>Actually decide to read the Ego and its Own
>Realize that Stirner is a superior Nietzsche, whose philosophy is sound even in spite of all the memes
>Realize that 'spook' is a philosophically priceless concept
Does anyone else know this feel? It doesn't surprise me that he scared the living shit out of Marx.
>>8136858
But Anon. Stirner is a meme himself.
>>8136858
I liked it, but I can't how his philosophy would work; or where it would lead.
His general idea, that we shouldn't sacrifice our individuality to anything, is good. Our goals and desires should be subservient to us (or technically 'I', since society is also a spook) - not the other way around.
There is no greater spook than the cause, or thing, for which one would die; for this is quite literally a sacrifice of the self to something else.
This is much more noble than /lit/'s use of 'spook' - which, in essence, implies that something one does not like is in fact a fiction.
>>8136892
Fucking this. Stirner doesn't imply that morality/etc is make-believe; simply that 'spooks' should ultimately have no power over us.
Egoism, in Stirner's sense, is essentially metaphysical self-mastery.
I still like the memes, though.
>>8136868
What are you implying, that spooks are memes?
>>8136858
>It doesn't surprise me that he scared the living shit out of Marx.
Even funnier when you read Marx's 'rebuttal'.
>>8136892
Why do people hate him so much, then?
>>8136929
Well, because egoism is literally selfishness in the highest sense.
It places the 'I' (individual) above all else, which goes against the lion's share of all Human thought/philosophy/etc throughout history. People throughout the ages have been quite prepared to put race/religion/nation/etc before themselves; even the 'revolutionary' Marxists/Communists have things for which they will die, or at the very least serve. That is, for example, the 'Revolution' and the 'Proletariat'/'Struggle'/etc. That explains >>8136916
Very few people are prepared to put themselves before anything else.
>>8136909
No, Stirner is a meme and therefore a spook.
>>8136916
Thanks for reminding me.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03d.htm
>>8136858
>Does anyone else know this feel?
Nope, not an asshole.
>>8136858
>Realize that Stirner is a superior Nietzsche
And what lead you to that conclusion?
>>8136983
Nietzsche made the refutation of pessimism, as a cause, his spook.
His philosophy is a pursuit, or a means, without an end. The Übermensch was also undeniably spooky, as a concept.
I still love Nietzsche, though.
>>8136973
You're a spook.
Nietzsche goes beyond Stirner in a lot ways, in my opinion. Stirner recognizes the supreme importance of our own subjectivity, and that we should not surrender our subjective experience to some "objective" right cause. Part of Nietzsche's philosophy is about recognizing other people's subjective experience, and rather than subordinating yourself to it or anything, it informs you and through it, you transcend. Dono. That is how I've understood the relationship.
>>8136957
Stirner asked the most fundamental question, for which there has not yet been a fundamental answer: Why should I serve any interests other than my own? Why should I be selfless?
The closest you can get is mutual self-interest; pursuing your own interests whilst 'happening' to serve another's - coincidentally, even. That's basically what Ayn Rand was advocating, if I remember right.
>>8137022
>Part of Nietzsche's philosophy is about recognizing other people's subjective experience, and rather than subordinating yourself to it or anything, it informs you and through it, you transcend. Dono
This sounds superfluous, really.
>>8136957
Stirner's point is that everyone is already an egoist acting completely selfishly, regardless of whether one is being so voluntarily or not.
Those who put race/religion/nation/whatever before themselves are still acting in self-interest, they just justify their actions as if they're serving something higher, a "spook". However, they're really just acting in a way that best makes them feel fulfilled.
Everyone puts themselves before anything else, only voluntary egoists acknowledge this.
>>8137041
I don't think so. Your subjective experience is one perspective, and understanding how you came to possess your particular outlook, informing it, develops it further, and it also helps you understand others. Nietzsche is the way of Max Stirner's borderline solipsism. Of course, most people who fellate Max Stirner don't want a way out.
