Interconnectivity

Dennis Prager expound at length for the need for clarity in thought, expression and communication, and his advice there is wise as ever. If one cannot put one's ideas into clear, concise language, laying out one's apology or argument in a easy-to-follow linear argument, then one's thinking likely is muddled, obscure and only half-formulated.

I promised my wife that I would have  take a stab at laying out the interconnectivity or the dissimilarity that organically exists between Stirnerism and the Philosophy of Mavellonialism. Because my understanding of such similarities  and divergences are yet being formulated by me, this premature attempt must fall short, but here goes anyway.

Max Stirner is a psychological egoist. He believes that humans are motivated by self-interest, and I disagree. I believe people are motivate by selflessness, by putting group needs and group concerns in front of satisfying personal needs and private concerns.

Stirner believed that people were basically good, so there was little need for structure and laws to govern them and force them to behave. I believe we are born depraved but that inborn wickedness exemplified by the prime motivator of selflessness is made worse by too much government, too many laws, too many hierarchies to many restrictions on personal liberty. If each citizen can learn to maverize, or develop the self based upon self-love and self-interest, then individual anarchism with a thin layer of government on top is the way to roll.

Stirner was an atheist. I am a theist and polytheist.

Stirner's epistemology is hard to pin down but here goes. If Hegel is an objective idealist, most confident that reason, concepts, language and logic will provide us with certain knowledge about the world, then Stirner,  as a poststructuralist and nihilist that espouses that the personal self is an-ever changing, creative nothing, that language, reason and concepts can never capture intelligibly, then his epistemology is pessimistic about the possibility for human understanding of ultimate issues, or grasping and defining the essential nature of Noumea.

I am an epistemological moderate. I believe that absolute knowledge, certain knowledge exists and is intelligible to God with De's 10 trillion point IQ. That such existing certainty is accessible, understandable, able to be quantified and communicated in simple clear terms by humans with an IQ of 125, appears unlikely.

What we must and should settle for is what is reasonable and predictive: we can settle for knowledge of probable certainty. This we can hang our hat on and build a life around. This provisionally optimistic view of epistemology allows me to posit that God exists, that God created the world, that God set up natural law to run that universe, that natural law as moral law is available and translatable into human language to guide human behavior. That translation is strong enough for a just God to assume that we have deliberative thinking prowess and free will sufficient for us to be held accountable for our deeds and spiritual and moral character in this world and in this next, being sent to heaven or hell based on our actions and faith, or the lack thereof.

God the Father and God the Mother are married individualists motivated primarily by self-interest but selfessness is an important secondary motive. The community and the common good are to be met without excessively taxing or depriving individual citizens of their liberty to pursue their unalienable rights as they will and wish to.