>>2762>>2762>Well, if you consider yourself unique, then equality would mean recognizing others as unique too.In a literal sense, I would have to agree. My unique I exists, as far as I can tell, alongside other I's who are unique. But there is no equality here other than Me and You fitting into the same ontological category.
What I mean is that the Unique famously describes the (creative) nothing, so the equality between them also describes nothing. In other words: their relation could be any. That I am unique and the other I is equally unique is true wether or not I am slave in Rome and they are an patrician, I am peasant and they are a feudal lord, or if I am antifa activist smashing a fashist with a stone. In every case I act upon them and they act upon me as equally unique beings. That is the reason I was curious how you would describe the content of equality without describing characteristics or identity, because if you use it through a stirnerite lense, it becomes meaningless.
So if this was you point all along, I agree: bring about the absolute euqality by declaring everyone equally unique and thusly kill the content of equality once and for all! But the second part of your post leaves me to believe you intended another interpretation.
>Inequality would be holding them as your superiors or inferiors.You see this doesnt follow: if someone is my superior, be that in a hierarchy or in ability of mastering a certain field or whatever relation you could come up if, he would still be unique. Being unique doesn't have any conditions. Superiority or inferiority aren't disqualifiers when it comes it wether or not You are an unique being. In fact it could be argued that comparing My and Your properties, the set of things that our uniqueness contains, is a better way of identifying the me as an I than the insistence onour equality. Not holding someone as superior or inferior, because you recognise them as an equally unique individual, seems to me to imply that you shouldn't act maliciously towards them or at least in a way that befits a unique I. But this is peak spook territory, because you essentialise oneof their properties, their uniqueness, as their real existence. Stirner describes this with liberal humanism:
>Whom does the liberal look upon as his equal? Man! Be only man — and that you are anyway — and the liberal calls you his brother. He asks very little about your private opinions and private follies, if only he can espy “Man” in you.>But, as he takes little heed of what you are privatim — nay, in a strict following out of his principle sets no value at all on it — he sees in you only what you are generatim. In other words, he sees in you, not you, but the species; not Tom or Jim, but Man; not the real or unique one,[Einzigen] but your essence or your concept; not the bodily man, but the spirit. >As Tom you would not be his equal, because he is Jim, therefore not Tom; as man you are the same that he is. And, since as Tom you virtually do not exist at all for him (so far, to wit, as he is a liberal and not unconsciously an egoist), he has really made “brother-love” very easy for himself: he loves in you not Tom, of whom he knows nothing and wants to know nothing, but Man.Just like the liberal loves in you not Yourself, Anon or whatever, but instead Man, you would love in others not themselves but Uniqueness, the fact that they are unique.
>Seeing Man in each other, and acting as men toward each other, is called moral behavior. This is every whit the “spiritual love” of Christianity. For, if I see Man in you, as in myself I see Man and nothing but Man, then I care for you as I would care for myself; for we represent, you see, nothing but the mathematical proposition: A = C and B = C, consequently A = B — i.e. I nothing but man and you nothing but man, consequently I and you the same.Of course I don't wanna put words into your mouth, that's just how I read the second part, and I wanted to explore the implications of that a bit.