'spook' is synonymous with 'social constructs'
muh 'morality' muh 'social constructs
I'm pretty sure social constructs is a spook too.
>>419990
As the same as saying that spooks are a spook.
>>419993
What is not a spook?
>>419994
What is not a spook is what is primarily your concern. This, can be a spook as well, but it is one you're acquiescent with.
Read the book.
>>419994
Genetics
>>419987
It isn't you idiot.
The English language is a social construct but language is not a spook. Morality is social construct and a spook.
You should probably read his book rather than try to learn philosophy from reading fun-posting.
>>420001
>concepts are not build in the mind
I wonder how you even manage to breath? oh right it's instinct driven and automatic, unlike language, which is learned.
Kill yourself.
>>420003
Are you implying that the English language is instinctual or are you agreeing with the post?
>>420015
I'm implying that whatever is an extension/product of the mind is a spook. Even science.
>>420023
As far as I'm aware the material world isnt a spook according to Stirner.
>>419987
>people think proclaiming "spook" or "social construct" is an argument
I've been, like, lied to, all my life woaah
Life is an orchestra of spooks senpai, that's what makes it great
Are pleasure and suffering spooks?
>>420001
>how dare you insult my goth phase-tier meme philosopher whose blanket dismissal of anything but my most ingrained desire-complexes guarantees I'll remain a slave to the whims of my "ego" while thinking everyone else is the one whose getting spooked (LOL!) because I'm a little piss baby bitch
fuck off back to reddit
Was The ego and its own anything more than a selfhelpbook?
Seems to me he just advises people to use some kind of extreme skepticism as a way to deal with problems and thus attain freedom.
No, it's more synonymous with ideas, because even ideas internally derived can be considered spooks.
That said, spooks are not invalid things to follow, provided you're doing so to your own benefit. Stirner describes love (as in a great sacred thing that we must all favour) as a spook, yet outright says that loving someone is perfectly acceptable.
Further, the only reason he calls them spooks is to call to attention their fictitious nature.
>>420998
It's a philosophical text. He lays out a philosophical premise and then explains it.
>>420857
Finally someone who knows what he's talking about.
>>420896
He doesn't dismiss these concepts out of hand, he just dismisses the idea of putting them ahead of one's self. This is one of things people most often miss about his work. So you're expected to be the highest authority over your own life, but you can still have morals, love, and beliefs; they're just not supposed to be fixed, sacred things that you subjugate yourself to.
>>420896
>I'll remain a slave to the whims of my "ego"
>I'll remain enslaved to myself
>enslaved to myself
everyone belongs to themselves retard, just some whore themselves out to spooks.
>>421299
There are some people that seem convinced anything other than following a "higher ideal" or some manner of external authority is just another form of slavery, because you're just a slave to your own whims. Which is a really dumb idea that requires redefining the notion of slavery.
It isn't synomymous with social contructs. A spook is an idea which the individual quells their own desires in favour of.
>>420896
How about you fuck off back to tumblr.
