User talk:FairDinkum

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Message from the Rationalwiki Welcoming Committee (there is no such thing)[edit]

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, FairDinkum!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 10:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

  • Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
  • and can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! Vee (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Stirner fan, eh?[edit]

Don't get too many of those around these parts. Vee (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I can see why, I read the Byington translation about 20 years ago and it had a profound effect on me. I was just discovering the skeptic community at the time. But I recently came across the 'new' (2017) Ludd/Landstreicher translation and decided to give it a read, which did not have the same effect on me that my earlier reading did, despite it being a much better translation. There is a lot of 'anti-liberal' and anti-egalitarian stuff in there that doesn't go over as well as it did 20 years ago, but it is speaking from a 150-year-old anti-Hegellian perspective. I'm pretty sure I rationalized and skipped past some of the passages that I wasn't enthusiastic about, preferring to focus on the ones that struck a chord. The book is very repetetive, I even edited my own 'version' by only including the parts I found inspiring, and for the past 20 years that's the version I've been consulting. As a result, I'm not as gung-ho about promoting Stirner as I used to be. I still find it inspiring from a certain perspective, but I see now how easily it could be used to justify bad behavior. There are plenty of contradictions to that kind of thinking throughout the book, but they seem to be more cerebral than the visceral ones that could be interpreted poorly. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the parts that might encourage bad behavior are easier to read and understand than the parts that contradict that kind of reading.
Thanks for the note! FairDinkum (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
There is certainly a segment of anarcho-egoists/Stirnerites who tend to make egoism itself sacred. That kind of defeats the point of Stirnerite egoism in the first place TBH. Vee (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
You're right, Stirner peppered his book with warnings that such actions should be avoided. Apparently Benjamin Tucker insisted that Byington translate the word 'einzige' in the title, as 'ego'. The new better translation is 'unique', so really 'egoists' should start calling themselves 'uniqueists'. The word 'ego' denotes some kind of metaphysical mental process, whereas the word 'unique' is a materialist description, and Stirner was a staunch materialist. I've also never thought of Stirner as someone who promotes anarchy, even though anarchists are the only people who seem to have any interest in hosting his work.FairDinkum (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)