One mustn’t abrogate oneself though. One mustn’t do a thing.
Fixed ideas are ideas that have subjected man, ideas that people embrace because they believe them to be correct and beneficial aren’t. I believe drinking water will keep me from dying, idealogue! Perhaps you should re-read him and get a better understanding (or read others)
Really, I can see a little cult being built around him already, which is sad as I liked the book, but just because I liked it doesn’t mean I’m going to “subject myself to it!”
The book is merely a tool of understanding. It puts many things into perspective.
Do I subject myself to it? No.
I maintain beliefs and opinions about the world. The thing is to keep them under your will, not to modify your will to suit the idea. If you maintain the belief that men should be free, you must ask yourself if you control that belief, or if the belief controls you. Oughts are fixed ideas, shoulds are fixed ideas.
Saint Max? You really don’t understand. Which is strange, because apparently you no longer hold fixed ideas. I guess that makes you an egoist, because without principle, you are only driven by your wants to take what you can through acts of will. Welcome to the fold, brother.
An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a ‘received consciousness’ or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process.
Please read this statement, especially the bold, underlined text. I would appreciate it if you payed special attention to the word “normative”.
In economics, a normative statement expresses a judgement about whether a situation is desirable or undesirable. “The world would be a better place if the moon were made of green cheese” is a normative statement because it expresses a judgement about what ought to be. Notice that there is no way of disproving this statement. If you disagree with it, you have no sure way of disproving someone who believes the statement that he or she is wrong. Normative statements usually contain the modal verbs ‘should’, ‘would’ or ‘could’.
Ideologies that aren’t fixed ideas are non-existent, by definition. I am really nonplussed how you can argue this. That’s what it means. It’s quite pathetic you have resorted to lying to yourself to keep holding on to your word.
Argue what? I’m arguing that the concept of fixed ideas itself is faulty, so the arguing via its definition isn’t going to help your case. “Fixed ideas are ideas that have subjected man, ideas that people embrace because they believe them to be correct and beneficial aren’t.” So, you have either been missing a point I’ve made repeatedly now, or just don’t want to deal with the errors of Saint Max. However, your definition is still false, ideologies are based off of ideas they aren’t the ideas themselves. Moving on, I’m glad you’ve abandoned the “ideologies declare absolute truth” blather, it was completely unfounded. As for normative, I really have no qualms with using the normative thought process to further an ideology. Not being able to disprove the statement “You should do X because it will cause Z” is of no consequence, because its descriptive form “X causes Z” can be disproven.
The only confusion is on your part. Libertarianism is not a religion, nor is it a sect of liberalism (either definition), and it is distinct from the other things you listed. Can you figure out why?
This definition is close, but no cigar, the “aren’t” at the end presumes you objectively know what is beneficial, and what isn’t. I find it hard to accept a definition of the concept of fixed ideas, based on a fixed idea! You really don’t get it.
Which point is that?
It’s not Stirner’s fault you read his work with blinders on.
Then you have been misinterpreting my definitions. They are belief systems based on fixed ideas derived from a normative thought process. I’ve been saying this all along.
I’m sorry, fixed ideas are concepts in the absolute. One ought, one should want, it is right to.
So you are able to exchange one fixed idea for another, to give the puppet master pulling the strings guiding your life a new name tag. How liberated you are! Of course you don’t have a problem with normative ideas, as an ideologue, a puppet, your life would have no direction without striving to your higher calling. You’ve done a better job exposing yourself for the intellectual fraud that you are than I ever could. Thanks for the help.
Maybe then you should stop blabbering, read something related to what you are arguing against, and learn to think on your own. It isn’t a hard question.
“What is it, then, that is called a ‘fixed idea’? An idea that has subjected the man to itself. When you recognize, with regard to such a fixed idea, that it is a folly, you shut its slave up in an asylum.”
Stirner didn’t realise that people do act selfishly, hence the silly ness of “half-egoist.”
Or you have just deified him.
Yet, that is false. Belief systems aren’t based on ideas derived from a normative thought process, the ideas are derived from a descriptive thought process then applied normatively.
Those aren’t necessarily concepts in the absolute though, more question begging - read the last three pages or so.
You control what ideas you accept, not the other way around. LOL at the last half, more cult-like by the day. Give me 10 “Hail Max” to reaffirm your faith.
I think this whole talk has been unnecessary for ‘the last three pages or so’. I think LaRose was trying to convolute every type of ideology, be it descriptive or prescriptive, as if it were the same thing, and they certainly are in a way, in that they are manifestations of the mind, but I don’t think the descriptive ones are as intrusive to human thought as he makes it to be. I do agree with LaRose when he speaks ‘evil’ about moral (prescriptive) ideologies however.
The question begging here is, “is the idea that fixed ideas are bad/incomplete/untestable/detrimental, a fixed idea itself? And if so, why is that not a contradiction?”, isn’t it.
