Gf is a xtian

But that's not even true you retarded fucknugget.

You can be an egoist and NOT be a psychopath. If the thought of hurting her hurts you, you don't hurt her.

Plus, if you were really an egoist, you'd have been smart enough to not literally tell her you'd cheat on her.

How is wanting and having sex a spook?

Keep in mind that though were were officially bf/gf, she's one of those "save it for marriage" types, and was homeschooled.

>in that the hypothetical ypou would be trying to live up to the ideal of the successfully promiscuous male.
What a bunch of bullshit
>if you want to have sex with more than one woman, it's because you're spooked by marketing
Really? Yeah, sure, promiscuity is a meme, but unless you're arguing that monogamy is natural (which would also be a spook), you've nothing to stand on

I wouldn't cheat on her if I thought she'd find out, so no, I don't want to hurt her

I didn't lie because I wasn't thinking

>I wouldn't cheat on her if I thought she'd find out, so no, I don't want to hurt her
There's more than that. There's the thought of guilt plaguing you, whether or not it's rational.

That said, most people in love wouldn't necessarily want to fuck other people (and not for spooked reasons). Then again, they might.

>gets into relationship with grill who doesn't want to have sex
>expects sex
how many spooks did you need for that?

what's wrong with being a psychopath?

Guilt is ingrained to get you to accept spooks

Never said I expected sex, at least not for a while, but that doesn't mean I didn't want any

It's a literal mental disorder. So it's literally "wrong", as in broken. But it's not morally wrong, or anything, because morals are spooks &c.
>Guilt is ingrained to get you to accept spooks
It's not wholly ingrained. It's a big part of us as (biological) humans, because being spooked is beneficial to all of humanity (who'd have guessed). But that doesn't matter; the fact you have it, does. It would be spooked to strive against it purely because it's "wrong".

>if you can't answer yes to that then we're not on the same page
So she wants to be cheated?

>Never said I expected sex, at least not for a while, but that doesn't mean I didn't want any
if you wanted any from her, you answer no every time. you obviously didn't

>It's not wholly ingrained.
Yeah it is.

Wow. What a stirring argument.

I wasn't thinking. I also didn't realize how spooked she'd be

Many groups of humans feel no guilt over murder, rape and even cannibalism. Is that some error in their DNA? I don't think so.

Yeah, when spooked out of their mind through tribalism, and the like.

I mean we've a propensity to *be* guilty.

It's not so spooked, to not want to be with a partner you cannot trust.

>Trusting psychologists who have to reform the DSM handbook every few years on there description of a set of behaviors as inherently broken/detrimental to one's everyday quality of life.

>>gf is a xtian
>>still pretty smart

Stopped reading there.

Brian scans.
What, and all of (western) humanity between 400 to 1600 was dumb as fuck?

And obviously the familial are not just "human nature", since it is rapidly collapsing.

We have a capacity to be guilty. What that is, is in fact anxiety over a bad consequence that has managed to become accentuate and detached from the conscious contemplation of punishment or whatever other bad consequence, be it from the gods or your elders or whatever else.

>it's not spooked to not want the closest person in your life to not be spooked
Maybe no, but it is if you are spooked to the same standards you demand

she did, that's why she told you she's christian and what the right answer is before you fucked it all up. if you wanted any from her, you say no on everybody else. this isn't rocket science, kid.

Trust isn't a spook you fucking mongoose. Honesty isn't, either. Having a set of principals along the lines of "always be trustworthy in X conditions", or "always be honest in X conditions"; that's spooked.

So you're marking psychopathy as an issue due to the fact it is actually a "malfunction" of the brain that is rarely the norm. Fair enough.

I figured reading Stirner would have made her reconsider.

But she literally said it hadn't.

>being spooked by Stirner
new low.

The idea that you have obey the trust even when your partner can't find out, is a spook

Honesty is a spook if it is a quality that you follow. Being honest as a verb is not a spook

>The idea that you have obey the trust even when your partner can't find out, is a spook
Depends, but in order to not be pedantic, I agree. And so on.

