Why use property you already have...

Why use property you already have? Would taking one's property further establish that the property wasn't yours in the first place, separating the individual from the property he doesn't have? Further, wouldn't taking action, even as an egoistic entity, act as immolation, sacrificing your property to be split into the individual and property to be taken, in order to have a reason to use it as such?

Bump

Property is an approach to something ie seeing it not as something above yourself but something to be dealt with based on your own interests.

Hence it doesnt mean property in the sense of the contents of your wallet which is how people can make things like the state their property without becoming a Tzar.

Best concise account of Stirner's concept of property I've read on here in 6 months, good work actually reading Stirner senpai

But the point I am getting at is that why he has to deal with it? Dealing-with something assumes he recognizes that property in one way, sacrificing other ways of recognition, in order to achieve some end point. You end up serving that end goal, what means not being free. If rebuke is being lucid, conscious egoist whilst choosing what and how to serve, you end up serving your lucidity. As soon as you recognize property, you already establish a duality between yourself and some other abstract entity, each action being for one or for the other.

>Stirner's philosophy is incoherent
Damn man never would have guessed.

Who is this man and why do I keep seeing this drawing?

>But the point I am getting at is that why he has to deal with it?
English your second language?
Property is only what you can take, hold on to, and presumably need.
If your greed leads you to take more than you can hold, or somehow is bringing you to pains, you just might be suffering some kind of spook.
I'm probably not being very orthodox Stirner, (since I do feel a tad at odds with him) but I think the language barrier is messing you and/or us up here.

It's pretty straight forward.

>But the point I am getting at is that why he has to deal with it?

Because firstly it helps clarify what a spook is and is not and secondly and more pertinent to your issue is that it provides a clear way of despooking rather than the old "just beeee yourself"

>recognizes that property in one way, sacrificing other ways of recognition, in order to achieve some end point. You end up serving that end goal, what means not being free.

The end goal with Stirners concept of property is the ego/self, which cannot enslave itself anymore than a triangle can be a circle. The latter part of your paragraph reads as if you believe that the ego is separate and distinct from the self.
Hegel had a brief affair with Berlin bar maid and refused to recongise the resulting child. This child grew up to mildly successful and very resentful.

Was about to ask the same thing

Really? I've always thought it looked like Hegel, without being him..

Max Stirner, an incoherent nihilist. Same reason you see Pepe everywhere, it just strikes a ridiculous chord with people, there's no narrative of why people on this stupid site are so memey about it, it just weirdly appeals to people

it's because Stirner advocates Myth-of-Sisyphus-style philosophy and isn't popular enough to have been so mocked as Camus, and, in more proximate terms, it's because reddit/badphilosophy went through a semi-ironic Stirner phase and crossposters spread the meme to Veeky Forums

>If your greed leads you to take more than you can hold, or somehow is bringing you to pains, you just might be suffering some kind of spook.
It's spooky to think you are suffering from a spook because it implies a spook of suffering being a condition you try to avoid.

>Because firstly it helps clarify what a spook is and is not and secondly and more pertinent to your issue is that it provides a clear way of despooking rather than the old "just beeee yourself"
I agree that it clarifies spooks, but it would go against Stirner to be necessarily aware of all the spooks. It's spooky to think of being conscious ad a condition to strive to.

>The end goal with Stirners concept of property is the ego/self, which cannot enslave itself anymore than a triangle can be a circle. The latter part of your paragraph reads as if you believe that the ego is separate and distinct from the self.
The Ego enslaves itself within itself by creating an identity that sees the world to be outside of it. If Ego would recognize the world to be Self, it would entail he shouldn't have any reason to do anything.

Can you fools just read the book already?

Hardmode: Without misunderstanding a text that is clear as day.

Is it a good read? I keep hearing about "spooks." What is his reasoning behind caring about these "spooks?"

For some reason leftists like to call everything a spook while using Stimer images. It's irrelevant (considering I know nothing about him) but that's what I've noticed.

>The Ego enslaves itself within itself by creating an identity that sees the world to be outside of it.
The world IS outside the self
>If Ego would recognize the world to be Self, it would entail he shouldn't have any reason to do anything.
And then he'd die right where he sat. Your point?

>For some reason leftists like to call everything a spook
Things that come from your head. Perceptions that humans invented and make slaves of themselves to. I should think it would very much interest certain portions of The Right as well, but you're probably just one of those slaves to god, nation or capital, or some combination.
It's very relevant. Do read.

