None of you can prove empirically that race, gender, sexuality, religion, and Nation-States are not just spooks which are organized by those "above" you against your self interest in their own self interest and I highly doubt any of you can satisfactorily argue through logic that they aren't either.
well spooked my property
>>68165043
>Despooking makes you the spooky property
Confirmed for not having actually read Stirner
Here's a tip: stirner was anti-capitalist and anti-nationalist
>>68165043
>not realizing that we are all the property
Nice immediate stirner folly
>>68164800
>race, gender, sexuality, religion, and Nation-States
>All "constructs"
Race: Partially true, but we can place people in race pools on objective data, such as origin of family line and their attributes.
What we call those attributes are a construct, but the attributes themselves are not.
Gender: Partially true.
Gender is on a spectrum, but that spectrum has been medically divided along lines and for objective reasons.
Sexuality: Same as above
Religion: Entirely made up.
Nation-States. Same as above.
>>68165244
It was just a catchphrase
>>68165469
You are my property now
>>68165535
>I agree with you but am too afraid to be in full agreement so I'm going to act like genealogy=race in the sense that /pol/ uses the term race and do the same thing with gender
Wow there really are more lefties on /pol/ than I thought they are just huge pussies
>>68165732
Prove it
>>68164800
>You can't empirically prove that these are in your interest
>matters of philosophy
>empirical proof
Shiggy diggy my property.
I could proove that my viewpoint is good for society as a whole, but you'd have to have a larger conception of society and metaphysical concepts which stirnir would reject.
Fundamentally though, for you my materialist friend who has rejected to recognize the metaphysical parts of himself, and failed to expect similar parts in others, it boils down to the fact that it's in my best interest for my genetic lineage to carry on. I want people who are related to me and with similar belief structures to be able to pass those things on because I'm a product of evolution which is geared in this manner, and I don't reject that part of myself. I can imagine a future in which I sit where my grandfather now sits, where progressivism has taken everything so far he feels only disgust for the day to day goings on. I don't want to see that future, and so I oppose it and support the values I like. Also I like my nation, even if it's not something inherent to the place or the people within it, but because as an idea it pleases me. Also, nobody is above me when it comes to deciding what I believe or what I enjoy.
>>68166371
>I want my offspring and lineage, whom I'll never meet because I'll be dead and rotting at the bottom of a casket, to thrive at the expense of my personal desires
Well spooked, my classcucked friend.
>>68166371
>it's in my best interest for a spook like genetic lineage to keep existing
>because, uh, they're related to me, which is totally not a spooky reason!
>>68164800
>Race
http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/
>Gender (Meaning sexual preference IE sexuality) and Sex (meaning gender)
http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/
>religion
Jews.
>Nation-States
You're just having fun at this point.
The last 2 definitely are social constructs. First 2 not so much.
>religion
>Jews
>>68166709
>not understanding the most basic evolutionary psychology enough to know that individuals like their offspring naturally in most people
>letting a spook of a philosophy dictate what one wants more than one's own desires
>cucking yourself for your own ego when you could have little semi-clones for your own ego
Suit yourself my property. You destroying your lineage for your ego pleases my ego. Your ideas will die with you.
>>68166880
Social constructs =/= spooks nigga
>>68167409
>spooks
You talking niggers or IA's?
Because either one is wrong.
superb thread
>>68167687
thanks m80
>>68164800
>implying "those above you" are not just spooks created by you to justify your thread
>>68167241
>an egoist is supposed to care about those around him just because muh social science conclusion tendencies
>my desire shouldn't be based on precisely that: my desires, but instead on stupid social abstractions and spools
>one "cucks" himself by not caring about pointless shit like genetic lineage
>my ideas dying with me is supposed to matter when everyone dies and nothing matters to the egoist but his pleasure and his property in mortal life
10/10, well spooked. Have a rare Stirner, my property.