That's not my point. My point's that if you want a partner, or anyone you're going to depend on and be around at all, it is not spooked to want *them* to be trustworthy.

>needs a time machine to prove point

News: Just because something served well in the past, doesn't mean it still does in the present. Things change.

>, it is not spooked to want *them* to be trustworthy.
True, but it is if you are looking at it as something reciprocal that you will fulfill

Like what?

And how is "service" relevant? I'm just saying that beliefs don't determine intelligence, and neither does vice versa.

It's spooked to look at anything as reciprocal that you will "fulfil".

Now, it's not spooked to want to not hurt someone, or to even just be with someone, and so be trustworthy and honest (in the ordinarily spooked sense) because this is the best method of achieving this (because it is, if you're not Ezio Da Firenze or something).

It's spooked to follow "fidelity" when you break it while getting away with it. Obviously it's reasonable for you to not want your partner to find out.

OP thought it was relevant enough to make it the first point mentioned.

I dismissed the OP.

It's spooked to follow fidelity. It is not spooked to *use* fidelity.
Oh, I get you.

I think he was just trying to get brownie-points from Veeky Forums, in the same way people say "I read LotR, yeah I know it's just genre fictions shit but..." like some kind of advance apology.

>It's spooked to follow fidelity. It is not spooked to *use* fidelity.
Right, but if it gets in your way and you are turned aside from your pleasure (which won't have negative consequences) by it, you're not using it, you are being spooked by it. If you can control your mate with it, then you are using it.

reminder that stirner posting has tricked a bunch of neets into thinking they know anything about philosophy by calling everything muh spook

I agree, but what I'm saying is that fidelity all the time can be using it, if you think it's the best way of appearing trustworthy (because, let's be honest, there's no such thing as an undetectable opportunity to cheat).

Also, you don't need to control your partner. You just need to use them. (Incidentally, not wanting to use other people because of your infatuation with your partner is not spooked; on the other hand, trying to ignore your desire to use other people because of morals &c. is).

A few NEETs. Mostly, the people who use "spooks" like that are *against* Stirner, because that's how you'd naturally react if you misinterpreted him in that way.

>I agree, but what I'm saying is that fidelity all the time can be using it, if you think it's the best way of appearing trustworthy (because, let's be honest, there's no such thing as an undetectable opportunity to cheat)
Let's be honest, at this point you're just trying to make being spooked look egoist. There is no undetectable opportunity totally, but there can be plenty that are less likely than you dying in a car accident.

No, I'm not, although I thought I sounded like that myself. I admit I am explaining my own actions, though.

I can't think of any situation like that. If you found yourself in one, I agree that it would be spooked to avoid it.

My butthole is a spook because it's been haunting my bedroom all night, if you know what I mean and I think you do.

Fucking faggots everywhere.
There is nothing inherently wrong with being spooked, that is a spook in and of itself (>wrong, and so on and so on)
And besides, you should have just lied to her.

There is a spook haunting Veeky Forums

These three have correctly identified it.

If you idiots had actually read Hamlet, you'd have learned this a long time ago and without the help of the "German Idealism: the B-sides." "Nothing is either good nor bad but thinking makes it so.'

Hahahah she's literally 10x smarter than you, you dumb fucking Steiner garbage autist bahaha

Where did I say it was wrong to be spooked?

>And besides, you should have just lied to her.
Yeah, that would have been better.

I wasn't thinking though. If I could do it again, I'd just lie

>>if you want to have sex with more than one woman, it's because you're spooked by marketing
not what he means dickwad

>the advancement of a field of study
>lol they don't know nuthin

Lmao 10/10 original post

>people are this cucked by philosophy they start to unironically wonder how it's wrong to cheat on someone

tl;dr OP said Yes but in the most chickenshit way possible

I haven't read Stirner, but the retarded way you guys describe him honestly makes it sound like half-baked high school tier bullshit. I'm sure it's not, but "I'm not going to create a rule for myself to follow because it's a spook." Are you fucking kidding me?