I think he realized that each action ultimately reduces to self interest. Although, the distinction lies in whether the person believes that the idea determines their best interest, or if the idea is subject to the individual’s will, or his own:
“The web of the hypocrisy of today hangs on the frontiers of two domains, between which our time swings back and forth, attaching its fine threads of deception and self-deception. No longer vigorous enough to serve morality without doubt or weakening, not yet reckless enough to live wholly to egoism, it trembles now toward the one and now toward the other in the spider-web of hypocrisy, and, crippled by the curse of halfness, catches only miserable, stupid flies. If one has once dared to make a “free” motion, immediately one waters it again with assurances of love, and – shams resignation; if, on the other side, they have had the face to reject the free motion with moral appeals to confidence, immediately the moral courage also sinks, and they assure one how they hear the free words with special pleasure, etc.;” - Max Stirner, The Ego and It’s Own
This actually seems like a pretty good explanation of the “half-egoists”, like the relativist liberals (no offense). Why submit to fixed ideas to justify action?
Wow, I think you just did a great job of describing yourself as a half-egoist. It’s kind of understandable that you see the label as silly, because you apparently fail to see the contradiction in you own statement of principle!
"In the humanities and social sciences, the term positive (occasionally positivist) is used in a number of ways.
One usage refers to analysis or theories which only attempt to describe how things are, as opposed to how they should be. In this sense, the opposite of positive is normative. An example would be positive, as opposed to normative, economic analysis. Positive statements are also often referred to as descriptive statements."
So you are determining your belief system utilizing opposite though processes simultaneously. The halfness, the hypocrisy…
I’ve read your entries, they are not convincing. Any normative statement requires an assertion of truth. Which by definition, is absolute! Please, if you are going to keep arguing this point, I would ask a concise explanation of your position. Remember, this is me you’re talking to, so try to make it as simple and understandable as possible.
Again, I’m not arguing that point. To reinterpret your statement, you appears to be your position:
“You control what ideas you allow to control your actions.”
Which is why you insist on hitching normative value statements on your ideas.
No one in this conversation is arguing the opposite of your statement, which would be:
“Ideas control what people they accept”
This probably explains why you are consistenly misinterpreting what I am trying to convey.
This is exactly what an ideologue would presume. I’m sorry, I attempt to be as post-ideological as possible, which seems like a concept beyond your scope of comprehension. The “for us or against us” mentality of zealots…
What I’m saying is an observation is only descriptive, than by definition it is no longer an ideology. As Angurse himself states:
An ideology (or belief system) are ultimately prescriptive, regardless of how heavily they rely on descriptive observations to arrive at that conclusion.
Al I am saying is that Ideologies are no different that what we would classify as religion. They are normative beliefs, which can be dangerous.
A fixed idea is the same as a normative idea. That’s all I am saying. A normative decision on the rightness or wrongness of maintaining them is not my concern, I am just saying that once the concept of Ideology as truth is present in one’s mind, it leaves open the possibility of “righteous action”, the same kind that starved millions of Ukrainians, Slaughtered millions of Jews, tortured millions of heretics, and wiped the aboriginal American race/culture off the face of the planet.
Your evocations of tragedy are completely irrelevant since the ‘possibility’ of abusing others is not ‘closed off’ for ‘egoists’ ‘of no fixed ideology’
That’s true, it isn’t. But it seems hard to coordinate the number of individuals required to implement such sytematic destruction if there is no banner to rally under.
Mises was quite clear that the Nazi’s and Communists and all others who sweep up the masses into a frenzy of self-destruction do so by claiming that the masses will be prosperous as a result of the momentous changes. That seems to me to be an entirely egoistic enticement.
I would totally agree. They used people’s self-interest to fool them into prescribing to their Ideology, or allowing them to carry it out. The germ of the bloodshed was still a fixed idea, a sense of “manifest destiny”, or righteousness in their actions.
Oh ok, I didn’t know that. And I don’t think Angurse knew you were referring to ideologies this way either!
But then, how do you discern when people are being egoists and when they’re acting on behalf of a fraudulent collective, if everyone’s an egoist deep inside?
Well, let me try to answer my own question, lol. It seems there’s levels of egoism, and those who are fooled into believing in a false collective are less egoistic, and thus, with greater layers of collectivism, they’re able to do themselves (and also to others by disregarding retaliation) a greater harm.
Well, usually, it’s that statement of shoulds, oughts, x is right, x is wrong, appeals to reason, morality, justice, etc. These normative qualifiers hitched to statements are dead giveaways to an ideologue spouting some faith based conclusion they accept as truth. Watch for these weasel words when listening to politicians. If one was an egoist, instead of acting egoistically (there is a difference), these words would probably not be part of the message.
Well, they have instead subsumed their self-interest to the idea. In their eyes, their self interest has become the idea, they are indiscernible.