Who is this odd fellow and why do people keep posting him on various boards?

For Stirner, property as one's own isn't a spook, because it serves you, not the other way around.

>ask not what you can do for your property, but what your property can do for you

And Stirner is a spook in his own rights, who is he to tell me what I consider a spook? Is he the leader of the union which declares what is and what isn't a spook? He preaches anarchy and you tell me I need to follow him? Why follow the anarchist when it's following.

"Spook" is a term coined by Stirner, defined by him. You can coin a term "spook" with a different definition but at that point you're using a different term, just with the same name.

Stirner does not hand you a list of do's and don'ts. He explains how the mind and human experience work.

What you are doing is the equivelent of saying that an art school that says "draw what you want" and than attempts to teach is fucked up. Why do I need to learn how to mix color? Why do I need to know how to frame a canvas or clean the brushes? Who are they to tell me what the difference between acrylic and oil paint is!

So using my own ego to overpower his bullshit.
>listening to someone preach about anarchism
Isn't that contradictory? I'm not being taught, I'm being told by the system (that being the anarchist) that I need to read his bullshit to understand what he believes to be the human mind? I don't buy it.

I smell a commie.

How am I commie for pointing out the flaws of anarchism? How am I a commie for saying that his ideas are horseshit and contradictory?
If it's about ego-driven anarchism, I would expect ego driven anarchism, where it's lawlessness and someone being strong to bully the weak and create a state society afterwards.

Because you were getting upset that Stirner believes in ownership

How do you own something? Is it enforced by the government, enforced by the trade? But aren't those spooks?

Stirner doesn't believe in ownership realization by law, but by act. Legal ownership is meaningless to him,.

Then how do you own something?

De facto

Explain how something is De facto mine?

Suppose you're stuck on a desert island with me, and you keep me in chains and force me to do your labor. Am I not de facto your slave and property?

No, it would be De Jure because I am the government and you are my faithful worker listening to me like I am God of the Island.

What if the island belongs to another government which has outlawed slavery?

But I am the government on the Island, are you telling me I need to bow down to the authority of a person that isn't there to tell me what's what? No, I declare that you are the slave and I am the master, and by the right vested in me being the free person it would be De Jure ownership.

So you don't believe anything illegal can happen? If it happens, then it's not illegal? If I take your TV, it's not legally your TV, it's my TV, because I took it according to my own law?

Yes, you can look at it that way, but it makes the terms de facto and de jure completely useless.

>So you don't believe anything illegal can happen? If it happens, then it's not illegal? If I take your TV, it's not legally your TV, it's my TV, because I took it according to my own law?
Then I would take your life, because according to my own law, people who willingly take actions of aggression towards me and I will willingly act my enforcement of the law I made on my land that I declared by the right vested in me, user, owns this land.
>Yes, you can look at it that way, but it makes the terms de facto and de jure completely useless.
You mean it bonds, each person is each state, and the only thing that becomes real is the people being individuals and working together in alliances, not in a society type.

>Then I would take your life,
Not if you're not home

>Not if you're not home
But I'm always home. I don't leave because of pieces of shit like you who want to steal from righteous people who want to stay inside.

You need to get out more, user. A tv is not worth it.

All I'm hearing is that people like you who want to steal my shit that I declared is mine.

Yes but I was talking hypothetically. I would never steal your TV even if I could get away with it because that's wrong.

>I would never steal your TV even if I could get away with it because that's wrong.
Because it's a sin. A sin marks your soul. And something something something.

Just get out of the house. Ask a pretty girl out. Have fun. Even if your tv gets stolen, you'll still be happier for it.

>Just get out of the house. Ask a pretty girl out.
Are you implying I have any social skills?
>said the 'woman'

He's basically Emerson, if Emerson had autism.

Well if you don't have skills, it's because you haven't practiced enough

But I don't wanna get bullied by people who want to exploit me, and treat me like shit.

Happens to all of us, it's part of life.

I would rather be a recluse and try to study shit so I can be a missionary and help spread the word of God.

That's noble, but if it's your goal, you can't call thieves pieces of shit or be attached to your material goods.

>you can't call thieves pieces of shit
But I just did. I'm not getting fucked over by people who want to abuse me.

Christ was.

And am I Christ?

You clearly love him if you want to be a missionary, and if you love him then you desire to be more like him.

>and if you love him then you desire to be more like him
But I wanna marry.

Jesus didn't say there is anything wrong with marriage, just divorce.

