Are "human rights" a spook?
Obviously.
Yes because they vary between cultures and ideologies.
>>941230
How would you not make them spooks.
What is not a spook to you, fags? Fuck off.
If anything is a spook then human rights certainly are. Asking "is X a spook" on /his/ is about as interesting as asking "is X white" on /pol/, however.
Yeah of course
>>941230
Yes, anything which deals with "humanity" over the unique individual is a spook.
>>941230
Finally, I was just trying to explain this to someone without using the term spook!
>>941618
Explain spooks without using the word "spook".
>>941230
No, but "human spooks" are a right
>>941769
spoo- oh shit.
>>941230
Max Stirner was a spook.
>>941769
spook=social construct
its just leftist attempt at being edgy and not sound like sjw
>>942384
Im starting to think not understanding spooks is a meme.
>>942384
>stirner
>leftist
>>942384
>leftist
If anything, egoism should lead to far-right political views
Better question, are "humans" spook?
>>943931
Go read The Ego and Its Own instead of shitposting stupid questions.
Is Stirner the "end" of philosophy?
>>944023
Philosophy ends where we start shitposting, so yeah I guess.
>>943794
>politics
>left right spectrum
>the State
>not spooks
>>944184
The only one that's a spook is the state.
The rest are not. You should stop the dank memes and actually read Stirner
>>943931
"Man is the last evil spirit or spook, the most deceptive or most intimate, the craftiest liar with honest mien, the father of lies."
>>941230
Doesn't Stirner explicitly state that all "rights" conceived by humans are spooks? I haven't read much of his work, so correct my if I'm wrong.
Now the real deal: is freedom a spook?
>>947922
Yes
Are spooks a spook? Or are they just a prank?
>>947931
Why?
>>941230
Just as a spook as the concept of the state, but it doesn't mean neither of these are a bad thing
>>947854
Rights arent real and they tell you to do something so yeah, they are spooks.
>>947943
Stirner rejected the idea of freedom. The idea of freedom tends to be used to manipulate others so it usually ends up being spooky. In his view freedom cannot be given to someone by someone else. For example freedom of speech. Can the press post anything in the news? No, the goverment would stop them. If the press needs to ask what is alright to post in the news then that is not freedom. You do not ask permission if you are free. Keep in mind that Stirner saw nothing wrong with cencroship. He just thought the idea of striving for freedom was spooky.
>>947829
>Some social constructs are spooks but not all spooks are social constructs.
What is a good example of a spook that isnt a social construct?
Is Stirner a talentless hack?
>not realizing spook is just another word for meme
Human rights are a meme
>>948099
All spooks are social constructs. Spooks only exist in your mind and disappear when you disregard them, they also trick you into thinking serving them is something you should do because they are "higher" or "a greater good".
Not all social constructs are spooks. One can consider "family" or "country" and as long as they are not put on a pedestal above all men than it's not a spook.
Examples of social constructs that are spooks
"privilage" "nation (when you worship the state)" "morality"
Examples of social constructs that are not spooks
"culture" "nation (when you see the state as something usful to your own ends)" "memes"
>>948103
Stirners ideas are still pretty modern so i wouldnt call him a hack. He has some intresting ideas but even his works arent perfect. One of his greatest achievements was to cause great deal of butthurt to Karl Marx.
>>948016
>freedom cannot be given
So freedom is a spook only if it's seen as a greater good?
How can freedom be a spook if it's something I strive to achieve personally, not because of an ideal but because I think it's in the best interest of a man to be free?
Human rights are a spook if you consider them the reason you do what you do in life.
Spooks are whatever people tell themselves are the reason they commit to actions in the world, when the reality(according to Stirner), is that everyone does things only to benefit themselves in some way(the difference between a voluntary and involuntary egoist).
A person who invokes human rights for some particular purpose, does so because it will benefit himself, not because of any other reason, but since he is invoking human rights and not simply saying he is an egoist looking out for himself, human rights becomes a spook in his mind.
>>948974
I cant remember exactly but if i remember right Stirner didnt call freedom inherently spooky, but he saw it as a dangerous idea to strive for that often lead to spooky paths. You have to keep in mind Stirner was living in the time of revolutions and the word freedom was being thrown a lot. Stirner was against any kind of violent uprisings. He wanted people just realise that maybe they should all think more about themselves than some spooky higher causes.
As far as following spooks, i think the idea is that its fine to follow spooks if youre fine with it. Just remember its still a spook and you shouldnt put it ahead of your own intrests.
>>941230
yes. And a very big one at that
>>943794
Stirner is associated with Anarchism. Read some books nigger.
>>950862
>anarchism can't be far right
>>948209
>as long as they are not put on a pedestal above all men than it's not a spook.
I thought in those examples they would be still be spooks just not fixed ideas.
Are these two terms synonymous ?
>>941328
*tips fedora*
>>950873
no, it can't.
>>943794
I'd say it's squarely beyond left-right paradigms. It rejects the egalitarianism and progress for its own sake of leftist, and it rejects the hierarchy and traditionalism of the right, all the while utterly rejecting the morals of both.
>>953703
like any philosophical doctrine people practice?
>>953712
Maybe. It depends how you practice it. Let's take Stoicism for example. Stoicism has a bunch of useful ideas present within it that can be of benefit to a person's life, and someone pursuing stoicism towards this end wont be considered possessed by a spook in so doing. But someone pursuing stoicism for the sake of pursuing stoicism, because they feel stoicism is some sort of higher cause that they have to serve ahead of their own interests has managed to create themselves a spook out of stoicism.
Is consciousness a spook?