So then how can one claim it is the Ego who holds control over world and not the world over Ego? Now abstract ideas posited by other people control you, you can't escape acting in accordance to them as long as you participate in action as Ego within the world. Is it you who made the idea, or the idea that made itself manifest through using you?

I have read it two years or so ago when the meme was fresh.

A spook is something that you irrationally put above yourself; above your interests. Psychologically speaking, this means that you have been tricked into thinking that this spook is within your interest, and to put it simply it's emotional blackmail.

This goes beyond the simple examples of Ideology and religion. Stirner applies this to everything. He does not even speak of egoism in the traditional sense. The ego itself is a spook. Stirner calls it ''The creative nothing'', because the self is not a solid thing, it changes constantly.

Certain parts of your environment shape a person, but the Earth does not command me. It is fated to orbit the sun, I am free to roam where I can, possess what I can. Working symbiotically with the environment. The Earth is not a spook, just our perception of it.

>it is fated
Then who controls fate controls you.

>why [insert nonsensical question grounded on a false premise and designed to provoke hotheaded but essentially thoughtless debate]

Classic form.

Nobody control the fate of anything, fully. Some things are just more likely, and much of the determination is beyond our grasp of perception.

>ctrl-f spook
>20 results
fucking knock it off

>nobody controls the fate of anything
Says who?
>much of determination is beyond our grasp
Exactly, and not "much" of it is beyond our grasp, every determination is beyond our grasp. The unability to see behind the walls of perception means every phenomena of our perception can act as a centrepiece and we the irrelevant side result. You , as I said before, don't know if it's the spooks who control you, construed themselves through you when you take action in accordance to them.

>You
I'm not that guy.

>>nobody controls the fate of anything
Says who?

Nobody, as in, a person doesn't control the fate of anything in it's totality due to causality and influence, and so on.

>Exactly, and not "much" of it is beyond our grasp, every determination is beyond our grasp.

Well, to be honest, I agree with you. But I say ''much'' because we can never be truly wise to it, there will always be an ''illusion'' of free will.

Concerning spooks. Look at this

I have been playing the same Rome: Total War save game since October 2012. Since then I have directed the Roman Julii faction to victories across the map provided by the game, and I have for four yeas now dominated the entire map aside from one Lycia in which I have allowed to be governed by Pontus. Every single settlement under my control is now as developed as it can be, with a thriving economy, a contented population, and a strong military garrison. There has not been a rebellion in over two years (real-time) of playing. Whenever I feel the need to sublimate my desire to dominate or inflict manner I load up this game, offer a large sum of money to Pontus, allow them several years to build their forces and then invade them with several full armies, each led by a named general, and I decimate them in a four-way assault, often sending two legions of cavalry to arrive as reinforcements at their rear flank while I send wave after wave of arrows and missiles into their ranks. When I'm done I retreat my armies to the border and watch as they struggle to rebuild once more. Whenever Pontus is threatened with annihilation due to a lack of family members I offer them control of a neighboring settlement after reducing it to rubble and, once their family is sufficiently reinforced, I invade their former home and reduce it to rubble, so that the leader of Pontus and all his heirs are forced to live in poverty in a wasteland surrounded on all sides by forces which could annihilate them immediately should they so wish. The feeling this knowledge gives me is so amazing I can barely describe it using words alone.

wrong
the stirner meme is entirely homegrown

never post again in my presence

I know what a spook is. I am trying to argue that any action whatsoever surrenders to spooks.

In other words, Stirner is a meme and I am putting an end to the shitposting who misread and misuse him.

I wouldn't call those things spooks.

If I am to do something, I have the idea of it which is caused by things prior things, etc. Spooks by Stirners description fall into a specific category of phenomena. Was I spooked because I ate cornflakes for breakfast, no I simply like cornflakes. Whatever influenced me to do this is nothing that I put above myself. It is not irrational. It would be a spook if I had the idea that if I stopped eating cornflakes I would die.

>So then how can one claim it is the Ego who holds control over world and not the world over Ego? Now abstract ideas posited by other people control you, you can't escape acting in accordance to them as long as you participate in action as Ego within the world. Is it you who made the idea, or the idea that made itself manifest through using you?

To comment on your previous statement.
Whatever the phenomena is and whatever influence it has on you is unavoidable, it does not stop you from acting for your interest. It's a process of influence, conditioning and reconditioning. Of course you can not, not be influenced. There is a great difference between acting in accordance with something for your conscious self interest and being fully blind to it, thus subject to manipulation and irrational choices.