You cant empirically prove that you arent full of shit and that your fine ass sister sucked my dick
>>68164800
>le stirner meme
You cant empirically prove that you arent full of shit and that your fine ass sister didnt suck my dick
>>68167970
>The United States and in turn the world through Western Imperialism is not ultimately run by power centralized in the hands of a small cabal of powerful bankers and businessmen thanks to Neoliberal reforms and the perpetuation of Capitalism through mass media propaganda and constant distraction with mind numbing entertainment
Wow /pol/ I thought you knew about how the world worked :^)
>inb4 it's only teh jewish bankerz that are bad vote trump 2016
>>68168138
brazillians at their finest
>>68164800
"According to the liberal way of thinking, right is to be obligatory for me because it is thus established by human reason, against which my reason is “unreason.” Formerly people inveighed in the name of divine reason against weak human reason; now, in the name of strong human reason, against egoistic reason, which is rejected as “unreason.” And yet none is real but this very “unreason.” Neither divine nor human reason, but only your and my reason existing at any given time, is real, as and because you and I are real."
This thread is fucking retarded.
To dismiss the importance of genetic prodigy, is to dismiss the tools we use to make ANY judgement, since it is only by those tools we inherited, that'll judgements are made.
Ergo, your nihilistic tool who's conclusions bankrupt themselves.
>>68168574
>the tools we inherited
>>68168716
>not a argument
>>68168821
Show me these mysterious tools they sound pretty spooky to me
also
>Posting a reaction image of a Anarcho-Crapitalist who is anti-Science and acing like I'm the one who is irrational and doesn't know shit about the sciences
>>68164800
Study biology. Race exists. Its a probability cloud of the likelyhood of a person having certain genes.
There is no perfect example of a black or white or asian person but there are characteristics that are more likely found and sometimes only found among certain races. There are also more than 3 races.
>>68169209
Which characteristics are only found among certain races?
>>68164800
Of course you are true, but i just don't like niggers and muslims and gooks.
>>68168384
>implying the United States is not a spook
>implying Western Imperialism is not a spook
>implying Capitalism is not a spook
>implying you're not a spook
>>68168122
>Implying I wouldn't want to get a girl pregnant with my offspring without some social construct
Keked at this part.
>Implying I'm not simply accepting my animal desire because they please me
>Implying it's natural to not want to have children and in some way persist beyond death
You my toothpaste property, are absolutely spooked; your conceptions of what are your desires aren't what they would be without the influence of the outside world at all to the point were you are neglecting you own urges; in fact you're a product of higher ups trying to keep you from embracing those natural desires that you're sure to feel if you have genitals and a libido, because they wouldn't like to have people who can think. Your ideology is a spook, otherwise you'd know that ideas, property, and people can all be pleasurable, but what else can one expect from my toothpaste?
>>68169383
It would be fair to say that some races can consume lactose their entire lives and others cannot.
In addition to this sickle cell anaemia is a disease of the African and cystic fibrosis is a disease of the European.
>>68165888
No, it's a contingent of redditors borrowing proxies from others too lazy to shill but want to help in their mission to infiltrate 4chan. They do this to make their numbers here appear larger than they really are and give a false sense that they are "majority" and power to try to influence others into their flawed ideologies. Classic COINTELPRO tactics.
>>68169090
Look at your dick and think what you want to do with it. That is the tool with a purpose; pleasurable reproduction. It's not a spook and it guides many choices. It's the only tool of a true society of egoists; through dick unity.
>>68164800
>Religion is entirely made up to control you
>By some faceless, nameless, seemingly omnipotent being "above" you that intends to rule your life.
>>68169716
>y-you're not an egoist because you don't care about [insert your favorite spooks]!
>you SHOULD care about [insert yout favorite spooks]!
>I-I'm the REAL egoist because I care about my favorite spooks!
>haha chegmade my broberdy *tips STEM degree*
My property, you just keep on giving.
