What's the spookiest shit you've ever heard, /his/?
>Don't fight for your country, fight for your species
>>Don't fight for your country, fight for your species
Sounds like a logical sentiment to me.
>>725836
>merit
>your country
Spooky
>>725836
>Dont fight your country, fight your feces.
>The universe has meaning because we create our own meaning
God has lawed down natural law, it is your duty as part of the society to follow the morality.
>You have such a beautiful soul, Anon
>>725836
>Hey Anon can you do me favor
>muh degeneracy
>muh equality
>muh bravery
>muh freedom
>muh royalty
>muh productivity
>muh peace
>muh consistency
>muh rights
>muh law
>muh constitution
>muh authority
>muh family
>muh sovereignty
>muh property
>muh balance
>muh fairness
>muh masculinity
>muh ancestors
>muh race
>muh nation
>muh god
>muh success
>>725836
>Don't fight for your spooky, fight for your spookies.
>>725843
Species don't exist. Nature doesn't classify beings into neat little groups.
You can mention that they're classified by the ability to interbreed with one another, but literally nothing makes this non-arbitrary.
>>727136
Nah, species do actually exist, there are just flaws in categorisation.
>>727147
Science fag detected. Science is just a spook bro
>>727147
Not really. The primary criteria we have is the capability to successfully interbreed, but the matter is largely comparable to the matter of how many hairs you have to lose before you can be considered bald. For instance, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, while quite different, could successfully interbreed, as evidenced by the fact their genetics still linger in our own. The classification itself is entirely a product of our minds, and the idea of sublimating ourselves to the servitude of an arbitrary (albeit, scientifically useful) category when it doesn't suit our interests to do so is absurd.
That said, a thing is not invalid to believe in our value for its nature as a potential spook. Stirnerian thought is quite open to the concept of morals, meaning, or values, the idea is just that these should serve you, not the other way around. There are two reasons for this, the first is that these things are of no substance themselves, whereas you are, the second is that you ultimately can't do anything but pursue your own will for your own gratification, so attempting to serve a "higher" cause is futile.
>>727147
Species only exist because of how we define them. The category of species has changed all the time for no reason other than we find it usful to do so.
Mushrooms used to be considered a plant, now they are not. Why? Because what it means to be a plant has changed.
>>727136
>into neat little groups
>fight for your country
>nothing makes this non-arbitrary
I wonder how tough it was for your parents to raise you considering how sever your autism is.
>>727216
>>727217
>The category of species has changed all the time
Yes of course, I'm just saying that at the current moment there are only so many individuals with the ability to successfully interbreed, taken as a group this is a species, even though we can't 'observe' it, and our attempt to classify individuals into one group or another will never be perfect. but while it is a social construct is still attempts to describe something real.
>>727216
>what is a subspecies
>pursue your own will for your own gratification, so attempting to serve a "higher" cause is futile
I didn't realize Ayn Rand could shitpost from beyond the grave. I'm sure your dazzling word play gets all the girls doesn't it?
>>727238
>still attempts to describe something real.
That's fine, and it works just fine as a scientific tool. I'm just arguing against the idea that you should serve it as though it were an entity greater than yourself. Obviously you should fight for your species when the entire species is on the line, as you're part of it, but to fight for your species when it isn't in your own interests is pretty damn silly in my opinion.
>>727241
>What is a subspecies
Another man-made category.
I do all right for myself. But comparing Stirner's thought to Ayn Rand's is foolish, as Stirner is a psychological egoist, in which he argues that egoism is the primary driving force of human psychology, whereas Rand is an ethical egoist, in which she argues that egoism should be the primary driving force of human ethics but none the less believes true altruism to be a possibility.
>>727250
>he argues that egoism is the primary driving force of human psychology
How would this be compatible with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
>>727250
>comparing Stirner's thought to Ayn Rand's is foolish
Either way altruism is 18yr old tier philosophy. I also recommend quit drinking and get regular physical exercise in between now and your mid 20's
>Another man-made category
We're using a man made language. By that logic anything that you can describe is man made.
There's no counter argument to round about thinking like that. You can literally respond to anything with "man-made *insert here*"
>>727276
Well, it's worth noting that his use of egoism itself doesn't closely match how it's commonly used. He uses it in a more general sense to mean anything that provides us some level of gratification, which social behaviours such as altruism and cooperation most certainly do.
>>727287
>Either way altruism is 18yr old tier philosophy.
I think you meant to say egoism, and an appeal to maturity is poor form. Especially considering there are worlds of difference between Stirner's concept that you should be cognizant of your egoism and understand that you do is ultimately to fulfill it, in whatever way you see fit (even if that way is opening up a soup kitchen because helping other people is pretty satisfying), and Ayn Rand's egoism as a moral imperative. Considering you're currently shitposting on 4chan, I recommend you don't call anyone's maturity into question, unless you enjoy causing your glass house to collapse.
