Every abstraction I don't like is a spook

>every abstraction I don't like is a spook
>every abstraction I do like isn't a spook
>live your life for yourself, unless that means devoting your life to a spook
>it's ok to devote yourself to abstractions I like
>if you want to devote yourself to a spook, it's because you've been tricked, you can't actually want anything I don't like
Is there anyone dumber than Stirnerfags?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Give me ten examples of good abstractions.

>Is there anyone dumber than Stirnerfags?
They're annoying, yes.

The axioms that allow for us to navigate the world. The axioms that allow for math.

That's already a lot there.

Stirnerites can't argue worth shit. It's the same problem a lot of Continentals like Deleuze have. If you can wade through their obscruantism, then you'd just find a bunch of tautological crap that is actually poorly substantiated.

you have never read stirner and you've fallen for the memes too literally

But the first two are patently wrong. There's a pretty clear definition of what is and is not a spook, and those aren't it.

Any abstraction can be a spook, any abstraction can be an exercise of conscious egoism.

Also, if you devote yourself to a spook, you're likely just pursuing your egoism in a roundabout, dishonest fashion.

Thinking is a spook.

Those are fine. You utilize them to your advantage in your daily life. But would you try to serve either? Would you try to treat either as sacred objects that could never be violated or altered?

This is what idiots like yourself (and a lot of Stirner posters) don't grasp. His message is not "never value abstractions" his message is that ideas are just tools, nothing more.

The concept of spooks is a spook

A truth is not an ideology that is possessing you. A truth is something you yourself can possess to your advantage.

>talking shit about continental philosophy

Pleb.

See, the thing about Stirnerfags is that no matter how much they whine about MUH SPOOKS, they, by simple virtue of living in the western world, are enslaved by them. Hypocrisy at its finest

Explain.

Daily reminder that people who use the term Spook haven't read The Ego and It's Own, nor Stirner's Critics and have little base of understanding his thoughts outside of the Wikipedia article.

Money? Spook.
Taxes? Undeniably a spook.
Punishment? 100% spook
Cultural norms we all have to abide by unless we look autistic or retarded? I can't believe it's not spook

All abstractions are spooks but some of them are compatible with your self-interest. Stirner never says to get rid of all spooks.

Read the book, it's not long.

Ok, and a Stirnerite wouldn't serve any of those as though they were sacred. They utilize them to their advantage.

Spooks are abstractions with normative content, you dumb shitposter

To be fair to that guy, it's very dense, and reading it is a lot harder than shitposting.

>>every abstraction I don't like is a spook
Yes
>>every abstraction I do like is also a spook
ftfy
>>live your life for yourself, which means not devoting your life to a spook
ftfy
>>it's ok to devote yourself to abstractions you like
ftfy
>>if you want to devote yourself to a spook, it's because you've been tricked
ftfy

But sometimes it isn't advantageous at all, maybe even harmful, yet we still do it

Only in the short term. People also ignore such things quite regularly. The number of people that smoke pot should be an example.

>Pleb.
I probably understand continental philosophers better than you.

>But would you try to serve either? Would you try to treat either as sacred objects that could never be violated or altered?
Yes because they make experience sensible. Tools can become sacred because they give life to what is inherently lifeless. The tool becomes inseparable from what is being used on it, etc.

Sounds spooky.

I responded to you here, faggot:

>Sounds spooky.
Anything relating to metaphysics is called a spook by Stirnerites, but they don't realize they also buy into an presuppose an implicit metaphysics.

Try again, faggot. Learn to debate.

>also buy into an presuppose
they also presuppose*

>Yes because they make experience sensible.

No, I'd wager you, like everyone else, is quite willing to deny what's sensible when your own emotions are felt more important than reason. Everyone has their line in the sand that they wont cross.

>Tools can become sacred because they give life to what is inherently lifeless. The tool becomes inseparable from what is being used on it, etc.

Tools are tools, only an idiot would ever consider them sacred. You utilize them when doing so is to your benefit, and discard them when they're not to your benefit. What you're proposing is tantamount to expecting that we should use sledgehammers for surgery, because the sledgehammer is really good at smashing.

Dude, people dismiss anything they don't like on Veeky Forums just for the hell of it. Getting butthurt about it just shows that should consider reddit.

Someone who actually understood Stirner's work would only call a metaphysical construct a spook if some rube was trying to treat it as untouchable and sacred, as people treat God, morality, nation, etc.

>as people treat God, morality, nation, etc.
Notice how equality and class weren't included? ;^)

Not her, but equality and class are also spooky when regarded as sacred, hence the etc.

