Memes aside, was he a good thinker?

why does Max look like the teacher from The Wall in that comic?

A spook is any idea you put above your self interest. Anything you want can not be a spook, so long as you are using it to further your goals.

Yes.

Nietzsche and Marx both clearly plagiarised him.

>who pretty much every actual philosopher ignores.

That's because every ''''''''''''''''''''''''actual'''''''''''''''''''' philosopher is in love with their spooks.

>dark sarcasm in the classroom

what's the difference between goals and spooks?

Nothing

The evidence for Nietzsche is circumstantial at best and Marx wrote a shitload more than Stirner ever thought of.

Stirner is still cool but let's not go too far.

if your goal is related to your self-interest then it's not a spook

>quantity and quality are the same thing

James Patterson has written more than Ovid, but you'd be retarded to think that was any commentary on the quality of their writing.

Stirner wrote one decent book, Nietzsche wrote over a dozen and Marx wrote as much as Nietzsche.

>Nietzsche wrote over a dozen and Marx wrote as much as Nietzsche.
And? Judge the author by the content of his writings, not the amount of them

Stirner has less to say than Nietzsche and Marx, and thusly said less of importance. Stirner is not as great as you seem to imply. I like Stirner but seriously, it's not the greatest book ever written.

Stirner is like Koran, and Nietzsche is like the Hadith. The Hadith is bigger, more relevant and applicable, but the Koran is the word of the holy spook.

I didn't say that it was the greatest book ever written. But it's retarded to say others were better simply by sheer volume.

>every actual philosopher ignores
Because they can't deal with him and they realize it.
t. Adorno

How do you get
>less important
from
>less volume

...

That's maybe true for you, but not for me.

It's good I never said that then.

>DUDE SPOOKS LMAO

no. Hes for edgy teenagers

>covers less topics
>makes quite a few errors
>a good half of the book is crap/nonsense

You may like it because it affirms your fedora world view..

>self-interestedness is for teenagers

self-interestedness has it's place in an adult life.

>the moment you realize that self-interest is a spook

>everythings a spook man XD just like kill everyone its not even worth it XD

doesn't sound very adult to me

>ethnostates with a strong border control is le spook man
>clearly in my self interest to keep the community i live in and as many surrounding communities as possible free of third world savages
Fucking edgy LARPing commushit teenagers don't even know how to interpret the shitty philosophy they're constantly invoking

He was certainly consistent

Stirner isn't leftist, the kids at leftypol just like to suck his dick even though Stirner and Marx are incompatible. (lol)

The left-right spectrum and ideology in general is a spook.

Does this mean that Stirner was more important than all the presocratics and that Rand was more important than Aristotle?

What are the errors made by Stirner?

>incompatible

Marx's critique of capitalist ideology in Capital is 100% applicable to stirner's ideas.

You've gotta remember what Marx was about before the Manifesto. Dude was absolutely a member of the Spookbusters, making western society aware of their own implicit mystification of commodities/capital.

agreeing on stuff =/= compatible

Working for one man (capitalist) or a collective (communist) are spooks unless you're exploiting it somehow for your own gain. Marx's collectivism simply isn't compatible with Stirner's extreme individualism

Marx =/= communism

The majority of his ideas are simply deconstructions of the dominant ideology within capitalism. The communism aspect of his thought is nearly a footnote in his philosophical career. The bulk of Marx's thought is in line with Stirner's egoism (and actually communism itself is too but you just haven't read enough about it)

But that's precisely what Marx changed. He chained it from people should do stuff for the collective good because of utopian spooks, and redefined socialism in terms of exploitation of the individual, and how it is in the prole's self interest to seize the means of production for themselves. This is why he had an increasing focus on economics.

People get confused because Marx could not completely divorce utopian communism. But he made a compromise. You can't jump straight into utopian communism, and you need post scarcity. Once you have post scarcity, you don't have much of a reason to fight over property.

Waste of paper

Why would i kill anyone if thay would result in me eventually getting killed by others you fucking dumbass

Spook literally means "something you put above your self interest". Stop the meta memes, read the book and make better criticism next time thank you.

...

>t. user who never actually read Stirner's work

Those meme posters are the fucking worst man I swear.

The people posting his stuff are the biggest hypocrits too.

what did Stirner actually say? I knew sind edgy kid who was always boasting about him but he couldn't really tell me anything about him or his theories

Stop being such a retard about this. You know what I mean.

Basically alot of things you want are secretly transformed into being something against you, so instead of trusting that what you're doing is good, you should think more self-interestedly so you can tell if it's actually in your benefit.

Absolutely. His work is rock solid.

I don't have much wrong with him but to say something is a spook and leave it at that is not an argument and is a meme. I am sure most know this.

Yeah that volume and variety are only relevant when it is convenient for the point you are trying to push

Bumping for an answer to this

>he hasn't read Marx's response to Saint Max

>Marx being right about anything

*tips*

you asked for stirner's errors, and then refuse to read the text that best speaks about them

I'm not that user

You didnt answer the question, what were all those errors in Stirner's book?

Why the fuck would I kill everyone?

You know what else is a spook? That I can't drive nails into my dick. That's a spook, if you think you can't do that, you made that up.

I'm still not going to drive nails in my dick.

It looks like neither of you understand what a Spook is

If you mean that it's socially unacceptable to drive a nail into your dick, sure

he creates alot of spooky metaphysical memes about things and doesn't explain or recognize it

cf. the entire section on the development of man from a boy to a man, he just asserts it and makes dozens of dubious claims

to start

Sure I do. A spook is any sort of mental construct you derive out of the external world using your creative nothing, and then ascribe and independent life to. Hence a 'spook' a thing which isn't real, but you act as if it is.

