Stirner solved all of philosophy, Prove me wrong

You make it sound stupid but something things just are. Spook is really just a name for something not real that compels you to act out of self interest. Why exactly does it need to come from somewhere?

ITT Veeky Forumsfags try to spook themselves out of egoism

It doesn't, i wasn't disagreeing with you i just pointed out that the concept of a spook is a itself a spook

How exactly? It doesn't make you work against your self interest, not all concepts are spooks

So the concepts that are in my self-interest are not a spook? so if i take a spook, say nationalism and the said "it is in my egoistical self interest to be a nationalist" then suddenly it doesn't become a spook? am i getting something wrong here?

Nationalism puts your nation above yourself; inherently spooky

You haven't read The Ego and His Own. Stirner says that you can literally be a member or even a leader of a spooked political party as long as you are one out of egoism.

Being a nationalist out of pure egoism and self-interest, instead of some spooked higher ideal, is de-spooked.

HE DIDNT CARE ABOUTT WHITENESS AND MASCOULINITY THEREFORE HE WAS A KEK CRYBABY DEGENARETS LIBTARD FAGOUT

Then you're not a nationalist. You can call yourself a nationalist and go to rallies or whatever but putting yourself above it all means your not really a nationalist

This

That's an extreme definition of nationalism and not what is generally meant by it.

It's like saying people are only vegans if they would voluntarily starve to death if the only available food would be animal based.

Since we are on the topic of Individualism and Egoism.
Are there any philosophers who expanded on that field properly?

While I'm interested in Stirners ideas his one book he wrote on that matter is an absolute shitshow.
Ego and its own is a good 200 pages too long for what its worth.

Ayn Rand.

>Rand
Weew
Sooner or later I'll probably have to read Atlas shrugged or fountainhead.
Are the books page-turners or do I have to chew through 1000 pages of drivel?

Read Stirner's Critics.

>expanded
It doesn't need to be expanded

Disregard her fiction because it is definitely not worth it. Just read The Virtue of Selfishness of you want a grasp of her philosophy. It's still not worth it but at least it's less than 200 pages.

I'm going with this one first then.

>Spooks don't come from anywhere, they're a metaphysical idea
>something not real that compels you to act out of self interest
The humanism, communism, nationalism that Stirner criticizes are not metaphysical, they are ideologies and utopias people came up with.

Ideologies come from feelings

Why is individual self-interest so connected with deregulated capitalism. If you're not already living on wealth, it's pure cuckery to support this kind of politics. You should support socialism out of your class interests, as it's clearly the best way to reduce working hours and economic exploitation. The proletariat is fucking depressing these days,

Class interest obviously works against self interest

Only if you place them above your own

That's what class interest is

How you relate to the means of the production isnt something you place above yourself by necessity.

Moral anti-realism is a relatively heterodox position among modern philosophers so no.

>Stirner solved all of philosophy
By refusing to partake in it and go "words mean nothing to me muh creative nothing"? Sure.

It was mysticism tier.

Stirner is a spook

>Stirner solved all of philosophy, Prove me wrong
Barring fringe cases which don't apply to you and me, there is no functional difference between spooked and despooked freedom, rationality, truth, ethics, politics, pedagogy or anything. Unbeknownst to autistic foreheadman, nobody backstabs their friend or an heroes for "truth" or "morals" even when that person makes objective knowledge or highest morality their aim, because kys over such an ideal would be autistic, and no one has inferiority issues because they place more value in their ideals than themselves. On the contrary, freedom and happiness and highest morality are something you pick up on the side when you commit yourself to such an ideal fully (see eudaimonia, kant..) and they are in this mode necessarily despooked because no subjugation takes place. Only to Stirner they still are spooks because you aren't properly putting the self-interest above the "sacred"-interest. Hence my response: I don't have to in order to beat you at your own game.

Furthermore, adding concepts like psychological satisfaction into the equation makes coming up with a heuristic for best-value self-interest near impossible. Try it. And try defining self-interest before that. It's not as easy as Stirner makes it sound.

Spooks are egoism.

Egoism is a spook.

The distinction is meaningless.

then who or what is Samuel Harris

Self-interest is whatever you want to do even if it fucks you up, it doesn't necessarily entails that it must be the best for you, Also are you implying psychological egoism?