Because I didn't feel like making a longer list? I'm no communist. I'm not equal to anyone else, nor is anyone else equal to anyone else.

Further the idea of serving class as a sacred thing is inane.

Unbelievable people think like this

You do know that people can pick and choose what they don't like from certain philosophies to settle their own needs?

Tribalism in itself, is retarded.

>a metaphysical construct a spook if some rube was trying to treat it as untouchable and sacred,
I am not a metaphysical or methodological solipsism, but I feel epistemological solipsism is an undeniable fact. My abstractions are unique unto myself, the only good thing Deleuze argued, and thus the fact they are sacred to me is enough to defend the validity of constructions on an individual level.

Representational theory of mind is an inherently epistemologically solipsist viewpoint, and I do not like enactivism.

That's fine, but why treat them as sacred, why limit yourself in such a fashion? You're already amorphous and ever growing, so why not embrace this?

Where did the egotists touch you user?

>why treat them as sacred, why limit yourself in such a fashion?
Because that involves abandoning personal identity and one's preferences. It involves a dissolution of the entire world as you know, since it is a projection of your mind or a collection of mental representations.

>You're already amorphous and ever growing, so why not embrace this?
Look up Clive Wearing. He can only have 6 second memory and can no longer form new explicit memories. Sometimes he experiences the amorphous and ever growing nature of reality as "monstrous". Even Deleuze called "Becoming monstrous". One needs constructs that give the illusion of numerical similarity between two time-slices of a thing in order to navigate the world. Without constructs, Becoming makes every movement simultaneously arise and perish, as if one is being engulfed in pure novelty.

It is the projection of similarities in a nominalistic world that makes us human, but the unreal constructs are real:

" Passing through the gateway between the Land of Illusion and reality one can read the guiding principle behind the book Story of the Stone:

Truth becomes fiction when the fiction's true;
Real becomes not-real where the unreal's real."

I think he's that Heideggerian that keeps making metaphysics threads and calling people brainlets. He's probably just mad because someone called something he said a spook.

>movement simultaneously
moment simultaneously

This reality is nothing but a collection of spooks. Spooks are unavoidable, and I'm not a Heideggerian. I agree with Derrida's criticisms of Heidegger as being logocentric. Dasein is poorly argued.

Binaries are indeterminate and always have a third variable that threatens them. The "trace" shows how there is an interweaving movement between absence and presence underlying meaning.

My dream is my own, and you cannot undermine its validity by calling it a "spook". My spook shall enshroud your spooks and engulf you. I am Buddha. Hear me roar.

Read Julius Evola and get rekt.

>Because that involves abandoning personal identity and one's preferences.

Except not really. It just means acknowledging that you're never in a state of absolute finality and that what makes you, you doesn't exist in any sort of absolute sense. You're in a constant state of becoming already, you've just chosen to grasp on to a rock in the hopes you wont be swept away by the river.

>Look up Clive Wearing. He can only have 6 second memory and can no longer form new explicit memories. Sometimes he experiences the amorphous and ever growing nature of reality as "monstrous". Even Deleuze called "Becoming monstrous". One needs constructs that give the illusion of numerical similarity between two time-slices of a thing in order to navigate the world. Without constructs, Becoming makes every movement simultaneously arise and perish, as if one is being engulfed in pure novelty.

I'm not sure why this has to be repeated infinitely, but the aim isn't to rid yourself of constructs, but to acknowledge that these constructs aren't set in stone. They can and do change, and whether you realize it or not, the constructs you hold dear now will almost certainly be worthless to you at a later date as they'll continue to change along with yourself.

The unreal constructs are real in the same sense anything is (the distinct between objects for instance is a strictly mental one, not universal). But it's not about ditching constructs for the sake of ditching them, as that would be silly, but being prepared to abandon them or alter them as necessary.

Also bear with me, I have no formal education in philosophy, so a lot of the jargon goes over my head. I've read some books, that's it.

>Except not really.
Explicit memory works by way of creating the falseness of a spectrum of similarities whereas the world apart from phenomenal experience is pure difference, using Deleuzian terminology here. It is just Deleuzian Haecceity but explicit memory creates the illusion of cohesion and similarity. Therefore, even if the phenomenal experience is still a constant state of becoming, the illusion of similarity it creates is real, hence the Story of the Stone quote I gave.

>to acknowledge that these constructs aren't set in stone
Yes they are. Look at how meaning is always differed and the ethos of language. In fact, language is steeped in the metaphors and symbols of our forbears, and they are constantly transforming, meaning their seeds never left. There is a genealogy to everything, especially to language and ethos, which we are stepeped in.