>>cucked by philosophy
>not already wondering abstractly about all facts of life in the pursuit of truth and wisdom
pleb

>wondering

You've already lost

>forming your opinion on internet memes of a philosopher that Marx spent hundreds of pages trying to btfo and couldn't
get fucked

?

If this is true, you're a fucking idiot.

Nietzsche's (I don't care about Stirner, he has no analysis of morality and you're stupid for bothering to read him anyway) concept of the self-creating individual is fundamentally linked to his other concepts of the will to power and aristocratic master ethic. If your girlfriend felt comfortable enough to break up with you in this instance, you clearly lacked power over her (would she leave a millionaire over the same discussion? Doubtful). Your simplistic boast floundered on the fact that you are a slave trying and failing to play at master. Your hollow sham was exposed.

This is what Stirner does to gullible idiots. Since, unlike Nietzsche, he has no historical, social or genealogical analysis of morality and the function of morality, simply stopping at the banality of "morality is a limitation on the individual", which is trivially true, he leads people who can't think very well into idiocies such as the one detailed in your OP.

The main point he's talking about stems from Stirner's view of the self (i.e. ego); he doesn't want to be trapped today by his decisions/words yesterday.

>would she leave a millionaire over the same discussion? Doubtful
Holy shit you autist.

Wealthy, beautiful, smart, whatever. If OP was more valuable she wouldn't have left him over the discussion. That's a fact. He fundamentally misunderstood the relation of power.

What I meant was:
Both of you fallaciously identified strict monogamy to necessarily be a spook. Here's the thing: Stirnerism is about maximizing your own benefit. If you think strict monogamy can help you further your cause, then you should by all means abide by it, and the logic that "it's a spook and so I need to despook myself" is stupid. If, on the other hand, you see it as a hindrance, then you should have just lied, because telling the truth here obviously did not serve to further your cause.

Maximally benefiting oneself is a spook.

Oh Veeky Forums

Explain how it isn't? Go read What Men Live By.

>Marx spent hundreds of pages trying to btfo and couldn't
>couldn't
u wut

A spook has to be individually defined if living for others is legitimately what some one wants that's fine but being altruistic out of a sense of obligation to an ideal like say love is a spook

So Stirner wrote a 400-page book to say "do what makes you happy"? How unbelievably trite.

No, faggot, that would be spooked.

Are you actually retarded, OP? Stirner isn't some anti-Kant who provides you with a categorical imperative of "Thou must not be spooked". What he does is show you how a lot of ideas which have no bearing in reality (effectively) end up denying and constraining human action, while explaining why he thinks it's wrong to be paralyzed by outer thoughts.

He isn't telling you to become a wretched cauldron of a ungodly mix between kant and ayn rand.

I mean, I haven't even read The Ego and It's Own since high school and yet I distinctly remember a part towards the middle/end of the book in which Sankt Max says he loves mankind not because he's been told to and etc.

You don't HAVE to chase tail because you're "unspooked" or some shit, if you care about this girl in any sense, spooked or not, you know what you should've done. And even assuming I'm wrong, the girl clearly gave you a lot of chances to back up and yet you kept being the huge autist you are due to some meme philosopher (not that I dislike Stirner, on the contrary, I love his thought and it helped me overcome teenage nihilism and I'm grateful for that) you discovered on a malaysian religious ceramics board

Happiness doesn't have to be involved at all, He just wants people to remove the self imposed restrictions that they assign themselves

Why though?

If someone finds purpose, joy, a sense of community by, e.g. doing political activism, what does Stirner think is wrong with that?

No, you fucking faggot.

Stirner wrote a book detailing how the fucking hegelian system relies on a concept (in his opinion, ofc) of the spirit of history and blablabla is fucking wrong and that there is nothing but the individual.

It's pretty much like saying Marx wrote his entire oeuvre based on some fucking campus bathroom slogan written by a junior year commie.

I get you memers want to be part of the meme scene without having to read, but Stirner was propposing a form of anarchism without downright calling it anarchism, so he was at the same time trying (and failing, because honestly, there's no way to succeed in that) disprove Hegel and trying to explain how these grand narratives like nation, private property, decency and charity are nothing but constraints that controlled the individuals and denied the right to bare living.

