The final few lines not only express my own so far unexpressed, in fact unrecognised within myself, experience and pov on the notion of love, they are simultaneously beautiful AND highly practical. Excellent!
Awesome video. To me love is a conditional extent of appreciation towards the loved. I certainly agree that love is about self-interest/self-enjoyment.
You seem to have fallen for the trap of reading the worse translation of Stirner. I don't believe you have too much of a misunderstanding of Stirner in this video, if any, but you might have some misunderstandings due to the worse translation.
@@recurringparadox Ahh, I see. I don't think you have have any misunderstanding in this video, though I did have some sense of you misunderstanding when you said Stirner views/viewed the "other" as part of himself. This isn't necessarily wrong and even how I interpret it but I did read an interesting interpretation on property and how actually what Stirner claims to own is the relationship between himself and the thing (in this case the "other") and not the thing itself, iirc and if I understood it correctly. (This, and Stirner's assertion that things outside himself do exist, made me feel that maybe there's a misunderstanding going on.) Regardless of the accuracy of that and my understanding and memory... I didn't mean to come across as offensive or anything. Also, at the end of the video, how was the "Am I your property?" (or something along those lines) line meant to be interpreted? In what sense was "property" used there and was it like an ironic rhetorical question or...?
@@flaminghell9572 thats a lot to explain. But in brief, the difference between your understanding and my understanding is just semantic. I come from a psychoanalytic background so I see other and object as defined through Lacanian and Freudian psychoanalysis. We both mean the same thing, I believe. To me, Stirner's property is his claim of that which is not foreign to him in man - meaning that which is "his property (inherently and without the need for consent). This, however, is not the same as USING the other as a way to sacrifice the lack in oneself. The end part is me saying that the desire (which is commonly understood as socially or culturally valid) to turn others into what they expect - adressing those who have tried to use me as utility to fulfill the lack within themselves - does not make me their actual property. But nonetheless they should face their use of power against my ownness and stop being cowards. If that makes sense. It was polemical and directed at people who have tried to impose social constructs on me without critically assessing their intentions.
@@recurringparadox I don't actually know anything about psychoanaylsis. Like genuinely basically nothing. So, keep that in mind. As for how you view property... defining it as something *inherent* seems very weird to me considering Stirner seems to define the property he believes in to be the "power" you hold over something. Surely that's not necessarily *inherent.* As for the "lack" thing, I may be wrong but it seems to that Stirner views that whole thing more so as "Well, if you did something else you would (have to) *be* someone else. That's why you don't lack anything, you're just you." If your point with that question at the end is, to oversimplify it, "Trying to think I should obey your norms doesn't make me your property even if you want it to." then yea that's pretty cool and I agree.
