What is the ego? What is egoism?
Isn't Stirner's concept of the "spook" a spook in and of itself?
>>769683
CREATIVE
NOTHING
>>769683
>What is the ego?
(You) brah
>What is egoism?
(You)'s before Who's
>Isn't Stirner's concept of the "spook" a spook in and of itself?
No, but egoism is
Ego means a material conception of the individual, the word more accurately translates as "unique one"
Spook is axiomatically defined as anything placed above self-interest.
>>769683
>Isn't Stirner's concept of the "spook" a spook in and of itself?
No, this is a meme I popularized myself on /lit/ like three years ago to troll Stirnerfags. The two ideas aren't even compatible, it's just a funny meme that lets people piss of Stirnerfags.
>>769710
do you mind elaborating? i'd appreciate it.
I don't think this warrants a new thread, so I'm going to dump it here but could someone please answer.
Assuming the quote "When everything is sacred, nothing is" is true. Is the opposite true? If no one activity in particular is sacred does that everything you do is sacred?
Also spooks are spooks that's why they are called spooks. Calling something a spook isn't a spook however since spooks are things used to create obligations with you,
>>769715
Spooks are basically fixed ideas about the world, most specifically in regards to relative importance. Just accept that nothing has inherent importance, and it's only YOU that allows anything to be important, and you get Stirner's point.
To call spooks a spook is to literally say, "this method to analyze ideas is a fixed idea", which is just absurd. It's like calling addition a number. Addition isn't a number, it's an operation. They're just different things. But people like having really clever "arguments" against things so the "spooks are spooks" thing became a hot meme. And I'm proud of it.
>>769716
If a rock can create an infinite number of Gods that are incapable of lifting it, does it follow that God can create a single rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?
>>769734
thanks, congratulations on your meme also!
>>769716
If you believe in the precepts of logic, then the only true statement as a result of that is "If something is sacred, then something else is not sacred", i.e. the contrapositive.
Basically the point is that, a sacred object by nature is superior to other objects.
>Also spooks are spooks that's why they are called spooks.
No. Spooks are closer to a meta-ideal than an ideal. You can't refer to a material thing with the word spook, you can only refer to ideas with the word spook.
>>769767
thanks as you an tell I'm not particularly bright and it's late. I didn't want to have to spend time figuring it out before I could go to sleep.
So thanks again.
>>769785
>>769751
no problem
>>769700
>Spook is axiomatically defined as anything placed above self-interest
So explain to me why we should care about self-interest? People seem to naturally have death-drives and desire to live for something other than themselves.
>>769976
Naturalistic fallacy. Into the trash it goes
>>769976
In Stirner's view, everything we do is already for the purposes of self-gratification, which fits with neurology. So what people describe as "self interest" isn't exactly that in the usual sense of "fuck you, I got mine." But more in the sense of understanding that anything you do, you ultimately do for yourself, and thus recognizing yourself as the highest authority over your own actions, and that you own your self.
This actually changes very little, as you can ultimately pursue any ideal or cause you see fit, you just keep in mind that none of these is "greater" than you, as you're still ultimately pursuing your own gratification as directed by your own will. The main thing that changes is that you follow authority or ideology only as it suits you.
>he reifies the phenomenal spook
>he thinks he can think about the spook-in-itself
>he thinks he can even attempt to think the spook-in-itself
laughingkantians.jpg
>>769683
>Isn't Stirner's concept of the "spook" a spook in and of itself?
"Spook" is basically a synonym for an artificial abstract construction created by humans. Since those objectively, tangibly and observably exist, no, the concept of "spooks" is not a spook.
>>770032
Isn't the whole idea of egoism an observation of human's self-interest? I mean christ a great deal of philosophy is based on observations of humanity.
>>770129
>objectively
nice spook
>>769976
Self-interest is a misnomer, because it's probably defined in ideological terms.
>>770068
>everything we do is already for the purposes of self-gratification
No.
>But more in the sense of understanding that anything you do, you ultimately do for yourself, and thus recognizing yourself as the highest authority over your own actions, and that you own your self.
Stirner believes the spooks will literally haunt your mind and make you do things you normally wouldn't.
>The main thing that changes is that you follow authority or ideology only as it suits you.
This is alright.
>>770032
this idiot can't argue without his fallacy notecards
>>770266
>No.
Yes. There's a reason he terms people who reject egoists as involuntary egoists, and that's because they're pursuing their own egoism in a roundabout way while deluding themselves into thinking they've transcended it.
>Stirner believes the spooks will literally haunt your mind and make you do things you normally wouldn't.
No he doesn't. The whole term spook and possession is just a spoof of Hegel's terminology. He believes that you become "possessed" by a spook by attempting to put it ahead of yourself as though it were an entity unto itself and render it something untouchable and inviolable, a "fixed idea."
>>770386
>who reject egoism
>>770386
>Yes. There's a reason he terms people who reject egoists as involuntary egoists, and that's because they're pursuing their own egoism in a roundabout way while deluding themselves into thinking they've transcended it.
Find me one citation that actually supports that.