>>8137043
>Those who put race/religion/nation/whatever before themselves are still acting in self-interest
Not really, because the entire reason he proposed the concept of a 'spook' is that race/religion/nation/etc, as causes, are frequently in *opposition* to our interests; detrimental to them.
Altruism, by definition, is acting in spite of your own self-interest; if this never genuinely happened, egoism would never have been proposed as it would go without saying.
>>8137043
Things like nationalism, religion, etc. have their origins in mutual self-interest, but a lot of people, for one reason or another, take it to an extreme where their own self-interest isn't served. You could argue that this is self-interest in the evolutionary fitness sense, but that's not something most people explicitly care about.
>>8137060
Solipsism is the belief that only the self exists.
What Stirner says, on the contrary, is that only the self matters. Understanding others is hardly antithetical to Stirner's egoism; the end result, or rather goal, is the same. Namely, that your own self-interest should still take precedence.
>>8137077
Hence why it is borderline and not full on.
>>8137000
>Nietzsche made the refutation of pessimism, as a cause, his spook.
Trips of truth.
I think Evola pointed this out, actually; just a shame he's only read by about 12 guys in the the internet's more obscure, forgotten corners.
>>8137080
So you had to call it "borderline snarl-word" rather than just "snarl word" even though they're not the same thing at all. Search yourself and think about why egoism makes you so uncomfortable.
>>8137064
You might perceive things labelled "spooks" to contradict your interests, but only because you denial of your own egoism.
People are altruistic because it makes them feel good. Whether they give up time, money, happiness or anything else, it is actually worth less to them than the feeling they get from knowing they've acted "altruistically" (regardless of whether or not it appears so to them on a surface level - e.g. if they are less happy). Altruism is a "spook" and involuntary egoists refuse to acknowledge this just as they refuse to acknowledge the entirety of their own egoism because that denial in itself makes them feel better.
>>8137097
>You might perceive things labelled "spooks" to contradict your interests, but only because you denial of your own egoism.
The D-Day anniversary was yesterday, right? Please enlighten me as to how teenagers were being selfish/egoistic when they stormed the beaches of Normandy to face almost certain death.
>People are altruistic because it makes them feel good.
Taking this thought to it's terminus, you would have to argue that every single case of martyrdom was simply someone wanting to feel good about themselves. If you want to try and make that argument, be my guest.
Bear in mind the conclusion, however: that the individual's greatest motivator, in your world, would be vanity - even unto death.
>>8137096
It doesn't. I've read the Ego and Its Own. I think there's a lot of truth to it, as you should've noticed by my acknowledging the truth of the supremacy of the individual's subjective experience. Too many people subordinate themselves to a cause, and then an uncomfortable tension develops, as it seems you've subordinated yourself to Max Stirner and now become a vicious little toad.
The derogatory connotation of solipsism was deliberate, yes, and it was because to arrive at the end point that your self-interests are all that matters is glib and definitive. Nietzsche develops it further. Instead of questing me why egotism bothers me, which it doesn't, you should question yourself why it's so important to you (which would be a pretty Nietzsche thing to do, to be honest).
:^)
>>8137110
Not my world, but as Stirner would understand it, yes -- even martyrdom and those moments leading up to it in certainty is worth the coupled euphoria of vanity of those "possessed" by "spooks" of pride, honour, bravery, etc.
>>8137120
>Instead of questing me why egotism bothers me, which it doesn't, you should question yourself why it's so important to you
I'll take the George Bernard Shaw approach: Why shouldn't it be?
The burden of proof lies with altruists to explain why I should care about anything beyond myself, or put any interests before my own.
>>8137200
Literally no one in this thread gives a shit about you putting your interests before altruism. It hasn't been a point of contention at all, and yet you've repeatedly acted like people are trying to force you to act in a selfless way. The reason, then, it's important for you to question yourself why this is important to you is self-understanding, something which you clearly have not arrived at, so you don't continue on doing and saying retarded shit in a completely oblivious manner.
>>8137018
And you are your own spook.
Think about that, m8.
