>found Stirner in 2013
>been lazy ever since
>can't bear to spook myself
>know that without spooks I drift aimlessly and achieve nothing
Who else is like me? I've cast off so many spooks even you guys can't handle me. I've noticed that in general lit reacted to Stirner by growing a thin faux intellectual respect for religion veneer.
>>8176140
Take the redpill, cuck
>>8176140
yeah thats why I quit stirner. been reading normie shit like nietzsche to gain some discipline.
stirner made me a sociopath
>>8176153
Nietzche is just Tony Robbins for pretentious people
>>8176140
The reason why "spooks" exist is because the ones that create them are more succesful in life and pass their values down. It's a part of natural selection.
>>8176140
What is a spook?
>>8176140
Read The German Ideology.
>>8176140
>>8176140
Seems like you still cling to some unwarranted attachment to achievement, anon.
What Stirner did for me was liberate me from the notion that I ought to do things I don't want to do simply because 'one is supposed to'.
If you are a lazy guy when you're not enthralled by ideology, why not accept that you are lazy?
"When the movement in the direction of becoming something other than what you are isn't there any more, you are not in conflict with yourself."
Where do I start with Stirner? And what is a spook?
>>8176208
>the ones that create them are more succesful in life
They are more successful as servants to the genes, not as individuals. What benefits reproductive success does not necessarily benefit the self.
For example, being a low IQ woman with no education who accidentally gets knocked up by whatever random male manages to charm her teenage self six times in a row but won't abort because of the anti-abortion spook will live the rest of her life living a poor, miserable life on welfare barely scraping by while probably being diseased, overweight and bitter until the moment she dies, but she's tremendously successful evolutionary speaking since she has maximised her offspring at the cost of her self-enjoyment.
>>8176359
The Ego and Its Own, then Stirner's Critics.
>>8176363
Saying that all of the shit in your story there is "bad" is also a spook.
>>8176140
Realize you fell for a philosopher filled with contradictions in his work, while largely ahead of his time, still who's ideology has been furthered after the fact.
>>8176363
The self is a spook, there is only power
Once you're done with Stirner, what are you supposed to do?
Everything seems like a sham to me now. I can't believe in anything.
>>8177209
>Once you're done with Stirner, what are you supposed to do?
you meditate
I too would like to know what a spook is
>read stirner and find out
I tried, still don't get it
>>8176140
you turned "spook" into a spook because you let it hold power over you.
>>8177025
Being tortured isn't inherently bad either but you can safely say most find it unenjoyable.
>>8176252
>wordswordswordswordswordswords
the only universally useful goal of meditation is to slow and then control aspects of bodily function so you can save energy and reduce fatigue or the amount of chaos you contribute to the surrounding environment
>>8176140
>/lit/ reacted to Stirner
>thin faux intellectual respect for religion veneer
most of us don't give a shit about Stirner and never did. maybe /lit/ is becoming religious or maybe not, but I think that either way it has very little to do with what the current memes on 4chan are. when I became a Christian, if it was a reaction to anything (though it needn't have been), it was either to the secular humanism of my professors, or the atheism/progressivism of my friends, or maybe even my father's atheism—but it definitely had nothing to do with this board.
>>8176363
>They are more successful as servants to the genes, not as individuals.
Maybe YOU'RE the spooked one
>>8177733
And once you're done with that?
>>8178412
you die
>>8177209
>Once you're done with Stirner, what are you supposed to do?
whatever you want
for most people, once you've thrown away the spooks, you realize that the only thing you want is to have your spooks back, so you invite them back in
>>8178420
Shit
I wanted to expose myself to other philosophies but it feels like I've reached the end too early or at least got stuck in a loop now
>>8178429
Yeah that's what I'm feeling as well. What good does it bring you to discard all spooks, in the end? What is the finality of letting go of your "delusions"?
>>8178390
No, conflating reproductive success and personal success is unwarranted.
>>8176363
>but she's tremendously successful evolutionary speaking
>2016
>wanting evolutionary success rather than evolutionary control
>he doesn't spread anti-natalist memes to influence the course of evolution more extensively than just making someone who shares 50% of your genes, and after only six generations your descendants will share only 1.56% of your genes (if your line even lasts that long).
memes>genes tbqh
>>8176140
Explain to me the difference between Stirner and standard issue teen nihilism.
