Add new comment

The individualism in philosophy deserves to be affirmed. But when individualism becomes a sect, it becomes a joke. In fact, it's just a simple, tedious mechanical repetition and platitude. And in spirit, it really goes to Ayn Rand.

Let's review Max Stirner. He said he was neither a God nor a man. What's the meaning of this? He means, I am who I am? Let's make sense of Stirner's context: he targeted Feuerbach, who merely replaced Christian divinity with human nature. So, did Steiner make a simple replacement again? For example, replace the sanctity of man with the sanctity of ego. Obviously not. First of all, Stirner does not agree with Fichte's universal ego. Secondly, Stirner regards nothing as his career: ego = nothing.

This is actually beyond the scope of rationalism. Descartes praised a self as a hero of rationalism. But Stirner denies the certainty of truth and its other world. The difference is in denying the continuity of ego - yes, contrary to Chomsky's view.

Tom happ's game axiom verge reveals this perfectly. Is it the same thing that I used to be and who I am in the future? Is the last second of me the same as me now? In fact, the continuity of ego is just an illusion. If Chomsky's structuralism inherits realism in scholasticism, Stirner is obviously on the side of nominalism.

Both Nietzsche and Stirner, as philosophers, are telling us to constantly develop ego. But as an individualistic sect, people become slaves under the sacred value. It did not produce stronger, more beautiful and more evil offspring. Mentally disabled, weak in action. The effect is not even as good as the loss caused by equipment aging. There are rational calculations everywhere, calculating one's own value in the enemy's measure. If it is a kind of bravery to say that individual desire or lovers' love break the old and decadent religious community value, and they are persecuted for it, it is worth praising. As Nietzsche said, he preferred Manfred to Faust.

Manfred, an egoist, said that the heart is the root of one's own evil and pain. For him, ego doesn't depend on others. But Faust is a weak image rooted in western rationalism.

It is a lie if an individual gains value simply by opposing something. Because individuals don't get value for opposing herds. It doesn't work to equate the self with an economic exchange, because economic value itself is determined by the herd. Similarly, a moral breaking individualist cannot be a hero of the herd.

If herd is the result of collectivism dogma, individualism also faces its own problems. This is due to the lack of a clear understanding of the original meaning of philosophy. There is no collective in collectivism and no individual in individualism. Then, until now, it has developed into sectarian conflict.

If this is only a philosophical and theoretical argument, then it is obviously beneficial. If it was just a sectarian war, it would be foolish.

Similarly, if individualism doesn't bring great creativity, it doesn't help.