Confess your spooks in this thread and be free of them

I believe in capitalism

>yuri bezmenov
>not a KGB plant
you clearly fell for the bait

I believe in speed and movement.

Thats only a spook if you believe it is some type of morally superior system.

Free markets are the strongest economic practise for generating the most material wealth for the most people. That is not a spook, simply empirical observation.

If you say that because it is the strongest form we therefore should practise it, that is now a spook.

>sonicposting

Absolutely autistic

>simply empirical observation.
[citation needed]

Sonic™ is nothing more than the static view of movement in video game form. It embraces the banal ideal of uniformity in both character and background that is so common in all aspects of media and art.

t. Boccioni

If you browse both /r9k/ and Veeky Forums exclusively, then yes.

Love. Teleology.

>implying love is a spook

>implying love isn't a spook.
Nice try, property.

Confession would imply it would be a matter of morals and not a matter of might.

What d'you think of The Soul of Man under Socialism?

That's 'cause you superpose distance~duration onto your data.

Perhaps there might come a day when, tired of stratagems for the sake of other, unreal worlds, you'll see how the actual moment is one that is at both final and initial.

>Socialism
>not a spook

Not guy you're replying to, but The Soul of Man Under Socialism puts to rest the individualist-collectivist false dichotomy that has plagued politics for decades. It's also a nice read, so it's got that going for it.

Yes the teleology spook is powerful if it is legitimate and even moreso if it is divinely inspired, since then it is no longer a spook but instead following your natural ends inherently results in the best outcome for you.

Other than that, he's right.

what's a spook?

Some Concept
^
|
Your Ego

women

Whoever drew this deeply concerns me.

>not liking maxima stirner loli with the juicy thighs

You deeply concern me.

Post all your rates pls

Roundness is not kind to Stirner.

>not liking the spook hairclips and the creative nothing gap of the thighs

self-enjoyment/10, would appropriate again

I meant rares obviously.

...

I have been spooked by loneliness at a Halloween thing. Everyone had happy families and I had nought but my puppy.

puppers>humans every time

I don't disagree but I still felt the loneliness of seeing others happy and with other humans that made them happy and that they loved. I had that once, and now I will admit I sort of miss it.

It's a chemical reaction in your brain. So no.

Don't want to start another thread for this, but was Max Stirner not a logical egoist? Did he not believe that all your actions being based on self-interest is the RATIONAL thing to believe, and not the RIGHT thing to do?

Did he ever say that one MUST free himself of spooks? Ridding yourself of religion, morality, etc. because "you HAVE to rid yourself of your spooks" sounds pretty spooky itself desu.

>Did he ever say that one MUST free himself of spooks? Ridding yourself of religion, morality, etc. because "you HAVE to rid yourself of your spooks" sounds pretty spooky itself desu.
He didn't.

dont you find it strange how "spooks" are seen as intrinsically bad by some? why so many Stirnerians long to rid themselves of spooks just because they believe it is what they "must" do?

if someone is spooked, why would someone fight tooth and nail to despookify this person? quite silly tbqh fampai

Those memeposters haven't read Stirner, probably.

You'll always have us, we probably know you better than any familiy.

>Did he ever say that one MUST free himself of spooks? Ridding yourself of religion, morality, etc. because "you HAVE to rid yourself of your spooks" sounds pretty spooky itself desu.
Despooking oneself is not a spook, as it is in one's own self interest. It is better understood as the act of ridding oneself of those things that are not in one's own self interest. Things like religion, morality, social movements, ideology, so on, are spooky because they are alien causes made out to be one's own.

Was reading The Emperors New Mind by Penrose and he provides a short list of traits that are indicative of consciousness among which were spooks like "common sense" "judgement" and "artistic appraisal"

>morality

lets say this:

You're walking past a cash register and you noticed it is wide open, and no other people are there with you. There are no security cameras, you're wearing gloves, and no one knows you're there. You could get away with stealing this money if you wanted to, and there's absolutely nothing preventing you from doing so.

However, let's say the cash register belongs to a local old lady who's been kind to you since you were a child. The only reason I don't take the money is because I know she will suffer. Is that a spook?

My point is, I believe that it IS a spook, but in spite of this, I will keep the money there because I don't CARE if I'm spooked. Or is leaving the money there, somehow in my self-interest?

For Stirner there's no "must" that is not backed up by might, i.e. there's no way in which you "should" be that doesn't serve the interests of somebody/thing. In fact, everything is Might, in the sense of actuality, so if you can't be a certain way, it's not a matter of correctness but simply that you don't have the might to be so, you don't have the reality of it, or at least you only have the idea.

