I got through 2/3 's of the ego and it's own before just giving up

I got through 2/3 's of the ego and it's own before just giving up.
He just keeps repeating the same idea over and over.

Everything is a spook because I say so.
Let me repeat that for 600 pages.

Am I missing something?

Focus on the differences between the ways you think he's repeating the point and try to think of what he might mean by those differences

>Everything is a spook because I say so.
Let me repeat that for 600 pages.

Ouch looks like you failed to grasp those 2/3s.
Can you define what a spook is and how it relates to Stirners concept of property?

>Am I missing something?

Reading comprehension

>property as an integral part of a metaphysical structure

>Focus on the differences between the ways you think
I found myself agreeing with most of his lines of reasoning, that's why it felt so boring to me.

>Can you define what a spook is
It's actually hard to put into words.
A societal construct i guess.
An idea you force yourself to believe because society tells you to?

> and how it relates to Stirners concept of property?
I remember him saying something about property but I thought it was just another example of how everything is a spook.
Could you explain his concept of property to me?

I can't help it. It really did not engage with me so I started to skim and lose focus.
I wanted to like it but it felt like a slog.

Its a simple enough question for anyone who has actually read the book and cuts through the "everything is a spook because I say it is" meme

Could you explain it to me?
I probably skimmed past it.
I made this thread because i'm hoping someone will tell me why im wrong and convince me to finish it.

>An idea you force yourself to believe because society tells you to?
Not quite. A spook is a fixed idea, i.e., an idea that, in his words, "passes into our stubbornness." It's any idea that you put above yourself. It doesn't necessarily have to be because you are told to by "society." But this is why people get the idea that his reasoning is "everything I don't like is a spook." Anything *can be* a spook, which is why even the unique can be a spook (as Stirner addresses in "Stirner's Critics"), and why even seemingly oppressive ideas like monarchy and religion can serve a person's egoistic purpose (e.g. in the cases of Napoleon and Rodrigo Borja).

>I found myself agreeing with most of his lines of reasoning, that's why it felt so boring to me.
You misunderstood me. Focus on the differences between the repeats of the point you think he keeps making.

>An idea you force yourself to believe because society tells you to?
That is an example of a spook but a clearer way to understand is simply ideas/concepts whose interests you place above your own.

>Could you explain his concept of property to me?
Something which you subordinate to your interests use exclusively for your own ends.

So overall what you see is *not* that any social construct or idea is a spook but only one which we hold above our own interests. Accordingly what is spooky for one person is the property of another.

Here is an example logic - user A thinks that in order to be a good human he has to be a Spock like avatar with any displays of emotion being a mark of inferiority. Hence user A ends up suppressing his emotions and sacrificing himself to this idea of logic. user A is spooked

user B uses logic to solve the problems and needs that emerge from here emotions. user B has made logic her property.

No, it all is just an affirmation of ego, but you are mistaken about what is being repeated.

>It's any idea that you put above yourself.
This is bad english but how can you distinguish "what yourself wants" from the spooks?

I think I get it. Thanks for the example user.

Just ask yourself, before you do anything, "am I doing this because I want to, or because I feel I ought to?" If the latter, you're probably spooked.

But arbitrary traditions and social conventions are proven to actually make people happier

Do they make you happy? Or do you feel a nagging tension in your belly when you pay homage to God?

>am I doing this because I want to, or because I feel I ought to?

But what if I know what I want to do is self destructive?

I want to quit my job, fuck prostitutes, get drunk and spend all day shitposting on Veeky Forums.

Maybe spooks are a good thing.

>I want to quit my job, fuck prostitutes, get drunk and spend all day shitposting on Veeky Forums.

What's wrong with this? Have you ever tried this?

Other than getting drunk know all day, this is pretty close to my life right now. /comfy

Self fulfilling prophecy

Then do them out of happiness, not expectation. Most people don't even consider such things, and automatically act upon the expectations of others (or of ideas/ideologies/culture). I don't agree with the whole of Stirner's egoism but it is seemingly true that most are fundamentally dishonest with themselves regarding their motivations.

Of course, the happiness you claim may only concern overall societal health, not really concerning the individual. In which case, why would you want people to be happier, especially over your happiness? Why would an individual who absolutely loathes said arbitrary traditions and social conventions, engage in them? Attachment to this loathing without seeing the possibilities makes you spooked too. Maybe you deduce that it makes you happy for others to be happy (or maybe your line of thinking is more to do with societal cohesion and the benefits you derive from that). The point is not really the thing itself, but your relation and attachment to it. You can believe in pretty much anything without being spooked (if you take the purely general idea of spooks, not with Stirner's other ideas and beliefs projected onto it), but if the relationship you have with a thing is one of static dogmatism, slavery, then you are spooked. It's all about the individual, not objective decrees as to what is a spook and not.

>What's wrong with this?
I would burn through my life saving in 1-2 years and be unable to continue the lifestyle I desire. I would also be unable to return to the old lifestyle I gave up.

How do you sustain it?

Not that user but

>But what if I know what I want to do is self destructive?
You make an assessment about what further your own unique interests overall and act on that. Going to the gym is detrimental in the short term but beneficial in the long term just as booze and women are good in the short term and bad in the long term.

Find the right mix of immediate and delayed gratifcation for your life. Too much of one and not the other will bring nothing but regret.

>Maybe spooks are a good thing.
Not drinking and whoring because society says that is bad is just as spooky as drinking and having sex with prostitutes because you think thats what a free person does.

>people do things to satisfy their appetites
>most people don't like having their lives reduced to that so they invent grand causes to disguise that they are acting to satisfy their appetites (unwilling egotists)
>the willing egotist recognises that all he is doing is acting to satisfy his appetites
>this doesn't mean he refrains from doing that. he just understands why he is doing what he is doing and resists feeling the need to justify it to himself in any way more than what it is
>the "grand causes" of the unwilling egotists like morality or property are spooks

Saved you reading the book.

I think Stirner's pretty much spot on.

iv been a willing egotist this whole time, and iv been chasing spooks and feeling like a retard for not being able to be spooked by them.