Is it just me or is egoism very close to daoism?

I've been pondering the usefulness of the teachings of Christ for my own cause. Not the cultural Christianity of today, nor the mystical/religious teachings of Jesus, but the value to myself of Jesus's tangible advice on living

For me, the teachings of Jesus can be a path to comfort, to suspension of false judgement, to avoid the pain of envy and the inevitable disappointment of mindless consumption.

----------+----------

I am poor but blessed in spirit not because I will inherit gods kingdom, but because I have seen the hardness of the world and yet I remain

I mourn, because it is a shadow of the love I once held for the departed. The love which I will cultivate again to share with those who touch my heart

I am not meek for God, but for myself. It helps me cultivate equanimity and not be beholden to self expectations of grandeur.

I hunger and thirst for righteousness, but not in the name of God. I want those I love to have their grievances addressed

I am merciful because the burden of hate is not worth it's weight. If I can reform a Nazi I'd prefer it to killing them. If I must kill them it is an act of mercy to the world, like putting down a rabid dog.

Etcetera

I more closely align with the Stoics, early Buddhists, Daoists, and Schopenhauer, but I have found some of Jesus's words helpful.

Thoughts, comments, shitposts?

TL;DR-Steal the teachings of Jesus that serve you, discard those that don't

yay

I recently started looking into Egoism / Stirnerist and I really like it, but I'd like to understand it better. If someone could explain Egoism in a nutshell (in a neutral way, if that's possible) and / or suggest some books etc... it would help me very much.

A union of egoists requires that everyone involved is willingly engaging in whatever interaction they're having.

It seems like the concept of a relationship is placing an expectation and idea above the immediate interactions happening between you and the other person.

If you don't have the option of fully dropping in and out of your dynamic with someone, or changing it to suit your will at a whim, then is it really a union of egoists?

As for love, it feels like when people think of someone as "a person they love" they start building up a concept of them in their head, rather than thinking about the actual person in front of them and the connection they're having.

My thoughts are a little bit all over the place atm so I've probably not worded this well, but im just curious if anyone else here's put thought into this?

I found a collection where each NFT is a minute of one day, and each minute is a location in the game.
Each location gets a share of the players purchases. I really liked the concept.
I made three tables where I sorted all the collection items by different characteristics.
The links are in the comments.

The collection website says that items can be grouped together, i.e. 60 minutes can be grouped into an hour. If you do this, the reward is doubled.

• Cooperation. Negotiate with other NFT owners, combine minutes into an hour and get double the profits.
• Egoism (greenmail). Buy one minute per hour and not agree to join with other players, forcing them to buy my NFTs at a much higher price.

The first option is beneficial over the long haul.
I will get game tokens in double the amount.

In the second option, I will receive tokens and wait for others to buy my NFTs.

What to choose? Be good or be bad?

Thanks.

I mean think about it, you're holding yourself to an idea that involves fighting off spooks, but in doing so, you commit to something other than yourself and serve an idea other than self.

(This isn't a troll post I swear it's just something weird I thought up curious what you think about it. Nothing more.)

I understand that Stirner was an anarchist, and that while some egoists can be ancoms, there are some ancoms with VERY different views than Stirner. What would be some non-egoist ancom critiques of Stirner be?

Which do you subscribe to? Does altruism exist? Or are all human actions motivated by some form of self interest, no matter how short-lived?

Title.

I understand egoism is very complex well not sure what to call it

Seriously, though...

I mean Satanism in it's actual definition. Not the "Them college professors be workin' with the Devil, they some Satanists!" bs.

Obviously their followers wouldn't be, but isn't for example Imelda Marcos an unwitting egoist?

The book Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky. It primarily features internal struggles within the main character, Raskolnikov, and many say that Raskolnikov acts as an egoist. It is even mentioned within the text itself as other characters argue with and describe him and his actions.