>I also recommend quit drinking and get regular physical exercise in between now and your mid 20's
Already did, already do, I'm probably older than you.
>We're using a man made language. By that logic anything that you can describe is man made.
>There's no counter argument to round about thinking like that. You can literally respond to anything with "man-made *insert here*"
Of course, if you had read my post here >>727216 specifically its second paragraph, you'd know that there's nothing inherently wrong with valuing a man-made mental construct. But a tool of man should be of service to its wielder, not its wielder of service to the tool.
>>725836
-Stoics in general.
-Any ideology that revolves around a nebulous concept of virtue or the good
-teleology
-Duty and obligation
>>725836
everything is spook
'spook' is just an edgy way to say social construct without seeming normie
its literally sjw tier crap
>ego
>being real
anyone that has a layman understanding of modern neuroscience can tell you that all we are is just a bunch of chemicals and electrical signals shooting wildly (not randomly) in the brain
to deny your instinct is to obey the spookiest spook of all
stirner is reddit tier now
>>728365
Website loyalty/identity is a spook.
>>727125
>forgetting "muh ego"
you can't say that all those other things are unimportant but then say "except the ego, that's the most important thing in the world".
>>727125
Posted from a starbucks
>>727572
>being this much of a soft, pampered craft beer drinking nu male faggot
I've always thought the main problem with self-gratification is not understanding what makes most people satisfied. We're all programmed by biology and society to want to be part of something greater than ourselves, to have others look up to us, and to feel 'good' about ourselves. Why try and be purely egotistical when it's possible to be satisfied by what we can have already?
Does that make sense, or do I just need more hookers?
>>728746
It's a fundamental, inescapable, undeniable part of yourself. You think, therefore you are. Even an attempt to deny the self verifies the self since it would be an act of self-will.
>>727125
Is there ANYTHING you agree with
>>728964
Except that fundamental self is not intrinsically you, you share it's essential nature with all other selves. it helps to remember all you have is yourself but that ego is still a part of something larger
>>728792
Stirner doesn't propose going into a descent of short-sighted hedonism (in fact he promotes the idea that such a pursuit would itself be yet another spook to be possessed by) he just proposes that you be aware that what you do is out of a pursuit of gratification, and to work towards that, while holding yourself the ultimate authority over your own life, to avoid being bound by past exercises of your will.
I think this fits pretty well with human psychology, since our brains operate very much on the classic carrot/stick principle. Everything we do is either pursuing a carrot or avoiding a stick.
His philosophy changes surprisingly little. The biggest change would be acknowledging that you follow authority only in so far as it suits your desires.
>>728974
>you share it's essential nature with all other selves.
Not really. You have something separate from that this is unique to you: your own inner experience, and as far as you perceive, you're the only being with this. That sets you apart from these others in your perceptions, puts you ahead of them. For all you know, the rest of the world may be composed of p-zombies. It likely isn't, but you are none the less unable to verify the inner experience of others. Hell, you're unable to truly verify that there's an external world at all (it's generally safe to take a logical leap and assume there is, however). Yet you can be certain that you exist. This is what sets the self apart.
I would propose not considering Stirner's idea of putting the self first as an end, but instead as a sort of foundation from which to build from. When you recognize that your beliefs and values stem entirely from self-will and your own gratification, you can cultivate beliefs and values that are truly your own, and held with a degree of certain honesty.
>main board is /x/
>check out /his/ for the first time
>see spooky thread
>creepy history stories, sweet!
What the fuck are you guys talking about?
>>728365
>muh website that arbitrarily represents a vague set of beliefs and spooks that triggers me :(
spooky
>>728994
A philosopher by the name of Max Stirner. He referred to many common ideological concepts as "spooks" to note their nature as fictions of our minds, including but not limited to the idea of God, country, race, morality, etc. Further he proposed that when we pursue such ideals and attempt to put them ahead of ourselves, we're still ultimately pursuing our self gratification. So he figured that we would be best off if we held ourselves to be the ultimate authority over ourselves, and tailor our values to serve our own interests, rather than attempting to tailor ourselves to suit our values.
>>729002
That was surprisingly easy to understand. Thank you anon.
This also raises a frightening realisation in my mind. Is /x/'s obsession with the supernatural and rejection of absolute materialism a spook? Is our spook obsession a spook?
>>729028
>Is /x/'s obsession with the supernatural and rejection of absolute materialism a spook? Is our spook obsession a spook?