>>8136858
>Realize that Stirner is a superior Nietzsche
lmao
At every point on which they intersect, Nietzsche is far more profound and deeper.
>>8137160
Stirner puts as an example the girl that sacrifices her love because of the wishes of her family, and goes on to say that she actually acted in spite of her self interest for the spook that is "piety", no egoism in that.
>>8136975
Marx was such a loser.
Is there anything that goes beyond Stirner's philosophy?
>>8136892
unwillingness to die for your cause is the absolutely inverse meaning of the word noble
unwillingness to sacrifice is antithetical to life, as procreation always entails sacrifice
>>8137289
Marx
>>8137282
>implying the vast majority of philosophers weren't losers irl
And those that weren't, had shit philosophy.
>>8137033
>>
So literally, Anarcho-capitalism...
And here I thought there was something of depth in the philosophy. Though I'm forgetting, depth is a spook.
>>8138042
No, ancraps are all about muh property and insist on cucking your self interest for the sake of their property 'rights'.
>>8138042
I suggest reading Stirner before you call him an ancap.
>>8137315
Camus wasn't such a loser, and his ideas were great.
>>8137000
>His philosophy is a pursuit, or a means, without an end.
Pursuits need ends = the greatest spook of western thought, straighten your shit out pal
>>8137033
>Stirner asked the most fundamental question, for which there has not yet been a fundamental answer: Why should I serve any interests other than my own? Why should I be selfless?
>inherently privileging the individual as the location of interests, questioning, and analysis
ding ding ding you found the hidden spook that makes Stirner spookier than Nietzsche
>>8137033
Stirner would say altruism is just a spook; Ayn Rand thought altruism itself was problematic and needed to be fought. Rand was essentially advocating some form of calculating egoist utilitarianism to better yourself in her image.
Rand (and Nietzsche also) were attempting to set forth principles, which interfere with the pure ego, which still makes them bogie-worshippers and slaves to abstractions.
>>8138218
why should the ego be the center of attention
>>8138218
>Nietzsche also) were attempting to set forth principles,
you get an F and have to retake the class
>>8138237
Nietzsche was a slave to amor fati and his superman bogieman
>>8138225
Because people are all egoists at their core and by accepting and living this we can best achieve this outcome. Why be an involuntary egoist instead of a voluntary one?
>>8138188
I believe Camus just regurgitated ideas of old philosophers such as Sartre & Heidegger desu
>>8138245
please explain
>>8138269
>spook located
Not really, that statement I made isnt making any prescriptions based on an appeal to human nature.
>>8138225
>>8138296
>that statement I made isnt making any prescriptions based on an appeal to human nature.
accept that all people are egoists sounds like a perscription to me
Always post
>>8138296
>that statement I made isnt making any prescriptions based on an appeal to human nature.
You stated that people are ALL egoists at their CORE. You're not appealing to human nature, you're defining one. People are essentially egoistic is what you just said, hence a metaphysical abstraction, hence a spook. You're even postulating a core, or essence, removed from appearance by implying appearances of selflessness are involuntary according to a selfish essence. You're spook central rn pham.
>>8136858
yep, the milk pill changed my life
>>8138308
buddy i made that image
you can't meme me with it
>>8138321
What do you mean?
That image is my property
>>8138333
all that you thought was yours is merely mine
i have subsumed you and all your properties into my ownership
there is no escape from your fate
>>8138310
>accept that all people are egoists sounds like a perscription to me
Its more of an axiom, if you dont have to accept or reject it.
>You stated that people are ALL egoists at their CORE. You're not appealing to human nature, you're defining one. People are essentially egoistic is what you just said, hence a metaphysical abstraction, hence a spook. You're even postulating a core, or essence, removed from appearance by implying appearances of selflessness are involuntary according to a selfish essence. You're spook central rn pham.
Do you think spook = any "metaphysical abstraction"
>>8138338
>mine
There is no "yours" only mine.
Also I got trips that confirm that I'm right.