>he fell for the stirner meme
>>68170174
>your dick, libido, and their natural purposes are a spook
It's a real shame Stirner has become a shit-posting meme. I'm not sure how this happened, has Stirner been paraded around on some plebbit board or something?
In any case, conceptualizations are what grant life meaning.
And if you took Stirner's ideas to their true conclusion, you would become a Buddhist, because the Self/Ego is the greatest spook of all.
>>68170301
>muh dick
>>68166578
how old are you? what are your personal desires?
Is Max Stirner just a smart Ayn rand?
And what is this poltergeist business?
>>68170451
/lit/'s at fault here. The guy was always a meme though.
>>68169434
I never implied Capitalism wasn't a spook, as a matter of fact I blatantly implied it was and that is why it's wrecking shit and allowing Oligarchic and Plutocratic systems of government to develop
Western Imperialism isn't a spook it's a phenomenon that can be measured empirically and historically which is the result of the unfettered accumulation and centralization of capital into a tiny amount of hands.
The United States, as it is a Nation-State, is a spook but that doesn't mean it doesn't act on the real world regardless of its spookiness.
I am not a spook because I am a man.
Spooks aren't just anything you don't like and even if things are spooks they can still impact the world in a way which is not satisfactory and limits individual freedom. Your argument is doing more to prove Stirner and myself right and make you look like a dumbass whose never opened a philosophy or political science book in his life
>>68169754
None of that has to do with the supposed "differences" innate in race which are always shilled on /pol/ so your argument is irrelevant unless you can provide a better example
>inb4 but it does show that race is a real thing in general
That's obviously not what was meant
>>68168384
>thinks "how the world works" can be not-inaccurately summed up in a single sentence
>rails against "spooks"
methinks you are signalling, and not exactly taking the philosophy to heart.
>>68164800
You have it all wrong. Those "above you" seek to destroy nations and people's individuality and identity. The top puppets (celebrities, news anchors, athletes, famous people - the real puppetmasters never reveal themselves to the plebian masses) are drilling a message in the people to prepare for a one world government. Their tactics of trying to eliminate the white race have been going on for decades and has only become obvious in recent years. If successful, they will then move on to destroying the Asians, and then blacks, until every last person alive is a mongrel with no sense of identity and no free will, basically a disposable slave to a tiny elite that plans to rule the earth with an iron fist.
They want to destroy racial, gender, sexual, national identities, and destroy all religion except for the twisted religion the elites follow. Their goal is to destroy all individuality until everyone is reduced to a mindless, identity-less, slave.
>>68170644
Nearly every thinker has good ideas, and terrible ideas.
The proper approach to take towards ALL thinkers/authors is to take the good ideas and leave the rest behind.
Ayn Rand had some brilliant critiques of socialism/atruism, but here Objectivist system of morality was terrible.
Max Stirner really has little in common with Rand. He had brilliant philosophical observations which were well ahead of his time, but the conclusions he drew from them were specious.
No philosophy got everything right, and very few got everything wrong.
>>68170879
>thinks how the world works can be not-innacurately summed up in a single sentence
I never said or even implied that. There are several long books and documentaries I could direct you to if you would like to know more about how the world we currently live in works but for the sake of brevity I summarized by simplifying. You also are yet another poster who criticizes the concept of "spooks" without understanding it. Nice try though
>>68170569
>He overlooks one source of pleasure because of a meme about race (absolutely spooky).
Hahaha, oh my. It seems you tripped up property.
>>68168440
>"According to the liberal way of thinking, right is to be obligatory for me because it is thus established by human reason
Except that reason is not the source for right and wrong. Right and wrong exist beyond human reason, and reason is only a means in which we understand right and wrong in the same way we understand mathematics. If only reason existed, then there would be no standard for right and wrong, and there would be no such thing as what is god and what is not. This is clearly not the case, as we all inherently recognize that there are things that we ought, and ought not to do. You wouldn't say that these things do not exist, because you yourself would likely be unwilling to do them.