>>8178385
>becoming a stickjewcuck out of contrarianism
christianity really is the new fedora
>>8178463
>memes>genes tbqh
Agreed friend, but antinatalism memes only work on ~110iq and higher people. The kind of people you want to stop from breeding can't be stopped with rational argument since they procreate mostly on accident as a result of instinctive fucking.
They're beyond the reach of memes in this regard, they're too animalistic.
>>8178470
Stirner focuses on enjoyment rather than emo shit. He sees it as a happy liberation rather than mourning the loss of meaning.
Can someone please sum up Stirner so I don't have to actually read the book
>>8178825
can't be done.
>>8177209
Nietzsche
>>8177209
u.g. krishnamurti
>>8178862
pic related it's fredo facing the abyss
>>8178849
Which copy do I read? There seems to be two. "The Ego and Its Own", or "The Ego and His Own"? Or maybe it's just a case of translation.
>>8178470
When you realize everything around you that informs your actions is just a series of fixed ideas, you gain the freedom to choose which ones you follow and which you don't.
just read hegel. the idea of spooks is a spook itself. Stirner's is a tempting conclusion, but only when you're depressed. it's not terribly hard to think your way out of it.
>he hasn't rejected materialism
found your problem.
>>8178876
didn't read it in english but i guess the cambridge one seems least likely to be shit
>>8179104
>rejecting the truth
>>8179104
>stirner
>materialist
wew lad, he's quietist
>>8178577
Can you read?
>if it was a reaction to anything (though it needn't have been)
that's a conditional statement, not an indicative one.
>>8176153
>stirner made me a sociopath
Figures. At least you unmeme'd yourself.
>>8179656
you're not the big bang lad every action is a reaction
you did not come to the decision of larping christianity in the year 2016 in a vacuum
>laziness
NICE SPOOK NERDDD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6QMmrM4BmI
>>8179670
>you did not come to the decision of larping christianity in the year 2016 in a vacuum
What's your point?
You—or the other poster if that's not you—said that >>8178577 became a Christian "out of contrarianism"; the post did not suggest that this was so unless you (or the other poster) mistook a conditional clause for an indicative statement.
Nobody denies that people do not come to their beliefs "in a vacuum". But there are a thousand other reasons why someone might come to believe something than "contrarianism". Maybe he met Christians and liked them. Maybe he read Christian literature and grew to like it. Maybe he was subtly influenced by the remnants of Christian morality in our culture. Maybe he'sromantic.None of this would be contrarian; none of this is "in a vacuum".
>>8179560
How so?
>>8176359
Stirner wrote some articles and then one book, "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum", meaning "The Unique/Sole/Only one and his Property/Properties".
The standard translation is called "The Ego and it own".
>>8176231
A spook is a fixed idea, which you put above your self.
Being spooked means you're owned by en entity which you yourself granted authority.
Your strict father isn't a spook, or neither is your hunger that drives you to hunt for food. But if you say you have to go to war because the USA must dominate all other countries, or if you say you can't eat meat because you're a vegetarian, then you're spooked.
Note, however, that you might decide to not eat meat because you don't like to or because it's unhealthy to you. Spooks are shackles you could put away if you wanted. OP says he needs some shackles.
You may own a garden. Sure, you can't really change the speed of how trees and plants grow - you can't control that - but you can choose where to plant stuff, you may redesign the thing, care for it looking pretty or not. You may care for the garden or not. You may use it to grow fruit, which will require some work, but of course you care for your property.
As your property, you control the garden, to the extent nature permits. You may own a dog, then you may leave the dog in front of your house. If you <can't> do that, if your mind shackles won't let you, then it's not your property in a Stirnerian sense. (Of course this assumes you're not a robot from the start, you're free to take actions or not).
You may have a gf and tell her to switch position so you can fuck her from behind. You may stroke her hair.
You may own your goal (e.g. become the most cited academic, or not eating meat anymore), but if you're obsessed and can't drop them and they actually control your actions ("own you"), then you're spooked.
Christianity, nationality, being a good citizen - those are common spooks.
