Is egoism a spook that ignores the biological reality that humans

no because you can use other people to sate your emotional needs

>biological realities

Somebody call the ghostbusters, it's getting really spooky in here.

>>1502911
There are no spooks

File: sIBanUJ-.jpg (32KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 512x512px

Humans being social animals has nothing to do with the idea of living only to benefit yoursel, of anything, our ability to manipulate those within our social circles is a testament to egoism.

File: 220px-The_Selfish_Gene3.jpg (23KB, 220x341px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 220x341px

>>1502933
Except egoism is a spook because you're a product of your genes, and you live to benefit your genes, not yourself as an individual.

I sincerely wish more people would actually read the Ego and Its Own. I understand why they don't (that shit's some dense reading) but I wish they would all the same.

No, Stirner's pretty blunt about the fact that social behaviours such as altruism and cooperation are necessary to the pursuit of your self interest.

>>1502911

Have you even read Stirner's works or are you being a faggot and going "BUT EVERYTHING'S A SPOOK"

>>1502949
>No, Stirner's pretty blunt about the fact that social behaviours such as altruism and cooperation are necessary to the pursuit of your self interest.
But that's a spook. Altruism and cooperation are the result of genes that drives those behaviors and ideas. They are not the result of those ideas themselves. But the individuals will pretend that is the case when the individualism is really not the master of himself, but the slave to his genes.

>>1502947
>you're a product of your genes, and you live to benefit your genes
Where do you get this spook from?

>>1502949
sounds spooky t b h

>>1502947
>You are a product of your genes
>Except that product is not you (an individual)
Nigga what?

>>1502982
Your parents as individuals didn't have you as a child because it benefit them as individuals. They had you as a child because it benefited their genes. Stirner blindly elevated the status of the individual over that of relations, and in devotion to this spook, naturally he had no children.

>>1502993
That product is you as an individual, but you as an individual are a carrier of your genes. Stirner sought to elevate the individual above ideas, but this in turn was an idea that sought to elevate itself over biological reality.

>>1502911
*cough* Union of Egoists *cough*

>>1502911
Yes, Stirner overemphasizes the amount of rational, cognizant decision making we do. Most of how we view the world is subconscious.

>>1503000
You are not a carrier of your genes. Your genes are a component of you.

>>1503058
You are a product of your genes.

spooks are a spook

So, what is the issue with "spooks," if various amounts of these "spooks" are used in self preservation? Certain aspects like social societies and creating a sense of belonging and developing various forms of income would be all considered "spooks," but where is the error in judgement if they all can aide in you:
Making money
Developing a lifestyle
And prolonging your life...
It doesn't seem like a terrible outcome, to be quite honest.

>>1503090
And of your upbringing, your experiences, etc. It makes no sense to separate out the genes specifically. It is all "you."

>>1503129
He never says spooks are necessarily bad or harmful, only that you should make use of them in your own self interest rather than serve them.

>>1503130
>And of your upbringing, your experiences, etc. It makes no sense to separate out the genes specifically. It is all "you."
Those are societal factors that serve to propagate and continue your society. You are a slave to both your genes and society. But once you mention society, spooksters turn their brain off and declare society a spook.

>>1503143
I don't even necessarily mean social interactions. That time you were a kid and had rotten eggs, so now you hate eggs, comes from a combination of your immune system and your brain. You aren't a "slave" to your immune system, it is one component of the overall "you."

>>1503139
Why would he point that out if he wanted to extend his self preservation? Wouldn't it be better if you had everyone servicing under you without even realizing the error in their ways? It would be a beneficial relationship in that sense.

>>1503174
>Wouldn't it be better if you had everyone servicing under you without even realizing the error in their ways?
You may decide that doing something like that was in your self interest. He decided that making his observations and thoughts public was in his self interest. The two of you can have completely different assessments of what your "self interest" actually is, because there is no external concept of self interest to serve, only the desires of the individual.

>>1503187
>Only the desires of the individual.
But what if the individual is given freedom to manipulate others - wouldn't this still be extension of their desires, which can be easily assumed to be self preservation as a self interest?

File: 1440472787865.jpg (12KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x241px

I still don't know anything about this faggot's philosophy because literally thread is reduced to ''le 2 spookyxD''

>>1503206
Yes, if they decide that that is in their self interest. However, someone else may decide that that is not in their self interest.

>>1503187
The desires of the individual are determined by your genes and your spooks.

>>1503158
You are just one individual of a gene pool.