So is the essential idea behind a spook that if something is cultural or social construct it doesnt exist?

So is the essential idea behind a spook that if something is cultural or social construct it doesnt exist?

>implying anyone has read stirner

Read Stirner bro.

Not even remotely, but that's how braindead leftists like to misinterpret the concept

Ideas that you inadvertently let yourself be controlled by.

>leftist
>referencing left and right wing in a stirner thread
WHO YOU GONNA CALL

Spooks are literally pure ideology. And so on and so on

SO WHAT'S "NOT" A SPOOK?!

Me

suicide

If you comprehended Stirner you would realize nearly everything is an invention of society and therefore a spook.

>implying the self exists

Is equality a spook?

>max stirner is born in 1706
>is taken behind the barn and duffed up for saying stupid shit at the age of 16

Why have we stopped doing this? The calamity of Liberalism/Democracy/Individualism could've been avoided altogether.

What's the best Stirner translation?

Lit, I don't come around here much, but I like the idea of individualism and egoism. My problem is I really like Stirner and what he had to say, but when I go out to look at people that taken up his political ideology they all believe in anarcho sydicalism or some kind of utopian leftist society which I though was laden with spooks in the sense that it has some idea of an end goal people should aim for because it'd supposedly make their lives better but just ends up being the spooky pursuit of some grand idea instead of evaluating the actual situation they're in and their approach to handling it. Am I missing something?

I AM the only thing that exist, and everything is my property.

>think, therefore you are
>think of social construct, which is nothing
>think nothing, so you dont think
>you dont exist
>profit

Social constructs do exist insofar as people relying on them make them have consequences in the material world. Stirner just says that, unlike those people, you should realize those social constructs are only as material as you want them to be. You have no duty to abide by them unless you want to. For example if it suits your interest.

>he thinks the Ego is not a spook
kys

Egalitarianism is a spook
Judgement for not believing in the merits of Egalitarianism is a spook
Having any kind of belief that supersedes your own experience and existence is a spook

Stirner doesn't reject spooks altogether. You may follow a spook if it is profitable for you. For many people supporting left wing measures directly benefits them. It doesn't matter if the Utopic part of the ideology is spooky.

Thanks user, I guess I had a more puritain idea in my head that spooks that big should be shunned in favour of something more anarchic.

Funny enough he did teach at a girl's school.

...

Anarcho syndicalism is ultimately egoist/individualist and supports Stirner's conclusion. A Union is not a spook, because it is not a lofty cause or calling to a greater purpose such as the State. Nor is it the pursuit of any form of utopia. It's a group all acting individually out of conscious egoism that align with acts of will, not ideologies. Were one member of The Union to continue practicing these acts despite suffering misfortune, it would no longer be a Union but something else. The Union has no authority above ones will

>he thinks he exists
It is merely an illusion..

>So is the essential idea behind a spook that if something is cultural or social construct it doesnt exist?

No a spook is any cause or interest you place above your own - hence anything you do that is not for your own sake.

Not true something not having a material existence doesnt make it a spook

There might not be a self but there is a creative nothing; a unique one.

Unlikey as he would have been 138 when he wrote his book.

There is only one whoever if you wait a couple years there will be a new a better one.

It figures that the best posts in this thread was ignored.

Completely incorrect, a spook by definition is hostile to the self, youve made the mistake of thinking ideas/nomaterial = spook.

t. braindead righty

comparing the different posts you supported and replied to are you saying spooks differ for each person?

not doing what u want = spook
doin what u want = COOL guy

>the self is an illusion
>ownership, even ownership of your body and thoughts is a spook

>comparing the different posts you supported and replied to are you saying spooks differ for each person?

Its more like some concepts and ideas become spooks for others whilst some do not. For instance someone can understand good and heresy without being spooked by either.

For example consider charity, for some it is a spooky activity -something they feel they must do to be a "good" person, however then you have some who do it just for the joy of helping people which comes naturally to them. Indeed to betray this impulse due to some ideology would itself be spooky.

Hence you have the concept of charity and "self sacrifice" being both spooky and non spooky.

The latter case being an example of a person making charity her property.

Again unless you are shit posting dont you get that spooks arent simply the immaterial.

Good work, Stirnerposter who actually read Stirner.

I have yet to read Stirner (sorry sorry) but if spooks are concepts that are contrary to your personal happiness, then the ideas of self and ownership are definitely spooks.

t. meditator

Where does the whole spook concept occur? Is it in the ego and its own?

Yes. It's clarified at the very beginning of Critics of Stirner iirc

>I have yet to read Stirner (sorry sorry) but if spooks are concepts that are contrary to your personal happiness, then the ideas of self and ownership are definitely spooks.

Something becomes a spook when you place its interest above your own, hence you cant really place the "self" above yourself unless it becomes some ideological construct (and hence isnt really yourself)

When it comes to ownership - and this is where most people who havent read him go wrong - he is talking about an approach rather than physical power and control. Hence when you do certain acts because they are in your interest and not for their own sake you make it your property; you treat as something below the self

Accordingly when that memester was saying that everything is her property it is meant that she views all things as only having value or worth subject to her interests - to be keep or disposed as she pleases.
See Stirners critics will clearly kill off major memes like the ego/self is a spook.

Here you go