Are spooks always negative notions? Or can they be positive? Is the concept of a spook more about unveiling the truth of the external forces around you?
>>7841071
Noyesyes.
>>7841071
"Spooks" is used a catchall for unexamined influences on us all.
Kinda like "privilege" or "ideology" except for internet wanna-be alt-right tough guys.
>>7841188
check ur spooks shitlord
>>7841188
>stirner
>alt-right
>any right
can we stop this meme? There was a reason he hung out with the young hegelians.
>>7841222
Explain.
>>7841190
your tone is #spooking me
>>7841071
positive and negative is a spook: a false dichotomy.
>>7841233
Political positions are just spooks.
>>7841222
Talking about the people who use the term now famalamadingdong
>>7841071
>Are spooks always negative notions?
Placing something above your own interest is always a negative for Stirner.
>Or can they be positive?
Only to the people and spooks themselves.
> Is the concept of a spook more about unveiling the truth of the external forces around you?
How on earth did you come to this conclusion?
>>7841188
Social/personal construct is probably a better catchall term for it. Just because you examine something does make it no longer a spook.
>>7842045
How does realizing an unexamined social construct/influence exists not constitute 'unveiling the truth of external forces?'
>negative
Spook.
>positive
Spook.
>concept of a spook
Spook.
>the truth
Spook.
>external forces
Spook.
>>7841071
Ideology is Ideology, it becomes a ''spook'' when it is what it sounds like: A non existent spectre, which limits you in some negative way. Rising above these ''spooks'' and Ideologies does not put them in a negative light, it just makes you aware of what they truly are, it all goes down into metaphysical mysticism from there.
>>7842418
>How does realizing an unexamined social construct/influence exists not constitute 'unveiling the truth of external forces?'
You honestly think notions such as the good, honor ect are unexamined? People have been examining them for millennia.
Most importantly though spooks are not external forces, they are wholly internal hence our ability to dispel them. Like ghosts they only exist in your mind, there is nothing external about them. Hence why that conclusion was so odd/
>>7841071
>Are spooks always negative notions?
They are not "negative". Stirner is just saying that you don't *have to* follow spooks.
If you egoistically want to put a spook above you, it stops being a spook.
>literally a cuck philosphy
Why don't you guys actually read the chapter instead of just using the world. It's not too complicated
>>7844016
Spooks that I see as part of reality are called Facts, dickbird.
>>7843816
>If you egoistically want to put a spook above you, it stops being a spook.
Not so as it being above you means it ceases to be your property. You can live a certain way because at the time that aligns with your ego but as soon as you place something above that you are getting pretty dam spooky
>>7844029
Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head! You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you. You have a fixed idea!
>>7841233
Stirner is an anarchist theorist. The end.
the trash can is a spook.
