Humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism

>humans are always motivated by self-interest, even in what seem to be acts of altruism.
>lol u can murder ur mum if u want to my man but you have to empower yourself first
This doesn't compute. If Stirner was just a proponent of laissez-faire psychological egoism as many on this board claim (i.e. descriptive "all humans operate like this and that's ok") then he would

a) not bring up spooks. How do "spooks" fit into a world view of psychological egoism when they obviously satisfy the spooked or by the principles of this world view the spooked would not subscribe to them?
b) not bring up all these fringe cases that clearly violate the principles of descriptive psych. egoism in 99.9% of people. Oh wow if I felt like it/"empowered myself" to do so I could slash your throat and not feel bad, that's good to know.

His raison d'etre in the 21st century meme format (because back then there was no established field of psychology so he is excused) must then mean instead something that goes beyond description-- and my guess is it's a spineless flavor of naive ethical egoism with a pretend-masochistic twist: "look, you think you are acting in your self-interest with this psychological satisfaction of [altruistic, self-denying etc. actions] but you are doing it wrong, the spook [ideology/meme] is controlling you and robbing you of your creative expression (creative nothing and so on). You can love but only if you have Jesus levels of empathy for the person. If you only stick around because it gives you mild satisfaction then you are still subjecting yourself to the spook. Stop feeling sad for plebs etc.".

Funnily enough this fits in perfectly with the pussy attitude to life of many intelligent but insecure young men, the empathy part is consequently an alibi, a back door for when people rightfully calling you what you are, an apathetic and naive egoist and if this is true then to see Stirner's philosophy as anything beyond that is cognitive dissonance and Nietzsche did it better.

Really makes u think :/

they don't always satisfy the spooked

Read his fucking works first you cretin

Even religion, therefore, is founded on our egoism and — exploits it; calculated for our //desires//, it stifles many others for the sake of one. This then gives the phenomenon of //cheated// egoism, where I satisfy, not myself, but one of my desires.

Did you honestly base your opinion of him based on the "everything is a spook" meme on lit and not on his works?

Very well planned out bait, but whatever.

A spook is mental conditioning you have received in your life which limits you from truly being free and able to do what you will; but this conditioning has created you and your will, yet it also limits you. It is not limited to political ideology or religion. Any negative condition which controls your behavior is a ''spook''.

Any thought or act is inherently selfish, it can't be anything else.

It's funny how many people don't read his books and then start arguing about him as if they know what the fuck they're talking about

...

.... you didn't actually read the book, did you user?

I read his entire ouevre in German including all newspaper articles and secondary lit and then I read Ego in English, thank you very much.

404 your arguments not found

>A spook is mental conditioning you have received in your life which limits you from truly being free and able to do what you will; but this conditioning has created you and your will, yet it also limits you. It is not limited to political ideology or religion. Any negative condition which controls your behavior is a ''spook''.
That's not even Stirner but I'll roll with it. So this is an apology for Stirner to move him away from psych. egoism but then you flip it around in the next sentence? Make up your mind or I have to accuse you of bait myself. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In case you're serious: If any thought or act is selfish then there cannot exist a homunculus that rates your will as negative, limiting etc. William James comes to mind about how empowering faith is and Stirner knew this too in the case of love but he was too much of a pussy to be pragmatic about it which is why he died a virgin.

And seriously

>Any thought or act is inherently selfish, it can't be anything else.
Any thought or act is inherently altruistic, it can't be anything else. Which defintions are we going to inflate to hell and beyond next? Even Stirner wasn't as delusional as this. He called the egoist a spook because of the existing definition which is why he avoided the term almost completely. Don't spook me with your "cognitive" version of "selfish", that is a meaningless pseudoword. Thank you.