>>8138339
>Do you think spook = any "metaphysical abstraction"
It can and often does take the form of a metaphysical abstraction. I figure you're smart enough to not need egoism as a socially compelling construction explained.
>Its more of an axiom, if you dont have to accept or reject it.
Arbitrarily and uncritically accepted presuppositions? Boom, spook. See, axioms usually just work in philosophical projects that don't concern themselves with dispersing apparent axioms.
>>8138363
you mean I got trips to confirm that i'm right, mini-me
>>8138366
>It can and often does take the form of a metaphysical abstraction. I figure you're smart enough to not need egoism as a socially compelling construction explained.
I think you are misunderstanding the relationship element that defines the spook rather than its abstractness.
>Arbitrarily and uncritically accepted presuppositions? Boom, spook. See, axioms usually just work in philosophical projects that don't concern themselves with dispersing apparent axioms.
Yeah now Im fairly sure you do not understand what is mean by spook. A spook is defined by it being held above the person - its "interests" taking prominence before that of the individual. Indeed it is like a spook because like a ghost they can only interact with the world by possessing people
>>8138395
>A spook is defined by it being held above the person - its "interests" taking prominence before that of the individual.
Very well, by this account Stirner isn't merely contradictory but has nothing to contradict, tabling of course the uses to which precisely this individualism and egoism have been put as a spook. Spooks justify what they presuppose based on what they presuppose and no critical explanation is given for why what is presupposed is presupposed.
>muh its an axiom
>muh essence
>>8138441
>Very well, by this account Stirner isn't merely contradictory but has nothing to contradict, tabling of course the uses to which precisely this individualism and egoism have been put as a spook
I dont get at what you are trying to describe here
>pooks justify what they presuppose based on what they presuppose and no critical explanation is given for why what is presupposed is presupposed.
Spooks do not "justify" anything though. All Stirner does is show how they are distinct from the individual and why they cannot meet the desires of the individual.
>>8136858
Psych major/babby-Freudian here. I think that if we assume Stirner's voluntary/involuntary egoism dichotomy to be true (which does agree with Freud's ideas), then we could use this as a framework for better understanding neurosis and neurotic behaviour. Think, how much dissonance could arise if one constantly denies ones own egoism? What length will one go to repress their egoistic nature? Stirner's philosophy could be the path to psychological well-being. Thoughts?
>>8138490
>Spooks do not "justify" anything though.
ok now you're just memeing
>>8138537
>ok now you're just memeing
No memeing here, the only justification comes from the self. Its literally the first line in his book.
>>8138504
I think CBT tends offer a pretty practical way to apply Stirners thought to ones life for reasons akin to that
>>8138504
>Stirner's philosophy could be the path to psychological well-being. Thoughts?
I think it goes a long way. No longer feeling yourself spellbound by exterior 'oughts' goes a long way to diminish anxiety.
>>8138560
when you say "all people are egoists" it´s a spook you are surpassing the term.
basically stirner put like a requisite that we all are egoists. (he explain, more or less his views on this) if you don´t think that, you are in total contradiction with stirner book and vision, and you use spook to other end… like some kind of war against generalizations or so...
someone can explains me this…
>Page 163: “That society is no ego, which could give, etc., but an instrument from which we can derive benefit; that we have no social duties, but only interests; that we do not owe any sacrifices to society, but if we do sacrifice something we sacrifice it for ourselves — all this is disregarded by the social [liberals], because they are in — thrall to the religious principle and are zealously striving for a — holy society.”
The following “penetrations” into the essence of communism result from this:
1. Saint Sancho has quite forgotten that it was he himself who transformed “society” into an “ego” and that consequently he finds himself only in his own “society”.
stirner say society is no ego
marx say stirner (saint sancho) transform society into an ego. what the fuck?. how can exist this misunderstanding?…
>>8138731
marx was a hothead grasping at straws because stirner ruined the fun he was having believing in bullshit
Sounds like Crowley and the rest
>>8138707
>when you say "all people are egoists" it´s a spook you are surpassing the term.