>>68170740
>I am not a spook because I am a man.
You're not a man, you're a block of text on my display.
You're probably not even real.
>>68171052
>thinks that the governments are trying to destroy races so they can have legions of slaves to do all the hard and dirty work for a Satanic theocracy
>implying there is any evidence to support this and not quite a bit of evidence to contradict it
>implying the elites won't just fully automate and try to push more and more unnecessary workers into prisons and ghettos and use totalitarian scare tactics against them when the time comes
>>68171190
>he thinks ironic racism isn't pleasurable
>consciously indulging in one's spooks isn't possible, but unironically indulging in spooks like muh dick and muh genetic lineage is absolutely not spooky!
And another rare Stirner for you, my property!
>>68171619
What is real?
:^)
>>68171619
gr8 argument
Is the only way to really unspook oneself to reject civilization and live as a subsistence farmer/fisher?
>>68171700
And now we return to square one property. I consciously partake in all the spooks in the OP because I find them pleasing. Now you see as I see.
>>68171938
If that is your completely selfish desire, then yes.
>>68172060
Well then what would you propose we do?
>>68171938
Nope.
It's just to have the knowledge that all other beings are your property to do with as you can in order to extract what brings you the most personal satisfaction regardless of their objections.
So for instance if you feel that it would personally benefit you the most to rape a woman you could do that if you didn't mind the anxiety of worrying about getting caught/actually getting caught and having to go to prison over it and you would then be theoretically acting in a fashion more free than the property which you acted upon.
However most people would rather not go to prison since it would cancel out the satisfaction of rape so they choose not to out of the greater self interest, but the difference is that they do it out of this selfishness not out of society saying "rape is bad because of morality or God" or anything
>>68172283
There is no "we" in egoism.
>>68172047
>brings up spooks like studies and muh scientific experiments to justify his spooks
>b-b-but I was REALLY enjoying those spooks c-consciously all the time!!!
Heh, nothing personnel property.>>68172047
>>68172352
Then what is the solution for the problems presented by OP?
>>68172335
You are forgetting that empathy is an evolved human emotion and has some bearing on our personal satisfaction.
bump
>>68170045
>being this ignorant about what a spook is
>>68172406
The solution is to point out that the self/ego is a spook as well, and thus is makes just as much sense to self-identify with a group or an idea as it does with the ego.
>>68172060
My desire is to remove from my life the external structures that make me desire things
>>68172406
Who said they were problems? OP just said they were nothing but spooks
>>68172478
Yes and for those with high empathy or empathy at all they would probably choose not to rape but that doesn't make them spooked so long as they know that they are choosing not to because they are an empathetic person and not because God said not to.
On the other hand one without empathy would be acting in his own full satisfaction by raping somebody if he didn't the social consequences so long as he knew he was doing it because he lacked the empathy to prevent him and also that he wasn't simply raping the woman because he thought some bullshit his dad told him about "all women are less than you and it then doesn't matter if you just fuck them if they say no" or something on the one hand or in edgy reaction to God or morality saying it isn't okay to rape on the other
>>68172746
Then you are not only an Egoist but a Buddhist
Good job anon, you're starting to take the Green Pill
>>68170301
Sexual desire is not a spook, but believing morality comes from evolution is pretty fucking spooky
>>68171679
Maybe they'll just kill us all and replace us with an entirely robotic workforce. Seems more efficient than keeping everyone in prisons and ghettos.
Either way there is some insidious effort to remove national borders, erase the lines between genders, and "replace" the native European population.
>>68164800
Being concerned about spooks is a spook.
Stirner has a fairly bad understanding of Hegelian philosophy for someone who was a Young Hegelian. He was a shit philosopher in general.
The only way his book makes sense is to reject God as he does in the beginning. What he illustrated is what happens when people replace God with idols.
I used to be a Stirnerite until I realized that his book is better off being interpreted as a case FOR religion.