>>770396
"Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist ... in short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, and abases himself (combats his egoism), but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of "being exalted", and therefore of gratifying his egoism. Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake... [on] this account I call him the involuntary egoist. ...As you are each instant, you are your own creature in this very 'creature' you do not wish to lose yourself, the creator. You are yourself a higher being than you are, and surpass yourself ... just this, as an involuntary egoist, you fail to recognize; and therefore the 'higher essence' is to you – an alien essence. ... Alienness is a criterion of the "sacred". Page 37-8, Cambridge Edition of the Ego and Its Own.
its not a problem until literal physical violence occurs from it then its societies problem
shoot to kill, no more, no less.
>>770398
I see nothing in that quote that says ALL people are egoists, and Stirner himself suggests that people do act entirely unegoistically at times.
>>770428
If you're not pursuing the cause of self, you're pursuing another cause, and if you're pursuing another cause, you're pursuing the cause of self in another way. Stirner's position is undeniably that of psychological egoism.
>>770430
>What is meant by ‘egoism’, however, is not always clear. Stirner is occasionally portrayed as a psychological egoist, that is, as a proponent of the descriptive claim that all (intentional) actions are motivated by a concern for the self-interest of the agent. However, this characterisation of Stirner's position can be questioned. Not least, The Ego and Its Own is structured around the opposition between egoistic and non-egoistic forms of experience. Indeed, he appears to hold that non-egoistic action has predominated historically (in the epochs of realism and idealism). Moreover, at one point, Stirner explicitly considers adopting the explanatory stance of psychological egoism only to reject it. In a discussion of a young woman who sacrifices her love for another in order to respect the wishes of her family, Stirner remarks that an observer might be tempted to maintain that selfishness has still prevailed in this case since the woman clearly preferred the wishes of her family to the attractions of her suitor. However, Stirner rejects this hypothetical explanation, insisting that, provided “the pliable girl were conscious of having left her self-will unsatisfied and humbly subjected herself to a higher power” (197), we should see her actions as governed by piety rather than egoism.
>>770442
That contradicts the previous quote. If piety were the motivation, then it would have been a "sacred thing" that was the motivation, which exists only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself. I would contend if anything that passage was just improperly clarified, as it was obviously not a victory of voluntary egoism, but still an egoistic action.
>>770451
Nah your reading is too simple. Stirner is certainly pointing out that a kind of spook-devotion is really egoistic (e.g., the Christian piling up treasures in heaven). But he explicitly rejects saying all people always act always in their perceived best interest. He says explicitly that sometimes people just do what they're told and there is no egoistic concern involved.
In other words, people aren't always 100% of the time set on some cause.
>>770461
>In other words, people aren't always 100% of the time set on some cause.
But that's flat out wrong. Everyone is at all times pursuing a cause. Even doing what you're told is pursuing a cause.
>>770465
Nah that's just silly. We act all the time on impulse, mechanistically or without thinking.
>>770465
I would read William James if I were you desu. Combine his talk of habits with Stirner's egoism and it will make more sense.
>>770471
Then it's just a cause ill-thought out.
>>770475
Well, I'll be honest, it really doesn't make any sense if it's not psychological egoism. It just becomes another "well, here's something else you ought to do."
>>770486
No, because if it was then Stirner would advocate it, but the entire section on Ownness is dedicated to self-mastery opposed to unconscious passion.
>>770492
Why does that follow?
Just think of causes as deliberate, aware actions. Stirner thinks deliberate actions as egoistic most likely, but there are an array of actions that do not fit into that description. Why else would he advocate temperance, and not simple hedonism? The gambler has an addiction and his egoistic side may hate the addiction, to say he's flip flipping on his ego constantly doesn't make much sense.
>>770502
But why then should I prefer my egoistic side over my impulsive side? What actually makes it better?
>Why else would he advocate temperance, and not simple hedonism?
My assumption was simply because hedonism can be a poor way of fulfilling your own interests.
>>770504
How can you know what your interests are then? Are they whatever comes out of you randomly?
Stirner argues that your unconscious side serves many masters. He's a huge advocate of self-mastery. If you think masters are bad, then you'll dislike your passions because they gets you enslaved often.
I think Stirner is saying that, your conscious mind is pretty good and you should use it to form good habits, but many of the spooks trick our minds and waste our time with things that are actually bad for us.
I would seriously, seriously advocate reading William James on habit. I think what James says about habit is what Stirner was often trying to say.
>>770519
>How can you know what your interests are then?
Because they emerge from your ego.
>>770519
Hmm, I'll check it out. I'll admit, I feel a fool for misunderstanding Stirner. For what it's worth, I did actually read the book (the Ego and Its Own). I guess it just didn't sink in; this is not my proudest moment.
>>769734
>"this method to analyze ideas is a fixed idea"
Where's the problem ?
>>771030
In the thing.
What similarities can we find between Stirners Egoism and Hedonism or Epicureanism?
>>775328
Stirnerism is not hedonism. No relation at all.
>>775328
I just realized the smoke sort of matches the shape of his face
>>775328
Epicurus' Garden is similar to Stirners union of egoists. You could also say that a similarity is that they're both egoistic causes.