Once again I dont think you are grasping what a spook is. Its all about the relationship it has to the individual, and idea cannot have a spook nor can a spook have a spook as they lack agency and intelligence.
>basically stirner put like a requisite that we all are egoists.if you don´t think that, you are in total contradiction with stirner book and vision
Not at all, see >>8138490
"All Stirner does is show how they are distinct from the individual and why they cannot meet the desires of the individual."
>, and you use spook to other end… like some kind of war against generalizations or so...
Once again if you can "use" a spook it is not a spook but in fact your property
Honestly if you are too lazy to read his book at least skim the wikipedia or Stanford page on him before post about about his ideas.
Heres a short lecture if you arent a fan of reading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs
>>8138731
>marx say stirner (saint sancho) transform society into an ego. what the fuck?. how can exist this misunderstanding?…
I get the feeling that marx is trying to out Stirner with Stirner here along the lines of saying
"you criticize/mock liberals for worshiping a construct (in this case society) yet you go on and worship your own construct: the ego"
Had Marx been working on the English translation alone I could understand this mistake being made but given he wasnt it seems like a rather weak criticism.
Have you seen any other interesting criticisms of Stirner in the German Ideology? I havent read it yet myself
>>8137097
>People are altruistic because it makes them feel good. Whether they give up time, money, happiness or anything else, it is actually worth less to them than the feeling they get from knowing they've acted "altruistically" (regardless of whether or not it appears so to them on a surface level - e.g. if they are less happy)
do you have a single fact to back that up
>>8136957
I = the one
I or me is everything
there is less separation between you and a rock than between you and other people / yourself as you probably think of it.
>>8139010
>falling back upon postivism
please present facts verifying the inverse
>>8139107
What is the difference between rocks and people then?
>>8137033
Rand is completely different from Stirner and problematic. I'll try to explain
Ayn Rand's problem is that her egoism is normative: it is ethical to be egoist and you have a moral duty to do so. She elevates egoism into a spook
A Stirnerist might practice altruism, but with full conscience that it's for his own sake (because it feels good, or because of some interest, etc. Stirner's conception of love is quite lovely in this sense ('I console you because your pain is may pain, your happiness is my happiness etc')). A Randian would cuck him/herself into not practicing altruism because Ayn Rand told them to
>>8139010
I think it's pretty much an a priori truth famalam
>>8137110
>Please enlighten me as to how teenagers were being selfish/egoistic when they stormed the beaches of Normandy to face almost certain death.
Aren't you actually obligated to join the army in times of war? Muhammad Ali died recently and most people remembered him for his controverse refusal of fighting the vietnam war
>>8136978
lmao ya asshole
>>8136858
Has it ever once occurred to any of you that the ironic distance you all place between yourself and your memetic, petrified caricature of Stirner is a byproduct of the very thought it purports to represent? That Stirner did not really believe a single word he wrote? That instead he was writing for an ideal community of obsessive bourgeois individualists who would make him immortal, never imagining the nightmare shape it would take when the corrupting virus of materiality tainted its Platonic majesty, yielding not a collective of autonomous Egos but rather anonymous ones, namely /lit/ itself?
>>8138845
thelema?
OP, have you read kant?
>>8137110
people love to cling to some devoted ideology to better hide to themselves that they are heodnist and in fact failures in hedonism.
There is no "living through" his philosophy. All it's worth of is for this idea of spooks, which themselves should have zero impact on how everyone lives.
Stirner himself falls victim to his philosophy by laughing at people who are unvoluntary egoists. If he allows himself to say that what they do is wrong, he automstically creates dichotomy of good and bad and thus falls in an involuntary spook himself. All he can do is laugh, for nothing is higher than anything if we follow his philosophy.
You are no better off knowing Stirner's pointed out "spooks". Even Stirner in his last chapter said one must control spooks and use them for their own benefit. But doesn't this seem awful lot familiar with what everyone else does? The spooks come to us in various shapes and forms, it's up to us to decide which to follow. If there is any "good" in being voluntary egoist, by being such you suddenly become an involuntary one.
