Calling things spook is a spook. Prove me wrong Stirnerfags.
Calling things spook is certainly a spook,
but understanding a spook is an entirely different category, and what Stirner in reality proposes.
>>1196904
So? Are you telling me I need to follow what Stiner wrote word for word?
>>1196915
Stirner doesn't think calling things a spook is a spook. Stirner sees a spook as an essence, calling something a spook is suggesting this essence is imaginary, which is not an essence at all.
>>1196943
I was more approaching it from the sense of people doggedly finding things and calling them "spooks", in relation to his unfortunate memetic usage.
>>1196943
What would be an example of something that isn't imaginary?
Is jumping on a grenade for your country the result of spooks?
Is dying to save your kid the result of spooks?
>>1196904
Somebody explain me this Stirner spook thing i dont get it
>>1196904
The ego is a spook and the distinction between ego and non-ego is a spook.
Stirner slips in Cartesian subjectivity to save his shitty "philosophy" from crumbling.
There's a reason only 4chan knows pay any attention to him.
Why has this been such a reocurring topic on both this board and /lit/ the past few days? Are we on the verge of the next new big sitewide meme
>>1197011
Stirner considers both nation and family to be spooks. If you jump on a grenade or die for self-gratification, then no spookery.
>>1197040
Only pics of Stirner are doodles, and his philosophy uses catchphrases for terminology. These make him easy to meme, and he's been a mean on 4chan for years and years, but particularly on /lit/
>>1196904
Maybe you're a spook.
I'm the only verified non spook. Prove me wrong.
>>1197051
But you are a spook, anon.
Everyone is a spook.
Calling calling things spooks a spook is a spook.
>>1197024
Pretty much, a spook/fixed idea is a concept which you would put ahead of self-gratification/realization/liberation.
A spook is a mental illusion, that is, when perhaps you may feel you are acting for a higher cause when doing something in the name of so-and-so religion for example, you are acting unconsciously for your own self-gratification
(maybe you feel good donating to charity, or helping a homeless person).
However, Stirner believes that we should not deny the selfishness of our actions, and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with acting on your self-interest.
Many people tend to misunderstand him, and this aspect, as when morality is called a spook, they see him as a Ragnar Redbeard might-makes-right kind of fellow.
In reality, Stirner is more about our own self-realization, in understanding what WE ourselves want, and not being influenced by others into actions we may not really want to take.
Further, Stirner's concept of property also tends to be misunderstood, as while all is your property as long as you can possess it,
this is more to show that property doesn't count for much, and is another form of self-bondage.
This is why he disapproves of people for example only chasing money, as they put the pursuit of wealth above their own self-realization.
More then anything, Stirner's endgame is that we recognize our uniqueness, and to be able to do what we must to reach a state of liberation, realization and understanding our status as a void from which creation springs.
seriously, i urge you to check out Ego and It's Own, it isn't that long, and he is pretty clear on his points
>I didn't read the Ego and Its Own
Good to know. You should fix that. Then you'd both know why you're wrong and why spookposters are completely full of shit.
>>1197125
>seriously, i urge you to check out Ego and It's Own, it isn't that long, and he is pretty clear on his points
To be fair, it may not be long, but it is a bit of difficult read.
>>1197125
What's his underlying reason for why we should act this way?
>>1197156
Preserving personal autonomy and intellectual consistency. He never really says we should act this way, he just says that this is an effective way towards those two things. Making an ought out of it would be hilariously contradictory.
>>1197164
This is true I guess, I'll have to read The Ego and Its Own
>>1197125
Thanks anon. I'll have a look at it
>>1197185
It's worth it. I'd suggest going slow and thinking carefully about what you read. He inherited his prose from Hegel and so it can be a pain to digest. But once you get the hang of it, he states his points very precisely.
>>1196904
>lower right corner
Would OP be surprised if I told him most waifuists live a Christian life style, and in fact, are more moral than the "right" Christians?
so is living spookless on some level equivalent to hedonism?
>>1196904
Wasn't Hitler a Christian?
>>1197778
I'm not trying to make some statement, I'm genuinely confused. I know the Nazi party kept religious slogans and I've seen people claim he was either.
>>1196904
i dont get pic related
these things exist with religion
you could post a pic captioned "imagime religion exists" with the spanish inqusition and or muslims blowin shit up
>>1197812
There's considerable debate about the nature of Hitler's religious views with both sides (atheist and Christian) playing a game of hot potato with the guy.
>>1197778
I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5
>>1197715
Kind of, but there is a difference between self-realization and pleasure.
Pleasure should also be considered carefully, as the pure pursuit of pleasure may also be an enslaving idea.
