>found Stirner in 2013
>been lazy ever since
>can't bear to spook myself
>know that without spooks I drift aimlessly and achieve nothing
Who else is like me? I've cast off so many spooks even you guys can't handle me. I've noticed that in general lit reacted to Stirner by growing a thin faux intellectual respect for religion veneer.
Other urls found in this thread:
Take the redpill, cuck
yeah thats why I quit stirner. been reading normie shit like nietzsche to gain some discipline.
stirner made me a sociopath
Nietzche is just Tony Robbins for pretentious people
The reason why "spooks" exist is because the ones that create them are more succesful in life and pass their values down. It's a part of natural selection.
What is a spook?
Read The German Ideology.
...
Seems like you still cling to some unwarranted attachment to achievement, user.
What Stirner did for me was liberate me from the notion that I ought to do things I don't want to do simply because 'one is supposed to'.
If you are a lazy guy when you're not enthralled by ideology, why not accept that you are lazy?
"When the movement in the direction of becoming something other than what you are isn't there any more, you are not in conflict with yourself."
Where do I start with Stirner? And what is a spook?
...
>the ones that create them are more succesful in life
They are more successful as servants to the genes, not as individuals. What benefits reproductive success does not necessarily benefit the self.
For example, being a low IQ woman with no education who accidentally gets knocked up by whatever random male manages to charm her teenage self six times in a row but won't abort because of the anti-abortion spook will live the rest of her life living a poor, miserable life on welfare barely scraping by while probably being diseased, overweight and bitter until the moment she dies, but she's tremendously successful evolutionary speaking since she has maximised her offspring at the cost of her self-enjoyment.
The Ego and Its Own, then Stirner's Critics.
Saying that all of the shit in your story there is "bad" is also a spook.
Realize you fell for a philosopher filled with contradictions in his work, while largely ahead of his time, still who's ideology has been furthered after the fact.
The self is a spook, there is only power
Once you're done with Stirner, what are you supposed to do?
Everything seems like a sham to me now. I can't believe in anything.
>Once you're done with Stirner, what are you supposed to do?
you meditate
I too would like to know what a spook is
>read stirner and find out
I tried, still don't get it
you turned "spook" into a spook because you let it hold power over you.
> Nietzsche will make everything better right?
Just wait until you become a camel m8s. If you ever get that far.
Being tortured isn't inherently bad either but you can safely say most find it unenjoyable.
>wordswordswordswordswordswords
the only universally useful goal of meditation is to slow and then control aspects of bodily function so you can save energy and reduce fatigue or the amount of chaos you contribute to the surrounding environment
>actually living by shit one person wrote hundreds of years ago.
There is a description for you: It's called a cuck.
>Veeky Forums reacted to Stirner
>thin faux intellectual respect for religion veneer
most of us don't give a shit about Stirner and never did. maybe Veeky Forums is becoming religious or maybe not, but I think that either way it has very little to do with what the current memes on Veeky Forums are. when I became a Christian, if it was a reaction to anything (though it needn't have been), it was either to the secular humanism of my professors, or the atheism/progressivism of my friends, or maybe even my father's atheism—but it definitely had nothing to do with this board.
>They are more successful as servants to the genes, not as individuals.
Maybe YOU'RE the spooked one
And once you're done with that?
you die
>Once you're done with Stirner, what are you supposed to do?
whatever you want
for most people, once you've thrown away the spooks, you realize that the only thing you want is to have your spooks back, so you invite them back in
Shit
I wanted to expose myself to other philosophies but it feels like I've reached the end too early or at least got stuck in a loop now
Yeah that's what I'm feeling as well. What good does it bring you to discard all spooks, in the end? What is the finality of letting go of your "delusions"?
No, conflating reproductive success and personal success is unwarranted.
>but she's tremendously successful evolutionary speaking
>2016
>wanting evolutionary success rather than evolutionary control
>he doesn't spread anti-natalist memes to influence the course of evolution more extensively than just making someone who shares 50% of your genes, and after only six generations your descendants will share only 1.56% of your genes (if your line even lasts that long).
memes>genes tbqh
Explain to me the difference between Stirner and standard issue teen nihilism.
>becoming a stickjewcuck out of contrarianism
christianity really is the new fedora
>memes>genes tbqh
Agreed friend, but antinatalism memes only work on ~110iq and higher people. The kind of people you want to stop from breeding can't be stopped with rational argument since they procreate mostly on accident as a result of instinctive fucking.
They're beyond the reach of memes in this regard, they're too animalistic.
Stirner focuses on enjoyment rather than emo shit. He sees it as a happy liberation rather than mourning the loss of meaning.