It's similar to the Will in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, but Stirner is a lot more neutral about it and considers it a more neutral thing: there's nothing in Might that necessarily aims to its own continuation (contra Will to Live) or superiority (contra Will to Power). Might doesn't have to be anything, it has in practice no original principles other than tacit being, the simple fact of existence that needn't be stressed in power, duration or any other measurement. If it's in your interest to die you will die, if it's in your interest that others should be above you then you'll let them, if you wanna believe in God you will, and if you want to wish the world were otherwise you also will, even if to Stirner that's a waste of time.

I believe (I have not actually read Stirner; I'm just some idiot) that according to Stirner that you would not be spooked by leaving the money. Caring about another person is not a spook.

Someone call me out if I'm wrong.

Things aren't spooks of themselves, they get turned into spooks if you become possessed by them.

Yeah, I'm trying to find some confirmation to my argument. I often see a lot of Stirnerians believe that he was an ethical egoist, who believed that freeing yourself of spooks is what one ought to do.

>Caring about another person is not a spook.

But no matter how you look at it, the only reason I leave the money is because I believe that doing so is "wrong". If I leave the money, then my conscience is soothed, but I go without food. If I take the money, I'm able to purchase whatever I want, and the only downside would be that I would "feel bad".

That money is in my self-interest, and leaving it there goes against that completely. What do I gain out of her being financially safe?

When trying to figure out if something is a spook, it's best to ask where it's coming from. A spook is an alien cause that someone tries place above their own cause. So the question becomes whether something is internal or external. Is someone manipulating you to care for this woman, or is it a genuine feeling you have? If it's the latter, it is not a spook.

>But no matter how you look at it, the only reason I leave the money is because I believe that doing so is "wrong".
I think you are using the term "wrong" in replacement of something else. You feel uneasy about the act, and you attach the word "wrong" to it, but ultimately the reason you leave the money is because stealing it would conflict with your emotions.

>If I leave the money, then my conscience is soothed, but I go without food. If I take the money, I'm able to purchase whatever I want, and the only downside would be that I would "feel bad". That money is in my self-interest, and leaving it there goes against that completely. What do I gain out of her being financially safe?
It's a difficult decision, but you have yet to demonstrate that by leaving the money, someone is spooked. By leaving the money they are acting in their own self-interest, because they care for this person. One's self-interest doesn't just refer to those things that may bring them "gain" in the short run.

Ultimately I think you would benefit from reading Stirner, because I think you misunderstand his concepts.

>Is someone manipulating you to care for this woman, or is it a genuine feeling you have? If it's the latter, it is not a spook.

Yeah, that makes sense. I'm not caring for this woman because I'm told to, I'm doing it out of genuine affection and gratitude I have for her.

>You feel uneasy about the act, and you attach the word "wrong" to it, but ultimately the reason you leave the money is because stealing it would conflict with your emotions.

I used the word "wrong", because I'd justify leaving the money behind in a moral way.

>she wouldnt do that to me
>its the wrong thing to do
>i wouldnt be able to live with myself

You get the idea.

>One's self-interest doesn't just refer to those things that may bring them "gain" in the short run.

I understand this concept in practice, but not in theory. Me feeling guilt is pretty spooky because it implies that I believe what I did is "wrong", and that implies I believe in morality, an obvious spook. Though you could argue that, me ensuring HER survival is in my self-interest because I WANT her to survive.

Let's look at this a bit differently: What if you and her were both starving, and she had enough food for only person. You cannot communicate in any way with her, so asking for it, or her offering it to you is out of the question. You can either:

A.) leave it, ensuring her survival and your death
B.) take it, ensuring your survival and her death

My argument is: NOT stealing it goes against my self interest, and any justification is thus a spook. I believe that leaving the bread is proof that I AM spooked.

>I used the word "wrong", because I'd justify leaving the money behind in a moral way.
You would justify it that way, but ultimately you would leave the money because you cared for the woman. The justification is shaped by irrelevant factors such as society, law, etc.

>I understand this concept in practice, but not in theory. Me feeling guilt is pretty spooky because it implies that I believe what I did is "wrong", and that implies I believe in morality, an obvious spook.
You are correct, but you must recognize that your feeling guilt happens after the fact. Once you have stolen the item, you feel guilty for doing so. But you do not feel guilt before the act. Before the act, you are weighing your options (I care for this woman, but I also want that food, so on) and you are trying to figure out which would be ultimately better for you in the long run. If you feel guilt for having this consideration, then yes, I would say you are spooked.

>Let's look at this a bit differently: What if you and her were both starving, and she had enough food for only person. You cannot communicate in any way with her, so asking for it, or her offering it to you is out of the question. You can either:

>A.) leave it, ensuring her survival and your death
>B.) take it, ensuring your survival and her death

>My argument is: NOT stealing it goes against my self interest, and any justification is thus a spook. I believe that leaving the bread is proof that I AM spooked.
You have changed the parameters to fit your conclusion. In your first example, there was a bit of grey area as to what was in one's self interest, but in both cases there was no "spooking" involved. In this example, you have a self-sacrifice scenario wherein one can either choose suicide or the death of a friend. These are two greatly different examples. But more to the point; you would have to ask yourself whether most people would leave the bread in the first place, knowing they would be killing themselves. Many people would say they would, but most wouldn't. Stirner, himself, wrote about this kind of self-sacrifice and said he wouldn't go through with it.

