>gf is a xtian
>still pretty smart and well-read in philosophy, she even taught herself German and now reads Nietzsche and schop in original
>get her to read Stirner
>after she finishes him I ask her opinion
>she says not really profound
>ask what she means
>she says, well, according to him, you'd be spooked if an attractive woman wanted to have sex with you and you refused even though you wanted to, because it would be wrong to cheat on me
>yeah, I say
>she looks at me closely
>well? would you cheat on me then?
>I don't think so
>yes or no?
>probably not
>she says well I'm sorry but if you can't answer yes to that then we're not on the same page
>mfw she ends up breaking up with me
She's still friends with me though
Why can't women into Stirner?
>according to him, you'd be spooked if an attractive woman wanted to have sex with you and you refused even though you wanted to, because it would be wrong to cheat on me
But that's wrong. Cheating is not always acting in self-interest, since you will lose your partner if he/she finds out.
>>1413472
That's what I ended up telling her, "Obviously not if there's a chance you'd find out."
>she says, well, according to him, you'd be spooked if an attractive woman wanted to have sex with you and you refused even though you wanted to, because it would be wrong to cheat on me
>because it would be wrong
This part is the spook.
You might refuse because it wouldn't benefit you.
You might refuse because you don't want to upset your girlfriend.
Those would be non-spooked reasons not to cheat.
>>1413478
But you are still kinda spooking yourself this way. The ultimate way of non-spookery here would be lying to here, and maximizing the chance of her being content with you.
>>1413462
>>gf is a xtian
stopped reading here
kill yourself shitstain
>>1413488
That's true but that didn't occur to me until later.
I dun goofed
>>1413496
more like
you dun spooked
>>1413462
shoulda told her Lust is a shackle on the Self to be honest.
>>1413462
>mfw she ends up breaking up with me
Haha you Stirner s-poo-k in loos deserve nothing less.
>>1413518
Which makes me think
If we actually have to use mental effort to think in a similar way Stirner did, aren't we spooking ourselves?
>>1413539
>if we actually have to make an effort to notice spooks that have been instilled in us since childhood, aren't we spooking ourselves?
>this is literally how autistic stirnerposters actually think
>>1413542
That's not what I meant
When people are starting to think in a certain way on purpose because they are perhaps fascinated by that certain way of thinking, they are thinking in a way which is not natural to them, doesn't this way of thinking end up being a spook then?
>Why can't women into Stirner?
They don't need Stirner to tell them to be loyal only to themselves.
>>1413549
>natural
This is a spook, what do you mean by this?
You mean according to how they've been conditioned to think?
This reminds me of a SJW aquaintance (we didn't call them that back then) that was so into his delusions that he convinced himself and his gf to believe in polyamory and that monogamy was a form of male, patriarchical oppression.
Result of the experiment:
She starts cucking him with a different guy every week
He, not so much
He gets jealous
She breaks up with him
Me: smugface.jpg
>>1413553
Well maybe natural thought doesn't exist then, maybe everyone is conditioned to think in a certain way.
But when you start thinking in a Stirner way, you are in fact still conditioned.
>>1413569
But you're conditioned for your pleasure.
>>1413462
Because Stirner was an autistic kraut """"""philosopher"""""" fag who belongs on /b/.
>>1413573
Well does it really please us?
>>1413462
>anon still hasn't read the fucking thing
>he keeps posting though
>>1413462
>gf is a xtian
Nothing of value was lost
She didn't get it.
Spook of the story : don't let girlfriends read Stirner.
>>1413601
I guess so
>>1413478
Terrible idea, you should have said fidelity was a spook but a spook that you followed because you wanted to, or you should have said that you didn't give a shit about fidelity but you didn't sleep around because you liked her and wanted her to feel secure for your own selfish reasoning.
>>1413771
Right, I told her that I wouldn't cheat on her if I thought there was any chance of her finding out.
>>1413462
More like, why can't you into Stirner? You should have told her that her continuated association with you is worth more than an one time fuck, so you wouldn't cheat on her.
She's actually right in saying that the wrongness of cheating itself is a spook, you should have just countered with the fact that the consequences of cheating aren't.
>>1413462
She understood it and co-opted the philosophy to give you a gf test, which you failed. You missed a top tier gf, OP.