Stirner is about being aware of all lingering spooks and put all behind yourself. Properly own everything to the extend you can and want. Like your dog. Care for your ambitions, and your dog, if you want him healthy - just like you want your shirt (clearly your property) clean.
You may adopt ideas like being gentle to everybody, but you should be conscious about what you're doing, not mindlessly becoming a servant to someone.
Despite the Englisch title, he doesn't speaks of the "Ego". His conception of self is an empty one, like what Zen meditation aspires to, and you body is just your property - one that you have a lot control over.
It's like Nietzsche, except without a call for elitism. That would be, of course, a spook.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_Max_Stirner
PS: I don't think Stirnerian egoism as described by him can be realized. But I like his notion of property.
>>8176140
Is there nothing, that also gains you something like a career, and that you also enjoy?
>>8180882
shh
Does anybody have friends who have a similar view? Someone with which you could go into a "Union of Egoists"?
>>8180939
...
>this thread
>this board
>people
>the whole fucking world
>>8182837
You wouldn't have this pic if you weren't an integral part of the system
>>8176140
>he doesn't know the biggest spook is spooks
>>8176140
Oddly enough, I've become more politically moderate since reading Stirner. I've been kind of politically radical for the last decade or so and reading Stirner has chilled me out. I've grown a hunger for understanding the world more rather than just trying to rationalize my own beliefs.
>>8178429
Spooks are okay.
If you get yourself "spooked" and you know it, it's not really a spook, is it?
>>8185249
It's usually bubbles down to who's in charge, you or the spook. Does the spook benefit you?
>>8178385
>I became religious because other people are atheists
>>8180932
those are really nice tits
that crisp, golden skin is divne
>>8185414
It captures a vacation type of feel that I aspire to
>>8176140
I realized what spooks were when i was like 14, but i didnt know who stirner was.
I felt into hedonism because i was too young to handle the truth and now i think about killing myself every morning.
Spooks are completly necesary to live a happy life and archive stuff or whatever.
Pls send help
>>8182493
Yeah i have one friend who gets it.
>>8179720
How are you using em dashes in your posts?
>>8176153
>Nietzsche is drastically different from Stirner
How do you even get this? They're practically the same person.
Use your might to control more property.
"casting off spooks" is just another life denying asceticism that slaves have been doing since days of pharoah
>>8182620
Lol do you mean the hegelian milk shop that dis terribly? I love that, I think the lives of these philosophers are perfectly indicative of the fruits of their philosophies. Marx - penniless. Nietzsche - mental breakdown. Stirner - sad-o who died alone because even his own wife couldn't stand his utterly selfish philosophy that made him turn so utterly inward on himself. Stirnerism didn't make Stirner powerful, it ruined him just as it will anyone who meaningfully integrates it's beliefs in their lives. Just look at the guy above who said stirnerism made him a psycho. Meanwhile his wife converted to Catholicism for the sake reason lit is turning to religion: seeing heaven elicits faith in heaven, but so does seeing hell.
>>8186301
>life denying asceticism
>being spooked isn't the definition of life denying
Are spooks just things we impart meaning into although the world is meaningless? What is Stirners magnum opus and can I skip the Greeks and go straight to him because I really don't want to finish Mythology.
>>8186318
You don't know what egoism* not stirnerism is, evidently.
Rational self interest isn't "be a dick cuz it's fun". It's "do what you want without regarding fixed spooky ideas, so if you want to be compassionate, do it, but recognise you're doing it for yourself".
I expect better from you lit
>>8186341
no, that's called existentialism and it's not really incompatible with Stirner's philosophy.
Spook = fixed idea, something not dependent on ego.
No, you have to read Hegel first, and it would helpful if you'd read Kant first for that, and read Hume first for that, and read the Greeks first for that.
>>8186318
Hegel had it alright till he came back to his home town and caught an epidemic
>>8186318
>Marx - penniless
ah yeah the famous capitalist who strived to become rich
>>8186341
==>
>>8180932
>>8178339
lmao this is the dumbest thing i've heard today and someone just tried to argue that 10 cent fantasy novels are literature
>being spooked by the ego - the spook of all spooks
wew
>>8186287
alt + 0151 on the numpad
>>8186295
Nietzsche draws from a lot of the same premises. But Nietzsche is ultimately a giant spook-machine that comes to a radically different (and spooky) conclusion.