So (if you've read it) what do you think about it? Do you think Raskolnikov is an egoist? Certain aspects of his character? Do you think Dostoevsky understood egoism? Do you think he read Stirner's works? Do you think I'm a fucking nerd? Let me know about it in the comments!

View Poll

This is something I've been thinking about recently; have you ever known someone who was perfectly nice, generous, pleasant, etc. but you can tell that they're only doing it because they know they're supposed to? So they can pat themselves on the back about how moral they're being? I may appreciate the things they've done, but always feel a hollowness in them, an alienation between them and myself. They can be polite, but never kind

Whereas when you experience someone who is nice, generous, pleasant, etc. to you simply for the pleasure of it. Because making others happy makes them happy; that's a very different experience. Giving others pleasure because it feels nice, not because you're supposed to, I think that's really the only way to be kind. Otherwise kindness is a type of hollow, mechanical action, not a quality of the person doing it

One of the reasons why it is difficult to develop self-worth is the fact that, if we have never experienced it in our life, we can easily confuse it with egoism.

This confusion comes because of the belief that self-love and egoism are somehow associated with each other. They are not! I understand that association though, because I used to hold that belief and that made me hold back tremendously. I was terrified of being perceived as egoist, arrogant or simply a jerk. That made me stay away from anything closely related to self-worth because I believed I would risk developing those negative qualities too.

The reason why this happens is because when we have low self-worth, we look around us to find a model of it. Since we never experienced it, we infer it based on what seems to be symbols of strength. Usually the most flashy examples are the ones that catch our eye. Arrogance is flashy and so is pretentiousness. Therefore, we start associating this kind of behaviour with self-worth and we might go as far as having thoughts such as: “this guy really loves himself”. I remember having a kind of toxic admiration for these personality types.

At the surface, it might seem that the qualities I just mentioned are somehow related to self-worth or even that they come together in a package but in reality, that’s not the case. Ego-centric behaviours, such as arrogance, come from a place of insecurity. Whereas self-worth comes from a place of love.

Egoism and self-love are unrelated, they are NOT in the same spectrum. Egoism is behaving in an ego-centric manner, it's the behaviour that emerges when our ego takes over. Egoism is usually considered a "bad thing" because it often manifests itself in behaviours where one puts oneself first instead of others or even penalises others in order to benefit oneself. What must be clear here is that it is a protection mechanism and the need for protection only appears if we feel threatened. In other words, it is a fear based behaviour.

Now, self-love has nothing to do with that. If you experience true love at its essence, you naturally feel self-love but you also feel love for others, nature, animals, the world, etc. This state is not compatible with a protection mechanism that comes off as egoism. Moreover, they are not opposites either, although they have certain specific qualities that are. For instance, love (even self-love) facilitates connection, while egoism creates separation.

Last point, someone that is egoistic does

I never studied egoism but it always seemed a little crazy to me, what if the person's ego is to kill you?

What political issues are most important to you and why?

Gun freedoms, free speech, local autonomy.

What philosophy of politics and ethics do you believe?(ie egoism, altruism, liberalism, socialism etc)

Egoism.

How should government be structured?

Not at all…? I don't recognize a special role of 'government'.

Should one leader possess centralized control?

No.

Should the leader be democratically elected?

No government.

How should they be chosen?

No government

Should government be decentralized? (ie states in the US, provinces in Canada and Cantons in Switzerland)

No government.

What level of autonomy should subdivisions have? A high degree or a low degree of autonomy?

Very high.

What are your views on social security, universal healthcare, education, housing and the welfare state generally?

No government

To what extent should production be regulated by the state?

No government.

What industries, if any, should be publicly owned, and why?

No government

What are your views on “traditional beliefs”, such as the role of family, gender roles, the role of religion in society and so on?

Family is important. Gender roles are mostly useful. Religion, try to separate the non-sense from the wisdom.

What are your views on national identity? Is it important? If not, why not? If so, how is it defined? By ethnicity? Culture? Or “civic values”?

