“Only Care About Yourself” | Egoism

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Head to squarespace.com/unsolicitedadvice to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code UNSOLICITEDADVICE LINKS AND CORRECTIONS Support me on Patreon here (you lovely person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Subscribe to my Substack here for more of my writings (and my scripts): josephfolley.substack.com/

[@GodFuckker]

Make a vedio on osho , as a philosopher you can check him . Lets see you dare or not

[@GodFuckker]

Make a video on osho

[@atrapanasatromhtos9426]

do you know liquid zulu?

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

Wow, you really did Stirner, excellent. Only Mainländer left on my list of favorite controversial German philosophers, but he's to depressing I guess?

[@sourpusstv7984]

Have you done hegal yet?

[@brandonhall8543]

I have to be real honest with you - Your videos have been utterly life changing for me. I've even cried a few times thinking "this is exactly what I needed to hear". I imagine many others share this sentiment. So thank you for everything you do! Edit: I swear I'm not an egoist haha - just was early to a video for once!

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah thank you! I am so glad the philosophy has been helpful! I really appreciate you saying so

[@Ahriman_of_Duzakh]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Your channel has become my reading list and genuinely become my Philsophy syllabus

[@Dekutard]

what are some of your favorite concepts that hit home?

[@GodFuckker]

​@@unsolicitedadvice9198can you make a vedio on osho

[@CMA418]

But don’t forget! “While there can be no growth without change, there can be change without growth!” ❤️🙏

[@mikewalker8956]

Stirner really just states the obvious. Except for heroic deeds everyone is ultimately acting in their own self interest. 60+ years ago I was emotionally rattled by of all things a Leave It To Beaver episode where an older gentleman was doing very nice things for people around the neighborhood. When The Beav offered him praise for his kindness the old guy said “ I do it for me not for others. I do it because it makes me feel good “.

[@majorbuzzkill9365]

“It is pleasure that lurks behind every one of your virtues. Man performs actions because they are good for him, and when they are good for other people as well he is seen as virtuous. If a man takes pleasure in helping others, he is benevolent. If he takes pleasure in working for society, he is public spirited. But it is for your private pleasure that you give 2 pence to a beggar as much as it is for my private pleasure that I drink another whiskey and soda. I, less of a humbug than you, neither applaud myself for my pleasure, nor demand your admiration.” Somerset Maugham

[@Daniel-ew5qf]

I interpreted it as something like this: Even the kind of pure heroic & self-sacrificing altruistic deeds (which is the opposite of "we want to feel good about ourselves" or "want to look good to others") are still only done because in the end, WE'RE the ones who deem them justified, so it is always up to US, and our own preferences, even when it comes to pure, kind-hearted deeds, because we first have to deem these acts desirable before we carry out the act. So the center of attention is still the self, the "I", though this doesn't reduce anything from the altruism, because what is altruism if not feeling others' pain as your own-to connect the "other" and "I"? In my personal view, Egoism does not prohibit altruism, but it simply reminds us that there is no "sacred" altruism, as every act of altruism has to go through us first, and so, Egoism precedes Altruism.

[@Anon1gh3]

@@Daniel-ew5qf That begs the question - do we really have free will? Nietzsche's transcendentalism is imo the spiritual successor to Stirner's Egoism.

[@Drifter.Dreams]

I call this being "self-oriented." I'm not overly concerned with what anyone else is doing, so long as they aren't trying to impose it on me in my immediate space. Mind your business, and allow others the same courtesy. The only one in this reality that we can control without violence or manipulation is ourselves, so focus your energy and attention there.

[@imranmeco3393]

Exactly! I will do what I want to do. I will feed stray cats, help people, defend people, keep working if I feel like working even though my shift is over, get all sweaty pushing a wheelchair bound beggar with flat tires up a hill he can't get up himself and many other things all because I want to. But people don't get this and try to, ironically, rescue me from these supposed social conventions forcing me to do this by saying spooks like "Why would you do that? He would never do that for you, you know!".

[@martiendejong8857]

The essence of egoism is that you take from others as you wish, given the power to do so so it doesnt really respect those boundaries

[@georgebui7532]

Positively, Egoism to me is more like renouncing our artificial, man made rules and ideas to return to our natural and honest thoughts, feelings and actions, much like Cynicism and Taoism in ancient time. Your video essay is beautifully written and presented, and helpful as always. Thanks from Vietnam!

[@donsistentialist]

the real dilemma is whether at 12am to sleep or watch the new joe video

[@kolbypatrick1914]

This is no dilemma. Sleep can wait.

[@grnarsch5287]

Sleep is just a concept

[@ArtemMalian]

Who's Joe?

[@donsistentialist]

@ unsolicited

[@Tyler-Black]

@@ArtemMalianJoe mama

[@JustAnotherRunner]

As someone who left religion not too long ago, I was always told that without god/religion I would be an amoral heathen. Well years later I have come to realize that I have adopted something like egoism. But the thing is- acting selfishly, in practice, is often acting selflessly. I do what I want and what makes me happy. And now my life looks more “Christian” than it did when I believed in god.

[@monticello15]

I think it's less of a specific argument that "without God each individual would be amoral barbarians" and rather that without a transcendent moral giver anything that can be done is acceptable. The action of kicking a baby has as much moral value as taking care of it does. Broadly speaking, western society has subscribed to a Christian moral framework, so even purely selfish motivations will line up with that for fear of social punishment or ostracization. That societal pressure that comes from the Christian worldview is what keeps someone who's truly living selfishly from just killing everyone who inconveniences them.

[@kidtruck9157]

See it's interesting, because as someone who also just recently left religion, I've always been told it is possible to be non religious and good. I have kinda adopted an "Athiest for Jesus" thing. I see Christianity as false but with generally good values for people to adhere to.

[@hadcrio6845]

Of course, God doesn't exist.

[@weasel-rp7td]

You're welcome. This is God's plan.

[@leebennett1821]

Which God?

[@JohnBorstlap]

Again a great video, brilliantly argued. It seems that in these days the world is full of Stirnerians, even without having read his book or having watched this video. It is a natural gift.