He also is the reason we have anti-civers. He fucked anarchism hard by giving contemporary anarchism a pivot into the movement.
>>68172702
But on what basis does Stirner identify the self as the end all be all? If anything the exists beyond the self is a "spook" (as I understand this endlessly used term) then what is stopping the self from self indulgence.
>>68171596
Your objective moral authority is a spook.
Regardless, Stirner is not talking about "right vs. wrong" here. This passage is in reference to your rights as an individual; this is not a passage on morality insomuch as it is a passage on authority.
>>68172373
Property, look through my lens
>OP asks for empirical proof
>work within the bounds supplied because it pleases me
>my property tries to criticize me for this
Keked
>>68172865
Look into how altruism works in animals. Also no spooks necessary for me to want my property to be docile. Never said anything objective other than that there is some drive for me to preserve my lineage and my ideas simply because I want to persist, which is pretty natural.
>>68172959
>insidious effort to "replace" native Europeans
>implying mass migration and refugees aren't created by a mindless Imperialism functioning as yet another thuggish apparatus of capital's accumulation and that the propaganda the real elites put out is precisely what you are saying to deflect from the real issue
Also I don't understand how you can concede that perhaps they will replace us all with an entirely robotic workforce and then still maintain that there is a conscious effort to erase national borders and identities and genders in order to get to said automation. What would be the point? Why not just start storming the streets ASAP and putting everyone into the dreaded Fema camps?
The fact of the matter is that the degradation of borders and nations comes with the erosion of democratic values which naturally develops under highly unequal political and economic conditions in those various societies in the favor of the Elites. To maintain this phenomenon those Elites perpetuate spooks in order to keep power. Sometimes the spooks change or evolve and rebelliousness and anti-spookiness itself is made spooky but it's always in the interest of the few against the many and it always depends on division and isolation.
I just don't see how your theory can be the root of recent problems of Oligarchs usurping large amounts of land and power from the "lower" people when it seems to be in diametric opposition to so many of the efforts they have consciously taken over the last couple of decades and half a century before it
Is my desire to put this property here and if the fucking spooks delete it then i shall declare them not real in that case
>>68173127
I haven't read much of Stirner (and only secondary sources) but I think he's not a solipsist. So the "real world" does exist. In might even be it's the complete opposite of solipsism, as he's mainly trying to disattach any ideological or symbolic content from the "real" objects.
>>68173569
>True Hegelian
>Atheist
What are you even saying? Right-Hegelians are the true Hegelians but nobody knows who they are.
>>68172959
>Either way there is some insidious effort to remove national borders
That would be global capital searching for cheaper labor costs, and the instability caused by imperialism across the world
>erase the lines between genders
>implying this is anything more than an idpol distraction
>"replace" the native European population
You're just personifying your fears anon. What's happening to Europe is the result of capitalism and the recent geo-politics brought about by capitalism. You're not going to accomplish anything by scapegoating these problems on some arbitrary individual or group.
>>68173743
>Right Hegelians are the true Hegelians?
>>68173743
Hegel was an atheist.
>>68173281
>Your objective moral authority is a spook.
This actually raises an interesting point.
Does Stirner really label everything beyond the self as a "spook"? Or is that just someone the people who subscribed to his ideas do?
And based on his view of reason and un reason only existing withing the self, it seems to me that he has taken aspects of Descartes and Kant to an extreme. If rights only exists within the self, then what exactly is stopping the violation of those rights?
>>68173675
>Look into how altruism works in animals
It works differently in different animals. Why should we care?
>Never said anything objective other than that there is some drive for me to preserve my lineage and my ideas simply because I want to persist, which is pretty natural
>not understanding the most basic evolutionary psychology enough to know that individuals like their offspring naturally in most people
>letting a spook of a philosophy dictate what one wants more than one's own desires
>cucking yourself for your own ego when you could have little semi-clones for your own ego
If you want clones of your own ego, that is itself within your own ego, the distinction made here implies there is something inherently good about creating offspring.
