Is Stirner really a legit revolutionary thinker or have I been meme'd...

That's why you unite the WORLD under the spook flag.
Duh!

Again, there is no such thing as a "nation." You have this concept in your mind but it does not exist in reality. Look how it controls your actions even now.

>nation guided by stirnerist principles

uhh that's prolly because stirner's philosophy is inherently individualist? A stirnerite "nation" wouldn't have been a nation.

He's a functionally illiterate quack no one should be paying any noticeable amount of attention to.

A nation is a group of people on a plot of land. Think of a family, or a town, or a state, but on a larger scale. The fact that nations exist on every piece of land, and have existed since humans have existed should lead one to think that nations aren't purely 'spooks'.

really guys stop with the spook memes it's giving me ansxiety

Bad news: you're chronically sp00ked.

>A stirnerite "nation" wouldn't have been a nation
So you admit that he's a degenerate, and a group of people governed by judeo-christian philosophies would ultimately be superior by a Darwinian metric?

>So you admit that he's a degenerate
No?

uhh okay, dude

[get a fucking load of this /pol/ack cam]

You just said that he's an 'individualist' and that a group of people guided by his principles couldn't form a nation.

You clearly haven't actually read Stirner, you only have an elementary understanding of what a spook is.

>Think of a family, or a town, or a state

Those are all spooks, bud. Any abstract concept that exists in your mind is not actually real. It is a mental shackle that you let impede your (non-reified) self. If you want to limit yourself in this way, based on nonreal things, that is your choice, but those things are not real.

>/pol/ack
spooked m8

They would transcend a nation. Go read

>Those are all spooks, bud. Any abstract concept that exists in your mind is not actually real
The people are real, and the land that they inhabit is real. The force that they threaten anyone who violates their border with is real.

Define spook for me then.

>They would transcend a nation
But they would get conquered by a foreign nation. The Chinese or muslims etc. would invade and do whatever they wished with them, their wives, their land. If that's a satisfactory endpoint for you and your philosophies, fine, but I think you're retarded desu.

see

>Missing the point this hard

spooked

Which philosophy allows for defending your nation against the invading chink muslim hordes again?

Wow, I love how you're taking this in a high school history textbook scale

>Define spook for me then.
You haven't even read Stirner and you want to shit on him?

...Do you actually let Veeky Forums memes determine what you do and don't like?

What does that mean exactly? What actions would the stirnerists take when they 'unite under the spook flag'? Would they form a military with a rigid hierarchy for the sole purpose of warfare? Would the flag represent something one would typically call a 'nation'? Aren't nations just spooks?

>The people are real, and the land that they inhabit is real.

Yes they are, but considering these people on that land as an abstract object known as a "nation" is not reflective of reality. This "nation" exists only in your head, it is not concrete.

>The force that they threaten anyone who violates their border with is real.

Who is "they"? Just individuals who take orders from someone that they think has authority over them (authority is a spook). There is no "nation."

>
>Define spook for me then.

A spook is a reification. It is when you consider an abstract thing or concept to be concrete.

spook is any abstract concept, that you elevate above yourself. that you are serving instead of it serving you

One that's not individualist. Why would an individualist ever put their life on the line in military combat?

I've never met a stirnermemer capable of defining 'spook', yet they use the word as an argumentative crutch all the time. Truly the most pseud on 'philosophies'.

i think stirner is very legit.
to me he is actually marx, freud + nietsche and ahead of them all.
plus it is a very good critique of christianity.
however, when he emphasizes, that it is also in our interest to protect the week it becomes a little sophistic, but which philosophy isnt?
maybe read "die anarchisten" by mackay to grasp him better

Yes, "nation" is a spook. "Spook" is a spook. It's about freeing yourself from these things.

because he wouldnt want to end up a slave or conquered?
also there is is the verein, that could serve perfectly even in combat
--->

just read the thing you pleb.
not being conquered is your real self interest
you dont need a state to enslave you for that
also implying chinese wouldnt read stirner

Many of the things that you call spooks aren't spooks. Are engines a spook? No, you can point to an engine, and it has a practical and real function. Are nations a spook? No, you can point to a specific group of real people, the exact piece of land they inhabit with a defined border. Are laws spooks? The retaliatory force at the hand of the state you're threatened with for violating the law is certainly real. Your whole fetish with overusing 'spook' is a product of you having an extremely poor relationship with the nature of definitions.

