Why would i follow stirner's idea of everything being a spook if this idea is a spook itself?

>Who tells when you hold interests on ideas more than your own?

Anyone, however only the individual can decide whether theres actually a spook present.

>If you start following Stirner's philosophy word by word aren't you being spooked by egoism?

Well firstly Stirner doesnt actually advocate despooking yourself. That said if you did subscribe to his Egoism word for word it would be impossible to spook yourself however where you to try and emulate all of Stirners views then you would almost certaintly be spooking yourself

>Well firstly Stirner doesnt actually advocate despooking yourself
Then his philosophy is completely pointless, i can keep on being a moral servant of the state and he can't do shit about it, spook or not spook.

>big long well thought-out argument
>no replies

Stirnerkiddies everyone. SPOOKFAGS BTFO

Wall of texts in general tend to be ignored because reading is a pain in the ass for most Veeky Forums folks though

I ignored it because it seemed like a copy pasta from earlier. But heres a (You) since youre so desperate for replies.

>Then his philosophy is completely pointless, i can keep on being a moral servant of the state and he can't do shit about it, spook or not spook.

Stirner didnt write his book to change the world - he explicitly states this in his own book.

The best way to look at his work is the way you look at cognitivie behavioural therapy. In both cases they dont compel or force change however if an individual makes use of them they can have a far more enjoyable life.

Do you actually want a proper discussion on this or would you prefer memes?

>>He is no better than everyone he denounces before him considering that his intellectual endeavour amounts to nothing more than a seduction. In its own little way it is a sort of immature petulant and infantile seduction as well, one that does not have the sincere conviction behind it of past ideologies but on the other hand it has the gall to disrupt the game of rhetoric that ideologues gleefully take part in, sort of like a child who disregards the rules of a game because he is tired of losing at it or some such poor behaviour.

What makes Stirner such an interesting thinker is that unlike others he maintains a level of intellectual purity that you see in thinkers like Heraclitus. With other thinkers – especially those from the enlightenment onwards they attack the legitimacy of certain ideas or claims only to impose claims and ideas that have exactly the same foundations. For instance they decried religious claims from arguing from authority only to immediately replace it with their own source of authority. Its ludicrous to them to rely on a Christian God for authority yet completely acceptable to rely on European Liberal Logic. What you see as sincere conviction is hypocrisy. To use your example he is like the child who has a chuckle when he sees his parents moan about the arbitrary rules and rituals they are afflicted by in the workplace as they complain about other family members not following the arbitrary rules and rituals of culture.

>Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history. Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement, the attack itself is contradictory, and there is no real insight gained into the lack of the center because Stirner himself has no answer or interest in attempting to solve this contradiction of negation. So where every other philosopher has been out with the old and in with the new, Stirner is simply out with the old, and not even in a logical manner, with no new. You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.

If you are the original author of this have you actually read his work, because far from being the well thought out argument you claim it to be. This seems to be a critique of post modernism with Stirner just jammed into it. I mean Stirners thought literally provides uncompromising egoism as an alternative. The fact that seems to show the author doesn’t even have a loose familiarity with him.

Stirniggers pls leave

bump

What if I have no interests, and only want to defend something to excite myself?

>If you are the original author of this have you actually read his work, because far from being the well thought out argument you claim it to be. This seems to be a critique of post modernism with Stirner just jammed into it. I mean Stirners thought literally provides uncompromising egoism as an alternative. The fact that seems to show the author doesn’t even have a loose familiarity with him.

This pasta has been around for at least a few months, and it gets torn to shreds every time it gets posted. There's a handful of posters on Veeky Forums that are extremely asshurt about Stirner for reasons I can't quite grasp, and they often make idiots of themselves flailing at a philosopher they don't understand (since their sole knowledge of him seems to be memes).

If you like, but you can also attempt to free yourself of your spooks and achieve a greater degree of personal autonomy and intellectual consistency, if you're into that thing.

>What if I have no interests, and only want to defend something to excite myself?