[@bigolhumbo]

Stirnerites are far and few between. Basically everyone lives in Bad Faith.

[@VarsityAthlete04]

If youre refering to the egoism then everyone is a Stirnerian

[@leteethgirl8778]

Hello! I have long been active in communities and intellectual circles that try to rehabilitate this particular philosopher! Because of this background I have been quite skeptical of any new perspective I came across regarding Stirner, as he tends to be treated as either proto-randian or proto-nietzschean, but as this has gone on, I realized you have actually read the thing! Not only that, you thought about it and covered even the angles many contemporary philosophers overlooked and needed to be addressed in "Stirner's Critics". This is a rare thing in my experience in the last 8 years of being preoccupied with this book. I also absolutely agree with you at the end regarding the distinction between desires outside ourselves and our own. I find Zizek's psychoanalytic flavor of ideology useful here, but Girard is good too. I think an interesting thing to note here is actually the quote from the aforementioned Stirner's Critics: "Is it the richer egoist who does not love?" Well, no, and now all values are back on the table! To me, the primarily useful thing in egoism is precisely what Zizek states in other terms: "critique of ideology". Also, when you said "milk" I genuinely believed for a long millisecond that you were going to make a very, very elaborate and funny joke about Johann Kaspar Schmidt being a milkman. I'd have died instantly.

[@leteethgirl8778]

In a different way, of course. I got 10 likes here and now I feel like I need to clarify this take is basically a stretch to find something useful in Stirner. This is dissolution and creation of values by the metric of self-interest, and it's only a sort of spicy flavor to normal values where actually very little changes except for the way you think about them, because you still have all the same motivations as any person, and it says nothing about what mysterious motivations you do or ought to have, where they come from, etc.. But this, in itself, can be useful in terms of critique of ideology. You hold them consciously, subjectively, and are potentially able to evaluate them. Maybe even once your presubjective biases are done influencing your evaluation of those subjectively held values, you might unlock a deeper value to evaluate, poorly, while influenced by even deeper and unevaluated ones, but as the cycle repeats you actually start getting at values that help you understand the world and yourself better.

[@SophieFiona-n9i]

Your videos are very educational Much love from Kenya 🇰🇪 ***

[@geoffreykimani864]

Glad to see my fellow country people watching such informative and mind shifting content.

[@laub847]

I love this channel! Thank you for making high quality and beautifully narrated content

[@tamicapjay31]

Brilliant as usual. Each time I stumbled upon your video, it was somehow always related to my home-country recent political blunders. keep up the good work, thank you for making these videos digestible.

[@BokeenGaming]

oh no, he's discovered stirner, next we will have a video on delueze.

[@jacob_massengale]

If I may suggest a phase after egoism, it could be Dividualism, which is a deconstruction of the ego. When examined more closely, it becomes apparent that the contents of the ego emerges out of the milue, that it itself is a product of its environment. We are ecologically and memetically linked to all people; caring about them is the same as caring about ourselves because what impacts them generates ourselves. if we can impact them in a positive way, we positively impact ourselves in a non liner feedback cycle. Thus our allegiance should be to the systems from which all welfare emerges; that give our ego its being and power in the first place.

[@coreyano]

Imagine if a group of people was telepathic. If they felt each other's joy and pain.

[@jacob_massengale]

@@coreyano in a way we're already like that, reading the feelings through body language and guessing the thoughts through language and context. if we had direct links, while having a clearer picture on reality, it would be harder to find the information relevant for taking care of one body in particular.

[@imranmeco3393]

Personally I think the next step is egoism, but without all the free will nonsense. Pretty much the same as egoism, but from the perspective that we have no free will, and don't need it. Will alone is enough.

[@jacob_massengale]

@imranmeco3393 is there something in particular that makes free will problematic?

[@imranmeco3393]

@@jacob_massengale I mean, it's only problematic in the sense that it cannot exist and people rely on it emotionally. The next, more mature step is to stop this reliance and exercise your absolute will, but in the confidence that you have no other choice anyway. The material argument: -Everything has a cause and effect -Your decisions are movements of energy and matter in the brain -The energy and matter in your brain are not exempt from the process of cause and effect Therefore, the matter and energy transfers in your brain are caused by a chain of events that happened before, and is thus predetermined. Q.e.d. People toss in quantum physics and randomness here, but from my non-physicist understanding: the more you measure the random results the more they tend to average to the expected cause and effect result. Even supposing that I'm wrong, it would be impossible to disprove the existence of cause and effect because the act of scientific proof is reliant on its existence. Next, idk what to call this argument, but I got it from Alex O'Connor: Free will, for it to mean anything in a philosophical discussion, should be defined as "the ability to do otherwise". Because if you have free will, but you can't do anything but go down the one specific chain of cause and effect, the implications are the same as if you didn't. Now, we have two reasons for doing things: 1. Because we are forced to do them 2. Because we want to do them Free will goes out of the window with the first reason. We do not beat our hearts because we will it. We have no other option. So maybe we'll find it in the second reason, then. Now, can you choose what you want to do? Suppose that you're with a friend who buys a chocolate and vanilla ice cream, and asks which one you want. For the sake of example, let's say that you like vanilla more. So, because you like vanilla more, you choose the vanilla ice cream. Now, did you have control over your preference of vanilla ice cream? Can you just choose to prefer some things over others? Now, most people would say "Well, I'll choose chocolate to prove I have free will, then! I still have my free will despite my desires and preferences!" But that is failing to consider your want to prove you have free will, which they also didn't choose to have. They were still controlled by their wants, it's just that the want to prove you have free will was greater than the want to choose your preferred ice cream flavor. For another example: people going to the gym. You might say "surely most don't want to spend time at a gym and would rather want to spend time at home doing something else, and yet they go" And again, this time the want to be fit or healthy or good-looking, or the sum of those, perhaps individually smaller wants and any others related to working out at the gym, triumphed over the want to stay at home. Or an addict trying to recover: He surely wants to indulge in his addiction more than anything else in the world, but his discipline is just that strong that he is able to overcome this Herculean effort through sheer force of free will alone! Or perhaps, his want to be sober and in full control of himself (ironic, given the discussion) simply triumphed over his want to indulge. So seeing as how -We cannot choose our wants (even if we wanted to, we'd have to want to do it beforehand, making the point moot) -Our decisions are based on our wants Therefore our decisions are predetermined by things we cannot choose Therefore we cannot choose otherwise Therefore we cannot have free will Q.e.d. There's also the third and simplest argument, but it presupposes God existing: -God is omniscient -He knows everything you will do -He knew everything you'd do when he designed you in his great plan for which he created the universe I mean, arguably, you could say that God randomly and arbitrarily created the universe and perhaps purposely limited his omn-... His, now, -science so as to not know how it would turn out and gave us free will that way. These situations feel like moving goalposts to the point where God isn't God anymore, so I usually agree to disagree on that at this point. Finally, the fourth (and homemade, mind you) argument: The people I discussed this with usually agree (I'm terribly sorry if it seems I'm putting words in your mouth, but consider it like an FAQ) the decisions one makes are determined by: 1. Their past decisions and their consequences 2. The environment they spent their life in up to that point 3. Their innate personality. The past decisions are based on the decisions before them, and they're based on the decisions before them, and so on and so on until we reach the first decision, which is based on the other two factors, so we can eliminate it from the equation. Now - environment. This includes your family, the kids and adults in kindergarten and outside in your neighborhood, the people you meet in school and activities, and so on until your modern day you. You could not choose your parents, your siblings, the people you will meet on playdates, parks, kindergartens, school, etc. By the time you could choose, your decision is already going to be based on, among other things, your environment up to that point. I hope I don't need to explain how teaching a child to study and teaching a child to pickpocket will differently affect how a person ends up being. I mean that seriously, I've never had to and would have to thoroughly examine the details of this argument. Next and finally: innate personality You can take two children and raise them the exact same since birth and they (unless exact twins) will end up different. They will make different choices despite having the exact same environment, meaning that the traits you are born with are a factor at play here. So: -Your decisions are based on your environment and innate personality -You cannot choose your innate personality -You cannot choose the environment you start with -The environments you choose are based on the previous two factors which you cannot choose Therefore: -Your decisions are based on factors you have no control over -You cannot have free will Q.e.d.