>any abstract concept, that you elevate above yourself. that you are serving instead of it serving you
Is dying to protect my family a spook? I've elevated the survival of my offspring above myself, but it's a legitimate survival strategy for my offspring. Many people alive today are the descendants of men who were willing to fight wars to protect the sovereignty of their nation and their family within it. So what you call a spook is actually a very legitimate evolutionary survival strategy.

Thank your for your input.

Any other supplementary books I ought to read?

Holy fuck this is Casper flying over your head, dude.

Engines are concrete things. I can point to an engine and measure it. It is material.

Nations, laws, are not real. Show me a law. You can show me a piece of paper with ink on it. You cannot show me a "law." Our survival doesn't matter objectively. If you want to care about it go ahead, but it has no value outside of your mind.

>not being conquered is your real self interest
Which is why the stirnerist would simply flee. Being on the frontline and drawing fire for your brothers in arms is a spook after all.

>you dont need a state to enslave you for that
What exactly does one refer to when they say 'state'? Think about it.

You need a 'state' to tax the population and maintain a standing army (especially today) in order to survive as a nation.

This whole stirner meme is for edgy fedora teenagers who at their core are just angry at their parents and the kids who rejected them in high school. You'll grow out of it, kiddos.

Nothing is flying over my head. Every stirnermemer I've ever talked to on Veeky Forums has been stupid as fuck. I think it's a matter of you being legitimately too dumb to understand what I'm saying.

>Nations, laws, are not real.
I've already stated the pragmatic effects of these concepts. The force you're threatened with for violating the law is the real part, and it exists to deter potential criminals from committing crimes in the first place. This is some serious autism on your part.

>Our survival doesn't matter objectively
Sure, so kill yourself. My hypothetical nation will survive, and yours won't. There's nobody technically correct here, but my projected result is undeniably better than yours.

see

>>>>>>>whoosh>>>>>>>>

>this thread

S P O O K E D
P
O
O
K
E
D

>The force you're threatened with for violating the law is the real part

So a law isn't real, you concede? If I do something someone doesn't like they may initiate force. Where is the "law"? It is nowhere.

>Sure, so kill yourself.

Killing and not killing myself have the same objective value: null.

>My hypothetical nation will survive, and yours won't.

And? (And no they won't survive because they never existed)

>There's nobody technically correct here, but my projected result is undeniably better than yours.

Yes, your life of obedience to things that don't exist is admirable.

Not him, but stop using reddit slang, mang.

Yo'r to self consus.

if it was in their own self interest to fight collectively against an invader that doesn't pose any problems for someone who holds stirnerite views. read the fucking book you pleb

Yes, it is possible to act in concordance with a spook if you deem it to be in your best interest, while simultaneously understanding the spook is not real.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm missing the point. If anything, stirnermemers are the ones failing to understand.

There's no physical object called a law, but the concept of law and the laws we enshrine guide our behaviors. We have a police force that will hunt you down and throw you in a cage for violating the law. Why do we have laws? Some people are animals that would murder and steal freely were they not faced with the threat of force at the hand of the state.

When you're thinking of the definition of 'law', or any definition really, think of what results it produces. What do 'laws' make true?

>Killing and not killing myself have the same objective value: null
I get that, but you don't kill yourself right here and now. Why?

>tfw you ask a qt to be your gf and she tells you being a gf is a spook

Winning is a spook.

If you kill me, I win.
I win anyway.

Let me try to put this in simple terms. Things that are not material objects are not real. If it is not a material thing, it is not real. Anything that you conceive of that is not material is not real. Nations, laws, morals, relationships, etc. are not material and are not real. They just exist in your mind. If a bunch of people pretend these things are real, it doesn't make them real. These things that are not real, that people pretend are real, that people allow themselves subject their selfs to, these things are called spooks.

Is god a spook?

Yes but the consequences of these things are real. They cast a shadow, as it were.

I'm sure Stirner was massively revelatory to people in the 19th century, where social systems were pretty much all there were to define ones life. But there's nothing interesting about someone pointing out that a law takes no physical form in 2017. If you live your life without regard for spooks/things that hold no physical form, you'll be thrown in jail for not paying your taxes, or just starve to death because fiat money is probably a spook and you can't shoplift indefinitely.

Plato pls go and stay go

See

You do realize that by that definition that the concept of spooks are themselves a spook, right? And that the processes of avoiding spooks is therefore to be governed by the spook of spookiness itself?

