You have ten (10) seconds to tell me what spook you rid yourself of today

biology

egoism

>reddit, the philosopher

Stirner wanted to recognise spooks and to get rid of them, but there's no reason why you can't identify them while also keeping them.

Unless you think that recognising a spook somehow affects or diminishes its function for you. Then feel free to attack the very idea of spooks for in that case it may be in your interest to do so if you value them. This is the route that conservatives and traditionalists will likely take.

And yes, being in favor of societal stability would be one of the spooks stirner would want to eject.

Ghosts

a spook just moved into my neighborhood, I rid myself of him a couple of hours ago

feels are self-evident, therefore not spooked

>self preservation is a spook.
>The abstraction of the need to preserve the ego supersedes the ego hence is a spook
lol whut

His most obvious mistake was not recognising that ego was a spook.

Not him, but the unique is not an abstract a priori self, it is not a concept, otherwise it could certainly be a spook. Further, any idea can become a spook, it is a matter of whether or not you are willing to defend the idea with your own life.

This was addressed in "Stirner's Critics."

I was using spook just as a synonym for mental constructs in general.

>right and wrong are spooks
>being spooked is wrong

it's not wrong, it's just retarded

That's not what it means. That's like using "practical" as synonym for "empirical."

Good and evil

Pooping.

His biggest mistake was thinking that pointing out the obvious is somehow a deep and important revelation. Literally everyone except the autistics like himself realizes this shit by the age of 10.

I'll admit I haven't seen how stirner originally defined spook. I was going by the colloquial version. Could you elaborate on the original definition?

It's a "fixed idea" which passes into "stubbornness." You elevate it above yourself, become enthusiastic about it, and dedicate yourself to it. You end up making the sacrifices it requires of you more for its benefit than for yours, because you have become convinced that its benefit is your benefit. The common argument in favor of military service is an instance of spook generation: "You owe the nation for what it has given you." You are asked to give yourself up to an ideal, over which even the defenders can't agree on a definition. If I do join the service, and decide to use my position as a low-paid killer to do just that with as much impunity as I can, some people will say I have violated the sacred trust of the nation, others will say "lol fucking mudslimes deserved it."

That doesn't mean I couldn't "sacrifice" something for a greater future benefit, e.g. I recently gave up a certain narcotic to the end of becoming healthier. But this isn't really a sacrifice, because the end result is more self-benefiting than the other option.

Then why do the vast majority of people believe in something Higher?

You.

Sleep

>self preservation is a spook
Making self-preservation an imperative, e.g. "you are not allowed to kill yourself", would be spooky. Self-preservation itself is a base, egoistic desire, which is perfectly fine but most definitely not a must.

How do you explain WW1 then?