[@OutcastedOutOfReality]

This is better than 11th grade philosophy classes. I'm wondering if you have ever spoken about David Hume, Popper or Epistemology (my favorite philosophy) I'd love to hear all about it all from you. Especially liked the 1984 video I watched yesterday and ending really made sense, something clicked. Love this!

[@johngleue]

Epistemology is a particular branch of philosophy. The branch that's concerned with knowledge and how it is attained.

[@ardekakka]

Havent finished the video yet, but i think, everyone is already an egoist to vaeying degrees, sometimes to the point where it becomes impossible to have consistent definitions of ego across egoists.

[@Couscous77]

‘I am’ is a layered cognitive experience. Awakening is a series of ego curtains that are drawn back to become more in the light of the true self. The self that experiences raw reality. Everyone is somewhere on that roadmap of ego awakening. Understanding the exact point is not required to continue dismantling ego ideas to go deeper. Comparison to others is useless you are not experiencing their experience.

[@artofthepossible7329]

Compare and contrast with Chapter 5 from kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpq5iWejgcaNZs0si=X1hCHMBJc7mjmq03 There's a comment (should be the first or second from the top) with a timestamp of all the chapters.

[@DaithiKidney-ph2sr]

This is psychological egoism, i.e that all people act in their own self interest whether they like it or not

[@ardekakka]

​@@Couscous77Personally, i dont believe in a "true self" nor "raw reality" at least as far as it is not necessary for my previous statement. Other than that, yeah, totes.

[@merlintym1928]

Look up the 9 stages of ego development 👍

[@DarsheelTimalsina]

As always, GREAT VIDEO

[@Jack93885]

What a well considered opinion

[@EmilyMemily-it3xp]

Lol.

[@Wizztard]

Bot

[@JackGladstoneHolroyde]

You commented 1 minute after upload. Karma farming on youtube? Truly a harbinger of the end times

[@EmilyMemily-it3xp]

@ Ooooooooooooh.

[@Themissinglink65]

Amazing video as always! I was actually waiting for a stirner video because I consider him somewhat funny and entertaining, if not a total madman at times, keep up the great work!

[@kevinmerrill4003]

Oh my jesus, i never thought I'd see anyone do a video on max stirner this is amazing

[@RitsukoNL]

Underrated channel. Would you ever consider making videos about mathematical logic given that it's one of your areas of expertise? I know it's not a topic that lends itself to making videos that are digestible and appeal to a wide audience, but I think it is a fascinating field that has been pretty much ignored in the KZbin space. Keep up the good work!

[@Raadpensionaris]

In general terms I agee with his philosophy, but I would never tell anyone else to adopt it because that wouldn't benefit me. So I don't get why he tries to spread the idea. Seems contradictory

[@jonasjacobsen9702]

Well, it's not contradictory. Because it says that whatever your personal beliefs or interests are, don't apply to anyone but yourself. It's entirely subjective. Everyone's acting in their own self interest. So if my personal interest aligns with empathy for example. I'd be acting in my own self interest when I tell people about a way of thinking or living, such as egoism, which would benefit them too. Everyone's experience is entirely subjective to themselves. I think you're applying your personal definition of an egoist as an underlying "universal" value which everyone agrees with. However, you must accept that in the framework of egoism, your personal interests as an egoist doesn't apply to anyone but yourself.

