Add new comment

"Wayne will just continue to double down on their infallibility.." By this the writer means that I continue to hold my opinions instead of changing to their opinions. This makes me close-minded and dogmatic instead of open-minded and fair like the poster!

Here's the thing about Zen. Not I but someone else on the list referred to Buddhism's similarities to Stirner. I agreed, noted that there was, I thought, much of value in Buddhism, but that we shouldn't "go overboard," because it could also be used negatively, as the samurai used zen buddhism to improve their ability to wage war. (Hardly suprising that there are problems with all varieties of Buddhism since it was developed in class-divided and oppressive societies.)

It is certainly reasonable to disagree with my remark or to ask what I mean, but to go from this to a statement that I am attacking all versions of zen and grossly distorting their views, is so bizarrely weird that it cannot be made in good faith. It's like politicians picking up a comment of opponents and blowing it all out of proportion in order to smear them.

The one really interesting comment I received on this thread was the charge that I was possibly blaming Stirner for Stalinism, due to his nominalism and non moralism (which Blumenfeld believes affected Marx's development of non moralism). Of course I did not blame Stirner for Stalinism--and I think (I wrote) that his rejection of abstract moral norms was a step forward. But I think that in our times there is a danger of rejecting a naturalistic and non-moralistic ethics. That does play into the hands of both Stalinists and liberals. This is, of course, a much bigger discussion (and no doubt I would be accused of misunderstanding Stirner's views, which is not really my interest here).