Define "spook"

What's wrong with spooks? Don't they give us a collective benefit?

Stirner was an anarchist, so giving them a negative name is probably just a reflection of his personal opinion or maybe actually an attempt to make you think badly of them aswell.

There is some benefit in being aware of a spook being a spook of course. Even if the spook is actually beneficial and should be maintained.

benefit is a spook

Calling everything a spook is a spook

These dubs are a spook

Spooktastic

[s p o o k y]

Stirner and his spooks. Fucking hell. It's sort of a corollary to nihilism or solipsism, a line of critique with no underlying valid purpose or goal, that only serves to allow second-rate deconstructionist trash to appear smarter than they are.

A 'spook' is just anything that makes you act differently than you would with its absence, despite it being only an internal concept of the mind. This is a retarded appeal to naturalism, and a tactic to trip up people who use it specifically so that you can then BTFO them by critiquing the idea that people have a 'natural state of mind'.

For this reason, while I despise Stirner and his spook crap, he has done the world a great service by allowing anti-deconstructionists to easily BTFO the lazy deconstructionists looking to get a quick snippity snipe in on them by tearing them a new asshole for appealing to naturalism in the absence of a framework for naturalism to occur.

>What's wrong with spooks?
They inhibit your ability to live a fulfilled life as you confuse your own individual interests with them or at worst see your own interests as being lesser.

Stirner doesnt tell you to abolish spooks as much as he asks you "why would you act against your own interests"

>Don't they give us a collective benefit?
Spook =/= social construct, when you use such a construct for your benefit it becomes your property.

>only serves to allow second-rate deconstructionist trash to appear smarter than they are.

This is a rather ironic criticism of Stirner given that his entire work was based around destroying the second rate deconstructionalists in the Left Heglians.

>A 'spook' is just anything that makes you act differently than you would with its absence, despite it being only an internal concept of the mind

Simply not true it describes a very specific relationship between the individual and ideas/concepts.

>while I despise Stirner and his spook crap,
All he did was write that people can have different interests to those propounded by social constructs hardly anything to get in a tissy about

If you clicked this thread you probably already understand spook at least as "something that only exists in your mind yet tremendously affects your behavior" so I'll talk about how a "Spook" is more nuanced than a synonym of "social construct". I think this is important because this board so often seems to conflate the two.

It should be noted here that "social construction" as a concept only entered the common lexicon among supporters of social justice causes fairly recently (the specific term was coined and popularized in the 1960s (more than a hundred years after the release of Stirner's magnum opus, The Ego And Its Own). So, the concepts' genealogies are entirely separate.
A social construction can be equated with the phrase I mentioned earlier, where a social construct is effectively an understanding of the world, humanity, etc. shared by many *that becomes a systemic belief/understanding where it is reflected on people through socialization (ie virtually everyone is raised with gender), despite the fact that such understandings have no physical basis. Application of the term shares some overlap with that of "spook", where both are often used to dismiss notions about nationalism and the state. However, "social construction" as a concept is also extended to describe many other things: race, gender, most identities as a whole. This sort of identity is not related by philosophers (or philosopher, if we're being entirely honest) to the concepts of "spooks". Spooks, instead, describe social *institutions* that can be tied to authority and notions of freedom: Stirner describes the state, nationalism ("the fatherland"), and property as spooks. The aforementioned identities are not referenced by him.
It should probably be noted that his outlook was greatly impacted by his time, in that while the state and property had already come under siege from european intellectuals (especially his peers), gender and race had not been touched upon in the same manner. Had he been living today, his "spooks" may have been more aligned with what is described as "social construction", but that's all speculation.