>>8139818
You didn't get him. Read his book again.
>>8140046
It's rather you who didn't get him and wanted to use the idea of spooks as an excuse for your own beliefs, or at least it's what I generally see here people do.
You are free to elaborate what I didn't get, though.
>>8140074
Not that guy, but I think you misread Stirner if you try to see him as an attempt of a prescriptive compass or something like that. He does not say "this is what you should do", he says "this is what i do", while poking fun at and pointing out contradictions of people who do, in fact, try to be a moral compass. It is written for the individual, the "creative nothingness", not for society as a whole.
>>8140090
Maybe I wasn't clear, but if you would reread my post, you would see that this was my point, that all he can do is laugh, anything further than that and he succumbs to his own philosophy. Also, among other things, my post was a reaction seeing people posting about "living through" his philosophy, which, as I said, goes against philosophy.
>>8139239
[Citation Needed]
>>8137110
>Taking this thought to it's terminus, you would have to argue that every single case of martyrdom was simply someone wanting to feel good about themselves. If you want to try and make that argument, be my guest.
are you implying that its a dificult argument?
Lets see, why would people commit martyrdom, in the eyes of Stirner?
Because in the pursuit of their spooks, they find that such an action benefits them or makes them feel good about themselves, it benefits their selves.
Maybe at first thought this seems absurd. How come a person effectively giving up his life benefits them in any way? Because in their minds, they find it beneficial. Lets think of some examples of martyrdom:
religious martyrdom, like the one practiced by jihadis, as an example, happens because the martyrs see in the action a path towards paradise/ever lasting peace/unity with god, etc, etc... From the perspective of such a zealot, this is obviously tremendously beneficial to them! To give up your earthly life in exchange of spiritual ascention is an excellent thing to do!
Of course there are other, less obvious types of martyrdom, but you could, at the very least, reduce them to one idea: to be remembered. To be acknowledged as the most devoted person to the cause. For someone who commits martyrdom, this is the ultimate type of benefit to the ego.
Martyrdom is quite a radical example of the power of spooks to act upon the ego, and a good example of why Stirner is actually right.
>>8136858
Noetzsche was nothing more than an edgy, fedora wearing cuck (literally, not just in the /pol/ sense) that was against religion (yet also against not liking jews) and against nationalism.
>>8140231
>implying nationalism and religion are not the biggest most dangerous spooks
>>8140231
He was not literally a cuck, he was never in an actual relationship with Lou. An actual cuck is someone who is cheated on in a relationship. Learn your terminology before going around spouting "literally".
And nationalism and religion are pretty stupid things.
>>8140248
Nationalism is how we got here. Wilfully dying for your country and defending it no matter what may be a bit too excessive, but you should always be proud of where you come from.
And even if you don't believe religion is real (it is) it is still important for society. We wouldn't have ever had a society in the first place without it.
>>8140252
He's a literal cuck for his beliefs and philosophy. And no, being cheated on doesn't make you a cuck.
>>8140274
I agree, a lot of spooks can be used as a social cohesive force.
On the other hand you can't be proud of where you were born, but you can be happy about your luck and identify yourself with the acts and traditions of your antecessors.
But please, don't impose those things on me.
>>8140274
>He's a literal cuck for his beliefs and philosophy.
So, he IS a cuck in the sense of the /pol/ meme?
>>8138683
>tfw born too late to banter with the based anti-guru
thankfully all this is just a memory
>>8140289
You absolutely can, and should, be proud of where you are from. A sense of nationalistic pride drives you to better your country, and yourself as a representative of where you are from. If no one were proud of their country and people, no one would care about making it better.
>>8140290
If you have cuck beliefs, you are a cuck.
If you like cuck porn and fantasize about it, you are a cuck whether you actually act on it or not. Just because Neitsche was too beta to have a chance to act on his cuck beliefs doesn't make him not a cuck.