Can someone please sum up Stirner so I don't have to actually read the book
can't be done.
Nietzsche
u.g. krishnamurti
pic related it's fredo facing the abyss
Which copy do I read? There seems to be two. "The Ego and Its Own", or "The Ego and His Own"? Or maybe it's just a case of translation.
When you realize everything around you that informs your actions is just a series of fixed ideas, you gain the freedom to choose which ones you follow and which you don't.
just read hegel. the idea of spooks is a spook itself. Stirner's is a tempting conclusion, but only when you're depressed. it's not terribly hard to think your way out of it.
>he hasn't rejected materialism
found your problem.
didn't read it in english but i guess the cambridge one seems least likely to be shit
>rejecting the truth
>stirner
>materialist
wew lad, he's quietist
Can you read?
>if it was a reaction to anything (though it needn't have been)
that's a conditional statement, not an indicative one.
>stirner made me a sociopath
Figures. At least you unmeme'd yourself.
you're not the big bang lad every action is a reaction
you did not come to the decision of larping christianity in the year 2016 in a vacuum
>laziness
NICE SPOOK NERDDD
>you did not come to the decision of larping christianity in the year 2016 in a vacuum
What's your point?
You—or the other poster if that's not you—said that became a Christian "out of contrarianism"; the post did not suggest that this was so unless you (or the other poster) mistook a conditional clause for an indicative statement.
Nobody denies that people do not come to their beliefs "in a vacuum". But there are a thousand other reasons why someone might come to believe something than "contrarianism". Maybe he met Christians and liked them. Maybe he read Christian literature and grew to like it. Maybe he was subtly influenced by the remnants of Christian morality in our culture. Maybe he's romantic. None of this would be contrarian; none of this is "in a vacuum".
meant to quote not
How so?
Stirner wrote some articles and then one book, "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum", meaning "The Unique/Sole/Only one and his Property/Properties".
The standard translation is called "The Ego and it own".
A spook is a fixed idea, which you put above your self.
Being spooked means you're owned by en entity which you yourself granted authority.
Your strict father isn't a spook, or neither is your hunger that drives you to hunt for food. But if you say you have to go to war because the USA must dominate all other countries, or if you say you can't eat meat because you're a vegetarian, then you're spooked.
Note, however, that you might decide to not eat meat because you don't like to or because it's unhealthy to you. Spooks are shackles you could put away if you wanted. OP says he needs some shackles.
You may own a garden. Sure, you can't really change the speed of how trees and plants grow - you can't control that - but you can choose where to plant stuff, you may redesign the thing, care for it looking pretty or not. You may care for the garden or not. You may use it to grow fruit, which will require some work, but of course you care for your property.
As your property, you control the garden, to the extent nature permits. You may own a dog, then you may leave the dog in front of your house. If you
shh
Does anybody have friends who have a similar view? Someone with which you could go into a "Union of Egoists"?
...
>he hasn't read hegel
>he hasn't read lange
>he doesn't even know about the milk shop
i bet you told people nietzsche stole from him with no idea why though
i'm sure your tulpa's very nice and going to gf you any day
>this thread
>this board
>people
>the whole fucking world
You wouldn't have this pic if you weren't an integral part of the system
>he doesn't know the biggest spook is spooks
Oddly enough, I've become more politically moderate since reading Stirner. I've been kind of politically radical for the last decade or so and reading Stirner has chilled me out. I've grown a hunger for understanding the world more rather than just trying to rationalize my own beliefs.
Spooks are okay.
If you get yourself "spooked" and you know it, it's not really a spook, is it?
It's usually bubbles down to who's in charge, you or the spook. Does the spook benefit you?
>I became religious because other people are atheists
those are really nice tits
that crisp, golden skin is divne
It captures a vacation type of feel that I aspire to
I realized what spooks were when i was like 14, but i didnt know who stirner was.
I felt into hedonism because i was too young to handle the truth and now i think about killing myself every morning.
Spooks are completly necesary to live a happy life and archive stuff or whatever.
Pls send help
Yeah i have one friend who gets it.
How are you using em dashes in your posts?
>Nietzsche is drastically different from Stirner
How do you even get this? They're practically the same person.
Use your might to control more property.
"casting off spooks" is just another life denying asceticism that slaves have been doing since days of pharoah
Lol do you mean the hegelian milk shop that dis terribly? I love that, I think the lives of these philosophers are perfectly indicative of the fruits of their philosophies. Marx - penniless. Nietzsche - mental breakdown. Stirner - sad-o who died alone because even his own wife couldn't stand his utterly selfish philosophy that made him turn so utterly inward on himself. Stirnerism didn't make Stirner powerful, it ruined him just as it will anyone who meaningfully integrates it's beliefs in their lives. Just look at the guy above who said stirnerism made him a psycho. Meanwhile his wife converted to Catholicism for the sake reason lit is turning to religion: seeing heaven elicits faith in heaven, but so does seeing hell.