'You can't drive nails into your dick' can be justified any number of ways you like. Naturalism: "Normal humans don't drive nails into their dicks."
Prescriptive Self-Interest: "It's not in your self-interest to harm yourself."
Universal Imperative: "If everyone drove nails into their dicks, we'd go extinct. Therefor you can't drive nails into your dick."

All of these are spooks. Mental constructs that are sometimes useful, but ultimately your own creation.

This guy concludes that because most reasons for not killing people were spooks, you 'should' kill someone. This is doubly spooky, because even when rejected, the idea of 'you shouldn't kill people' he thinks has power over him. "It's not true that you shouldn't kill people, therefor I am obligated to kill people!" He hasn't thought about his genuine self-interest in so long, he jumps to engaging in a behavior simply because he's imagined it's been 'prohibited'.

The 'nails through your dick' example is meant to serve a point. Even if you lifted the restrictions, legal and ethical and driving a nail through your dick, you wouldn't want to do it, so the fact that no one stopping you doesn't matter. Perhaps most people, if they looked at what they REALLY want out of life wouldn't put 'murder' near the top.

Socially or morally was what I had in mind. Pretty sure the bible and catechism, for example, think it's morally unacceptable.

I see, the only reason I said you did not understand was because of your term " I cant" rather than " I shouldnt"

>cf. the entire section on the development of man from a boy to a man, he just asserts it and makes dozens of dubious claims

Wasnt that just him mocking Hegel's genealogical theory of the development of ideas and taking a shot at the German Government without getting his book banned?

What are those other metaphysical spooky memes?

"I can't" is, I'd say, the more frequent formulation of spook, and it usually takes a load of demanded self-examination to get them back down to "I shouldn't."

I get where you are coming from now. I retract that sentiment for what it is worth

>not an argument
The problem with the 'not an argument' meme is that it assumes we're having Serious Discussions.

Thank you, my property ;)

I currently derive great satisfaction from reconciling misunderstandings regarding Stirner. Thanks for the temporary union

>Wasnt that just him mocking Hegel's genealogical theory of the development of ideas and taking a shot at the German Government without getting his book banned?
Nope.

It's amazing how often the 'this part of the book is so bad the audience thought he was joking' comes up in philosophy.

>looking to buy a copy to put on my shelf
>see this
>Credited with influencing the philosophies of Nietzsche and Ayn Rand and the development of libertarianism and existentialism
>Ayn Rand
>the most spooked person to have ever lived
Jesus fucking Christ, creating spooks to advocate for individualism is not the same as arriving at individualism by busting spooks.

>>everythings a spook man XD just like kill everyone its not even worth it XD
kek

>libertarians
>based entirely on the property spook
>the property spook stirner completely destroys

Not to mention Ayn Rands the fucking definition of turning 'self-interest' into a spook.

Something people who claim to have read Stirner don't seem to grasp. Just because someone only does things for self-interest doesn't mean someone else can't make you do what they want, as long as they make it in your self interest.

If someone puts a knife to your throat, it's suddenly in your best interest to do what they tell you to, even if it means buying them a a gun to put to your head.

Stirner and Marx are intimately intertwined

Spooks = commodity fetishism

It really was a Hegel mocking though

Not taking a side in this argument, I am just saying I have seen this argument with other philosophers and it's weird.

What makes you say no? It's a point that has no real bearing on his argument, doesn't appear in his other works/ get targeted by his critics and combined with the fact he has a tounge in cheek theme in the rest of the book.
Do you have any examples of stirner being in error / creating spooks outside of this contested point?

>Not taking a side in this argument, I am just saying I have seen this argument with other philosophers and it's weird.

Dont look at is as weird and an attempt to hide shitty passages look at it as people trying to assess context.

For instance the Prince which is what most famously gets accused of this is based not on machiboos trying to protect their idol but people comparing the prince with his own political life and other writings.

With Stirner at his time Hegel was a philosophical rockstar whose philosophy formed the foundation of the group that Stirner associated with and whom he set out to directly mock and dismantle in his work, particularly Feuerbach.

>lit
>wanting to actually read

>Dont look at is as weird and an attempt to hide shitty passages look at it as people trying to assess context.
Oh yeah, it's just weird how much this specific theory comes up. The Prince is another great example, but I was thinking of Descartes's "god must be neccesarily good" argument.

>Oh yeah, it's just weird how much this specific theory comes up.

Whenever you are dealing with old works its always a possibility, with better known figures (as in their lives, other works and the time they lived in ) it becomes easier to figure it out.

Some of these questions become apparent when we have a more in depth look at their work ie Macci and Shakespeare

For others- and much to the chargrin of the people studied in them- its when one has less knowledge of the work, which tends to happen a lot when people read ancient writers without even looking at the footnotes or introductions

...

hypocrisy is a spook

I've read Saint Max. It wasn't that good and completely missed Max's point. It mostly made Marx look like an egotistic sperg who didn't know what he was talking about.

And to be clear, I mean egotistic in the sense of narcissism, not in the sense of being concerned with his own interests.

Damn...

He disregards too many factors, for example the power of collective spooks and their power to hold together a working society

Expecting respectful, thoughtful, insightful and intellectual discourse is a spook.

you need glasses

>that file name.

my sides

He doesnt he identifies what spooks are but doesn't really go on to ignore that they influence peoples actions.

Indeed he even goes on to talk about how even if he thought his ideas would wreck society he would still release them