Can we have an actual, meme-free discussion of spooks? No, spooks

File: gurupurnima1.jpg (57KB, 279x320px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 279x320px

Spooks are just the Buddhist concept of anatta with the Self immunized from the same critique because "Muh feelings"

Its literally just saying "In addition to phenomena, which is real and exists, human beings create a vast web of abstractions and social conventions that are purely imaginary and exist only due to group consensus" or "social constructs" in faggot jargon.

Stirner hit upon this idea, but immunized the self as a creative nothing instead of a collection of aggregates because again, "Muh feelings".

>>1104018
this thread is a spook

Spooks aren't the interesting part, though. The interesting part is the philosophy behind them.

>>1104039
Actually, he didn't immunize the self, the self is automatically excluded from the definition, because an abstraction is not inherently a spook, you fucking retard. You make this argument continually, and it always hinges on you being a worthless, lazy retard who never read the damn book.

>>1104088
>He didn't exclude the self from the concept!
>He just excluded the self from the concept!

Uh-huh.

A spook is an abstraction you attempt to give life to and serve as though it were an entity unto itself. This includes other people as all you ever really know of them is the idea of them, rather than them as an entity (since they are, as individuals unable to actually be known). What people often miss about the spooks concept is that ideas themselves are not bad; it's not wrong to believe in and value love, morals, humanity, etc. you should (assuming you value your own autonomy) just own them and use them towards your benefit. His central point is that concepts themselves are tools, created by men to serve men, not something that created themselves for men to serve.

>>1104039
But that's wrong, anon.

>>1104058
explain?

>>1104107
He didn't exclude the self. Excluding the self would be "but the self doesn't count, because reasons." The very concept is meant to explain shit that we serve ahead of ourselves, but you can't serve yourself ahead of yourself.

Also, can we skip you going into a tangent about how the self doesn't really exist? Because it's always idiotic, and you always get your shit blown out.

>>1104113
Okay first of all, I don't think the self doesn't exist. Second of all, you're clearly mistaking me for someone else. And thirdly of all, it is effectively "the self doesn't count, because reasons"

The concept of a spook, properly defined, is a fixed idea, especially a fixed idea whose interest is put above the interest of the ego. His concept is therefore, literally "Fixed ideas aren't real we just make them real. PLUS egoism"

>>1104136
You're an idiot. The definition never included the self, so it never had to be excluded. How fucking dense are you, you goddamn stupid cunt?

His entire point wasn't "ideas are bad because they're fake." His point was that "if you wish to maintain your personal autonomy, you shouldn't place ideas ahead of yourself."

GOD FUCKING DAMNIT, I HATE SPOOK POSTERS FOR RUINING THIS POINT.

>>1104109
"Spook" is just a fancy term for "abstraction". What's more interesting is how spooks affect the human mind, as well as how the human mind itself works. Stirner's philosophy can't just be summed up by the concept of a spook, and spooks were not the only thing he talked about.

>>1104147
>"Spook" is just a fancy term for "abstraction".

No, it isn't. The reason he calls them spooks is to suggest that they've been given a false life by attempting to serve them ahead of one's self.

>>1104146
hate is a spook

>>1104161
That gave me a solid kek for the duration of about 750 milliseconds.

>>1104147
Stirner's a spook.

EVERYTHING I DON'T LIKE IS A SPOOK

>>1104147
like the other anon said, it's not just "abstraction", though no spook isn't abstract.

>>1104179
>>1104301
plz stop.