Well, you want a job where you work as a representative of him to the world. To be effective, you must walk the walk.

But Jesus never married. Hint. Hint.
>To be effective, you must walk the walk.
But I can talk the talk and tell people why they should convert.

>But Jesus never married. Hint. Hint.
And you have to take a vow of chastity if you want to be a monk. But didn't command this of his followers, even though it is a very admirable thing

Somebody who wrote a 370 page book that could be condensed into "I can do what the fuck ever I want and fuck everyone else."

He didn't contend that you should treat human beings as property, he contended that you should treat all things as property (which includes human beings). But even at that, the notion of "property" in the context of his book can be better understood as "how it is of interest to you." He didn't believe you naturally owned the whole of the universe, because that's fucking idiotic, but instead that you should consider the whole of the universe strictly in how it is in relation to you.

Yes, even then. There's a reason he said you can only own that which you have the strength to keep.

I hate you. I legitimately fucking hate you. You goddamn worthless cunt. You do nothing but butcher and shitpost, and make this board worse just by existing.

>Yes even then.

More aptly, your property does not become something of substance because it is "yours" and attempting anything relating to property that makes the property something sacred or puts it ahead of yourself would still be stupid (for instance, devoting your life to acquiring wealth and ruining your well-being in the process, or throwing your life away over your wallet).

>half the posts in thread is from that one tripfag

I filtered him when Veeky Forums was new, can't remember why, but i trust the judgement of my former self.

So if someone pulled a gun on Mr. Spook he'd applaud the man for taking what is his and give whatever it is he wanted?

For an anarchist he sure does encourage totalitarian "might is right" amorality.

Not in the slightest. He would defend his property, and hope others would assist in doing so.

He outright says that cooperation and altruism are vital to the pursuit of your self interest, but he also didn't deny the simple facts of life as a lot of anarchists do (it's worth noting he never called himself as such): might makes reality. If someone is strong enough to do something and has the desire to do so, it will be done, and no pretensions of morality or right will stop them.

Hourly reminder

>I hate you. I legitimately fucking hate you. You goddamn worthless cunt. You do nothing but butcher and shitpost, and make this board worse just by existing.
tripfagging is a spook

...

So what would he consider something like a criminal giving up crime after finding religion for example?

He'd probably consider their reasoning for doing so foolish if they were holding religion as something ahead of themselves. But giving up crime to pursue something they find emotionally or spiritually fulfilling is entirely within the scope of his thinking, he wasn't really opposed to any idea, so long as you pursued it for yourself, rather than attempting to serve it.

The best summation I could give there would be that ideas are tools to be utilized, rather than things to served.

I know that, you fucking imbecile. I stand by what I said.

related music

youtube.com/watch?v=3x4weajfqm0

there est thou answer

Well, what you said is just a reiteration of what I said, yet you're pouring all kinds of abuse on me

>yet you're pouring all kinds of abuse on me

Because you constantly misrepresent ideals in a continual attempt to smear literally anything that isn't Orthodox Christianity here. For instance you say he suggested treating people as property in a blatant bid to get an emotional kneejerk out of people without actually explaining what that means in the context of his philosophy.

Stirner actually does suggest you treat people like property. He doesn't believe anyone has rights. He himself says he wouldn't torture people (for the same reasons that might be applied to a dog, which is also property), but he never suggests for others not to if that is how they'd like to treat their property.

Questions, how does this differ from nihilism?

Stirner is generally regarded as one of the most comprehensive nihilist thinkers

Again, he suggests treating all things as your property. People are not special here (hence why I think this is a cheap ploy on your part to get a kneejerk, because you're a cunt). Further, the notion of property is vastly different, treating people as they are of interest to you is not the same as treating them as though you actually own them (as ownership is itself a meaningless concept beyond "has the strength to possess it" in Stirner's thinking).

It's a form of nihilism. Specifically existential and moral nihilism. Though believing there to be a meaning to existence or morals is not out of the picture.

I thought it seemed similar, thanks for the confirmation

>believing there to be morals is not out of the picture

Would it be something like the character Rorschach in Watchmen?

>Specifically existential and moral nihilism
As well as nihilism toward families, nations, rights, etc.

>Though believing there to be a meaning to existence or morals is not out of the picture.
Not so long as they are completely mutable and up to oneself and can be changed at whim. The moment you start using them to judge yourself, instead of yourself to judge them, they are out of the picture.

>If reason rules, then the person succumbs
What did he mean by this?

Girls just wanna have fun

The quote that is a few sentances later helps explain it.

