because the alternatives ****** suck. So advocacy of liberty as a concept is not dogmatic in that sense.     

Personally, I would assert that it is patently ridiculous to assert that one is somehow viewing the world with greater clarity by effectively dismissing all knowledge of everything things humans intuitively experience, feel, and understand, but which cannot be quantified, measured, or put into objective terms.  It strikes me that the rejection of everything that humanity has effectively built over the course of its time on Earth, while certainly including the rejection of that which may be a negative force on humans, is nonetheless ultimately destructive to the core, as it in addition casts aside all that which has enabled humanity to become cohesive and well-functioning.  It is perhaps the case that there is no objective way in which one may show the existence of such things, and it may further be the case that they do in fact not exist external to the subjective views of humanity, but I do not believe that one may discount the very real benefit that they provide when rooted in the human consciousness as an end towards which we ought to strive.

I cannot help but note that there always seems to be a certain segment of those residing within the realm of philosophy whose main purpose in life seems to be the indefatigable pursuit of an objective justification for being an a-hole.

That is, the assertion that secular ideas such as the concept of inalienable rights, morality, democracy, humanism, nationalism, socialism, capitalism, the state, the law, society, ect, are just as dogmatic as religion and religious concepts, and that the rejection of all these concepts is crucial when it comes to liberating oneself from what amounts to a form of intellectual enslavement. 

 

-Sun_Tzu-

Besides even that very common characteristic (the dogmatic nature) may be brought into effect in completely different ways in the two, or can only be found in both under certain specific "angles" or the very same dogmatic nature may mean (in essence) something else entirely in the two distinct cases of "religious dogmatism" and "secular dogmatism" (if we can use those phrases).

I cannot help but note that there always seems to be a certain segment of those residing within the realm of philosophy whose main purpose in life seems to be the indefatigable pursuit of an objective justification for being an a-hole.

GabuEx

Personally, I would assert that it is patently ridiculous to assert that one is somehow viewing the world with greater clarity by effectively dismissing all knowledge of everything things humans intuitively experience, feel, and understand, but which cannot be quantified, measured, or put into objective terms.  It strikes me that the rejection of everything that humanity has effectively built over the course of its time on Earth, while certainly including the rejection of that which may be a negative force on humans, is nonetheless ultimately destructive to the core, as it in addition casts aside all that which has enabled humanity to become cohesive and well-functioning.  It is perhaps the case that there is no objective way in which one may show the existence of such things, and it may further be the case that they do in fact not exist external to the subjective views of humanity, but I do not believe that one may discount the very real benefit that they provide when rooted in the human consciousness as an end towards which we ought to strive.GabuEx

But if they are indeed just mere artificial concepts - Stirner would call them "spooks" of the mind, then my freedom is being infringed upon for absolutely no good reason. To Stirner, there is only one justifiable right, and that is might. If I am stronger you, what you have belongs to me if I want it. As he put it,  "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!" As of now, I am being oppressed by these secular concepts. In a way, said concepts allow for people to steal what should be my property.

I cannot help but note that there always seems to be a certain segment of those residing within the realm of philosophy whose main purpose in life seems to be the indefatigable pursuit of an objective justification for being an a-hole.GabuEx

Well Stirner did strain quite a few friendships with his views. I wouldn't go so far to call him an a-hole, because I think that it is important to have people who do push the envelope. Moreover, in my opinion Stirner was correct in two ways. One, he was right that we are all egoists in the sense that we all behave according to our own self-interests, whether we realize it or not, that no one is truly selfless and that selflessness is impossible to achieve - this is something even Engels accepted - and two, that ideology can be blinding and that concepts can very easily rule over individuals.  

But if they are indeed just mere artificial concepts - Stirner would call them "spooks" of the mind, then my freedom is being infringed upon for absolutely no good reason. To Stirner, there is only one justifiable right, and that is might. If I am stronger you, what you have belongs to me if I want it. As he put it,  "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!" As of now, I am being oppressed by these secular concepts. In a way, said concepts allow for people to steal what should be my property.

-Sun_Tzu-

Yes, but that's exactly what I mean.  Sure, if you're stronger than me and if no one else is around to stop you, you can take what you want from me.  But that would make you an a-hole. :P  If a person sees nothing wrong with that at all, fine.  There is nothing I can say to convince them otherwise.

Well Stirner did strain quite a few friendships with his views. I wouldn't go so far to call him an a-hole, because I think that it is important to have people who do push the envelope. Moreover, in my opinion Stirner was correct in two ways. One, he was right that we are all egoists in the sense that we all behave according to our own self-interests, whether we realize it or not, that no one is truly selfless and that selflessness is impossible to achieve - this is something even Engels accepted - and two, that ideology can be blinding and that concepts can very easily rule over individuals.  

-Sun_Tzu-

I agree with those two points.  But that does not dissuade me from the idea that the philosophy is basically trying to justify in overly complicated terms the action of being a jerk.

Well Stirner did strain quite a few friendships with his views.-Sun_Tzu-