>>8186341
Starting with the Greeks is a spook
The Ego and Its (His) Own is the one you want
>>8187244
Seems like you want to say "meme" but the word "spooks" is just edgier. Not sure if that works.
There's nothing spooky about trial and error
>>8180932
Thank you for the explanation of what a spook is.
>>8187602
Pic related for the intro of the book. It's a funny work, to some extent, and a lot of it is concerned with emerging political and economic notions - because it happened around 1850, post Hegel who had a hard-on for the Preussian state/law and just when unregulated capitalism stated to create trouble. Stirner socialized with the young guys who first started attacking theology (because attacking the state was illegal/hard) and Marx also came from this corner. In fact, Marx wrote at lengths about Stirner.
So Stirner forms his philosophy that aims at attacking all his colleagues at once. And it uses the complicated Hegel ideas/logic/lingo that they also worked in.
It's also from pre the failed anarchist movements. Stirner seems to be too optimistic about such unions, imho.
>>8187711
>So Stirner forms his philosophy that aims at attacking all his colleagues at once.
With this my point was to point out WHY he concerns himself with spooks in the book.
Unlike Nietzsche, who picks up a Schoppenhauer Will and calls you to empower yourself because that's what you ought to - overcome "the human", Stirner (to me) doesn't seem to have such a personal issue with any religion (like Nietzsche who can't bear weak Christian morals), but instead Stirner wants to ague against ANY such mindset that comes with an ideology.
As opposed to Nietzsche, it reads like an attack on the system together with a friendly recommendation to the reader. He doesn't care too much about what you end up doing, though, and you should do what you want. "I love all men", he writes.
Spooks are a solidly shit antiquated concept. The fact you can't speak about his philosophy more than the direct speaks volumes about his quality then, and especially now. People who fall for his nonsense still are the people who've just explored philosophy.
>>8187736
>The fact you can't speak about his philosophy more than the direct
What does this mean?
And what is an example (a philosopher) where you can speak differently and with what benefit?
>>8187745
>What does this mean?
More than spooks, ownership.
>And what is an example (a philosopher) where you can speak differently and with what benefit?
Most of his contemporaries, it isn't about benefit of yourself. Yourself does not matter, and it never did.
>>8187750
Speak in full sentences, plz.
You say "the fact you can't speak about his philosophy more than the direct" means "more than spooks, ownership". What?
>benefit of yourself
Do you mean "benefit for yourself"?
>>8187783
>You say "the fact you can't speak about his philosophy more than the direct" means "more than spooks, ownership". What?
Exactly what I just said. You can't speak of Stirner's philosophy in specifics, it's only in broad terms. Under the specific, under scrutiny of any kind, it falls apart. It takes a combination of, willing or not, ignorance of philosophy and emotional attachment to fully respect Stirner's body of work.
There has not been great discourse surrounding his work since the 19th century for a reason.
>Do you mean "benefit for yourself"?
It means the same.
>>8178385
>when I became a Christcuck
fixed
>>8176140
Honestly, the way Stirner is laid out here, he seems painfully trivial.
I legitimately had the insight that 'spooks' (nationalism, virtue, religion, etc) were arbitrary and could be chosen or discarded at will when I was 15. I never had the term spook though, which is admittedly neat.
My disclaimer is I haven't read him. There's got to be more to it than that. What?
>>8187831
OP here. There isn't more than that. His book is overly long and painfully dull. It's just that if you don't wrap your opinion up as being from a dead guy then lit will dismiss it immediately without thinking
>>8187843
What in sam hell does any of this have to do with Stirner?
>>8187831
If it's so trivial "and can be discarded at will", why are there so many anons on 4chan who are afraid of race mixing making whites a minority in 20 years.
As it's a painful feel associated with a potential happening, which however doesn't advantage or disadvantage them, and so should better be dropped, why don't they?
Just an example.
>>8187803
It's not discussed because it's a short insight, possibly not realizable in his ways, and there's not much to add.
>>8187856
>>8187852
It's unnecessary and a spook and people don't drop it.
It's not like spooks are just bad habits than can be dropped easily. That's why he writes about it at lengths.
But once you thought about it, I think it's a dead end and there is no solution to spooks.
