Add new comment

shared stirner's amoralism, and yeah stirner was all about the development of the self for the self sake, so the "by itself" thing isn't totally inaccurate. Stirner's book in response to his critics clears up the notion that stirner totally rejects altruism in favor of some lonely wild-west mentality, i guess an easy assumption for them to make in a cold class society. He said something like "getting outside of yourself to benefit yourself is also egoism", i would like to quote it but i don't remember the specific words he used.

Stirner overall is actually less condescending than buddhist monks, they say "there is no self" and then when you ask them what it means, they tell you that "there is no independent self", so...what's with all the statues, and the attempt to make some dead person a fixture of people's thoughts? Buddhism doesn't make much sense to me as some sort of transcendental/revolutionary praxis, but yes the writings have a lot in common with stirner.