That is an interest of yours, when we say your interests its not just referring to entertainment see it as concern if that helps. The fact you defend something due to excitement or desire and not for "itself" or external concern would demonstrate you acting in the way stirner talks of rather than being spooked.

So as you see Stirner is not as infantile or disagreeable as you make him out to be.

I really didn't know anything about Stirner, just the memes thrown around. That was my first post, I dropped by becauss I saw long posts so I figured people here understood Stirner.

You said that a spook is something which you put higher than your own interests.
So I wondered, I involve myself with actions and plans not to my own benefit, but for a very broad group. Objectives are also abstract, hard to achieve and very far into the future.

But, I got into it by myself, since I was living just fine without those influences, and I was the ones who seeked them out.

By now, this behavior has been part of my life for so long that trying to distance myself from it make me anxious. I am legitimately invested in it, and would advance it to my own personal detriment.

How is that for a spook, if I'm aware of it, but keep doing it anyway?
What if it's because I don't put much value in my own self-benefit, since I used it to stay inside and watch anime?
Could the feeling of being part of something larger than myself, and the sense of fulfillement it brings me, be considered a part of self-benefit, even though it's irrational?

Is pursuing some irrational, but personally satisfactory objective a spook?

It's impossible to divest yourself of all spooks, but if you know a spook is a spook and continue to go along with it because it makes your life better, than at least in a way you are using your spook instead of it just using you.

>How is that for a spook, if I'm aware of it, but keep doing it anyway?
Spook aside from being a fun word to say is also rather illustrative here as much like a ghost it haunts and even possesses us. Identifying the spook far from banishing it right away is just the starting point. Now its important to note that whilst Stirner talks at length about identifying spooks (which is a hard task in itself) he doesn’t actually discuss how you get rid of them. This is something that you will have to go beyond Stirner to do.
>You said that a spook is something which you put higher than your own interests.
So I wondered, I involve myself with actions and plans not to my own benefit, but for a very broad group. Objectives are also abstract, hard to achieve and very far into the future.
The important thing to remember with Egoism is that you are the ultimate judge of what is and what is not your own interest. Being an egoist doesn’t mean you need to be some ruggard individual lone wolf type. Under Stirners system the hermit, the CEO and the housewife can be equally as egoist or as spooked as one another.
What if it's because I don't put much value in my own self-benefit, since I used it to stay inside and watch anime? Could the feeling of being part of something larger than myself, and the sense of fulfillement it brings me, be considered a part of self-benefit,
It certainly could, when it comes to what is a spook and what is not will always result in an answer of depends for we are so unique. Indeed something that was once your property (not a spook) can spook you at another time.

1

2

This might help its another comment on spooks ive posted
“Think of the person who feels great pressure to marry a women he does not particualry like because that is the "manly' thing to do.

Whilst he was young he might well have enjoyed living the manly the life however in his later years this ceases to be the case, yet he feels compelled to live up to its requirements.

Another example, think of the person who idolises logic and reason, the kind of person who views Spock as the ideal person. Now living according to this rigid view may well benefit a person in their work life, however if this person is a romantic at heart in their social life they will then suffer as they have to repress this desire of theirs because it conflicts with their idea of logic and reason.

Why do they repress themselves when it is their power to act as they wish? Simply because they have placed the idea or spook above themselves. Serving that idea is more important than serving themselves”

>Is pursuing some irrational, but personally satisfactory objective a spook?
Its best not to get to hung up on rational vs irrational and more on is this satisfying me because it means im living up to an idea or concept or does it satisfy me because its simply an activity I take pleasure in.

This whole spook thing seems like intellectual wankery to me.

>It's impossible to divest yourself of all spooks, but if you know a spook is a spook and continue to go along with it because it makes your life better, than at least in a way you are using your spook instead of it just using you.

This is not correct as soon as it becomes something you do for your benefit and not the ideas/concepts it becomes your property and not a spook.

Spook =/= abstract.

Which part or argument?

Shit, I had the feeling I was off about the terminology.

Yeah, memes have kinda of obfuscated his points. If you can make the distinction between spooks and property he will make much more sense.

