2016

>2016
>still being a slave to spooks

Daily reminder that any ideology you follow only serves itself, not you.

some ideologies do serve you in one way or another, though. in fact most do. that's how they maintain themselves.

it would be more accurate to say that any ideology you follow is likely serving somebody else more than it's serving you.

I don't understand why Veeky Forums is so obsessed with Marx Stirner.

Everybody on here has been exposed to him by now, we're all familiar with "spooks", most of us weren't terribly blown away by the idea. Can we please move on now?

>2016
>still shitposting meme-philosophers

>we're all familiar with "spooks"
unfortunately not even remotely true. most people think it's just a fallacious label for things you dislike.

most of us were horribly offended by it so not really until it stops generating butthurt

If people stopped posting spooks we wouldn't have a reason to mention him.

on a more serious note it seems that we have a lot of obsessive autists on this board who will keep on reposting over and over the same meme (myself included). Before spookposting got extremely common on Veeky Forums Voltaire and HRE threads were spammed into oblivion for at least a whole month for dying down to acceptable levels. I suppose this could just be the board's next fad for spamming before we move on to someone else.

stirner has been around on Veeky Forums for years, been on Veeky Forums since the beginning and is here to stay.

stirnerposting should be a bannable offence

I know, I'm just saying that right now might be his day in the sun with unusually high levels of posting on this board, just like we had with Voltaire. HRE threads haven't gone away but there was a time were we had 2 or 3 every day and nearly every thread someone post a variation of
>
>
>

I don't want stirner to go nor do I think he will, I just think he might be replaced as top meme

Daily reminder that Stirner's greatest mistake was not realising that ego is a spook too.

get outta here retard

there is phenomenological evidence of the "self", and no evidence to the contrary.

If any of you had actually read Stirner you'd realise that there's nothing to be buttmad about.

>spooks
not an argument friend

>We can perceive ourselves, therefore self-serving isn't a construct
Did you reply to the wrong post?

how about you argue against the specific spooks labeling them spooks does nothing.

I think even Stirner simply thought the ego a starting point rather than an absolute

>argument
that's a spook

>Comments on concepts without understanding them
Ego: 6
Int: 3

lolololol

self serving isn't a construct though, it's an action. like walking or pissing. are walking and pissing artificial constructs?

stirner elaborated on phenomenological evidence of the "self", thought I don't recall where in the book. someone let me know if they just happen to randomly know the page number so I can add it to my screencap collection.

understand the material pls

labeling something a "spook" is a shorthand argument. it's declaring "your statement/argument is invalid because it has artificial/subjective bases".

That's just begging the question in that it assumes subjective or artificial premises are automatically to be discarded.

I hope this is a joke

The idea that "we should be self serving" is a construct, which is clearly what I meant.

That depends on your concept of validity.

It's not.

Prove that hard materialism is worth following.

Daily reminder that you can literally sum up Stirner and egoists in less than a minute.

Look, it's a history and humanities board, it's safe to say we're going to argue about subjective things on here, occasionally. Often. Constantly.

It's also safe to assume that the people doing so have their reasons. Maybe they disagree that whatever particular thing is being discussed is in fact a spook. Maybe they admit that it's a spook but feel like it's worth discussing anyway. Maybe they think Stirner's a twat and reject the whole idea of spooks.

Disagree with them on any of those counts? Fine. Fair enough. Start a thread about it. "Is [x] a spook?" "Are spooks ever worth arguing about, once you've all agreed they're spooks?" "Was Stirner a twat?"

But bursting into completely unrelated threads and wailing about how YOU ALL KEEP ARGUING ABOUT SPOOKS just derails threads and shits up an otherwise-decent board.

i subjectively believe so

no, it is not clearly what you meant whatsoever, your words in quotation marks are a fresh concept. they are also an "ought" that is irrelevant to stirner's work. he doesn't argue that you "should" act within your self interest, simply that you can.

>
But bursting into completely unrelated threads and wailing about how YOU ALL KEEP ARGUING ABOUT SPOOKS just derails threads and shits up an otherwise-decent board.
helping people understand what subjective reasoning is improves the board state. quit being salty because someone proved the milk in your corn flakes isn't actually real.

Fug. Got me there.

Strinerposting isn't as destructive as you think it is

No he didn't.

Everybody already understands what subjective reasoning is. This isn't exactly rocket science, it's a pretty basic concept to grasp.

It's not that people haven't been exposed to the concept. They've been exposed, and they've either rejected it, or they still feel like discussing whatever they were discussing anyway. Why? Who knows. Ask them. There's enough reasons to go around, including "Fuck you, we just both feel like it."

I don't think it's destroying Veeky Forums or anything, but it sure is annoying. It's the (much less racist) equivalent of /pol/ putting three parenthesis around whatever they don't want to discuss.

You must be a buttblasted ancap, because the only time Stirner gets pulled out full force to not discuss a topic is ancap because muh property spook. And it's a perfectly valid argument unlike saying ancap scholars are Jews, which they are.

>no, it is not clearly what you meant whatsoever, your words in quotation marks are a fresh concept.
Perhaps you misinterpreted me because I was more succinct than clear.

>they are also an "ought" that is irrelevant to stirner's work. he doesn't argue that you "should" act within your self interest, simply that you can.
So Stirner doesn't endorse valuing ego?

Oh, shush. You know perfectly well he gets pulled out in all sorts of circumstances -- whenever anybody's criticized on moral grounds, for instance.

>Remind me what was so bad about the Japanese Empire, Veeky Forums?
>Well, they sure killed a lot of people ...

>2016
>being this spooked

You described it as
>It's the (much less racist) equivalent of /pol/ putting three parenthesis around whatever they don't want to discuss.
That pretty much only happens when ancap comes up. Someone tossing in an occasional meme Stirner is not the same.

trolled

you are delusional mate stirner posting annoys more than ancaps

isn't this a fucking humanities board?

literally not the reality.

Spookism is just a less comprehensive and true version of buddhism. Without open heart there is no open mind.

No it's not.

You don't know what a spook is

I just read this thread and I don't know what a spook is.

you say that, but you don't elaborate. read the material, it's even been posted in this thread.