[@Raadpensionaris]

@jonasjacobsen9702 I get it, but many people will take this idea the wrong way and use it to justify all kinds of stupid stuff

[@Raadpensionaris]

@jonasjacobsen9702 I get that, but people will misunderstand it and use it to justify regarded things

[@jonasjacobsen9702]

@@Raadpensionaris fair point. I suppose you're worried about the implications of misunderstanding the idea of separating your values from the general/universal principles of value which hold up society. My understanding of the general idea of the Egoist philosophy is more how you're mentally disobedient towards the cultural "universal ideas/truths", if that makes sense. And in return you follow your own path based on the values that you feel connected to. The things I choose to do even if they align with the "universal values" aren't being acted upon because those values are primarily considered "universal". But because I truly believe they serve my own personal beliefs and interests. I understand that a person who cannot make sense of this will potentially see this egoistic philosophy as an excuse to use those "universal" values to their own benefit within the idea of the social hierarchy. When in reality, the philosophy is suggesting personal reflection and full understanding of oneself's values in relationship to those universal values. Helping you carve out a path which entirely follows your own "self interest". I see your point though. Because it can be very difficult to achieve such understanding when we've been taught to accept and follow these "universal ideas/values" without questioning. Nevertheless, this is my own (potentially flawed) understanding of egoism. I wouldn't consider myself committed entirely to this philosophy, but I do believe there's some interesting insight from which we can learn from. It's more about the spirituality of serving yourself and experiencing existence for me. While still respecting the other human beings which I share my reality with. Think of it as living in society without letting it fully "control" your narrative (social norms, expectations, values, hierarchy etc). Both mentally and physically. You can still follow your own path.

[@imranmeco3393]

​@@RaadpensionarisWell that's their choice to make, and it's equally valid as any choice I make. And I made the choice to try to teach them about that.

[@kxnt_joel1238]

Unsolicited advice back at it again with a banger

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! I hope you like it

[@DeidaraC5]

Congrats on 500k subs! I kinda like how this idea of egoism begins but then it gets confusing...

[@pedrocraycray5159]

OMG A VIDEO ABOUT MAX STIRNER!!!!

[@dinarichyperborean1455]

Finally, a video about my favourite philosopher and personal ideology.

[@philippevangucht7674]

You might get quite a few comments about this, but recently there has been a sports manga out there that explores this topic in quite a bit of depth: Blue Lock. The premise of that story is that Japanese football lacks superstar strikers. What do all superstar strikers have in common? A massive ego! Summarized in the idea of: "you're in posession of the ball 15 meters in front of the goal, 2 defenders are chasing you. You see your teammate is free and is pretty much guaranteed to score if you pass to him. Only an insane egoist would decide to shoot in that context, but sometimes, that's still the right call to make!" I know not everyone that follows this channel would be into manga, but if you are and are interested in a 200+ chapter exploration of egoism and its up/downsides, i can't recommend Blue Lock enough.

[@nunkatsu]

Any football fan, even the most casual, knows that hyperindividualism can only fail in that sport, the one exception I can think of is when there is a huge imbalance of ability between the wingers and the striker, such that the striker can score so many goals that he doesn't need to assist, and if he tried to assist the wingers would fail to score. Outside of the forward position, this idea cannot be implemented, as the role of a midfielder or a fullback involves guaranteeing ball possession and moving the ball to the other half of the field to build the attack.

[@philippevangucht7674]

@nunkatsu Totally agree with you, and I must admit that the football in Blue Lock is not exactly realistic. However, what you're stating here is addressed in the series very early on. At multiple occasions, players mistake their own arrogance as their natural progression, only to quickly be punished for it. The ego that is shown to be healthy is one that identifies one's own goals, playstyles, desires, while supporting the ultimate goal, which in football is to win. It is why fans of the series, recognize the similarity of the philosophy shared in this video, with that in the series.

[@yellow4525]

Bluelock fits more objectivist view than egoist

[@judgejudyandexecutioner.5223]

@@nunkatsu A striker is capable of seeing themselves not as one of the eleven players, but as a conduit of victory. There are 10 players who's role is to either/and deny victory to the opposition, and to supply the striker the ball so he may achieve the ultimate goal (lol). Their existence gives him purpose. As an aside, ego is a good replacement for nerve. I have a mildly narcissistic tendency to have little opinion or respect for anyone who hasn't demonstrated they 'deserve' it. Ie, I think very little of strangers or my contemporaries. However it makes me good in social pressure situations and at presentations or public speaking. I just don't care enough about the opinions these people to be nervous. The moment is too small for me. Now spread that over to high stakes prime time sport. Balotelli, Ibrahimovic, Ronaldo. 3 phenomenal players, 3 absolute buffoonish egos, 3 of the coldest penalty takers in the sport.

[@savakirilov5263]

Not really related to the video but you're always so well-spoken in these videos and I appreciate that

[@Anya_the_pink_and_orange_candy]

By just looking at the title of the video, I first assumed this was going to be about Ayn Rand, and while I’d love to hear your analysis of her work and philosophy, this was a great video as always!

[@daizdamien1409]

Hello! Huge fan of your videos

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! That is very kind of you

[@watcher8582]

Nice working out of the text. As this is frames as a first introduction, I'm surprised you didn't start out with putting him in the context of the Young Hegelians and point out how the style of the work is unconventionally humerous. / Beyond what you covered explicitly, what I also like in Stirner is the discussion of the empty self (edit: I see at least two comments asking about the relation of Stirner to Buddhism, ha), the meandering around the concept and the word "I", which ties in very much with "property" ("Eigentum"). Miraculously, "property" having two meanings (roughly "attribute" and "owned thing") is preserved in the German->English translation, which gives English readers the chance to understand the writing (which sadly I think usually isn't the case, with 18th, 19th century German philosophers.) / PS: Relatedly, I like that your "Feuer" isn't far off, as it normally is, in the Anglo world. (Of course, the ch becoming ck is still there, but okay whatever.) / Well so, again, there's also a lot of discussion of "self" in Stirner, properties becoming properties that one ought to be strong enough to discard (attributes being taken). My goto example is the vegan who commits (i.e. becomes captured by his spook, assigning being vegan to himself as a property/an attribute of his character), and then fails to be powerful enough to discard this property, due to a form of stubborness. The more metaphysical idea of an otherwise empty self that "takes up (hopefully discardable) properties" is one of the main mental pictures I associate with Stirner. / In the end, the one thing I struggle with in Stirner, is if becoming a Stirnerian egoist would be realistic at all. I'd be surprised to even encounter an example. (And, necessarily from the outside, I'd likely also not be able to judge that state of being in anybody anyway.) / 19:20 I didn't quite get how this part bridges to Faustus.

[@thinkingslinky]

Max Stirner, the most unjustly underrated philosopher.