But then it becomes grey again. It depends on whether the loss of this old woman would be something that would coincide with the loss of your will to live, or whether it would be the emotional equivalent of a speedbump. Depression is a real roadblock that suppresses one's capacity for beauty, pleasure, love, etc. And if losing this old woman would (or even could) result in that, would it really be in your own self interest? Again, it is a grey area. So to answer your question as to whether it is a spook or not- it depends.

My fucking friend "introduced" me to a girl who actually enjoys reading and for months I entertained the notion and fucking today I found out she's actually married I almost punched my fucking friend out I'm so god damn upset

The nuclear family is the bedrock of society

is teaism a spook?

The nuclear family didn't exist until the 19th century

The nuclear family is propaganda to make people buy houses.

1950s modern cancer. The multigenerational household was the bedrock of society.

>there are thoughts that doesn't imply chemical reactions in the brain
Spoopy. You should tell neurosciences about this. Perhaps they will finally shut up about "doing philosophy's work".

Gender.

>that feel when light

>tfw you're a nationalist even though you are fully aware that nations are spooks of the mind but the globalist "no borders" alternative is so horrible you can't help it

>I love men
bit gay

>It's a chemical reaction in your brain.
Which chemical reaction exactly?

> as it is in one's own self interest.
It is never in one's own self-interest to divest yourself from everything that separates your self from animals in hope that being a machine that does nothing but shit and eat will magically make you better off.

Mental illness
Boredom
Purpose

I know this thread is a joke, but how can I really unspookify myself. I looked at the Stirner book at a store and it's pretty hard to read. I guess something being hard to read is a spook too. Damn

Supporting your country is fine as you recognise that it is a spook and as long as you don't put it ahead of yourself.
Supporting nationalism as long as it benefits you (by retarding globalism) is fine.

Don't worry about it. Spook is just a rebranding of "Social Construct" that was adopted when the mainstream started realizing it's not actually an argument in and of itself.

Pragmatically supporting certain arrangements is not spooked at all.

For example, I'm in favour of the welfare state because I like free money, but I'm not into all the leftist ideology. I just want free money like a nigger.

That's just being a spineless hypocrite, though.

What's wrong with that? Do I get extra good-boy points for suffering by my principles?

What does spook mean?

I had two furry versions but fan't gind it. Fuck

You cease in denigrating your self, body, mind and soul.
Your rationality is not the issue, it's your will.

I dunno what exactly is going on in this thread but...
>I read Skyrim's in-game books for entertainment

you mean the ego, the self is free of spooks

I love this.

whats the best english version of "ego and its own"

How is it being hypocritical to support things in your favour?

Also, what's wrong with hypocrisy?

Is a spook a spook?

yes

Help me for this one:

Spook are only thought/concept, they do not exist in reality therefore must be rejected.
The concept of a spook is also a spook.

Then rejecting spooks leads to rejecting the concept of spooks.
Then I can't accept that spooks must be rejected and reject the concept of spooks at the same time.

Seems logically incoherent to me.

you can still catogorise things as spooks if thats the game you choose to play knowing its a spook dosnt lesser the fact all other concepts are spooks aslo

>Seems logically incoherent to me.
That's because it is.
It's the exact same circular reasoning/tautology they used to trot out for social constructs until the mockery became too intense.

Yeah
>social constructs are bad
>let's promote feminism/equality/multiculturalism

Becoming a wild animal seems cool to me

> they do not exist in reality therefore must be rejected.

that's not what a spook is

read stirner. doesnt matter how many explanations you see on Veeky Forums. you wont understand what a spook is until you read his work.

yiff in hell furfag

there's no self silly

Kek

Now I have nostalgia

No, love is an illusion, a misunderstanding.
Mutual love is a mutual misunderstanding of being mutually loved.
And engagement is a vow to not wake up for your whole life from that misunderstanding.

Love is not passion or romance, it's about finding someone who represents what you value the most in your hierarchy of values and that you enjoy their company. However, it is an illusion because people display their best qualities in an attempt to form connection, so the more you know a person, the more disappointing they become. Hence, an engagement is a vow to keep that illusion static.

Love can become a spook if you do not value it highly in your hierarchy of values and it becomes a duty to love. If it becomes a chore to love a person whom you lost all respect, and hold no redeemable qualities, then it becomes a spook.

God you people are fucking retarded

brah just say "no" next time and move on

How would Stirner ask a girl out?