His defintion of the unique / individual is bit hairier

Are you saying his philosophy is useless because it doesn't tell you what to do like you're a fucking baby?

>just contradiction
No it isn't

Stirnershits BTFO
>inb4 g-getting BTFO is a spook

Reminder that being triggered is a spook, my properties.

No it isnt, although you might be getting triggered because of spooks.

I've actually read The Ego and His Own and pretty much everyone in this thread has no idea what they're talking about, yet they are pretending they know what they are talking about and there are even people arguing with each other and both of them are just wrong.

I came here to be nice and clarify the logical soundness and validity of the observations made in his book, as all it really covers are a few basic and indisputable observations about phenomenological reality, but this thread is such a mess of people pretending to know what they're saying that I'm just not interested.

This board is terrible.

What are the mistakes made in this thread?

What do you define Stirners use of spook and property as being?

What author refute Stirner?

Apparently Karl Marx wrote one big ad hominem attack against him.

I'm just here for the memes

What's worse, Nietzsche threads that constantly get shit up by Constantine or Stirner threads?

>In his opus magnum Joël writes: 'The Ego' is the "most rampant heretic book a human hand has ever written", and Stirner laid with it the foundation for a veritable "devil's religion."

>The "destruction of alienation", that Stirner aims for, he says, amounts to "the return to authenticity", and this would be "nothing else than the destruction of culture, the return to animality [...] the return to the pre-human status."

>Even Nietzsche appears, according to Kolakowski, "weak and inconsistent compared to him [Stirner]."

>Calasso too regards Stirner's "Egoist" or rather "Owner" as an "artificial barbarian", an "anthropological monster" etc.. 'The Egoist' is the "writing on the wall", signalling the doom of occidental culture.

>No, the intrinsic reason, which was passed down probably by accident, was that [Husserl] wanted to protect his students (and perhaps himself?) against their "temptational power".

>Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had "let the cat out of the bag". However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner's name.

>Nevertheless in his study of Nietzsche, [Klages] was prompted to commemorate the author Stirner as a "sheer demoniacal dialectician." He concedes to him that his thinking, in comparison to Nietzsche's, is "often more radical, less circumlocutory, analytically more exact", and that he "gives ultimate conclusions, for the most part, with more conciseness." Klages regards Stirner as that "antipode of Nietzsche, who in any case should be taken seriously." Stirner, he says, is the reason why Nietzsche is of paramount importance, because "the day on which Stirner's program becomes the will-guiding conviction of all, this alone would suffice for it to be the 'doomsday' of mankind."

Stirner's philosophy is pants on head retarded and he contradicts it by sharing it.

t. my property

>he contradicts it by sharing it

The idea of spooks is a spook itself

Its his philosophy, you shouldn't follow it or think about it, its his. Stop spooking him.

Can you explain this?

Take a look over this thread we have already explained why this is an incorrect understanding of what is meant by spook.

Can someone explain why commies from /leftypol/ love Stirner so much when he's basically an anarcho-capitalist that justifies slavery and exploitation.

Don't anarcho-capatalists have spooks like the NAP or similar?

>so much when he's basically an anarcho-capitalist that justifies slavery and exploitation.

His egoism justifies slavery as a much as it opposes it. Its the same when it comes to socialism.

bump

Yes it is.

He just peddles another ideology as a solution.

All these words and not a single argument

>i can keep on being a moral servant of the state and he can't do shit about it
Why would he give a shit? You managed to miss every single point

Isn't a spook a social construct/idea that's held sacred and put before your self-interest? Not just an idea/social construct?

So basically you're butthurt because Max stopped your precious game, and think he's cheating, while not seeing how cheating is impossible, i.e. you're a scrub.

They're meme-starved, and doing the equivalent of those Haitians who eat mud cookies.

Where does Stirner say in any of his works that one should or must get rid of spooks?

...

>he's basically an anarcho-capitalist

I feel that philosophical Taoism might be useful in helping people get a gentler picture of Stirner. He states his point with such absolute hostile directness that it's winds up very easy to misinterpret it as more extreme than it actually is.