Potentially to be both. Something only really becomes a spook when it "possesses" you in the sense that you try to put it ahead of yourself, so you can be interested in the supernatural without it being a spook, but when you start defining your life around it, it most certainly qualifies as one. The same goes for trying to rid yourself of spooks.
Ultimately, value what you value, just be aware of why you value it and don't let it rule your life. This means being prepared to let go of something when it no longer serves your interests.
>>725836
>Because it is our moral duty
Friend of mine with a university degree on the immigration crisis
>>729028
>>729032
That reminds me, if you'd like to know more about the man's beliefs, I recommend reading The Ego and Its Own (also translated as The Ego and His Own). It's a dry, sometimes confusing read and I recommend taking it slow, thinking carefully about what you read, and not being afraid to reread shit if you have to, but a read that I feel is well worth the effort. The last chapter, The Unique One, is actually quite beautiful.
>fight for your country is pretty spooky
>x is a social construct/arbitrarily defined/vaguely defined
>therefore x is bad/irrelevant
stirnerfags need to fuck off back to /lit/
>>729066
>it's subjective so it's wrong
>except me, I'm totally objective
this
looking out for numero uno is real nigga talk, but that's implying even .01% of stirnerfags have the necessary maturity and self-knowledge to realize their true will, and not "applying for jobs is a spook stirner would want me to be jacking off to futa right now"
>>729066
Stirner never claims spooks are a bad thing, at least read him before you shitpost.
>>729066
>therefore x should not be placed before your own interests
Fixed.
>>727125
>anything I don't necessarily agree with is a spook
>>729236
>your own interests
>implying such aren't the real spooks
>>729066
>thinking that's what Stirner said
Read a book, will ya?
Don't ask what you can do for your genes, ask what your genes can do for you.
>>728360
>>730216
PURE IDEOLOGY
>>729066
You're confusing spookposting for Stirner's actual philosophy. Spooks are fine, so long as they serve you.
>>725836
>Whoooo, I'm a ghost, whooooo
>>728763
>u are le hibster xd
>>729098
here you go
Glaubst du an Geister?
"Ghosts aren't real"
>░░░░▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░
>░░░█▒▒░▄▄▀▀▀▀▄░▒░▄▄▄▄▄░▀▀▄░░░░
>░░█▒░▄▀░▒▒▒▒▒░▀▄▀░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█░░░░░ FUCK GHOSTS :D
>░█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▀▒▒▒▒▒▒██▀▄▒█░░░░ :D
>▄▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▀▀▒▒▒█░░ AND POLTERGEISTS :D
>█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒░░░░░░░▒█
>█░▒▒▀▄▄▒░░░░░░▒▄▀▄▄░░░░░░▒█
>░█░▒▒▒▒▀▄▄▄▄▄███████▄▄▄▄▄▀
>░░█░▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▄▀▀████▀▀▄▀▒▒█
>░░░▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▀
>>727125
You. I like you.
Everyone else is too much of a pussy to take the leap.
>>729028
yes.
>>733392
>>░░░░▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░
>>░░░█▒▒░▄▄▀▀▀▀▄░▒░▄▄▄▄▄░▀▀▄░░░░
>>░░█▒░▄▀░▒▒▒▒▒░▀▄▀░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█░░░░░ FUCK GHOSTS :D
>>░█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▀▒▒▒▒▒▒██▀▄▒█░░░░ :D
>>▄▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▀▀▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▀▀▒▒▒█░░ AND POLTERGEISTS :D
>>█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒░░░░░░░▒█
>>█░▒▒▀▄▄▒░░░░░░▒▄▀▄▄░░░░░░▒█
>>░█░▒▒▒▒▀▄▄▄▄▄███████▄▄▄▄▄▀
>>░░█░▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▄▀▀████▀▀▄▀▒▒█
>>░░░▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▀
fixed, you dummy
>make a contribution to society
Why does every thread about Stirner just devolve into memeposting and shitflinging?
[spoilersdontworkon/his/]what is a spook[/spoiler]
>>735827
Basically any idea that you attempt to put ahead of yourself as though it were an entity unto itself. Stirner considers this foolish for two reasons. One, because these things are of no actual substance themselves, and two, because you can't really put something ahead of yourself, you're still just pursuing your own gratification in a roundabout way.
>>727125
Success isnt a spook if its part of the ego
>>728365
Reddit is a spook.
>>725844
>This scares the aristocrat!
>>731463
Go home, Peter. You had your sticky already on another board.
Come back in 20 years.
>>735806
Almost nobody reads Stirner.
Max Stirner is easily the final boss of philosophy, but unfortunately he left himself open up for way too many memes.
"Egoism. Art. Religion. Artist. Spooks. Ghosts. Man. Creative Nothing. Unique one"
Take your pick. Stirnerisms should be a word
