> yfw you have to reject morality to be free from all the spooks
> yfw you have to reject reason to be free from all the spooks
> yfw this leaves you with no rationale to seek after personal autonomy and no reason to agree with Stirner's conclusions in the first place
I'd be eager to hear the arguments Stirnerians have against this. Oh, wait.
how the hell is reason a spook?
He was a spook and his way is a spook. Here's a tip: fuck his shitty ideology.
Rules of inference and relations of entailment between propositions are fixed forms of thought.
Stirner doesn't say you have to reject morality and reason, he just says they shouldn't be tyrants over you.
Learn to read you stupid fuck.
spooks are only things that don't exist. reason is an actual thing that allows me to further my self-interest
spooks are things that impel you to action in an absolute way. stirner says you and you alone should be what impels you to act, he's the ultimate liberal.
spooks are just things that people tend to believe are a higher source of authority than themselves, like a person might treat moral law like physical law, even though you don't have to obey moral law.
i seriously don't get why this is so hard for people.
So you can follow accept them or reject them whenever you like? Then how are his arguments and values supposed to compel anyone to follow them if they don't have any convincing power? Seems that to accept his philosophy is to reject his philosophy.
I like them.
A...are those crocs? That picture just got way less arousing for me.
See
There is no conflict you can use reason and make moral judgements without being subservient to them
but reason isn't a "higher source of authority". it's just a process of the brain
> reason is an actual thing
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. And besides, "fixed forms of thought" seem to exist as well which is basically what a spook is.
>So you can follow accept them or reject them whenever you like?
Yes
>Then how are his arguments and values supposed to compel anyone to follow them if they don't have any convincing power?
He's trying to state facts about the world, not tell you what to do
>Seems that to accept his philosophy is to reject his philosophy.
Depends on what you mean, you sublate it, you don't negate it.
Hedonist.
if you treat reason as a tool for your own ends, it's fine, stirner is criticizing when people say "we all must be reasonable" or other forms of turning reason into an authority, scientific authority, whatever, you choose whether to respect that faculty of humans or not. there's nothing a priori wrong about being entirely unreasonable and killing everybody, it's basically just your preference.
birkenstocks
Everyone here is a spook since according to Stirner, living is a spook.
He's doing more than stating facts, he's arranging the facts into philosophical arguments using logic and reason which are supposed to be spooks. And given how the self-discovery of mind is supposed to overcome the restrictions of objective reality the idea of objective fact shouldn't be very appealing to a stirnerian anyway.
great post m8 can you post it twice since it's so ebin
What is with these shitty spook threads
>He's doing more than stating facts, he's arranging the facts into philosophical arguments using logic and reason which are supposed to be spooks.
That's a total misunderstanding of what Stirner is getting at. I get you're trying to do a clever/funny thing, but it just doesn't work.
>And given how the self-discovery of mind is supposed to overcome the restrictions of objective reality the idea of objective fact shouldn't be very appealing to a stirnerian anyway.
stirner isn't really against facts in the sense of scientific realism, physical laws. in fact that's pretty much the most important thing to stirner
marx is really the only good response to stirner, and that's only in how he reorders important in what material pushes what in society.
really stupid people like to give criticisms to stirner despite not understanding him at all.
at least there haven't been any Nietzsche worship threads in a long time
> stirner isn't really against facts in the sense of scientific realism, physical laws.
I don't see why not. Any ontology that forms the backdrop for an interpretation of scientific data is still an ideology. And the institutions that exist for verifying and publishing scientific consensus are still political, even if their main goal is truth and not control. And the methodologies are fixed and established ways of thinking if there ever were any. I suppose a Stirnerian could get on board with scientific realism if he was in the mood, but not in any principled way.
it doesn't say anywhere in Stirner's book to get rid of all spooks, it only defines what they are and that they aren't real
I would make them, but people here are idiots and get caught up on irrelevant and trivial nothings.
>Any ontology that forms the backdrop for an interpretation of scientific data is still an ideology.
That's not related to what I'm talking about. Look my terms up in the SEP.
>And the institutions that exist for verifying and publishing scientific consensus are still political,
Yes.
>And the methodologies are fixed and established ways of thinking if there ever were any.
Yes.
>I suppose a Stirnerian could get on board with scientific realism if he was in the mood, but not in any principled way.
Yes.