'Spook' is a racist slur and Stirner is a bigot.

...

I'll try to address what I perceive to be the salient passages.

>Stirner knows his own doctrine does not have a leg to stand on, that the whole exercise he engages in is contradictory. His whole project is a failure simply because it's a contradiction. The only way you could consider it a success is if you think the overall outcome is that you have the ability to question or attack ideology. But that is hardly a quality specific to Stirner's writings, it's simply the ability to think critically, and it's what most philosophers with a system of thought have done throughout history.

Wouldn't it however be fair to say he encourages people to go further in their critiques of philosophy-ideology-tradition-and-so-on-and-on-and-on then previous Western thinkers?
Also, the quote seems to be addressing Stirner as if he was far more universal, when it was more of a critique of the modes of thinking in his era.

> Except Stirner appears to be inferior to most of them because where every other philosopher attacks the previous prevailing ideology and replaces its center in its own coherent if not infallible manner, Stirner simply attacks these ideologies with no center to prevail in replacement[.]

Didn't Stirner argue that self-interest should serve to replace ideology, which built up from individuals?

>You're getting short-changed and fucked in the ass. And on the other hand there are numerous more in-depth attempts to address the contradictory logic of negation Stirner is using, from Zen to Deconstruction.

I'm not sure what is meant by this, as Stirner was an influence for Deconstructionism, and when you speak of Zen, you speak of a philosophical tradition outside of the West.

The quote seems to lack substance, or at least precision in what it is taking issue with.

bump

What are the foundations of his arguments?

What would you have to demonstrate or prove for them to be incorrect?

*sniff

It isn't though. The idea of something being a spook is a fixed idea that removes yourself of your own power.

The concept of spooks doesn't remove you of any power, it would be empowering were it not for the fact that the power was within you all along.

>Stirner
>Ancap
Anarcho-capitalism makes a particular moral argument and without it private property simply has no meaning beyond the force used to maintain it (as Stirner points out), and as Stirner also points out were the workers to realize their power anarcho-capitalism would quickly collapse into a worker's society resembling communism.

Not to mention Stirner doesn't justify anything, he simply points out what is and what isn't.

bump

A spook is just something in your mind that you unconsciously don't realiZe it's just an idea in your mind and you hold this unconscious idea to have interests or authority or basically any sort of influence over yourself

So examples are things like the state, the family unit, an sort of moral ideology that isn't just your own direct judgment, any authority at all basically eg the law, etc

Basically what stormer is getting at is trying to make you realiZe that spooks are unconscious first person judgments of authority hat you don't understand are your own judgments

So put it like this, let's say you hold the bible as the source of objective morality. The spook here is thinking hat this is something outside imposed on you, the authority of Jesus judgment, but what stormer means is that one must first, under their own moral authority decide as an ego that the source of objective morality is Jesus. So instead moral authority is your own personal judgment under your own authority you have decided (unconsciously) to assert and accept the bible as the source if moral authority. So it is YOU under your own authority imposing from inwards to outwards. Stormer is just trying to get you to understand this ie get you to become conscious of your unconscious assertion of moral authority (you authorise under your own judgment that the source if moral authority is the bible)

Basically stormer is saying all authority is yourself under your own judgment authorising hat authority. The spook part being that most people are totally unaware of their own authority and judgment here. The state does not impose it's authority on you rather the citizens egoistic ally authorise/accept/judge for he selves that the States authority is legitimate

It is always already your own judgment and authority, nothing ever imposes from the outside onto within, it is always the ego judging under their own authority the legitimacy and acceptance of the outside source

>His egoism justifies slavery as a much as it opposes it. Its the same when it comes to socialism.

Can you expand a bit on this? I honestly don't understand.

Why the capitals "Z"

He's about to drop a mix-tape.

As long as spooks have meaning to someone, they have meaning to you. That doesn't mean they have the same meaning to you as to someone else.

Is pizza a spook?

bump