Thats Wittgenstein m8

>Barring fringe cases which don't apply to you and me, there is no functional difference between spooked and despooked freedom, rationality, truth, ethics, politics, pedagogy or anything.
Its the difference between authenticity and fakeness. The whole spook and property distinction simply provides an easier path with less contradiction when it comes to identifying your interests and what makes you happy rather than hoping peer pressure and cultural inertia workout.

>Unbeknownst to autistic foreheadman, nobody backstabs their friend or an heroes for "truth" or "morals" even when that person makes objective knowledge or highest morality their aim,
"Peer pressure doesn't exist" "Women feeling pressured to not look after kids and work instead is a myth"

>and no one has inferiority issues because they place more value in their ideals than themselves.
They do, take a look at how pejorative the term selfishness is and the notion that placing your interests first is akin to being an antisocial monster.

>On the contrary, freedom and happiness and highest morality are something you pick up on the side when you commit yourself to such an ideal fully (see eudaimonia, kant..) and they are in this mode necessarily despooked because no subjugation takes place.
The key word in that part being "something you pick" the issue is most people don't feel they have the ability or "right" to and its more a matter of them being forced to commit themselves fully to cultural and capitalist norms. Not to mention all those who commit to something but as they values change feel obligated to continue in it.

Also aren't these people who fully commit to an ideal like this autists by your understanding?

>Only to Stirner they still are spooks because you aren't properly putting the self-interest above the "sacred"-interest. Hence my response: I don't have to in order to beat you at your own game.

You don't have to of course, it's simply more effective and consistent if you do.

>Furthermore, adding concepts like psychological satisfaction into the equation makes coming up with a heuristic for best-value self-interest near impossible.

As we are all unique individuals of course its difficult however its a provides a far better foundation than hoping that loyalty to an unchanging ideology will provide that happiness for a changing individual

>yeah guise individualism and everything
>but dem PROPERTY RIGHTS tho

if you are going to fight for a better wage and better work conditions via strikes or policies class interests are your interests.

the exeption would be the boss giving you a better position at work if you don't complain or strike.

can i get a quick rundown on this guy?

Hegel had sex with middleclass chemists daughter who actually believed that he was going to marry her one day. However surprise surprise when she got pregnant he ditched and she was left disgraced and with a bastard child which killed her chances of ever remarrying. That bastard child grew up and came to hate Hegel for what he did to his mother and spent his whole life in a failed attempt to refute his philosophy. He died childless, alone and unknown.

>DUDE SPOOKS LMAO

>kys over such an ideal would be autistic
>What are cops, teachers, judges, lawyers, etc.

>Freedom and highest morality are something you pick up on the side when you commit yourself
>you commit yourself
>no subjugation takes place

This linguistic merry-go-round is quite entertaining, I invite you to continue

...

So should I start with the greeks or Stirner?

Start with what you want to start with, whether it's what you have access to or a book you've been putting off buying, as long as you want it.

Rand's property rights aren't arbitrary. They might be ill-explained, but not ARBITRARY.

>implying their arbitrariness is at all relevant to their spookiness

c'mon my property, that comic clearly doesn't give a fuck about the specifics of rands indian burial ground

>falling for the "start with the greeks" meme
If you want to read Stirner then just start doing it now, if you are too lazy to get a copy of the book or you think property rights and capitalism are spooks the here is a free version:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

Nobody seems to have read past the first few pages of the Ego and Its Own.

It's pretty a sophisticated argument about how the Greeks and the Romans saw the World as something to "accept" and "deal with." They didn't really believe in any "deeper meanings." The Stoics are pretty good example of this. Christianity was revolutionary, since it was the first major religion to conceive the World in spiritual terms. Stirner's point was that liberals and socialists pretended to be "post-religious" when in fact they had merely substituted the Christian God with new spooks like "the people," "the nation," and even "the self."

Well the ancients did have a cosmocentric worldview, and Christianity is anthropocentric.

He was in the land of romantics and German idealists who saw spirits everywhere, yes, but...

>even "the self."
Nope.

>the self cannot be spooky or spooked

Are you living in the world, or on the internet? The major religion is that of the holy "I," that all "must do what is best for Me"