As you wish.

What are your views on immigration and foriegn policy?

No government.

Are there any political parties, organizations or movements you identify with, regardless of whether or not you officially support them?

The Free State Project.

8 Values: Libertarian Capitalist

• 85% market
• 42% globe
• 29% auth
• 48% Progress

The core of my theory of justice is respecting expectations.

I welcome debate and challenges.

I had this internal debate about that, I came with the conclusion that yes they can be separated since these are two distinct things. What do you think about that?

I would consider my moral system to be a form of egoism where I value the maximisation of my own happiness. I think when most people hear this they (understandably) assume "oh so you're a selfish bastard then?", however I don't think it really leads to this position.

There are sortof two pillars of the egosim, the first is the "reciprocation of values and advocacy" one. Basically I should act towards others the way I want them to act towards me, so to take two basic examples, if I don't kill, and advocate against killing, people will not kill me, and advocate against the kill of me. And if I let people do things they like that don't hurt anyone else, people will let me do things like that too. This would only really apply to beings capable of doing this sortof reciprocal values, which is probably every living human (note capable, not necessary those actually doing it).

The second pillar is where I feel like it gets a bit wishy washy and is why I'm making this post, because as much as I can't see an obvious hole in it, it feels super dumb when I say it out loud. Basically it goes as follows:

I feel natural empathy towards people, which means that I don't like it when they are in pain for example, as it makes me feel bad, so I would be against it, even if not condemning it was guaranteed not to have a "reciprocated values" negative effect on me. (So if I could kill someone without anyone ever finding out, I still would be against it rather than just indifferent).
Now at first this sounds like "bad things are things I don't like", but it wouldn't quite be as I would want to make sure it didn't violate the first idea of the reciprocation. (i.e. I'm not going to condemn someone for doing something I just don't like but isn't hurting anyone, as they could turn that back on me).

The reason it feels wishy washy is because I feel like I'm just adding in "oh by the way things that I find uncomfortable are also morally bad", which almost feels like cheating, but it seems to be consistent.

Is this system consistent, and is there an obvious hole in the second part of it?

In the history of mankind, dialectics have been used quite a lot. Dialectics (in the Hegelian sense) is a philosophical technique to resolve contradictions by finding a higher idea that includes both views. For example, a very current one (doesn't have to be true, it's just for demonstration purposes): People know that vaccinations are providing protection against diseases , yet they don't want to be vaccinated, which is a contradiction. One possible solution would be this idea, that includes both: People that dont want to be vaccinated feel powerless in a state system and bodily autonomy is the one thing nobody can take from them completely, so when representatives of the state say "please get vaccinated" they automatically reject it." Again, this is an example, doesn't have to be true, don't pin me down on that one.

So if you find that dialectics can be applied to morals, you would think that there has to be the highest idea of all, the one idea that includes all moral acts and excludes all immoral acts. While in ancient times, people saw themselves opposed to raw nature, they actually didn't care much about that, because the only morals that led to survival was cooperation of the group they lived in. Then Christianity came up. It probably wasn't the first one, but certainly the first successful highest spirit at the time. Christ embodied the one morality that included it all - for Christians. So what you as an individual just had to do is follow Christs rules, become a Christian, and you will always be moral.

Of course a highest spirit isn't real, isn't immanent. So they came up with the idea that god (the theists name for a highest spirit) became flesh, that their saviour from hunger, death and agony had been actually real. We all know the story, the jews "killed" the guy, they were from the old bash and made it very clear that spirits can not become flesh.

The success of christianity didn't only lie in the military strength of the realms they became successful in, the roman for example, but also that an all mighty god, a most moral principle is better than having thousands of gods, thousands of morals that contradict each other eventually, so having to only submit to one god and not having to fear any other god was quite appealing.

