Is there anything that ISN'T a spook?

waifus

>there is a clear-cut distinction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat
Spooky as fuck.

Go to bed, Szeliga

Materialist dialectics

You're just a character fuck you Max

At least I don't treat the unique one as a concept

cute grls!!

Hadley Cells

if you think love is a spook youve never had it!! hope you can sometime

love is not simply an experience but a whole baggage of connotations and received ideas, so in this sense he's right. hardly ruins love though.

Yeah I'm pretty sure most philosophers are virgins to be honest.

Calling something a spook doesn't necessarily mean it's non existent. Anything can be a spook. Logic can be a spook. Love just happens to be one of the most commonly fixed ideas.

Why is the Ego a "he"?

something something sexism

Germanic language American bastardisation.
man means humankind in german, but man mean he in English. If only.... Yada yada

"Man" means both in English as well. I was under the impression that it was translated to "The Ego and His Own" because "The Unique and Its Property" didn't sound as pleasant to Byington

The ego is a spook. How can you own the concept of yourself? You subjectively see it, and only half of it at that.

Idk go learn german and report back.

can someone give me a quick rundown on this stirner character

You clearly have not read Stirner since if you had you would have read his extensive rebuttal of Szeliga, in which he explains that the unique is not a concept but an empty sign, like a name. From "Stirner's Critics":

>Szeliga, after first having in all seriousness allowed the unique “to become” and identified it with a “man” (page 4: “The unique wasn’t always unique, nor always a man, but was once a baby and then a young boy”), makes him an “individual of world history” and finally, after a definition of spooks (from which it emerges that “a spirit lacking thought is a body, and that the pure and simple body is the absence of thought”), he finds that the unique is “therefore the spook of spooks.” It is true that he adds, “For the critic who doesn’t just see in universal history fixed ideas replacing each other, but creative thoughts continually developing, for the critic, however, the unique is not a spook, but an act of creative self-consciousness, which had to arise in its time, in our time, and fulfill its determined task”; but this act is merely a “thought,” a “principle” and a book.

>One flattered oneself that one spoke about the “actual, individual” human being when one spoke of the human being; but was this possible so long as one wanted to express this human being through something universal, through an attribute? To designate this human being, shouldn’t one, perhaps, have recourse not to an attribute, but rather to a designation, to a name to take refuge in, where the view, i.e., the unspeakable, is the main thing? Some are reassured by “real, complete individuality,” which is still not free of the relation to the species; others by the “spirit,” which is likewise a determination, not complete indeterminacy. This indeterminacy only seems to be achieved in the unique, because it is given as the specific unique being, because when it is grasped as a concept, i.e., as an expression, it appears as a completely empty and undetermined name, and thus refers to a content outside of or beyond the concept. If one fixes it as a concept — and the opponents do this — one must attempt to give it a definition and will thus inevitably come upon something different from what was meant. It would be distinguished from other concepts and considered, for example, as “the sole complete individual,” so that it becomes easy to show it as nonsense. But can you define yourself; are you a concept?

And I don't see what this has to do with the fact that "man" means both "humankind" and "a male person/male persons" in the English language.

are ghost-tier spooks themselves spooks?

>Have you ever seen a spirit? “No, not I, but my grandmother.” Now, you see, it’s just so with me too; I myself haven’t seen any, but my grandmother had them running between her feet all sorts of ways, and out of confidence in our grandmothers’ honesty we believe in the existence of spirits.

>But had we no grandfathers then, and did they not shrug their shoulders every time our grandmothers told about their ghosts? Yes, those were unbelieving men who have harmed our good religion much, those rationalists! We shall feel that! What else lies at the bottom of this warm faith in ghosts, if not the faith in “the existence of spiritual beings in general,” and is not this latter itself disastrously unsettled if saucy men of the understanding may disturb the former? The Romanticists were quite conscious what a blow the very belief in God suffered by the laying aside of the belief in spirits or ghosts, and they tried to help us out of the baleful consequences not only by their reawakened fairy world, but at last, and especially, by the “intrusion of a higher world,” by their somnambulists of Prevorst, etc. The good believers and fathers of the church did not suspect that with the belief in ghosts the foundation of religion was withdrawn, and that since then it had been floating in the air. He who no longer believes in any ghost needs only to travel on consistently in his unbelief to see that there is no separate being at all concealed behind things, no ghost or — what is naively reckoned as synonymous even in our use of words — no “spirit.”

What is a spook to a spook?

An absolute equal.

am I a spook? Are you a spook?

When he says "spirit", is that Geist? Quite a powerful way to end the paragraph.

Yes, it is geist. The quotations are there, I believe, to distinguish it from an earlier usage, which is in the sense of "mind."

Damage is a spook.

>labourers
lmao it isnt the 19th century anymore my dude

>No
Well, it could be.

Sitting in a cubicle all day is pretty laborious, f a m