>>953395
why
>>941230
Yes, if society collapsed the apocalyptic raider won't care that you have a "right to life"
>>941230
Who the hell is that guy and what's a spook and if he was hated by Karl Marx I sure would love the man.
Please tell me more about him /his/. I am dying to know who he is.
>>953821
He's Max Stirner, author of The Ego and Its Own. A spook is basically any idea you attempt to serve ahead of yourself. His work focused primarily on attacking various ideas and concepts as fictions, including God, nation, morality, and humanity, suggesting that serving any of them ahead of yourself is fundamentally foolish.
You may not like him simply for pissing off Marx, since he also didn't consider property to be itself to be inherently worth respect (his view was that you own what you have the means to claim and protect).
I recommend checking out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on him (google it) and if you're still interested after that, to read The Ego and Its Own.
Did you not read the book? "Rights" are not really "rights", they're merely promises that mean nothing and can be taken away at any time. The only rights that exist are one's you entitle yourself to. That's what Stirner said, not me.
>>942384
>social construct
ocial construct is SJW language. A spook is anything that the individual puts above himself through a sense of duty that doesn't exist.
>>953852
What a clever man, not caring about others first and just caring for yourself above all others is essentially the human nature and how I also think about society in general.
I will most definitely get that book and read it to my heart's content. Thanks Max, you're my new idol now.
>>953874
remember that morality is a spook so murder is ok
>>953898
I murdered a bird with a BB gun on my own free will and left it there to rot because I thought it was right for me to do that. What a spook.
>>953898
There are entirely egoistic reasons to be against murder. I'm not sure why people seem to think any amoralist position is inherently anti-social.
>>953954
The only reason an egoist might have to justify being against murder is the opportunity cost (punishment/repercussion > murder)
>>953769
far right (actually any political side)=state
anarchism=no state.
As simple as that.
>>953992
>The only reason an egoist might have to justify being against murder
Or the fact that murder is an entirely distressing and unpleasant act, unless you're a sociopath. Or the fact that indulging in such unpleasant acts is certain to be detrimental to your mental health. Or the fact that normal people don't just kill people. Or the fact that guilt is probably reflexive to a certain extent and guilt sucks. Or the fact that an egoist might love all men for selfish reasons. Or the fact that an egoist might not want to encourage violence in the world for practical reasons. Or the fact that an egoist might accept certain spooks while acknowledging them as spooks.
>>953874
I genuinely hope you enjoy it. I think Stirner is an excellent philosopher and he changed my way of thinking. Just remember that altruism, cooperation, and empathy are all perfectly valid under his way of thinking, provided these ideas aren't pursued as things ahead of yourself. Ideas are tools to serve men, men are not tools to serve ideas.
>>953992
Actually, the fact that a society that condones murder is a society that's more likely to result in you getting yourself murdered, so it behooves you to be against it and encourage others to do likewise.
>>954246
This too. There are all kinds of squishy emotional reasons that are perfectly valid from an egoistic standpoint.
They're a spook because they're relative. How is torture a violation of human rights, but solitary confinement is not. How is execution a violation of human rights somewhere but perfectly accepted other places.
It's definitely a spook
Are you spooked by default if you serve someone?
Or can you willingly submit yourself to the authority of a man without necessarily putting him ahead of your own self?
>>956342
You aren't really submitting at that point. Regardless, you'd want to avoid getting into a position where your future decisions could wind up dictated by a past decision.
There is literally nothing wrong with putting things ahead of yourself
>>956342
Cooperation can be egoistical. For instance someone may pay you money for your work and you will want to use the money for what suits you.
If i have a daughter and I put her well being above my own, is she a spook? Or are spooks only ideas and values?
>>956858
Putting her ahead of you because of some feeling of familal obligation or duty is spooky but conciously choosing to favour her wellbeing is fine. If seeing her succeed makes you happy then do what you can to facilitate that.
Ridding yourself of spooks is near impossible but recognising them is important, you can still live with them but remember that they aren't real.
>>953898
>murder is ok
The immoral man is still bounded by morality, you are spooked my son.
Is the concept of living spook free a spook?
>>956952
Sure, if you serve it as something ahead of yourself. Even Stirner himself admitted to being possessed by some spooks.
>>957456
>Even Stirner himself admitted to being possessed by some spooks.
Quote?
>>956858
Seeing her succeed in life would please you. It is inherently egotistical as is everything. Altruism and selflessness are lies. Everything you do is for your own self interest.
>>942384
Confirmed for not having done the reading
>>957845
I don't think I could find the actual quote. I think it's either in the section where he's talking about wheels in the head, or where he first explains the possession. It's basically just an offhand statement to the effect of "I have spirits of my own" or some such.
What is individualist/egoist anarchism supposed to mean? How can Stirner's ideas be applied politically?
>>963432
Basically - rich people have many wives but they're all cucks like Stirner so they give poor people money to fuck them when they watch and the economy just werks
>>941351
>insecure leftard brings his shitty race baiting
>>941230
Yes, is just a excuse the USA use to invade country's under a "dictatorship"
>>963432
Basically, you considering yourself the highest authority over your own life, make yourself as free as you care to/are able to, and regard things only as they are of interest to you.
>>942042
Not during his life, but now he is a spook, he admitted it himself, the ego and its own is spooky as fuck.
Calling anything I don't like a spook is fun
You guys should try it
>>942384
thats a spook post there mister
> Edgar Bauer (1820–1886) would later record that Stirner had confessed that having once caught sight of his wife naked he had been unable to touch her again.
why are the greatest philosophers always gay?
>>956905
How does it benefit you at all to recognize something but be unable to do anything about it?
>>964449
It doesn't. Ignorance is bliss, as they say
>>963484
He asked about Stirner not Sanders fag