Of course the ideal of Christianity, the Christian is only one for aspiring Christians. There are competing "highest spirits", islam for example. It is no accident that those groups were fighting for predominance in t

Towards An Indigenous Egoism - Alex/Cante Waste

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/cante-waste-good-heart-towards-an-indigenous-egoism

Hello fellow politically inclined individuals! I just was wondering what Egoism is? And also what is Marxist Egoism? I have books by Max Stirner and I'm planning on reading the books soon. Full disclosure I am a borderline Anarchist and a Marxist, along with being a Posthumanist. I am interested in Egoism because I am an existentialist, and a realist.

You say this should be lowkey so it doesn’t become an egotistical bragging fest, yet you made sure to seriously name yourself as a prime candidate (I know I made a similar comment, but mine was a joke). Also, no offense but there are several users who have been around a few months longer than you and have probably done more. And I don’t think we should reward users with HoF entries for having been around a really long time if they haven’t done anything substantially influential (not specifically talking about you here). That would also block newer users who have accomplished more than older ones like you or me.

------

Someone responded to me with this after I made a joke about being in a small subreddit's hall of fame (the head mod had suggested the idea of their being a HoF).

This Question has been in the back of my head for... always?

I myself think that Human Nature is not egoism, we are social and altruistic animals. But then how and why would we go out of our way to create these different systems?

While I take many ideas out of Buddhism and Science, I do identify as a Satanist according to LaVey.

There are, however, some conflicts brewing in my mind, for which i'd like to hear your opinions.

It's argued that aggression is a act of self-preservation and hitting back is only right, however deescalation is pretty much always a option, the intelligent person takes a step back and does not seek conflict, to avoid additional harm.

So what makes someone a enemy? What makes a enemy worth destroying? When to revenge and when to deescalate?

This seems so situational, there are for example barfights, defending yourself from a wild animal, the revenge for the abuse of someone or a business opponent seeking his advantage over you.

Another thing I have issues with is egoism in Satanism, I've adopted a very buddhistic view of the Ego and found the satanic view to be extremely limited in this regard. Would you consider yourself egostic and do you just embrace it? Or are there other ways to think about this here?

One of the reasons why it is difficult to develop self-worth is the fact that, if we have never experienced it in our life, we can easily confuse it with egoism.

This confusion comes because of the belief that self-love and egoism are somehow associated with each other. They are not! I understand that association though, because I used to hold that belief and that made me hold back tremendously. I was terrified of being perceived as egoist, arrogant or simply a jerk. That made me stay away from anything closely related to self-worth because I believed I would risk developing those negative qualities too.

The reason why this happens is because when we have low self-worth, we look around us to find a model of it. Since we never experienced it, we infer it based on what seems to be symbols of strength. Usually the most flashy examples are the ones that catch our eye. Arrogance is flashy and so is pretentiousness. Therefore, we start associating this kind of behaviour with self-worth and we might go as far as having thoughts such as: “this guy really loves himself”. I remember having a kind of toxic admiration for these personality types.

At the surface, it might seem that the qualities I just mentioned are somehow related to self-worth or even that they come together in a package but in reality, that’s not the case. Ego-centric behaviours, such as arrogance, come from a place of insecurity. Whereas self-worth comes from a place of love.

Egoism and self-love are unrelated, they are NOT in the same spectrum. Egoism is behaving in an ego-centric manner, it's the behaviour that emerges when our ego takes over. Egoism is usually considered a "bad thing" because it often manifests itself in behaviours where one puts oneself first instead of others or even penalises others in order to benefit oneself. What must be clear here is that it is a protection mechanism and the need for protection only appears if we feel threatened. In other words, it is a fear based behaviour.

Now, self-love has nothing to do with that. If you experience true love at its essence, you naturally feel self-love but you also feel love for others, nature, animals, the world, etc. This state is not compatible with a protection mechanism that comes off as egoism. Moreover, they are not opposites either, although they have certain specific qualities that are. For instance, love (even self-love) facilitates connection, while egoism creates separation.

Last point, someone that is egoistic does