>>8140303
>If you have cuck beliefs, you are a cuck.
>If you like cuck porn and fantasize about it, you are a cuck whether you actually act on it or not. Just because Neitsche was too beta to have a chance to act on his cuck beliefs doesn't make him not a cuck.
So, /pol/ memes.
Anon, why does your entire corpus of opinions consist of memes from the ow the edge section of a kenyan tusk carving marketplace?
>>8140313
>You can watch cuck porn and fantasize about being a cuck without being one
>You can also jerk of to child porn and not really be a pedophile
>>8140231
There's never any proper Nietzsche critique; case in point.
Rarely, for example, do people consider his motivations for proposing/creating a philosophy that does away with 'Good' and 'Evil' in the traditional sense.
Why did he *want* to scrap this manner of variety? The possibilities are interesting.
>>8140303
I understand what you say, but nationalism can bring very good and also terrible things since it's a concept expressed through ideologies and religions. I was saying that you can't be proud of were you were born since you had no other choice. But don't get me wrong, I'm ok with that sense of respect and gratitude, but not to be forced to do or say things for mt country.
>>8140318
>You can watch rape porn and fantasize about being a rapist without being one
>>8140332
Everyone just follow Orwell's distinction between patriotism/nationalism and stop being retarded.
>>8140337
>Orwell's distinction between patriotism/nationalism
pls explain
>>8140466
one is spooky as fuck and the other is a total spook
>>8137230
Btfo
>>8140292
stay strong senpai
what is this business?
nothing
>>8141435
How can one man be so rancorous and look so comfy at the same time?
>>8140695
Is ther such a thing as super spook?
I think once something is consideres a spook, they are just as much of a spook as any other spook, that being, there isn't a spook meter, something just is or isn't a spook.
>>8137292
But that's not edgy.
>>8140074
>>8140127
Im not that anon either however you have missread him.
What you are doing here is acting as is acting as if his philosophy were that all ideas are spooks and these spooks must be avoided. The fact that you think spooks can be controlled demonstrates that you clearly do not understand what he means by the term as well as his understanding of property.
Stirners thought is incredibly liberating and valuable in destroying the legitimacy and authority of spooks.
Can one of you who 'gets' stirner explain to me how a mother dying for her child (i.e. that mom in China who got swallowed by the escalator) is her being influenced by spooks or how it isn't if you think it isn't? Why does Stirner get to be the authority on what is coming from the 'creative nothing' (i.e. the mothers child-protecting instinct) and what is coming from some moral she feels obligated to live (and die in this case) for?
>>8142174
>Can one of you who 'gets' stirner explain to me how a mother dying for her child (i.e. that mom in China who got swallowed by the escalator) is her being influenced by spooks or how it isn't if you think it isn't?
Im not sure how well I get him but this might help
Is she doing it because she wants to save her child or is she doing it because she thinks that what a good mother or good christian/jew/ect does?
If the latter then she is spooked.
>Why does Stirner get to be the authority on what is coming from the 'creative nothing' (i.e. the mothers child-protecting instinct) and what is coming from some moral she feels obligated to live (and die in this case) for?
He isnt. people dont say that that something is a spook because Stirner said so, they call it a spook because they are acting in the interests of the concept or idea and not themselves
>>8142174
hi /pol/
>>8142174
Having to explain things for you is a spook.
>>8142174
>the 'creative nothing' (i.e. the mothers child-protecting instinct)
Hint: if it has foundations on something, it's not the creative nothing.
>>8137000
Spooks are fucking spooks themselves. This is the problem with Stirner, while his egoism was definitely solid, he really does not bring anything profound to the table. Just pure egoism.
Nietzsche took Stirner's egoism and went way farther with it.
>Nietzsche made the refutation of pessimism, as a cause, his spook.
Nietzsche's nay-saying is not the normal nay-saying. It comes from his eternal yes-saying philosophy. Nietzsche went above "spooks" but returned to their realm regularly to do battle with them, because he loved power.