>>68164800
>em·pir·i·cism əmˈpirəˌsizəm
>noun
>noun empiricism
>the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY A MARXIST NEEDS AN EMPIRICAL/SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR ANYTHING?
SCIENTISM = CORPORATISM
THERE IS A REASON WHY EARLY PSYCHOLOGISTS AND FREUD/MARX INSPIRED SOCIAL THEORISTS USED NON-SCIENTIFIC/NON-EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTS OR RESEARCH
ALSO WHY THEY HATED ANGLO/PROTESTANT SCIENCE AND SHIT
TOO EMPIRICAL
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
>>68166371
THIS NIGGER IS CORRECT AND OP DIDN'T EVEN REPLY
>>68173841
>>68173859
Look up his "philosophy of religion"
"God and God only is the Truth" - Hegel
>>68174531
John Locke's philosophy was heavily based in christian theology, and not even coherent christian theology at that. I don't think he can be described as an empiricist, where did you get that definition anon?
>>68174531
>Entire argument is just buzzwords
>Stirner was a Marxist despite Marx being one of the most voracious critics of Stirner
>Marx didn't want his and Engels form of Socialism to be Scientific (according to the parameters of Scientific in their time)
>>68174788
Ah, never mind, he was one of those people who believed religion could be backed up empirically. But regardless, he was still a very bourgeoisie philosopher. Better than Hobbes, but that's not hard.
>>68174240
>People aren't just animals with egos who often justify what they do afterwards
>implying implications of inherent good
You crack me up, property. I was speaking only for my ego.
Good is something that would exist outside of the self and can't be proven or assessed from a stance of pure ego and pure materialism. You'd need to look elsewhere for those kinds of things.
>>68174239
So then I must ask why exactly others are viewed as property, if the same can be said from the perspective of someone else when referring to you? I also fear that he is mistaken when referring to others as "property", referring to another human being as "property" to be acted upon, inherently takes away their rights and reason, which Stirner seems to have so greatly advocated in favor of. And as such, you also take your own rights away, because you yourself are property to be acted upon. Property is best used to describe that which has no reason, or agency, money, food, and such, it is however, not to be used to describe a person, as doing so removes all reason and thus removes one's ability to identity a "spook".
The best comparison that can be made, with Stirners man, is to compare man to animals. For animals act on others as property, a wolf will attack and eat a moose calf because it is hungry, it will not attack a mature bull, because it fears the repercussions of being killed by the bull. The wolf will certainly not refuse to kill the calf because it sees it as something inherently wrong, it will refuse to kill the calf because it fears the possible repercussions in doing so, weather that be from the heard attack the wold, or the mother killing the wolf. The wolf behaves in this way, because it lacks reason, and acts out of instinct. And if humans acts in the way Stirner says they do, then Stirner has removed all reason from humans, and thus removed mans ability to identify the self.
>>68175209
>People aren't just animals with egos who often justify what they do afterwards
Ok, but what does that have to do with what I said. Looking to animals for insight into human behavior is often a Rorschach test.
>You crack me up, property. I was speaking only for my ego.
Then you should have clarified. But regardless, not everyone feels similarly of children, and my ego does not desire children and the bullshit they create.
>>68175554
>ll reason and thus removes one's ability to identity a "spook"
Also to clarify this point. Animals don't reason threats and repercussions, they learn them from experience. Humans on the other hand, are able to reason the right and wrong of a certain action, without experience. And weather the conclusion is correct or not is irrelevant, the point here being, that humans can deduce right or wrong using reason.
>>68175554
>So then I must ask why exactly others are viewed as property, if the same can be said from the perspective of someone else when referring to you? I also fear that he is mistaken when referring to others as "property", referring to another human being as "property" to be acted upon, inherently takes away their rights and reason, which Stirner seems to have so greatly advocated in favor of. And as such, you also take your own rights away, because you yourself are property to be acted upon. Property is best used to describe that which has no reason, or agency, money, food, and such, it is however, not to be used to describe a person, as doing so removes all reason and thus removes one's ability to identity a "spook".