[@MiserableMuon]

ever since I discovered his philosophy as a new anarchist, his ideas have completely changed my own ideas. I'd consider him an extremely underrated philosopher.

[@anglaismoyen]

Justice is a principle. Why would Stirner need justice?

[@thinkingslinky]

@ I don't argue semantics, I leave it to sophists.

[@indiomoustafa2047]

Wtf is a novice anarchist? Are there tiers? Is a novice a white or a yellow belt?

[@MiserableMuon]

@@indiomoustafa2047 I meant when I was new to anarchism.

[@sacha_msky]

This particular video is life changing to me, thanks for introduicing such an idea. Much love

[@anatolydyatlov963]

A firefighter dashed into a burning building to save a child, putting his own life at a huge risk, and emerged victorious with the kid unscathed. He was praised by the onlookers and said "I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't do it". This phrase, seemingly innocent, actually proves that ultimately, he was acting in his own interest. The exact same thing can be said about ANYTHING we do. Even when we sacrifice ourselves for other people, we do it because we know how terribly we would feel otherwise. When we help others, we do it because it makes us feel good. Everyone is ultimately an egoist, but most people simply don't admit it.

[@juliusataturk2421]

That’s a very intriguing point to make about morality and immorality

[@Calico_Man]

what about someone who leaps on a grenade to save those around them?

[@E_V878]

@Calico_Man they either: A) are pleased by the idea of being a hero more than they are pleased by the idea of prolonging their life B) couldn't bear the guilt of surviving without having saved others

[@chemquests]

Such people like to be thought of as a hero and act such a way to be recognized both by others and themselves. Some people are more concerned with confirming their own self-image than public adulation, but this image is manufactured either way

[@abyssal_beans]

There aren’t many philosophies which can’t be boiled down to “take the most efficient possible path to the best possible outcome”, so yes, you could say that all humans are just egoists with varying opinions on what the best outcome and most efficient path are. But you could also boil down the definition of a sandwich filling to “something you put between two slices of bread” and say that all humans are just sandwich fillings that haven’t been placed between two slices of bread yet. In both cases, I’d hesitate to consider the definition to be a particularly helpful way to use the term. Jokes aside, the fact that everyone is always, on some level, acting in their own interest is a valid thing to point out, and the way your moral intuition instinctively reacts to that kind of statement can be endlessly fascinating. It’s just that the statement looses a lot of its bite when you think about it for a moment and realise the only moral philosophies it’s actually at odds with are the ones with lofty ideas about morality being wholly independent of cause and effect. If there’s no material cause behind the firefighter’s actions, then either he’s transcended the great causal chain, or there’s some other reason he rescued that child- in this case, psychological. If there wasn’t some kind of cause, the child wouldn’t have been rescued, and whether you want to argue that morality came from evolution, god, or whatever else, it’s still true that the prospect of feeling good as opposed to feeling shit is one of the best tools our psychology can use to motivate us, so it tracks that this would be how our moral sense operates. Can this method of getting things done potentially have some horrific consequences in certain situations? Yes, absolutely! But so can bipedalism, and aerobic respiration, and a reliance on your vital organs. Humans are not perfect creatures.

[@IntellectCorner]

01:03 The Development of Humanity 09:59 The Tyranny of Ideas 17:59 Egoism and Agency 24:40 Stirner Under Fire

[@eggyboi5762]

Your videos make philosophy so much easier to understand. When i found this channel i was in the trenches of an existential crisis and i didnt know what to do. Since i became a subscriber ive used these videos to help me build a toolbox of my own that i can use to better understand and approach life. Youll prbably never see this comment, but thank you for making these videos. They help so much more than you know. Not to mention they have helped me to grow my attention span 😂 Keep up the amazing work!

[@CMA418]

I also like the channel “philosophizethis!”

[@CalebforHistory]

I subscribed to your channel at 174k or So. Congratulations on growth since then.

[@ricardoortega1139]

a truly interesting philosopher, I'd love if you kept covering more "underground" and unknown philosophers

[@notfred9098]

Right as I sit down for my workout. Excellent timing as always

[@E_V878]

I've been studying The Unique and Its Property for like a week now and I find it hilarious that just when I start looking for other's interpretations of it, you uploaded this video

[@Danteztic]

The criticisms you raised in the final section mirror some of my own thoughts on Stirner over the years. I'm still glad to have read him and he still informs my thinking today, but I agree more with his critique of the tyranny of abstract ideas and superstitious moralism than with his counter-proposals. These days I treat his thought more as an invitation to critically think about the values and principles we have been enculturated into, but I agree that his dichotomy between autonomous and heteronomous desires is too simplistic and I think that his preference for radically fluid forms of social organization is also a bit too myopic and dismissive of the practical benefits of lasting institutions that go beyond mere "unions of egoists".

[@EmilyMemily-it3xp]

23:01 Honestly, his version of society seems to have kind of a sick beauty to it. It just values humans in themselves, not based on their relationships to others, and that kind of implies that our CURRENT society values us in relation to others.

[@BA-ff3xq]

It sounds like senator Armstrong's case for america minus purging the weak bc who tf has the energy for that 😂😂😂

[@ANSHUMANSINGH-v7c]

I was just think about the idea of living for oneself... What a timing By the way love your efforts... Hope u reach 1 mil subs soon..

[@lolachlih3136]

Early today!! I never miss your videos much gratitude to you and for sharing yout wisdom on philosophy❤

[@FemCog]

I love Max Stirner and Egoism, thank you for making this video ❤

[@lastdayonearth9731]

This is the earliest I've ever been to any video on KZbin. Damn.

[@TwoDudesPhilosophy]

Egoists rise up! ...but only if you feel like it, no pressure.

[@proximityclockworkx1572]

Tbh, if nobody cares about you, or only does it for self-interest, egoism / selfishness is the best course of action. If nobody cares, either you should in spite of that, or you shouldn't either and embrace nihilism.

[@cymikgaming1266]

@@proximityclockworkx1572 that logic is sound

[@KingOfGamesss]

Since you are unable to see the Dislikes...I'm letting you know I gave this comment a 'Dislike'

[@KingOfGamesss]

Innocent Souls/Spirits have nothing to fear because they are worthy of "Heaven"

[@IKMTIrr]

@@KingOfGamesss why?