In a way, this thread and OP who cries about wanting some artificially is evidence.
>>8187856
That way you can never have any convictions whatsoever.
>>8187867
see
>>8176140
If you can't find pleasure (hedonistic route), then without such conviction you'll feel anxiety
>>8187856
>It's not discussed because it's a short insight, possibly not realizable in his ways, and there's not much to add.
No, discourse is thin since the 19th century, or at least early 20th century, because his work, for as simplistic and bare as it was, was a kind of proto-post-structuralism. But even then, his contemporaries had laid out ideas far more complex, we still talk about. His "work", can be entirely replaceable by post-structuralist thought at this point, because of how in depth it comparatively is.
There's many ways Stirner just does not meet professional scrutiny, he's a classic /lit/ meme. But as a philosopher Stirner was shit.
>>8187856
>As it's a painful feel associated with a potential happening, which however doesn't advantage or disadvantage them, and so should better be dropped, why don't they?
it does advantage them, they yearn for a sense of belonging, so they adopt the ideas of a group that will accept them.
>>8187871
I'd argue because they contain no hands-on proposals but (like many Hegelian notions) are concepts that can be endlessly tried to be captured and must be redefined whenever you change anything else about your philosophy or your logic. All the notions of Lacan, for example. And I'm not even against it - it's fun. But it's use seems to me just to form an ideology of choice.
Stirner at least discusses the world the common person finds himself in and searches to point out mental concepts and uses basic language to do so. Complaining like >>8187831 that it's trivial (suggesting it shouldn't be investigated as many have this sort of though if they try) is saying philosophy should be fuzzy and complicated because that's entertaining and one can feel more clever than the next guy you pass in the streets.
>>8187892
>Stirner at least discusses the world the common person finds himself in and searches to point out mental concepts and uses basic language to do so.
Discussing the world the "common person" experiences, is not philosophy. It's self help.
>is saying philosophy should be fuzzy and complicated because that's entertaining and one can feel more clever than the next guy you pass in the streets.
That is not what philosophy should be, nor is it what philosophy is, or has been.
>>8187902
>Discussing the world the "common person" experiences, is not philosophy. It's self help.
Okay, so be it.
Helping myself is what I want to get out of philosophy in any case.
>>8187910
>Helping myself is what I want to get out of philosophy in any case.
Then you've come to the wrong place to find "help". Philosophy will tell you that you don't matter at all compared to another, or ten most likely. These are the facts of life. It will not tell you to treat another person as property and throw out any kind of concept without second thought because of faux association with it being primitive.
>>8187920
I hope you don't actually think you (or any person) have an authority about what "philosophy" ends up saying.
>>8187930
I don't, but consensus exists.
>>8187945
oh look everyone, bulbous hubris imp has an opinion.
>>8187945
[citation needed]
>>8187945
I don't care about consensus, or helping people, or any other vague humanistic ideal you've made yourself a slave to for no reason. Frankly you're boring, like a broken record.
>>8187945
So what? A lot of people agreeing on something doesn't make it correct. Especially when it comes to a field like philosophy.
nignog tryna get a handbeezy
>>8178876
It should be: "The Ego and His Property"
Spook me once, shame on you; spook me twice, shame on me.
>>8177099
power (will to power?) is also a spook, but it's at least somewhat sensible.
>>8177209
you realize that ridding yourselves of spooks is only another spook?
The point of Stirner's work isn't to de-spook yourselves, the point is to accept responsibility for the ideas you hold as a fully actualized human being, rather than being a zombie of received ideology.
what are some books that expand or are close to the idea of egoist union?
>>8186253
>Pls send help
Samantha meditation
>>8186253
>Spooks are completly necesary to live a happy life and archive stuff or whatever.
If you honestly believe that then I have great news for you
>>8189026
no, i don't want to join the mormon faith, thanks
>>8186469
>He doesn't enjoy his Fantasy adventures.
>So snobby he can't enjoy the escapism.
KEK
>>8178447
>Yeah that's what I'm feeling as well. What good does it bring you to discard all spooks, in the end? What is the finality of letting go of your "delusions"?
Absolutely nothing. It's basically teen angst, then you grow up and rejoin society.
