And?

Okay? And? What's the argument?

Being an absurd reductionist isn't an argument. Saying an individual can not exist because an individual is made of cells is like saying a tree can't exist because a forest does.

There's nothing stopping an egoist from wanting to protect his own race. Maybe he enjoys having sex with women of his own race, or thinks other races will not treat him as kindly, or other races do not have the same temperament and will make a culture he doesn't not enjoy, etc, etc.

Stirner was more concerned with the core observations, i.e. morality does not actually exist in the physical world, might makes right. Anyone claiming there is morality from anything other than violent force has been coopted by a mind virus (probably planted there by a person of greater might).

Maybe I don't want my people replaced, Faggot.

Stirner had an existentialist account of the individual in that he thought the individual was something created rather than inherent. The unique wouldn’t be a spook because it is not a higher essence determining them but rather their essence that they can destroy and create as they please (although I doubt the other user has read the book). He also didn’t even really believe in a universal or objective world because he thought every person’s world was unique and an extension of their power.

QRD on egoism is it basically: I can. Do whatever I want

Stirner has a tendency to have very good observations. Although he does go a bit sideways near the end, but that's pretty damn good considering the culture of his time.

Reality as we know it is simply a manifestation of the brain.. Everyone's reality is thus entirely subjective, whether we like it or not.

This doesn't really hit the core of Stirner's philosophy, but it is part of his rebuttal against the existence of God(s) and inherent morality.

Attached: 3FD62FDF-B477-40A5-BC98-464B69791011.jpg (751x1063, 138.39K)

>manifestation of the brain
He would be against this kind of reductionism because the brain is his property and has no meaning outside of him and his creative nothing (all things are nothing in themselves). Gods and morality are spooks though, yeah.

>retards think stirner = sociopath edgelord
BRO IM TOTALLY FREE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND ASNDOIFAOSIDJFOIAJSIOJAOWIJRIA I SHOVED AN OLD LADY AND SHE FELL ON THE GROUND LMAO AND I PISSED ON HER PURSE LOOOOOOOOOOL EBINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN BTFO OLD BOOMER NIGGER BTFo

Yeah, like I said, Stirner does go a bit sideways. He didn't have any real understanding of modern science and his own thinking was heavily polluted by Nietzsche who, himself, had a tendency to rely on spiritual supports.

>You're treading on my rights and property
>And?

Attached: 5d5dade591ab2.image-580870038.jpg (1200x800, 47.49K)

Haven’t read Nietzsche yet. I think he was even more metaphysical than Stirner if the will to power is anything like Schopenhauer’s Will. Stirner’s power is at least unique and not transposed into a universal principle.

The concept of spooks is self refuting. Fuck off with this edgy 15 year old bullshit.

Two can play at that game huwite man.

Attached: images (35).jpg (679x452, 24.76K)