>>8136892
Why do people hate on Ayn Rand, then? She has the exact same idea of ego, yet people pretend to be abashed by her bias. If anything, she had more reasons to advocate for egoism.
>>8140274
Wow. This anon is haunted. Someone call the Stirnirian exorciser to rid this poor Ego of his spooks.
>>8142857
>Why do people hate on Ayn Rand, then? She has the exact same idea of ego, yet people pretend to be abashed by her bias. If anything, she had more reasons to advocate for egoism.
I got the felling that she was see as being like liberals in that she destroys one spook only to create a new one.
>>8142857
Rand was retarded enough to try to turn this into a societal principle. Stirner never wrote for society, he wrote for individuals, and even noted in The Unique One that it is a good thing that not everyone will read/follow his teachings.
>>8142857
Ayn Rand is spooked though. She confuses self interest with the accumulation of capital.
what would a world ruled by stirner be like?
>>8143107
It would be just the same.
>>8143107
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_egoists
A bunch of friends decide to do something together. They do it, and then they all go home because they aren't under any sort of obligations.
>>8141926
those palewave comfycore fits
>>8143107
Milk shops on every corner.
>>8143493
pls explain
>>8143744
ignorant newfags should post less and LURK MORE
>>8143744
>Stirner planned and financed (with Marie's inheritance) an attempt by some Young Hegelians to own and operate a milk-shop on co-operative principles. This enterprise failed partly because the dairy farmers were suspicious of these well-dressed intellectuals. The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner
>>8144084
>Tfw you will never get your milk from a fancy milkshop
>>8144084
>>8144226
I plan to include, in one of my writings eventually, a snarky side character who does not do much, but leads a milk store or milk bar in some way, to which the main character(s) return every other way to get some questionable but well intended life advice. I feel like Stirner would be a great wise fool character.
'Spook' should world filter to 'meme'
OP is a faggot who hasn't read Nietzsche
Stirner is like an autist version of Nietzsche with 50% more Hegel mixed in
>>8144485
*tip*
>>8143744
>>8144226
>>8144294
>>8143493
This claim is literally bullshit, notice how that comment lacks a citation?
Stirner translated economic texts - including the work of adam smith- and his translations were the standard up until recently.
What he actually did with that money was create a milk warehouse. Up until that point milk was delivered by farmers on an adhoc basis, what Stirners plan was was to instead have all the milk delivered to a central warehouse in the towns to eliminate transport costs and time - ie how it is done these days.
>>8145368
stirner's a fucking legend desu
>>8145368
Isn't milk basically ectoplasm?
>>8138245
I doubt Stirner would agree with you
I got in a fist fight two weeks ago after I claimed that a man who wanted my seat was my property and that my body is a temporary autonomous zone and he has no authority here
Stirner has made me a better man
>>8145368
>Hey kid, got milk?
>>8136858
>hurpen le durpen nothing le matters XD
It's just shitting in the sandbox.
>>8148439
My point exactly. If he didn't have his social standing so people took him seriously he'd just be considered a le edgy /b/tard, and not even the original teenage angst one, but the "nihilistic" /b/tard 2.0.
>>8148444
Edgy is only bad when it is edgyness for the sake of being edgy /b/-kun
You should stop thinking in buzzwords
>>8148463
Since everything is a spook, obviously he wasn't doing it for the sake of anything else.
So he was literally being edgy for the sake of being edgy.
>>8148473
Edgyness is a spook.
>>8148483
Yes, which is why whatever you do you can do only for the sake of doing it.
So when you're edgy you're only doing it for the sake of being edgy.
Or to give you another example, when you shoot a guy in Reno, you're only doing it for the sake of shooting a guy in Reno. If you do it just to watch him die, you're spooking yourself.
>>8148496
If I shoot my property because I want to shoot my property there is no spooking involved.
>>8148506
Exactly, so he was literally edgy for the sake of being edgy as I initially claimed.
>>8148317
>""""""""""Authority"""""""""""
