Arguments against Stirner

Spooked

Because how do you know what you want?

Or the better question, how do you know you want what you think you want

You can't anything you say will be countered with spook

Wait...Zizek is a manlet?!?

fucking manlets

I guess yeah, seemed he's about the same height as Varoufakis when they wer together who is about 170cm

Don't be a woman?

>leftwingers are all manlets
It checks out, no wonder they're so mad

Just lost respect for the man

>respect
Spooked.
>for Zizek
Idiotic.

Exsqueeze me?

Well yeah, surprised this is news to you, its the general rule of Thumb that Leftists manlets and Rightists are dicklets

She's just quite tall for a woman, Zizek is of pretty average height, and also fucks far more attractive women than most of the people branding him a manlet ever will.

Men of average height are manlets, I learned that here a long time ago

.a spook is like something you care about for reasons which aren't like selfish enough or something..! xD

striner is a mongo and so are all of you

You think people here are generally of above average height and build?

>Far Left
>Short men with big dicks, gives them a sense of needing to destroy hierarchies of height

>Centre Left
>Short men with normal dicks, want hierarchies to be alleviated but don't feel entitled to demand radical change

>Centre Right
>Tall men with normal dicks, rather have hierarchies retained as they are

>Far Right
>Tall men with microdicks, deeply insecure at the prospect of their hierarchy being lost, obsessive fear of getting cucked by the BBC

>Being this insecure about your commie idol

Honestly yeah, I'd be surprised if it was that different than the normal public

>Chan analysts
>Short men with small book collections

Biased opinion masquerading as fact. The usual from someone who misinterprets Freud because his knowledge of Psychoanalysis comes from school of life videos.

>taking a meme post this seriously

seems accurate desu

>Far Left
>Short men with big dicks, gives them a sense of needing to destroy hierarchies of height
Works out. Lefty manlet with 8'' schlong reporting.
Well *I* have empirical scientific proof now.

>guaranteedreplies.jpeg

>far leftist
>tall with normal dick
Weird

>superior
Moralfag detected

>Far Left
>short men with small dicks, feel double oppressed by the natural order and are desperate to change it. give themselves a sense of masochistic power by ceding power in the victim hierarchy to minorities and women.

>Centre Left
>tall men with small dicks, can live with the current status quo but still dream of some day in the progressive future when men like them are seen as equals to their big-dicked counterparts.

>Centre Right
>short men with average dicks, understand the value of tradition, but still seek some sort of popularity/credibility with the left-dominated culture, so brand themselves as "moderates" and find common ground with their opponents. punch to the right.

>Far Right
>tall men with large dicks or short men with small dicks. either believe wholeheartedly in the natural order because it benefits them, or delude themselves into believing that sometime long ago there was a time when people with their inherent disadvantages were pitied (or in the case of white supremacists, elevated).

Much more accurate. Thanks, Bobbay...

Plato was one of the most spooked men in all of history.

>TRIGGERED
Stay salty, microdicklet.

He wasn't the most spooked. He was just one of the most articulate and brilliant of all spookies.

oh my god please remove your heads from your asses

>what is joke

Nah I like the smell of it

>Spook is a poorly defined term which the 'the ego's a spook' claim makes clear considering nobody has a good answer as to why it wouldn't be
I've posted it many times, unfortunately warosu archive went down. A spook is a concept which you hold to have intrinsic value and subordinate your own desires to. Stirner's "ego" is a purely referential phrase, it points towards your own existence without expressing anything about you. It is not only not prescriptive, it isn't even descriptive. The ego is not formally capable of being a spook.

le there is none

This perspective doesn't include the problem that the self is only experienced in its relationship to what is not the self, there is no purely referential ego there is only mediated sense of ego

here have this conversation I had on Veeky Forums a while ago that basically disproves it logically.

If I pull someone's eyes out does that make seeing a spook?
isn't everything dependent on a certain system of laws to exists in a certain way?
isn't the spook concept a spook itself because it doesn't exist as anything "physical" in the "real" world?

this idea is

>If I pull someone's eyes out does that make seeing a spook?
No.
>isn't everything dependent on a certain system of laws to exists in a certain way?
Only physical laws.
>isn't the spook concept a spook itself because it doesn't exist as anything "physical" in the "real" world?
Only if you allow it to dominate you

>this idea is silly
You're silly.
>Only if you allow it to dominate you
so is it a spook or not?
are all ideas spooks?
even if they create the reality we experience?
does that mean that loving someone is a spook?
you don't actually feel and experience love? maybe you'd say, "it only exists in your mind" , and I say that from a certain view point everything you are aware of exists in your mind thus the reality you experience is just as much of a spook, it's a question of dimensions as a system of laws in which an environment exist, in the dimension of the army there are strict laws that people with a lot of power or influence enforce, in that dimension you cannot walk around in underwear without getting a military trial, in the same way in the dimension of Earth and the environment we exist in the physical laws dictate that, for an easy example, a thing plus a thing equels two things,everything exists in a certain dimension with a system of laws that governs its particular existence, but to call a huge amount of these dimensions a "spook" and dismiss them as if they don't exist and don't have implications over reality is ignorant and foolish.

In other words it's a metaphysical idea that fails in the test of the human experience and can be dismissed as folly.

>A spook is a concept which you hold to have intrinsic value and subordinate your own desires to.

What about your desire to hold that intrinsic value? You're not subordinating that.