>life denying asceticism
>being spooked isn't the definition of life denying
Are spooks just things we impart meaning into although the world is meaningless? What is Stirners magnum opus and can I skip the Greeks and go straight to him because I really don't want to finish Mythology.
You don't know what egoism* not stirnerism is, evidently.
Rational self interest isn't "be a dick cuz it's fun". It's "do what you want without regarding fixed spooky ideas, so if you want to be compassionate, do it, but recognise you're doing it for yourself".
I expect better from you lit
no, that's called existentialism and it's not really incompatible with Stirner's philosophy.
Spook = fixed idea, something not dependent on ego.
No, you have to read Hegel first, and it would helpful if you'd read Kant first for that, and read Hume first for that, and read the Greeks first for that.
Hegel had it alright till he came back to his home town and caught an epidemic
>Marx - penniless
ah yeah the famous capitalist who strived to become rich
==>
lmao this is the dumbest thing i've heard today and someone just tried to argue that 10 cent fantasy novels are literature
>being spooked by the ego - the spook of all spooks
wew
alt + 0151 on the numpad
Nietzsche draws from a lot of the same premises. But Nietzsche is ultimately a giant spook-machine that comes to a radically different (and spooky) conclusion.
Starting with the Greeks is a spook
The Ego and Its (His) Own is the one you want
Seems like you want to say "meme" but the word "spooks" is just edgier. Not sure if that works.
There's nothing spooky about trial and error
Thank you for the explanation of what a spook is.
Pic related for the intro of the book. It's a funny work, to some extent, and a lot of it is concerned with emerging political and economic notions - because it happened around 1850, post Hegel who had a hard-on for the Preussian state/law and just when unregulated capitalism stated to create trouble. Stirner socialized with the young guys who first started attacking theology (because attacking the state was illegal/hard) and Marx also came from this corner. In fact, Marx wrote at lengths about Stirner.
So Stirner forms his philosophy that aims at attacking all his colleagues at once. And it uses the complicated Hegel ideas/logic/lingo that they also worked in.
It's also from pre the failed anarchist movements. Stirner seems to be too optimistic about such unions, imho.
>So Stirner forms his philosophy that aims at attacking all his colleagues at once.
With this my point was to point out WHY he concerns himself with spooks in the book.
Unlike Nietzsche, who picks up a Schoppenhauer Will and calls you to empower yourself because that's what you ought to - overcome "the human", Stirner (to me) doesn't seem to have such a personal issue with any religion (like Nietzsche who can't bear weak Christian morals), but instead Stirner wants to ague against ANY such mindset that comes with an ideology.
As opposed to Nietzsche, it reads like an attack on the system together with a friendly recommendation to the reader. He doesn't care too much about what you end up doing, though, and you should do what you want. "I love all men", he writes.
Spooks are a solidly shit antiquated concept. The fact you can't speak about his philosophy more than the direct speaks volumes about his quality then, and especially now. People who fall for his nonsense still are the people who've just explored philosophy.
>The fact you can't speak about his philosophy more than the direct
What does this mean?
And what is an example (a philosopher) where you can speak differently and with what benefit?
>What does this mean?
More than spooks, ownership.
>And what is an example (a philosopher) where you can speak differently and with what benefit?
Most of his contemporaries, it isn't about benefit of yourself. Yourself does not matter, and it never did.
Speak in full sentences, plz.
You say "the fact you can't speak about his philosophy more than the direct" means "more than spooks, ownership". What?
>benefit of yourself
Do you mean "benefit for yourself"?
>You say "the fact you can't speak about his philosophy more than the direct" means "more than spooks, ownership". What?
Exactly what I just said. You can't speak of Stirner's philosophy in specifics, it's only in broad terms. Under the specific, under scrutiny of any kind, it falls apart. It takes a combination of, willing or not, ignorance of philosophy and emotional attachment to fully respect Stirner's body of work.
There has not been great discourse surrounding his work since the 19th century for a reason.
>Do you mean "benefit for yourself"?
It means the same.
>when I became a Christcuck
fixed
Honestly, the way Stirner is laid out here, he seems painfully trivial.
I legitimately had the insight that 'spooks' (nationalism, virtue, religion, etc) were arbitrary and could be chosen or discarded at will when I was 15. I never had the term spook though, which is admittedly neat.
My disclaimer is I haven't read him. There's got to be more to it than that. What?