Why is human nature a spook? For example, almost everyone likes sex...

Why is human nature a spook? For example, almost everyone likes sex. How is liking sex not evidence of human nature in a universal sense?

Everyone does not like sex. You’ve been brainwashed by Jews

>almost everyone
>universal
Come on now.

Because human nature requires a reason to be alive, and there is no reason to be alive. Wanting to exist is an imaginary concept, a spook.

>im supposed to refrain from making generalizations because of one freak who doesnt like dicking things

>Universal human nature is not universal. The exceptions don't count because they refute my dumbass hypothesis.

>what are outliers

>I'll ignore evidence that refutes my position because they're too inconvenient

yes, exactly. deal with it, homo.

less than 10 posts in and we've already established OP is a shitposting retard

>implying i should care about the interests of outliers when i value fairly normal things

>valuing things
>caring

>self-interest is now a spook

"Human nature" in a biological sense is not a spook. Claiming that your ideologically biased interpretation of "human nature" was an imperative that everyone else needs to live by is the spook.

>self-interest isn't imaginary

>things i like are imaginary

>liking isn't imaginary

because just everything is le spook man XDD

stirner is so cool, i bet he would have been a rick and morty fan like me

Why is human nature black? Spooks are only a fraction of the many races that make up the human race.

Race is a spook

>Because human nature requires a reason to be alive, and there is no reason to be alive.

The fuck are you talking about? If you find a reason to be alive then fine, but to imagine you need a reason before you can survive is to GROSSLY misunderstand the meanings of some pretty basic words and concepts.

You literally don't understand the empirical method. Read a book.

Words and concepts are imaginary my friend

Exactly you fucking spastic. So how can an imaginary thing be necessary for existence?

>mfw the only refutation of Striner is endless shitposting

Looks like you're finding it hard to translate your imaginary feelings for me into an imaginary insult

To insult your imaginary intelligence.

Imaginary nail on the imaginary head

Spook is an old timey slang word for a black person, like jigaboo.

uhm.. you do know what empiricism and the scientific methis isn't without flaws right? It's just our best option for combating subjectivity/bias.

So is anything real for Stirner? What does he believe as true?

>uhm..
Reddit answer

reddit

Everything that exists is real. The self is real. You and I are real, but whether you matter to I is a different question. What's not real are the 'abstractions' that exist only through belief yet exert their power over the minds of men and cloud their judgement- ideas like patriotism, god, 'progress', and ideology. The capitalist might say "certain unemployment is good for the economy" and will produce a number of statistics and graphs to prove its effect on wages or GDP but what matters to YOU is if YOU are employed. A 1% raise in the GDP puts no food in your stomach or money in your pocket. The constitution might say "you have freedom of speech" but freedom can't be given to you by someone else or that means you acknowledge that THEY have the power to bestow and rescind it and it was never YOUR freedom at all.

The premise of the Ego and Its Own is that the individual should first and foremost have allegiance to them self and be very skeptical of those who tell you what your best interest is.

But most times in life the individual doesn't know what is in their best interest. What about that? Isn't the "self" and "ego" also conceptual abstractions?

Ad hominem

It's only a spook if you attempt to serve it ahead of yourself. Human nature (instinct, psychology, etc.) exists, but it's not something you'd attempt to serve over yourself, is it?

Are you an abstraction?

By your definition Immanuel Kant and Isaac Newton wouldn't be human.

I would say my consciousness itself is not an abstraction, as abstraction is a faculty of consciousness, but what's to say that everything that follows isn't just an abstraction of sorts? What is my "self interest"?

The word Stirner uses that gets translated as 'ego' doesn't simply an 'individual' or 'self' there can be billions of 'individuals' but only one 'Einzige'. 'Einzige' is used to mean every aspect of that particular human being in its entire essence, another version translates it as "Unique one". It means YOU in particular in your complete totality. Everything that makes you you and not me or someone else is encompassed in Einzige. "Ego" in the sense Stirner uses it is not a synonym for your consciousness because you are more than the thoughts in your head, you have a body after all, and an attempt to boil YOU down to mere consciousness will inevitably be in deficit of accounting for you in your entirety.

Self interest is simply your will. It is the freedom and ability to do as you wish and recognizing foreign ideas that are planted in your head by others to fool you into putting its considerations before your own.

But what is to say that considerations of others isn't somehow connected to the consideration of yourself? Or does he account for that?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. He isn't a solipsist who advocates for trampling over everyone else and lying, cheating, stealing, or killing simply because nobody else matters but yourself if that's what you're getting at. He writes how he makes a friend laugh because he enjoys to see him happy and amused and he derives personal satisfaction from that. Even an egoist can have friends and loved ones for his own sake. If you mean intellectually he doesn't have anything against learning from someone else or borrowing from their ideas like an egoist is a closed box nothing can get in to. It's not a foreign idea if you make it your own. What Stirner warns against is ideas that have been imposed on you like for example the millions of dead men who had been duped into littering battlefields with their corpses for the sake of "God and country".

I've heard anons say that his ideas are self-defeating? Why or why not? I feel like living like that isn't actually a good way to live in the end, and that a bit of subjugation to something isn't entirely bad.

I don't know I'd have to see what they wrote before I could say anything about that.

Stirner's book isn't meant to be prescriptive though. It's not a rule book to live by. A good deal of the book is just lambasting the secular humanists and communists of his time for merely replacing the old worship of "God" with the new worship of "the Human Being" and end up serving the mere idea of 'Humanity's interests' while simultaneously trampling on the interests of the actual living human beings they pretend to champion.

I'd recommend reading it just because it makes an interesting case and might change the way you think about a few things.

I've read Ayn Rands books. Similar to those?

can't say i havent read any of them

Hell no that bitch spooked as fuck

Nothing like. Rand makes a prescriptive moral maxim out of egoism.

Ayn Rand is a book on how to live your life. Stirner is more about do whatever you want but try these tricks to help yourself out.

>anything being imaginary automatically makes it irrelevant

SAD but true

belief is a spook
true is a spook
real is a spook
everything i like is not spook
everything i dont like is spook

hehehe i'm just too clever for you spooks