Gf is a xtian

I didn't fail to lie out of altruism, I failed to lie because of a lapse in consideration.

>mfw she ends up breaking up with me
Haha you Stirner s-poo-k in loos deserve nothing less.

Which makes me think

If we actually have to use mental effort to think in a similar way Stirner did, aren't we spooking ourselves?

>if we actually have to make an effort to notice spooks that have been instilled in us since childhood, aren't we spooking ourselves?

>this is literally how autistic stirnerposters actually think

That's not what I meant

When people are starting to think in a certain way on purpose because they are perhaps fascinated by that certain way of thinking, they are thinking in a way which is not natural to them, doesn't this way of thinking end up being a spook then?

>Why can't women into Stirner?
They don't need Stirner to tell them to be loyal only to themselves.

>natural
This is a spook, what do you mean by this?

You mean according to how they've been conditioned to think?

This reminds me of a SJW aquaintance (we didn't call them that back then) that was so into his delusions that he convinced himself and his gf to believe in polyamory and that monogamy was a form of male, patriarchical oppression.

Result of the experiment:

She starts cucking him with a different guy every week
He, not so much
He gets jealous
She breaks up with him
Me: smugface.jpg

Well maybe natural thought doesn't exist then, maybe everyone is conditioned to think in a certain way.

But when you start thinking in a Stirner way, you are in fact still conditioned.

But you're conditioned for your pleasure.

Because Stirner was an autistic kraut """"""philosopher"""""" fag who belongs on /b/.

Well does it really please us?

>user still hasn't read the fucking thing
>he keeps posting though

>us
Spook begone!

I've read Stirner before he was even a Veeky Forums meme, and I've read him again many times since

>gf is a xtian
Nothing of value was lost

She didn't get it.

Spook of the story : don't let girlfriends read Stirner.

I guess so

Terrible idea, you should have said fidelity was a spook but a spook that you followed because you wanted to, or you should have said that you didn't give a shit about fidelity but you didn't sleep around because you liked her and wanted her to feel secure for your own selfish reasoning.

Right, I told her that I wouldn't cheat on her if I thought there was any chance of her finding out.

More like, why can't you into Stirner? You should have told her that her continuated association with you is worth more than an one time fuck, so you wouldn't cheat on her.
She's actually right in saying that the wrongness of cheating itself is a spook, you should have just countered with the fact that the consequences of cheating aren't.

She understood it and co-opted the philosophy to give you a gf test, which you failed. You missed a top tier gf, OP.

I did

this
people who read stirner always seem to miss this stuff in the longshot

being despooked doesn't mean you should despook others, it actually gives you levarage over them

a wolf doesn't teach sheep to become a wolf

unless its retarded

...

Yes, but you chose to think in a Stirner way.

Yes but you phrased it in the most undiplomatic way possible.

how is fidelity spooky? human beings are known to pair-bond and there is research done on people who are pair-bonded often trying to shoo threats to their relationships even in a subconscious manner

if i choose to be loyal to my girl even if there was a 0% chance she would find out, i would still be getting something out of it

You've just been cucked by a dead German lmao

>human nature

He was cucked by his own lack of tact

Egotism is a spook.

But egoism isn't.

>losing yout gf because of a meme

Self-interest is a spook, though.

What the fuck is going on in this thread?
You're all terrible with relationships regardless of philosophy

Not it isn't, it's what governs everyone

This. Why would any non-autist say something like, "I wouldn't cheat on you if there was a chance you'd find out"? Relationships aren't free-wheeling philosophy discussions, there are some things it's best not to say. Does OP tell his friends he'd rob them if he knew there was a chance they would find out about it?

Is adhering to any form of moral values being spooked even if it's in your self-interest to follow these values due to your natural desire to feel like a good person?

I wouldn't rob them, since that would hurt them.

No, you can play make believe. For instance, if you had a simulation that you'd spend the rest of your life in a coma to be in, say, for instance, of an anime world, there would be nothing spooky about accepting this if it made you feel good. But if you do something to avoid feeling bad for being immoral, that's spook then

I'm not sure I follow. If taking an action that I consider immoral would make me feel bad, how is refusing to take the action not in my self-interest, barring the possibility that I'll get over it and enjoy the things I gained from the action later?
Acting in my self-interest would be defined as deliberately taking actions that increase my happiness and/or reduce my suffering, so that would count, surely.

But if they don't know that you took $20 out of their wallet, they just figure they must have blown it on a taxi or something, they wouldn't be hurt. I suppose you could say you decreased their net wealth, but you could also say that cheating on your girlfriend, even if she never knows, hurts the mutual trust in the relationship or lessens your respect for her since you won't honor her expectation of fidelity.

>If taking an action that I consider immoral would make me feel bad, how is refusing to take the action not in my self-interest, barring the possibility that I'll get over it and enjoy the things I gained from the action later?
Because the only thing stopping you from acting in that way is your devotion to a spook, morality. If you acknowledge that morality is just a spook but continue to act in ways "morality" has informed you, that is completely different because now the self is making a choice, not being possessed by a spook.

>being despooked doesn't mean you should despook others

It does if you want to form a union of egoists

>union of egoists

But unions are spooks, making a union of egoists would just form something Stirner is against

What is this fucking meme? Did you even read the book?

Nigger I did read the book, and a union is a spook

Stirner did mention unions can be used to achieve certain things, but it remains a spook

>reads Schopenhauer in original German

this is how I know you are lying. Nietzsche, sure I could possibly accept that but Schopenhauer is very difficult to read in the original German. Academic German makes copious use of compounding. It's a pain in the ass to read, and far above and beyond conversational German.

Either you are lying, or much less likely, your story is true and your exgf was lying to you.

Stirner and his individualism is a spook, prove me wrong.

But polyamory is about threesomes, not cucking and it makes no sense for heterosexual people.

What the fuck is this spooked, despooked, non-spooked bullshit

t.pleb

Go back to plowing fields and leave us patricians alone.

So her point was that (according to Stirner) monogamy is a spook?

hagridden pleb detected.

It's only a spook if you're still in it when it no longer directly benefits you.

Well, everyone does things that "benefit" them in some way, even if they're spooks.

Religion can tell you that if you pay your tithes and slave away for free, your afterlife will be glorious. If you really think that it is a real reward and you feel better (you think that you're better than the other heathens, that you have god's protection, etc.) with that decision, is it still a spook?