Seems like a pretty sound philosophical foundation m8.

>Things that are not material objects are not real. If it is not a material thing, it is not real.
I understand that my man. These principles that you call 'spooks' like laws and nations etc. produce real results in the real world though. They guide our actions as a collective in a way that wouldn't be possible without them. Also, your definition of these concepts is fucked up. When you think of what a law is, you either have a very emotional and basic understanding or you're trying to think of what everyone else thinks a law is. Forge your own pragmatic definitions.

Gonna paste the smartest thing I've read on Veeky Forums about Stirner:

You're making a fundamental mistake with Stirner: his philosophy isn't one of possibility and generality, but of reality and particularity. You use his terminology to compare individuals and societies when not doing that is precisely his point.

Say you poor that tomato juice. You have interacted with the ocean. In that stuation, you have dirtied its waters, let's assume that was your intention, and as such have made the water your Own. Then you find the water becomes blue again. Does that mean you have lost ownership of the ocean? No, the view of the blue water is still *your* view, still your Own. But because you compare the red and the blue; then you imagine the ocean has an agency of its own, which is more powerful than yours. From this to sacrificing virgins there's only a few steps.

The problem arises because there's a fixation. You have two memories which you compare, in order to extract some sort of abstraction or truth. You are thinking in terms of possibilities and generalities. That's not how Stirner works. His ownership is an *active* ownership; things are only your Own so long as you can interact with them: he doesn't think you can lay claim forever to anything by just touching it once--unless you make others deluded, and then only so far as you can keep up the play. His might is not a matter of authority, it's not ownership in legal, ad futurum terms. The point is to quit equating your sensory perceptions to abstractions and inferations, and treat them as they come along.

As for the savages, they don't philosophize in the same way they don't speak English like we do, and don't have wings like birds do--so really your issue with them is that they're not more like your Own. A stupid issue: you only have your own petceptions of them to compare to. Likewise with society: saying the individual finds *himself* weaker than society, is based on *his* assesment.

Lastly, Stirner really isn't against society at all. He only speaks to perpetuate his ideas, which can only happen upon others hearing them and propagating them, ideas which are based on self-aware and self-honest interchange. It's pretty much the complete opposite of being autonomous in the traditional sense, the boundaries typically assigned to the individual don't exist in a fixed state to him.

Of course spooks are spooks. Who said that the concept of spook is a real thing? It's a mental concept to help you identify other mental concepts (spooks).

>tfw stars in the sky are a spook

You can't hold or feel a star, all you can see is the physical side effects of its presence in the form of light reaching your eyes during nighttime. This is functionally the same as a law, which has no physical form that you can touch or feel but which has physical side effects, like when you break it and pigs break your kneecaps.

Better check my nations blood pressure and feed ut plenty of fruit so that it survives haha

What are you doing at the doctos m8? Oh my nation has this persistint cough haha

You haven't even read Stirner. Every point made has gone completely over your head. You are some 17 year old who thinks he can argue against a philosophy he hasn't read by making poor hypothetical situations. It's embarrassing.

You can see stars, dumbass. And you can feel the closest star.
>heat

Jsut fuck off.

Selection takes place at the genetic level, spooker

Sight is a spook though, isn't it?

...

Man is to nation as cell is to body. The fact that getting conquered drastically reduces your chance of genetic continuity still remains.

Can you touch sight? Sight isn't a physical object so aligning your beliefs with what you can see is a spook, and therefore simply seeing (or feeling by the same logic) the sun doesn't prove that it's not a spook.

>You can see stars.
You stupid piece of shit, you mouthbreathing pile of masturbating, shitfucking human refuse, you don't see STARS, you degenerate cum-guzzler, you just see the LIGHT from what MIGHT be a star. You fucking retard, you double-stupid dickbreather. That could be light from literally anything, you don't know.
>You can feel what the sun generates (heat), but you can't feel what a law generates (coercive governance).

pour yourself a big fucking stein of bleach my guy, ill even jerk off into it so you get a nice frothy head on that bitch, I want you to turn that shit upside down in your mouth so the whole thing goes right down your cock-loose gullet and finally removes you from this universe, and then when anyone asks about you I can say they're in thrall to a spook because sorry, brainless shitboi 69 is no longer with us and you know what THAT means.

Stirner is literally 2deep4u buddy.

From how you memers represent him, he appears to be a flaming dumpster fire retard.

