It’s not there. How does anybody realize an illusion? Nobody can. That’s why it’s called an illusion. An illusion isn’t graspable.
But ok. thanks. good night.[:)]
Well I’m not trying to use presentism. This topic is address to followers of Stirner who know the ‘ideology’ of Stirner but also know the laws of praxeology.
Of course an ego cannot logically act in a non-praxeological way. Praxeology describes action, it does not constrain it in any way that is not an outright abuse of language.
"Like always applying goods to your highest value. Say if you have an orange and you have a value scale of three things you would like.
-
Orange juice
-
Eat the orange raw
-
Smash the orange.
You cannot apply that orange to your second or third value and still have it remain the second or third. I cannot eat the orange yet still value orange juice higher. I would value eating the orange higher then the orange juice."
This is not a law (the only law here shown is that of logical inference). This is true by definition and a useful tautology.
In your example, Orange juice is the highest value because it is chosen prior to the alternatives. ‘Highest Value’ is defined as ‘whatever is chosen first’, so of course it is impossible to choose to smash the orange first while valuing drinking the orange juice highest. That would entail both drinking the orange juice first (it is the highest value) and smashing the orange first, a logical contradiction.
Think of this phrase, ‘incentives motivates behavior’. I always chuckle when i see this, as incentives are defined as any factor that motivates behavior.
So once again, it comes down to the laws of logic. I don’t know what Stirner thought about them, but I’m sure he wouldn’t see them as sacred and untouchable, although he obviously used them for his ends.
To repeat the scientific adage, if so, so what? I don’t really see how this is in conflict with Stirner’s beliefs, as this is purely descriptive of the action a posteori
So it’s impossible to understand how magicians do their tricks?
If you knew their trick, then you wouldn’t see only the illusion but would also see more clearly what is happening that involves the illusion and whatever it is magicians do along side the illusion. It’s one act. I’ve seen magicians do those tricks and then they repeat the trick slowly to show their whole act and I realize how they did it. After that I can’t tell the difference anymore.
Strictly speaking, very few people if any know “the laws of praxeology.” What some people are familiar with are laws of market phenomena.
Correction:
If we’re talking about the law of marginal utility, the general idea that the more an actor has of something, the less he values each unit, and in the sense that this applies to objects of the actor’s action generally, even beyond market phenomena, then in this case, my statement above is not accurate. I believe many people are familiar with this general praxeological law, either intuitively or consciously.
People are obviously familiar with various economic laws, such as the law of returns, or the several economic laws Hoppe discusses on pages 14 and 15 of his Economic Science and the Austrian Method.
As far as praxeological laws as those may inhere in man’s ethical or moral activities, here I think my statement holds, and there are by and large only intuitions that there are moral or ethical laws of conduct, but no explicit praxeological laws acknowledged.
Yep. You have to understand the illusion to grasp what’s really happening.
@OP
The “ego” is what is used to create value to the individual. It acts within the reality it percieves, and make evaluations from there. The self is the only thing that can ultimatly define and recognize reality. If I were to beilieve I could fly and bounce bullets off my chest like Superman in the world as I know it,( and if get all bent out of shape about not being able to) I mearly constructed an ideal that doesn’t exist.
If there is an “ideology” to Stirner, it would be to prefer sanity over insanity, but that would be a broad definition of ideology.
But Stirner’s idea is to end alienation in a Hegelian sense which involves removing outside forces that inhibit or constrain the egoist.
Well sanity seems to be a general condition of life and on some level a moral claim. The general good being sane, rational thought. So far it seems that Stirner’s theories do not necessitate sanity and merely calls for whatever the ego wishes through self-interest.
Well if it only describes then why can’t someone act in a non-praxeological way? Bear in mind we are discussing extreme egocentrism. All of these abstractions concerning logic and language are only useful if they serve the self-interest of an individual.
Because all action is by definition purposeful. Someone cannot act in a non-goal oriented way because action refers to goal driven behavior. As such, praxeology describes all possible actions. There are no actions that cannot be described by praxeology, and hence no actions that are non-praxeological.
You might as well rephrase your question to ‘why can’t an egoist create a square circle?’.
Again, im pretty sure Stirner simply rejected normative constraints, not physical or logical ones. Although he probably rejected epistemological constraints, or constraints concerning what should and should not be believed.
Alienation / Sanity / Morality / Ethics / Egoism:
He more or less makes fun of Hegelianism. He takes the style of Hegel and shows the Mind (Geist)/ Body alienation (which he never refers to by name) and __show__s (rahter than prove) it to be nothing but a constructed fiction.
He shows through anaylasis how the Geist creates fictions: Humanity, Man, morality, etc. He than reduces the mind to just an aspect of man. Then he shows how man is more than body or mind. The basic message is an individual one, it states the integration of his personality..
He then proceeds to show how the modern world is possesed by such “spooks” and shows it again through nations, country, liberals, communists, ideas, etc; all the while showing how the peson creating such higher causes is still an egoist the whole time (even if he doesn’t recognize that fact). It is when he divides his interest against himself (with mind) he gets “alienated”. In other words he created his own “alienation”.
Stirner does not indicate a pattern or model to which an individual is supposed to fit (as that is kind of the point) as everyone is…unique.
Also of importance is the use of the"might makes right" / the use of power in Stirner’s lexicon. “Might” means ability, power, capability, of whatever sort, including reason. It is all about ones ability to meet one’s ends, and to destroy any artificial barriers that have been erected by ones own mind.
Stirner’sbasic message is for the individual here and now, in the current social conditions, and trying to optimize on ones conditions. He could be characterized as a moralist, except that such a designation would be that he perscribes the individuals lifestyle. This is incorrect: he just tries to expose illusions in which men live, and then show an alternative. A moralist would talk about a “potential” that an individual would try and actualize in a certain conduct, this would be a phantom for the egoist.
To sum up: The “Unique One” guides his life with an apprasial of a situation, including ones abilities and limitations; rather than universals and ideals, which are nothing more than fictions created by one’s own mind. An ego “wishing” something is either setting a goal or creating another “spook” for itself. For the concept of a Stirner ego to be able to wish something and expect it to be granted as an ideal would be the type of abstract concept that Stirner is railing against. This really depends on what you mean by “wish”, but it reeks of a “spook” to me; I wish for all money and no work, super speed, eternal life ,etc. I have no power to achieve these ends, so I move on.
I was not thinking of illusion this way in the previous manner I used it earlier in the thread. But in this context I understand what you’re saying.
good luck in your quest