Stirner meant that humans exist essentially as property for any other human to expropriate in their interest an any given time. In this sense all people are already Egoists, but the only people who are take advantage of their innate Egoism are those who recognize it as their driving force in life. These people then go about constructing and perpetuating spooks such as Church, State, Nation, etc, so that they can fool you into thinking that your best interest is in serving their best interest.
Stirner ultimately thought that it was up to individuals whether or not to go beyond spooks and inspire others to do the same after they realize that they are their own masters (which is how he differs from the later strains of Anarchism and Libertarianism) but that society generally couldn't really be liberated until all people realized that they were all each other's property and acted in synthesis with the self-interest of others acting out of their self-interest for the general self-interest which often brings about a greater satisfaction or fulfillment than if you were to act solely as an individual in a relatively spookless society.
This should help you see why Stirner isn't contradicting himself.
>>68175583
Then refer to the last line of >>68167241
>>68176591
>implying ideas die with a man
Stirner himself is proof you're wrong
>>68164800
>knows nothing about statistics
>likes to misuse words like "empirically"
shit b8 m8 rate 0/8
>>68177102
>the proof is in the stats
>says OP misused a word without describing how
1/10 made me reply ok b8 ig senpai tbqh
>>68171119
In that picture, what is wrong with Freud?
>>68177225
>OP did misuse a word and its painfully obvious
My apologies for not correctly assuming that you are too retarded to comprehend basic sentences and logic
>>68177102
>statistics
>falling for the inductivist spook
>>68176460
Except that it seems that Stirner is coming to this conclusion for the wrong reason. And while i don't entirely disagree with his conclusion what I am saying is that i disagree with Stirners view that People are not property because it undoes their reason and moral agency. And therefore dismantles the ego and self, which can only be recognized through reason. Indeed I do not disagree with the view that people are individuals entitled to their own ego, I am simply disagreeing the the fact that people are free to be acted upon as property.
Also while certain standards of behavior are used by others, that does not invalidate them. From what I can tell, Stirner ideas are dangerous in an of themselves, because they present no standard for people to behave, as any repercussion is simply a spook that can be collectively ignored because people are to be considered to be property to be acted upon.
I also must ask as to what end does Stirner seek? From what you said, concerning Stirners view of a "egoist synthesis" it seems to me there is no reasonable end to this proposed synthesis. If a spookless society is to exist, then how is it proposed that people escape these "spooks", if these "spooks" are the only things preventing people from acting in a certain way? And if desire and self interest are the only things that compel people to act, then does Stirner propose that people constantly act based upon their changing moods?
Good god, this is so all so horribly self contradicting that it's making my head spin.
>>68178449
The majority of the people who post Stirner memes have never even read him.
And I'd be willing to bet a large percentage who did read him, didn't understand wtf he was saying.
And of the few who did read and did understand what he was saying, even fewer could articulate the ideas or offer valid counter-arguments.
Because knowledgeable and intelligent posters are so rare, /pol/ will never be able to discuss anything of substance without it devolving into memes and shitposting.
>>68178908
that sound very spooky
>>68178231
M8 I seriously have already explained everything you're complaining about just start over with Stirner you've either misread him or only know him through memes and people explaining him to you on 4chan.
Go find a secondary work on Stirner that explains his ideas more concretely and get to studying
>all these /pol/ fascists
Alright, so a question. Are spooks imagined things to be ignored? And if not, what reason is there to not fear them?
>>68179299
I'm simply asking for clarificaiton on his reasoning, as it seems to me to be invalid.
And the conclusions he makes from his reasoning seem to be paradoxically inconlusive
>>68164800
if race isn't real then why do bone marrow transplants have to be from someone of your own race?