>You stupid piece of shit, you mouthbreathing pile of masturbating, shitfucking human refuse, you don't see STARS, you degenerate cum-guzzler, you just see the LIGHT from what MIGHT be a star. You fucking retard, you double-stupid dickbreather. That could be light from literally anything, you don't know.

AHAHAHAH HOLY FUCK

Guys, can we touch Veeky Forums? Is using this website a spook? Are we spooked as a result of shitposting on Veeky Forums?

>I want to know how & why this guy made Engels & Marx collective jimmies rustle so much

Stirner kept shouting "SPOOK" from the back of the room and interrupting the meetings. M&E got pissed. Also he kept shouting "you can't argue with me until you've read me!" which was equally annoying.

All joking aside, M&E realized that Stirner could not contribute to their ideas of government and economics. Really Stirner can't contribute to any such attempts not only because he would regard government itself a spook but also because his philosophy can't serve as the foundation to any reasonable political theory.

Imagine there is a philosopher who is a completely committed and dogmatic "brain-in-a-vat" solipsist. Like they're not even doing it as a thought experiment, they genuinely believe that their consciousness is the only thing that exists. What does this person think about free market economics? They don't even care because free market economics doesn't exist nor do the people that practice it. The only direction they can consistently approach the "outside world" in is one of hedonism because that means that their ends are strictly contained in their own consciousness. It's not really possible to have a constructive dialog with such a person because they can dismiss anything you say as being "not real."

Stirner isn't quite that bad but he gets pretty close. A Stirnerist would be governed completely by his own ego (which is at its core a form of hedonism) and so would be difficult to wrangle into any sort of system of governance because he doesn't want to be ruled by anything other than his own ego. This sort of person is not the type you want to build a society on. Really the only justifiable government to this sort of person is anarchy, which M&E weren't interested in at least for a long time into the future. You could also say "a union of egoists" but that hasn't really worked out so well historically. Everyone has the incentive to screw everyone else over because their own ego desires the rewards.

Just to be clear I'm not a Marxist or anything (and I think M&E had a lot wrong) but I couched the discussion in terms of them because that's what you asked. The above paragraphs could be easily rewritten to apply to nearly any philosophy because they are heavily reliant on what Stirner would call spooks.

> inb4 your argument relies of society existing, which is doesn't

Data is a physical object.

So do you agree that stinerists are governed by spooks, then?

Can you touch words? Are words physical objects? No. Your whole post is a spook.

The concept of 'law' and 'nation' takes up 'data' in the brain so to speak, so they're no longer spooks.

ITT thread: A Stirnerist who makes fun of everyone for not understanding Stirner but can't denies the implications of Stirnerism to himself

Veeky Forums IS data. You are something else entirely for nations and laws, that they exist outside of the mind/data.

ITT: assravaged brainlet lashing out at Stirnerbros

>Veeky Forums IS data
So are laws. So are all ideas. There literally are no spooks. Nothing is a spook because every idea is data.

stirner BTFO

o lord,you have no idea.
just read it mkay? if you don't get what is saying, no one can help you

just get into anarchy you fucking pleb
i dont need state to protect/enslave me

At this point I think you simply don't want to understand. Oh well.

Why does it matter if something is a spook or not?

JUST READ IT BEFORE SHITPOSTING
man
stirner is about taking yourself seriously. and not being determined by some abstract slave morality that wants you to sacrifice your life for the "nation", "church" or whatever. it just gives you the power to elevate yourself above those concepts. if you don't get it then stay a slavish person controlled by abstract concepts
or READ A FUCKING BOOK

Ultimate it doesn't. But if you would like to recognize things that are not real, but which exert a controlling influence over your actions, you may find the concept useful.

Why is Stirner still used to get (you)s? I recall a time when Veeky Forums more or less agreed that stirner discussion was subtle trash

So far Stirner just seems like a bunch of semantics. 99% of people will agree that govt has no physical form and that it's a wholly social/mental concept that only "exists" inside people's minds.

And then Stirnerites go BUT DONT YOU SEE IT HAS NO PHYSICAL FORM SO IT DOESNT EXIST JUST READ STIRNER YOU FAGGOT

Yeah everyone agrees with you, dude, they just don't have your weird complex about the word "exists."

That's great... if you live in a vacuum... by yourself...

The problem is that you admit it isn't real, then tell me that I have to obey it. No I don't. I can choose to if it suits my interests. I have no obligation either way.

This. We also don't think that constructs are bad either.