[@Holy-Tiramisu]

I did consider susbsribing to your patreon to support you as i love your work, but unfortunatly your video conviced me to be an egoist

[@thunderdeer6073]

Great video! Would love to have a more audio based version for when I’m doing laundry or something similar

[@BitterDawn]

This video and concept came up during a time where I am struggling with my own ideals and thoughts about how I wish something was but, it happened in the past and I have zero control over it and this ideal is not serving me well and if anything is destructive. I realized last night that if I had originally a different ideal to begin with then I and those close to me would not be suffering and there would be joy. The mind can be a treacherous place.

[@ursluscher7794]

Very interesting, thank you so much. Today sociobiologists and game theorie would have a lot to contribute to this topic.

[@benjaminmolnar3881]

I just watched your Farenheit 451 video and subbed. So close to 500k!!

[@YouWhatMate_Official]

I just discovered your channel, I love this narration and content so much ❤

[@rakaiageddes]

So excited❤❤ awesome, Joe

[@Andrew102-dv5bv]

i love unsolicited advice

[@chilkurvivek1391]

Our current world is also anarchy, but it looks somewhat ordered, only thing which matter in this world is power, power comes in different forms, the more powerful you are the more pleasure you will get, Our current society is running in the way it's running because people in power know to run society like this only if they want to keep the pleasure continue, and they know how psychology of masses works, they know that other people also have desire of pleasure and fear of pain, and intelligent and powerful humans know how to use that in order to maximize their own pleasure and reduce their pain

[@MiserableMuon]

@@chilkurvivek1391 anarchy is power decentralization at it's maximum. You cannot have anarchy and power centralised around a structure that requires an individual or group of individuals (politicians as we call them) to run the government.

[@mEmory______]

Anarchy means without rulers, which our society definitely 8s not without.

[@chilkurvivek1391]

@@MiserableMuon I don't know about exact definition, but according to me anarchy means where rich and powerful can do any atrocities with weak and poor and then get away without facing any problems, I don't know where do you live, but the place where I live(India), here we live in anarchy, here rich people and powerful politicians don't need to follow any rules, In olden times so called upper caste people discriminated so called untouchables, and now children of so called backward people are discriminating against children of so called upper caste people because of all the atrocities which our ancestors has done, Before our ancestors were having power so they made inhumane things like untouchability, now we don't have power so now we are discriminated in getting education and jobs, if you are from upper caste you need to score 95%+ to become engineer, doctor or to get any government job, but if you are from lower caste you need to score just about 50% to become doctor engineer or any government job, Unfortunately I have been born into a poor upper caste family, so nobody give fuck about us, we need to grind hard to live and if we want to get out of poverty then only way is education but quality education is inaccessible, So isn't this unfair that I'm facing punishment for atrocities of my ancestors? But who cares? We are not powerful enough to raise voice, if we raise voice then violent mobs of majority caste will kill us and government will also don't give fuck because their vote bank is majority lower caste people, I live in anarchy and I really don't want to have kids because even if I try hard and settle in abroad then they will face brutal racism but if I had kids in India only they they will face brutal reservation discrimination, I didn't had any control about being born as poor upper caste guy, but I definitely has choice of not continuing this shit, If I had power then I would have wiped out poor people of India, Africa and middle East, if these people vanish then I think almost 99% of current problems will be gone, Living as poor and weak in any type of societal structure will feel like living in anarchy itself, nobody gives fuck about poor and weak, we can just be used as things for giving sympathy

[@airahayashi2919]

What are u talking about. Anarchy simply means no rulers lol

[@chilkurvivek1391]

@@airahayashi2919 I simply meant that rich and powerful actually live In anarchy, they don't follow any rules

[@MatthewEaton]

While I know it isn't spun like this, I believe this is the "check engine light" feature for the adult. Yes, you can still do something outside of yourself for the good of whatever you believe is good, but you should always check to make sure it is really what YOU want and not what someone ELSE wants for you. We sacrifice far too much of ourselves with no return other than a promise that can never be validated (Heaven, $1 million, the best spouse ever, so on and so on) that we must stop the mindless actions and be more mindful of our time and focus. Of course, I am not an expert in any way or mean as I am one of those dreaded nihilists who believes nothing matters anyway.

[@dontwatchthat8933]

I always think of Stirner when flying. The safety instruction to put on your own oxygen mask before helping others is the trigger. (I realise that this procedure also has a practical side effect; merely coincidental)

[@alexlalov7152]

It will be a great gym workout today!

[@hadcrio6845]

Gym is a waste of time.

[@bravojr]

Your work is excellent

[@speedyumbrella968]

Amazing video concept!!!!

[@EmilyMemily-it3xp]

26:17 I’ve used the concept “of your own nature” before. I don’t know if this is generally recognized, but I do think there is a critical difference between ideals that arise from your logic or from other people and ones that come from purely inside whatever would have controlled our base reactions to things had we not been influenced by society, and that is the consequences for following them. Joy and satisfaction vs instability and torment.

[@christopherkelley1664]

It's almost as if we're not tabula rasa after all. This has been known by the sciences for a long time of course. For example, if you're descended from pastoralists you're more likely to believe in harsh penalties for crime than those from centuries of agricultural people, for example. A stolen cow can ruin someone financially, stolen grain less so. Across thousands of miles, biomes, and selection pressures, our instinctive behaviors and preferences will naturally be different. There is no evolutionary force to regularize disposition across populations.

[@EmilyMemily-it3xp]

@ Right! Plus individualization within groups. It’s not healthy for us to conform to external ideas of morality.