>>8187945
You're acting like an assburger and that trip really doesn’t help
>>8188611
>you realize that ridding yourselves of spooks is only another spook?
They never do.
>>8176363
>nature has a plan
>servants of genes
K
Y
S
>>8180932
>t. deluded spook
thanks for misunderstanding what stirner said
>>8188077
That's a shit insult
>>8188089
What citation?
>>8188166
>I don't care about consensus, or helping people, or any other vague humanistic ideal you've made yourself a slave to for no reason.
hahahahahaha
So you don't give a shit about philosophy and those who create it, only on spitting out what a particular dead person you enjoy says. Right, even according to Stirner you don't matter, so quit getting involved with him out of a sense of selfishness.
>>8188205
>So what? A lot of people agreeing on something doesn't make it correct.
It makes it more real than Stirner's arguments.
>>8185414
I always assume the worst of beautiful people.
havent read stirner yet, still on my philosophical book journey
but what the hell is a spook?
>>8185414
that crisp, golden skin is is obviously instagramfiltered
>>8186318
So you admit that religious belief is a spook that people willingly submit themselves to, not because they believe it to be true--and not because it IS true--but because it's a balm for the chronic pain of existential dread?
>>8190406
Everything
>>8190460
naturalism and atheism were literally invented so that people could avoid the existential dread of divine retribution.
>Lucretius identifies the supernatural with the notion that the deities created our world or interfere with its operations in some way. He argues against fear of such deities by demonstrating, through observations and arguments, that the operations of the world can be accounted for in terms of natural phenomena. These phenomena are the regular, but purposeless motions and interactions of tiny atoms in empty space. Meanwhile, he argues against the fear of death by stating that death is the dissipation of a being's material mind. Lucretius uses the analogy of a vessel, stating that the physical body is the vessel that holds both the mind (mens) and spirit (anima) of a human being. Neither the mind nor spirit can survive independent of the body. Thus Lucretius states that once the vessel (the body) shatters (dies) its contents (mind and spirit) can no longer exist. So, as a simple ceasing-to-be, death can be neither good nor bad for this being. Being completely devoid of sensation and thought, a dead person cannot miss being alive. According to Lucretius, fear of death is a projection of terrors experienced in life, of pain that only a living (intact) mind can feel. Lucretius also puts forward the 'symmetry argument' against the fear of death. In it, he says that people who fear the prospect of eternal non-existence after death should think back to the eternity of non-existence before their birth, which probably did not cause them much suffering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura
>>8190478
heh, i recall how i once quoted here a plutarch's article on superstition to some atheist who was very afraid of death saying that plutarch gave atheists too much credit (plutarch explains there how despite that atheists are wrong they live a life of a way less fear than those who are superstitious) and was opposed that i'm so smug only because i'm not an atheist
atheists used to be stronger people than what they are now
>>8177209
Listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ4T1ZmBcVY
A day without blood is like a day without sunshine
>>8176140
the essential nature of a human being is actualized when an individual—within their given historical circumstance—is free to sub-ordinate their will to the external demands they have imposed upon themselves by their imagination, and not the external demands imposed upon individuals by other people.
>>8190511
I'm sure one of them sure got zinged. Not that I could parse your "sentence" well enough to tell which one it was.
>>8190478
To be clear, I'm not referring to a fear of death. I'm referring to the weight that we put upon ourselves when we must choose the best way to live prior to accepting or referring to any sort of authority. I'm saying people of religious faith avoid the latter, because the anxiety that can be caused by this choice is exceptional.A fear of death and the anxiety of self-determination are two totally different things--and I was (and am) referring to the latter.
And, when I say "existential dread" I'm not using some specific term, or using it as a reference to a particular thinker. I mean it literally in the general definition of those two words. A dread pertaining to existentialism: The dread of having to make the existentialist's choice.
>>8190793
Or, at least, I'm generalizing, and saying that the majority of people of conventional religious faith do. They got it from their parents, or hit rock bottom in one way or another.
I haven't met a lot of church-goers who were capable of offering any sort of meaningful insight on theology, much less philosophy in general.
>>8187750
>Yourself does not matter, and it never did
spoken like a true cuck
>>8190584
Cool.
Not sure how it helps though, mhm..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLAcO3r5Xjs