Yeah, you are, according to Stirner. He says you should hold that idea in constant scepticism, too.

the self is not one experience among others but the mode of experience itself.

But thats my point, its a very basic phenomenological insight back to Husserl, our mode of experience is not simply the self but the self intending towards something

>our mode of experience is not simply the self but the self intending towards something

>Implying intent where there is only blind, striving Will

>What about your desire to hold that intrinsic value?
a) that formulation sounds like you didn't understand what I said: A spook is when you believe that for example a certain moral statement has validity and authority over you, when in fact the only thing that is exerting authority is the psychological structure by which you submit yourself to it.

The desire to submit to a higher idea is something that people feel, but this is 'roll back' by the super-ego (and not the sort of 'natural' desires that Stirner talks about). If you feel this desire, that means the spook is still ruling over you, basically. There's no other situation in which a human would desire such a thing. But it does explain for example the transition from religion to a crypto-religious humanism. It's simply easier to maintain this sort of psychological structure with a different content than to free oneself of it (in the same way that it's easier for a junkie to keep shooting heroin).

Marx destroyed Stirner in his critique

The only think Marx destroyed was Engel's bank balance.

Fuckin' sponge.

get ready for the incoming memes

Name one thing Marx was right about.

>Muh surplus labour

> For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Isn't that what Stirner means by "accidental egoists" (or whatever he calls them)?

>Christianity

I literally refuted this shitty concept, go home people.

looks like Luke Skywalker in ep7

Yeah every thing is a spook lolsorandum

I really need to read this book because no one yet has been able to explain to me what a spook is, why it matters (or doesnt), and why we should avoid them.

It honestly just seems like a buzzword that people think destroy arguments but really just side-steps them. If Thrasymachus knew such a word, he would probably use it frequently.

>It honestly just seems like a buzzword that people think destroy arguments but really just side-steps them.

That is basically it, its just a slightly more intelligent way of saying "good goy"

yeah bro, I'm gonna call him Saint Max, rekt amirite????

you really should.
The majority of the people who use the term have no idea what the hell they're talking about

its basically an idea or ideology that goes against the individuals real interests that holds no real power on the individual unless you let it

That is not true at all. Its the things the creative nothing shakes off to obtain absolute creative freedom.

>tfw you break up with your gf solely to show who has the power

how come the shitposters from Veeky Forums are migrating here all of a sudden?

youtube.com/watch?v=pfw2Qf1VfJo

Is this a philosophy?

Yes, because everyone on Veeky Forums is too smart and reasonable to truly believe in Christ.

its a little mannered.

never said that famalam, but I don't hold it against you, autismos tend to see any negative remarks as slights on their intelligence. it's just in your brain chemistry I guess.

Probably anything that undermines his epistemology

Also

Just what was Marx's critique of Stirner? I hear it mentioned but never actually outlined in any detail.

I send this to girls I match with on tinder

suck my fucking dick you fuckign retard

honestly, the phenomenological explanation of the face. When you deeply gaze into someone you just can't be an egoist individualist anymore. You may argue that it is a spook, however it is pure perception thus making this argument result into saying that reality itself is a spook leading to solipsism...

how did you misunderstand such a simple concept

>changed his name to Max Stirner probably because he thought it sounded cooler
>literally a cuck
>muh anarchism

Is this Reddit: The Philosopher?

Max Stirner referred to his massive forehead. I don't think he chose it because it sounded cool.

he wasn't a cuck he was a golddigger

>this is what cucks actually believe

Chaderick Engels literally fucked his wife

he married specifically for her money

>ad hominems
>destroying anything

>Only Individuals are the reality

Sounds a bit spooky.

Would you donate to a kickstarter collecting for the excavation of stirner's skull and a facial reconstruction

daily reminder stirner was a pleb who wrote shit that applies to stupid cunts with no balls

Does anyone have a chart that explains how one should start with Max Stirner?

>egoist individualist
Stirner's thought is entirely compatible with any human experience. In fact, it is more conducive to human experience unmediated by linguaform thought (like what you describe) than almost all 'approaches' to 'philosophy'.

Start with the greeks

Check this senpaitachi,

"You are shocked by this
misunderstanding, and you instruct us that God’s cause is indeed the cause of truth and love, but that this cause
cannot be called alien to him, because God is himself truth and love; you are shocked by the assumption that God
could be like us poor worms in furthering an alien cause as his own. "Should God take up the cause of truth if he
were not himself truth?" He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we,
we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must "serve a higher cause."
– Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has
only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies
only himself. His cause is – a purely egoistic cause."

His logic doesn't follow his own logic here because he basically says you shouldn't follow God's cause because God is an egoist. That's a perfect spook right there.
Plus God's cause is very different from other people's because while someone else's cause is to better themselves God's is for truth and love and you taking up this cause puts you on a level with anyone else working towards the same cause; just because a being happens to embody these does not mean their striving would be any different form yours.

Truth and love are spooks ONLY if you don't believe in God. If you don't steal money because you see a cop standing next to the it, it's not a spook: There is simple rationale. Likewise devoting yourself to the cause of truth and love is not a spook if you believe there is a divine being who wants you to take up this cause.

It seems kind of sinister when put that way but it's not. You have to make the leap of faith and if you do that you already want to take up these cause; God justifies your taking them up and does not need to force you to do them.

Basically you must pick God or Stirner and this is the way it always has been.

When will they learn?

I bet more people believe in Christ on Veeky Forums than those who don't.

Holyshit lel, that'd explain a lot