[@victorconway444]

I like Stirner’s ideas somewhat. Not as a philosophy in its own right, but as a tool to deconstruct other philosophies. While I don’t agree with rugged individualism either, I do think Stirner presents a very important point and harsh truth about the tendencies of philosophers. Most of them, in one way or another, champion some form of idealism. And consequently, a running theme with idealists is the devaluing of the individual and his will. Self-interest is viewed as something “vulgar,” individual wants are viewed as something to be “overcome,” your personal agency is something that needs to be subordinated or discarded entirely in service to the abstract. Stirner encourages us to quit thinking in these terms. If being a “good person” means you can never truly live for yourself, do what truly makes you happy in this cruel world, that cannot an agent but instead little more than submissive livestock, then what is being a good person worth? That’s the question Stirner challenges us with. A question most philosophies don’t want to ask. When they say their values are “intrinsic,” “transcendental,” “above” the ego, they’re implying that the individual is not even allowed to ask that question. Which is what makes philosophers like Stirner important. Not because he necessarily gives the best answers, but at least asks the right questions.

[@jeremiahkisimba5938]

People should always look after each other ❤️🙏

[@AmirSatt]

This is still fundamentally egoistical idea, we help each other because we expect others to help us. Would you help the society that wouldn't care about you?

[@siondafydd]

Interesting, when you compare Stirner’s philosophy to individual development. Adults who only care about themselves, never get into a relationship, don’t care about societal rules. They aren’t generally seen as good people.

[@realist8979]

Every day I see selfish and horrible people having relationships and achieving better things in life. Don't be fooled.

[@siondafydd]

@ Well you don’t need to do all the things I listed to be a bad person. Like you said some people in a relationship still follow Stirner in other aspects of their life and are still bad people.

[@hian]

I wonder if that's putting the cart before the horse. The issue isn't that they only care only about themselves as such, but that their intuitions of what is in favor of their ego is at the detriment of other people, which suggests they've a psychology dominated by greed and sadism. After all, if your happiness is predicated on the happiness of others, then caring for others is an extension of caring for yourself. I become miserable when people I like are miserable, hence it is in my interest to care for them, and caring for them is a part of my self-care. If a person caring for themselves is absent this, or worse, is predicated on making others miserable, it suggests that the issue isn't that they only care for themselves, but that there is an intrinsic anti-social component to their self-care. EI they're not bad people because they "only care about themselves", they're bad people because they cannot care for themselves without harming others.

[@siondafydd]

@ Isn’t that what Stirner’s egoism is, that you should only care about yourself regardless of your impact on others?

[@hian]

@@siondafydd That is indeed what Stirmer argues, but that's missing the point entirely, because Stirner does not argue that doing things for others cannot be in service of a person's ego. The point is that, to a healthy and sane person, only thinking of "yourself" would necessitate thinking of others because not doing so would make such a person miserable, and if you're doing something which makes you miserable, then you are, de facto, not thinking of yourself/being egotistical. You were positing the idea that only thinking of yourself makes a person bad, and what I am postulating is that this is backwards. What makes people "bad" is if and when their psychology is such that caring for others isn't a prerequisite for the satisfaction of their ego, which would be highly irregular. For example, if I knew that my son was being tortured, I would be very unhappy, because I love my son. However, fundamentally, me making sure my son is happy is still in service of me and my ego, because I'm only doing this because doing so makes *me* happy. Suppose I hated my son and was gleeful at the idea of him being in pain, then obviously, there wouldn't be any reason for me to save my son from torture. However, it's a mistake to consider my failure in such a case as a product of "only caring for myself". The problem is my pathological antipathy towards my son. Secondly, it's categorically confused to associate this with Stirner because he was definitely not of the mind that most would engage in behaviors downstream from such pathologies. To the contrary, he seemed to think that such pathological behaviors were largely products of the two immature stages of the mind. IE when a person reaches egoism under his view, they likely wouldn't throw people under the buss for flakey reasons since they'd recognize that doing so isn't actually in service of the ego at all(unless you're a sadist with ASD). All he was arguing it that a person ought not sacrifice for others if and when it doesn't service the ego either. My point is that a "good person" will save drowning children and old ladies crossing the traffic and they'll do so for egotistical reasons just the same as people with harmful pathologies etc won't; because they're at the end of the day doing it for themselves. Hence, "acting egotistical" cannot be what distinguishes a good person from a bad person. What makes that distinction is the state of the ego itself. We're all egotistical, some just have rotten egos.

[@Osmium78]

I think my problem is that I want to follow something unconditionally, but I can not justify to myself doing such a thing

[@Jslnqdg]

Hey Joe, you get again have delivered a great piece of content on memitic desires and those stemming from withing “the self”, i’d like to thank you for that! Would you also consider making a video essay or substack on the philosophy of qualia if this is of interest of you? Have a great day!

[@Stellatus.mp3]

There are certain foundational points in this philosophy that I think could be exceptionally useful. My particular favorite being the rejecting of rigid moral systems and organizational structures. If these were able to become more fluid there could be lots of avoided suffering. There is certainly a problem in the self interest rhetoric that arises when individuals are given disproportionate power not from their own merit, but because of these structures, in which case acting only in self interest is a slippery slope that permits destructive things as morally acceptable. But I think at the core of this is a really powerful idea that could be very profound with some fine tuning

[@Matt-vq8fg]

Sounds like the world took his work to heart.

[@Literaturemadesimple]

I would love to see a video on Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace, as I’ve always found Tolstoy’s views on the nature of history and humanity’s role in the course of history endlessly fascinating (though of course I would understand why it may take time to make such a video as, well. . . my copy of War and Peace is about 1’400 pages long!) However I would still love to see it if you ever wanted to make such a video!

[@lizellevanwyk5927]

you recorded the squarespace bit at the end of the previous recording. previous recording because of the roses in the back and end because of your red ear :D I like playing detective.

[@Danaredlp]

This video pleases my ego.

[@VincentMeller]

Yo dude I just want to say you're so fucking cool with all your knowledge on philosophy

[@jeremiahkisimba5938]

In my opinion if i had powers i would use it to help humanity

[@danielandressotocruz6477]

Same here

[@grnarsch5287]

I would as long its neutral or benefits me

[@loganyu7117]

A hypothetical that I thought of when reading Stirner that is similar to the points discussed in the end is of an alcoholic. Stirner does touch on self-destructive desires, using his own term "ownness" which creates distinctions regarding some of the caveats mentioned at the end of the video, introducing moderation and self-preservation as if one is consumed by one's own desires he loses this higher form of autonomy "ownness", it can even be seen similar to a Buddhist reflection on consciousness that one is ultimately one step removed from their desires (and must maintain this detachment). He also notes that the egoist should not be beholden to promises he himself makes, even to himself, being free in the present moment to act as he wishes. So considering his definition of ownness and the egoist, if an alcoholic recognizes that he is losing his ownness to the bottle, and he promises to himself that he will never touch alcohol again, when he does encounter alcohol again, is his ownness still subdued to the promise he made to himself?