>The liberals are zealots, not exactly for the faith, for God, but certainly for reason, their master. They brook no lack of breeding, and therefore no self-development and self- determination; they play the guardian as effectively as the most absolute rulers.

tldr its talking about reason becoming a spook and commenting on liberals

>Who is this odd fellow
Probably the most uncompromising egoist thinker there has ever been, he is kind of like what parmenidies is to rationalism or heraclitus is to change.

>keep posting him on various boards?
He is very mememetic in his life and teachings

>Isn't that contradictory? I'm not being taught, I'm being told by the system (that being the anarchist) that I need to read his bullshit to understand what he believes to be the human mind? I don't buy it.

There is no compulsion or involuntary hirearchy being imposed on you here so there is no contradiction.

>I'm being told by the system (that being the anarchist) that I need to read his bullshit to understand what he believes to be the human mind?

One poster on an anonymous image broad is hardly a system. Like in the art school there is no "need" for you to do anything, if you believe you can get a satisfactory understanding of him without reading that then go right ahead but dont be surprised or indignant when your understanding is different to others.

...

...

Not really just because you do not subjugate yourself to a spook or fixed idea doesnt automatically give you power act on it.

>fuck everyone else."
Pic related being an a dogmatic assohole is spooky

Well, no. They'd be ultimately whatever you considered to be good, and their purpose would be to provide you a lens through which to view yourself and the world around you. The main thing is they'd never be "fixed" morals. What Stirner proposes for morality is basically tearing the whole system down, discarding its baggage and chaff, and then never allowing it to become built up like that again. This would mean that morality would have to be a personal journey of continual growth and change.

Actually, you can totally use them to judge yourself. Using morals to better yourself is still within his thinking, the standard should just serve a purpose of actually bettering you, rather than trying to serve the morals themselves.

Morals as I see them serve two main purposes, exalting yourself (or the person you wish to be) and determining what your ideal world would look like, and they can still fill both of these functions in Stirner's thinking. Just because he's not proposing considering yourself "the worst of sinners" and wallowing in your immorality as a means of proving yourself the most moral doesn't mean you can't still be moral.

For Stirner, if "bettering yourself" beings becoming more "good", it's not egoist. He says in his initial definition of "spooks" that good and evil are spooks. If you mean things like a quota of push ups every day, okay, but that's not really morality.

Again, not really. Good is whatever you make of it. You could become more "good" if that is what pleases, but you would likewise operate from an understanding that it is for your own benefit. Serving in the soup kitchen because you feel this is a good thing to be doing and that fills you with happiness is entirely reasonable.

Frankly, you sound like one of those obnoxious cunts (oh wait, look who I'm talking to) that thinks you can't be moral without religion.

It's more about what you consider good. If adhering to some morals will help you become the person you want to be, that's fine as long as you're using them as a tool and not an ends unto themselves.

"Good" is explicitly a spook.

Regarding spooks
>The essences which are deduced from some appearances are the evil essences, and conversely from others the good. The essence of human feeling, e.g., is love; the essence of human will is the good; that of one’s thinking, the true, etc.

Oh, so you're descending into spookposting territory are you?

Good is only a spook if you attempt to place it ahead of yourself and subjugate your own ego in the process. Good can easily be used to serve your ego.

He outlines in Stirner's Critics that he's not opposed to any idea so long as it is not held as sacred and unchanging. So you could still use the concept of good to evaluate your own behaviour and better yourself, you just couldn't hold it as immutable concept greater than you.

You can use the concept of good purely as a figure of speech or poetically. Believing good exists in any more concrete sense violates the philosophy.

You can believe good exists in an entirely subjective sense, and that has been my point from the outset. But what kind of idiotic fool would believe good exists in an objective sense?

No, it's not compatible with Christianity, get over it and stop shitposting any time this man's name is mentioned.

The guy whose philosophy the avg person talks about when they think they are talking about Nietzche

Someone should tell Plato the bad news

He's dead nigga.

>keep me in chains and force me to...
kinky orthogirl :^)

>girl

Don't shatter my dreams. ;-;

is constantine not actually a girl? I've heard both that constantine is a tranny and that constantine took the trip from a tranny. get me up to date on the tripfag lore

A philosopher who makes an interesting conversation piece.

...

Pretty sure they're a dude, and about 20% sure they're the same person who used to post as Feminister, given their arrogance, stupidity and narcissism.

>Feminister
Who? That sounds awfully protestant.