The illusion is passed on by way of illusion. There is a third pill, the reality of the virtual itself.

>being prepared to abandon them or alter them as necessary.
Yet the illusion of similarity remains. For example, just the previous moment you consider yourself the same, and likewise, you continue the illusion of being the same even now. It is like an illusion that is passed on from individual and community basis.

The world is Heraclitean fiery flux but the world of archetypes, constructs, and so forth are fuzzy rocks. Read my Story of the Stone quote again.

bbl

I have my doubts that anything ideological is as set in stone as you claim, but if it is as you claim, these constructs can't really be touched one way or another. So treating them as sacred would still be absurd. You don't treat a rock as sacred, because it would be pointless to do so, the rock will be regardless.

>autism

It's not set in stone, but it is always being passed on and transforming is what I said, and rocks have been worshiped frequently throughout history (e.g., Druids). Disregarding one's ethos and being a leftist Stirnerite degenerate is the best way to destroy one's country. Concepts like good and evil are passed on in our ethos and the constructs are given reality; abandoning them will lead to chaos, hence why I think Stirnerites aret faggots who don't understand the dangers of a stateless society. Even the Holocaust happened during a period of statelessness. Check out the book Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning.

>rekt

Check here, leftist fag:

Did he intentionally never have any pictures of himself taken?


If so that shit is super tryhard

He knew he'll become a bigger meme if people have to rely on using an image of him looking devilish instead of photos.

youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs

this might help, if not just read the book

My country doesn't exist, and neither do good or evil.

>Concepts like good and evil are passed on in our ethos and the constructs are given reality; abandoning them will lead to chaos

I doubt it. The idea of good and evil in your Judeo-Christian idiocy is comparatively recent in human history. Preferable versus non-preferable works fine.

>hence why I think Stirnerites aret faggots who don't understand the dangers of a stateless society.

Don't care.

>Even the Holocaust happened during a period of statelessness.

No, the holocaust happened under a state with then-unprecedented power.

>Check out the book Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning.

No.

That video is terrible btw.

Black Earth offers a "radically new explanation" of the Holocaust.[1] The title is drawn from the fertile black earth of Ukraine, the region where Adolf Hitler planned to replace the population with Germans, giving the German "race" new "living space" (German: Lebensraum).[2] Race, and the idea of the world as a space in which races compete and stronger races replace weaker ones, was, according to Snyder, central to Hitler's thinking. Hitler, according to Snyder, was not a nationalist.[2] Rather, he saw nationalism and sovereign states as tools, useful to achieving his goal of eliminating government and enabling a pure, natural order in which races struggle and only the strongest survive.[2] According to Snyder, Hitler saw Jews as obstacles because the ideas enabling individual humans to view one another as human beings originated with the Jews, and it is the humanitarian ideas perpetuated by Jews that prevents the world from reverting to its natural order.[2] According to Snyder, in Hitler's mind, the way to enable the natural world of brutal racial competition to exist, was to eliminate the Jews.[2]


:DDDD

>her

What the fuck.

why

Isn't it funny how people who autisticly try to argue against Stirner, end up being delusional ideologues?

>you're right but we need to suppress you for the benefit of my "country"
>mfw

Literally spooking me right now. You are justifying oppressing me with your spooks so that "society" (the greatest number) will benefit at my expense. This is smelly utilitarianism. You don't actually disagree with Stirner, rather, you are unable to accept the logical consequences of his reasoning. You flee back into to the embryonic sack of ideology, to the comfort of your preferred spook, because you do not have the will, or the power to overcome them!

also this:

He makes some big errors like, Stirner thought people are morally good and that he was for private property.

Iknow he said that Stirner thought people were morally good, which is incorrect, but I dont remember him saying he was for private property.

Either way, would you agree that it is a nice introduction to the world that Stirner lived in and his basic ideas?

Thank you. You argued it much better than I ever could have.

Also, fuck utilitarianism. Worst moral stance to have ever been conceived.

He said basically good, which he likely meant in a colloquial sense, rather than a moralistic sense. As in people can function just fine in cooperation without some watchdog or grand moral system.

>1856

You're missing the point of rejecting spooks.

Arbitrary societal constructs can benefit the individual but Stirner argues that one should be able to differentiate and reject pre-conceived standards that are detrimental to the self.

Replace like/dont like with not more important than me/something you consider more inportant than yourself

>When a Nazi read TEAHO