[@tantangpenn5496]

"Pluck me one strand of hair to benefit the world, I won't do it. Offer me the whole world, I won't accept it" - Chapter of Yang Zhu, Lie Tzi

[@weasel-rp7td]

What does this mean?

[@kumarranjan1638]

Bro is doing ghost hunting!!! ( Those who don't know Max Stirner is also known as "ghost philosopher".)

[@aikisushi]

hey, great video, would love to see a video from you on Ayn Rand as well.

[@mandiocatostada3859]

really nice

[@OliviaLorenz-eh9wp]

Hi, I would appreciate a video on how you wrote your undergrad essays/how you construct your videos now. I would like to know how you apply logic to answering an academic question, it would be great if you could go through from research to writing in real time.

[@ZecZli]

Very interesting, as always. 👍 Never heard of this gentleman before 🙃, but one analogy comes to mind: when I was reading, long ago, one 'History of Hellenic Ethics', there was one character I remembered, one of the Sophists, who was "teaching that - nothing exists"! Nothing. 🥳 I forgot his name, but no nead to say that he didn't have, or leave, many followers anyway... So, that one remained only a minor footnote in the history of philosophy. Back then. But what about - today....? 🤔Unknowingly, of course. 🤐 P. S. Of course that all of the old most crazy ideas, plus new ones, could (re)emerge in only one country, in the Modern era, Germany. 😎 And, for some strange reason, I also noticed that ALL of such great German philosophers - were of Protestant origin, no Catholics... Just an observation, another footnote... 😊🎵🎶

[@lemurlaemu]

anyway, get ready for half million subs! :D

[@animefurry3508]

Stirner would hate psychoanalysis, it really complicates desire! ... I'm curious what stirner would think of Buddhism?

[@howtheworldworks3]

Everyone does it but almost no one thinks or admits that they are doing it.

[@Niffunn]

The egoist is a concept that's very well explored by the character fang yuan. 😊

[@RocketVet]

One flaw I see with this though is that for probably for quite a large number of devoutly religious people they aren't doing it just for the sake of following principles but instead out of fear of ultimate punishment or to gain ultimate reward - it's still selfishly inspired action as well.

[@RocketVet]

Oh yep, you talked about it later too lol

[@kylecarter1599]

Why do people think the State protects their property? All the State does is punish the people who stole from you if those people can be found. Even most insurance won't actually get your property back, just give you financial compensation for the loss.

[@GerhardTreibheit]

As an egoist, I approve

[@RimuruTempest-px3tv]

I am surprised to see that someone who holds the exact same belief system as me existed even before i was born (i developed this same philosophy on my own)

[@ragejackson7136]

I dont understand like half the shit this guy says, but it sounds interesting so i keep watching

[@festuskipkosgei-v4i]

Nice one

[@realnagato]

Most of the criticisms have already been addressed in Stirner's Critics. Stirner only wanted to avoid making something sacred enough that it could no longer be renounced. The origin of the desire doesn't matter much; what matters is whether it has passed through the filter. He directly addresses this criticism when he explains how he himself uses other people's ideas as his own. In other words, this is resolved by the very concept of appropriation, which you only mentioned in the first part of your video.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

That’s only the first criticism :)

[@realnagato]

@unsolicitedadvice9198 ;)

[@davidcheater4239]

I think a couple of examples could ground some of his thoughts better. (I have to admit I've only read Stirnir in German. I'm told the English translation gives different emphases.) He was strongly against anyone being forced into groups against their consent - he had a direct reference to rejecting "Greater Germany" and the absorption of the individual into "Der Volk". He rejected the concept of loving Humanity without respecting the individual. The effect of some of his contemporaries on 20th Century saw many horrible things done to individuals for the good of the collective; whether the collective were Der Volk, the State, Race, or the Proletariat. He did not support any abstract right to property. "Can a man sleep in more than one bed at a time?" He definitely mocked the concept of absentee landlords. I doubt that 'spook' is the best translation of 'geist'. I haven't seen much discussion of his concept that social constructs are tools made for our use and if the tool becomes dangerous it should be disgarded.

[@giuliodellacasagrande684]

I can't understand why acting against your own interest it's a critique to Stirner's thought. Who decide what is your best interest? Of course you will regret your past will, it was your past will indeed, if it would be in your interest forever it would be your eternal interest. You can't do a fully complete informed choice or will, it's part of the material limits of your agency, because it's yours and you are finite and pretty stupid to understand even yourself, eventhough you are the thing you know the most.

[@sussett]

Noticing how reluctant I was to Stirner's ideas, I challenged myself at the beginning of the video to try to have an open mind to his ideas... Yeah... I just don't think maximized egoism works both in the big scale, and even at a personal one, and you argued it perfectly at the end. Wonderful video, half through the video I got to understand why he was really controversial, as I had to calm down my debating heart, fun experience really, and it's even better (as I always say) that you take the time to discuss visions that you don't personally agree with. Great video!

[@francescocerasuolo4064]

Love Stirner very much

[@jeremiahkisimba5938]

Blue lock ❤️❤️

[@aaron-vv4vw]

😭

[@benjif2424]

It seems to me Stirner doesn't seem problematic at all when starting off with just seeing the works through the lens of feelings. Feelings are never "wrong", they also aren't always logical or follow from a world of "ideas". In my view it's always best to acknowledge our own and others feelings and only afterwards decide how to act on them. This seems to not be in conflict with Stirners this stage. Does this make sense?

[@jenniferresner7302]

so the average blue lock enjoyer two hundred years early

[@Couscous77]

This honestly sounds like Buddhism with extra steps and without becoming fully awakened.

[@sweventhought]

Stirner was actually a fan of taoism

[@odconstant]

If only Stirner and Singer could be in a room together...