>>1413488
this
people who read stirner always seem to miss this stuff in the longshot
being despooked doesn't mean you should despook others, it actually gives you levarage over them
a wolf doesn't teach sheep to become a wolf
unless its retarded
>>1413569
Yes, but you chose to think in a Stirner way.
>>1413836
Yes but you phrased it in the most undiplomatic way possible.
how is fidelity spooky? human beings are known to pair-bond and there is research done on people who are pair-bonded often trying to shoo threats to their relationships even in a subconscious manner
if i choose to be loyal to my girl even if there was a 0% chance she would find out, i would still be getting something out of it
You've just been cucked by a dead German lmao
>>1413860
>human nature
>>1414229
He was cucked by his own lack of tact
Egotism is a spook.
>>1414322
But egoism isn't.
>losing yout gf because of a meme
>>1414331
Self-interest is a spook, though.
What the fuck is going on in this thread?
You're all terrible with relationships regardless of philosophy
>>1414340
Not it isn't, it's what governs everyone
>>1413853
This. Why would any non-autist say something like, "I wouldn't cheat on you if there was a chance you'd find out"? Relationships aren't free-wheeling philosophy discussions, there are some things it's best not to say. Does OP tell his friends he'd rob them if he knew there was a chance they would find out about it?
>>1413462
Is adhering to any form of moral values being spooked even if it's in your self-interest to follow these values due to your natural desire to feel like a good person?
>>1414371
I wouldn't rob them, since that would hurt them.
>>1414402
No, you can play make believe. For instance, if you had a simulation that you'd spend the rest of your life in a coma to be in, say, for instance, of an anime world, there would be nothing spooky about accepting this if it made you feel good. But if you do something to avoid feeling bad for being immoral, that's spook then
>>1414447
I'm not sure I follow. If taking an action that I consider immoral would make me feel bad, how is refusing to take the action not in my self-interest, barring the possibility that I'll get over it and enjoy the things I gained from the action later?
Acting in my self-interest would be defined as deliberately taking actions that increase my happiness and/or reduce my suffering, so that would count, surely.
>>1414419
But if they don't know that you took $20 out of their wallet, they just figure they must have blown it on a taxi or something, they wouldn't be hurt. I suppose you could say you decreased their net wealth, but you could also say that cheating on your girlfriend, even if she never knows, hurts the mutual trust in the relationship or lessens your respect for her since you won't honor her expectation of fidelity.
>>1414462
>If taking an action that I consider immoral would make me feel bad, how is refusing to take the action not in my self-interest, barring the possibility that I'll get over it and enjoy the things I gained from the action later?
Because the only thing stopping you from acting in that way is your devotion to a spook, morality. If you acknowledge that morality is just a spook but continue to act in ways "morality" has informed you, that is completely different because now the self is making a choice, not being possessed by a spook.
>>1413837
>being despooked doesn't mean you should despook others
It does if you want to form a union of egoists
>>1414749
>union of egoists
>>1414749
But unions are spooks, making a union of egoists would just form something Stirner is against
>>1415921
What is this fucking meme? Did you even read the book?
>>1415934
Nigger I did read the book, and a union is a spook
Stirner did mention unions can be used to achieve certain things, but it remains a spook
>>1413462
>reads Schopenhauer in original German
this is how I know you are lying. Nietzsche, sure I could possibly accept that but Schopenhauer is very difficult to read in the original German. Academic German makes copious use of compounding. It's a pain in the ass to read, and far above and beyond conversational German.
Either you are lying, or much less likely, your story is true and your exgf was lying to you.
Stirner and his individualism is a spook, prove me wrong.
>>1413558
But polyamory is about threesomes, not cucking and it makes no sense for heterosexual people.
What the fuck is this spooked, despooked, non-spooked bullshit
>>1416008
t.pleb
Go back to plowing fields and leave us patricians alone.
>>1413462
So her point was that (according to Stirner) monogamy is a spook?
>>1416008
hagridden pleb detected.
>>1415938
It's only a spook if you're still in it when it no longer directly benefits you.
>>1416169
Well, everyone does things that "benefit" them in some way, even if they're spooks.
Religion can tell you that if you pay your tithes and slave away for free, your afterlife will be glorious. If you really think that it is a real reward and you feel better (you think that you're better than the other heathens, that you have god's protection, etc.) with that decision, is it still a spook?