Summing Stirner up in such a self-helpey sentence does the same to Marx (and co.), Nietzsche, Agamben, Deleuze & Gauttari and a whole lot of people you'll never botter to read but'll keep on memeing without having idea what they talk about.

I fucking hate you people, I wish I had anything better to do with my time.

Literally fucking nothing. But you should "want" these things because you want, not because you ought to want.

>fucking
>fucking
>fucking
>fucking

This is called being mad, which I am.

You would be too if this shit didn't have to be posted every week.

I've never read Stirner, memed Stirner or whatever. I'm just trying to understand his philosophy. Criticise the anons telling me what it is.

>trying to explain how these grand narratives like nation, private property, decency and charity are nothing but constraints that controlled the individuals and denied the right to bare living.

Okay, that's trivially true. Of course concepts influence one's thinking, it's how thought is organised. One can't live without a narrative of some kind.
So?

>You would be too if this shit didn't have to be posted every week.
what did he mean by this

if you did*

>Of course concepts influence one's thinking, it's how thought is organised. One can't live without a narrative of some kind.

Stirner argues that you shouldn't let external narratives (hence the GRAND) keep you from doing whatever it is that you want for your own benefit.

This is not a hard idea, this is anarchism 101, only thought on a personal rather than social level.

What is the difference between wanting and ought to wanting? What is the difference between the average activist and the Stirnerite activist?

Is Stirner saying people want things they don't want?

Again, this is just trivial. People act according to narratives because THEY THINK THEY ARE TRUE. Is he against a grand narrative like gravity? Love?

I'll have to get personal here, so I'm already warning you: while this is anedoctal, it has happened enough (with me and others, in very different geographic locations) that it should be seen as somewhat true, I'm sure a lot of people here have been through that.

I was part of a group of local activists, involved mostly with barter, permaculture, workshops on recycling your own trash and shit like that. Eventually, your typical SJW (I hate that term, but there's no better way to describe it) begins stirring shit up and turning everything to their own view, trying to guilt trip everyone into agreeing with them. Some people might fall for that guilt trip, but I was raised catholic and had to deal with this shit enough times to know how to avoid it, but a lot of people don't, and they end up buying these ideas because "it's the right thing to do", even though they'll personally disagree with some shit in private.

If it is trivial there wouldn't be all those kids suiciding for being gay and christian and shit like that.

Thinking they're true is the exact same thing he was arguing against. The fact that this seems so trivial to you (who should be at least moderately educated to post here) is no argument against Stirner, who was writing this shit up in the middle of the 18th century.

Thinking "gravity" is the same as "nation" in idea organization is stupid, one is a human attempt to organize a natural situation, the other a human attempt to naturalize an artificial situation.

>if you did*
what did he mean by this

cont.

Stirner seems banal to me because he has no argument against "spooks" other than "they restrict the freedom of the individual!!!", to which I say yeah, so what? That's the nature of human society. Does he have an argument as to WHY this is a bad thing? Nietzsche does, Foucault does, by analysing power. Everything I've heard from Stirner so far has zero social or historical method. He should have read Hobbes.

>I fucking hate you people, I wish I had anything better to do with my time.
underrated

He does, albeit in a very rudimentary way, but do you honestly expect me to fucking summarize the book for you? His entire oeuvre is shorter than 500 pages, just go fucking read it - or don't, really - but stop thinking me (or anyone here) will write you a thesis on why you should read Stirner.

He was an influence on Foucault, by the way, that's why his work has resurfaced in the last few years.

Thanks for this post.

I agree that Stirner is helpful on guilt, but I still think he misses the point. In your gay religious example, the gay person is guilty because he believes religion is true. Avoiding hellfire is maximalising his freedom. Stirner telling him not to be guilty because ideas get in the way of individual action doesn't help him. What is needed is direct criticism of religion, not ideas as such.

I mean, if Stirner believes that spooks and human freedom can be in harmony in certain circumstances, then why criticise them in toto?