>>3335653

How can you be too stupid, to get Stirner? It's literally just extreme egoism, my ego > whatever shit the world cares about. Morale? Duties? made by someone else, don't care, not my own. "Mir geht nichts über mich". A spook is obviously every outside force trying to impact or dictate your life, it's not a law of nature and you can choose not to follow it.

Now if I'm understanding your question, then:
You're doing this out of self-interest, so there's no problem with that. A spook would be more of you choosing someone you disagree with to represent the political circle, simply because it would be "patriotic" or whatnot. Stirner explains we're all incomprehendible individuals, so for someone, their self-interest would be to be altruistic, for the other it might be selfish.

Love as a strong feeling of affection is not a spook. The idealized version of "Love" you see in movies or read in cheap stories is a spook.

Also I'm really mad that those Communists use Stirner in any way or form.

>Also I'm really mad that those Communists use Stirner in any way or form.
I hear ya, literally have to rip fucking quotes from The Ego and Its Own to show them that he's not some pro commie fag. Do they even know about that one work where Marx shits on Stirner?

The possessedness of love lies in the alienation of the object, or in my powerlessness as against its alienness and superior power. To the egoist nothing is high enough for him to humble himself before it, nothing so independent that he would live for love of it, nothing so sacred that he would sacrifice himself to it. The egoist’s love rises in selfishness, flows in the bed of selfishness, and empties into selfishness again.

Whether this can still be called love? If you know another word for it, go ahead and choose it; then the sweet word love may wither with the departed world; for the present I at least find none in our Christian language, and hence stick to the old sound and “love” my object, my — property.

Only as one of my feelings do I harbor love; but as a power above me, as a divine power, as Feuerbach says, as a passion that I am not to cast off, as a religious and moral duty, I — scorn it. As my feeling it is mine; as a principle to which I consecrate and “vow” my soul it is a dominator and divine, just as hatred as a principle is diabolical; one not better than the other. In short, egoistic love, i.e. my love, is neither holy nor unholy, neither divine nor diabolical.

Stirner is a leftie meme

Spooks are anything that autistic people like stirner can't understand. Abstract concepts and the like.
Also, a true stirnerist would probably be someone like Gordon Gekko, how leftists like him is beyond me. If personal interest is all that counts, why the hell should I be a leftist when I can gain a lot more material wealth under a capitalist system than a socialist one?

>Lefties using a philosopher who goes against their beliefs as some representative of their ideology
Do they not sense the irony or?

Is this autism?

>blobbing Stirner with Communism and Marx, a man who literally wrote a book to criticise Stirner
Yes

>not being able to have a discussion about anything without trying to start a left / right argument

He said "a leftie meme", so I replied accordingly.

It applies to both of you.

I reply however I fucking please.

>too intelligent to have a political opinion

So spooks are social constructs basically?

See

So do we all, that doesn't change what I said to you.

Nice strawman. Trying your best to have curb your own biases and trying to form a view on any given issue based on the facts and arguments available rather than joining some "political team" and treating politics like a sports game does not mean that one doesn't have a political opinion on specific issues.

Why do you instantly assume I'm part of some "political team"?

I don't know who you are or even whether you are one of the anons I replied to, I was defending myself from the greentext accusation that I was (sic) "too intelligent to have a political position" because I criticised arguing about issues based on a right / left dichotomy.

My reply is here I didn't try starting a "left/right argument", was just genuinely curious if these "leftists" actually believe Stirner would agree with their Socialist nuances.

Sounds like he needs a good wank to clear the cobwebs out of his 'unthing'

I disagree with the way you have made that statement. I'm not part of "the left" but "leftists" aren't part of some borg collective and many of them wouldn't even identify with Socialism and most haven't even heard of Stirner.

I think it would help all of us if "the right" and "the left" just grew up a little bit and stopped treating everything as a sports game.

You are correct, my mistake for collectivizing everyone into a single group, something I despite as well, yet hyprocritically do. I should've simply said "Socialists" or something alike.

Thank you, you seem like a decent and intelligent bloke, I have enjoyed talking to you.

Not even trying

explanations are just spooks man >>:) haha im so clever

if u disagree then you're just defending ur spooks

Starting to discuss spooks will lead only to kore spooks. The point is this: virtually everything in our experience is a made-up narrative that has no validity whatsoever. You are an individual (not really since the self and free will does not exist, but I think you can grasp the conclusions of this analogy), and your point of view is as valid as any other point of view. Everything is your property, for you can get access to it and for your point of view can always validate your actions: you are as wring or right as everyone else, and unfortunately, literally no good argument can counteract this stance, especially when you truly experience it in first person.

Communism is a cancer on the brain

yfw Veeky Forums plebeians only care about stirner and "spooks" because they think it sounds funny
yfw they have no clue what it means, and have effectively killed any real meaning and discussion

>Also I'm really mad that those Communists use Stirner in any way or form.

Them using Stirner's work as they see fit to their own ends is about as appropriate a use of his work as you can get.

The shift from Young Marx to Old Marx was largely inspired by Stirner. Marx never published the German ideology, and after encountering Stirner's tear-down of idealism, Marx shifted his work over to a materialistic, egoistic basis. The individual worker seeing that his interests are tied into his position as a member of a specific socio-economic class and seeking to better his conditions without regard to conventional morals or property rights is absolutely fitting of Stirner's work.

Most movements that have taken from Stirner's work have been socialistic in nature, and Stirner explains in his work "Stirner's Critics" that he's not opposed to socialism (nor morals, nor purpose, nor anything else really) providing it's not considered something sacred and untouchable.

A book he never published, and promptly shifted his entire ideological framework after working through Stirner's criticism.

Engels it's worth noting was also quite fond of Stirner, and felt that their communism should absolutely have an egoistic basis. The fact that Marx shifted to materialism and focused more on getting the workers to focus on actively bettering their conditions rather than worrying about moralistic concerns seems to be that he agreed somewhat.

Stirner is left leaning

Ethics, Morality, etc... anything that doesn't exist in the material world. For example, Free Will doesn't exist. What we call ''Free Will'' is literally nothing more than chemical reactions in our brain.

This is a horrible description of spooks

So my understanding of a spook is that it is something intangible and an imaginary construct that people build value around and treat as if it were real and allow it to control them?

But if something is an intangible artificial construct and I use it for my own self-interest, then is that a spook?

Stirner is one of the ideological daddies of anarchists