/Stirner/ - Stirner General

>>1727120
since breathing is a spook. the most rational thing for us to do is to kill ourselves and claim our own death by suicide before someone else claims it

>>1727120
>Language is a spook, so is it rational for me not to speak?
A spook isn't merely a social construct, it is one that is held sacred and put before your egoistic self-interest.

>>1727120
since breathing is a spook. the most rational thing for us to do is to kill ourselves and claim our own death by suicide before someone else claims it

breathing is not a spook
language is not a spook

File: 1310408441466.jpg (4KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 251x251px

>>1727120
>Language is a spook

>>1727120
>Do we need to rid ourselves of spooks?
Only if you want to.

>Or do we just need to recognize them?
You don't "need" to do anything, did you miss the fucking point?

>Language is a spook
No it fucking isn't

>so is it rational for me not to speak?
You're spooked as fuck pham

>>1727134
>since breathing is a spook.

I haven't even read Stirner (I doubt many people have despite his popularity here) and I get the feeling you're taking the "everything is a spook" meme too far.

He truly is one of the least read philosophers

File: steven pinker.png (18KB, 620x119px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 620x119px

Fellow /stirner/burners, what comes the closest to Stirner's philosophy?

For me, it's this quote

>>1727140
>>1727137
>>1727133

You're submitting yourself to a language and its rules, thus giving it power over you. Stirner himself regarded language as a spook.

>>1727165
He regarded elements of language as a spook.
For some things, it's not a case of 'it is a spook or isn't a spook' it's a case of 'it's sometimes a spook and sometimes isn't', language is exactly that, it can be used to spook you into certain things, but it's also an incredibly useful tool for interacting with people, which Stirner acknowledged was a part of most people's self-interest.

>You're submitting yourself to a language and its rules, thus giving it power over you. Stirner himself regarded language as a spook.

Is that what a spook is: anything that gives power over you?

From what you know, what precisely are Stirner's arguments, as succinctly as possible

>>1727165
>You're submitting yourself to a language and its rules, thus giving it power over you.

Absolutely not. Language is a tool, a useful one at that.

File: pE6VfpT.jpg (2MB, 2700x3600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2700x3600px

>>1727162
ass

Can someone just tell me what to read to understand this spook meme.

>>1727185
The Ego and Its Own

>>1727120
Sneezing is a spook. You shouldn't work for the plants by helping to spread their pollen's.

The word "we" is also a spook. Never use it.

>>1727165
>You're submitting yourself to a language and its rules, thus giving it power over you. Stirner himself regarded language as a spook.
"Correct grammar" is a spook. Language itself isn't.

>>1727185
Ego and it's own

>>1727180
>Absolutely not.

I don't give a shit about spooks but he's not wrong. A language, especially your primary language, shapes a lot of how you express yourself and how you think about things. Languages aren't simply the same words and terms said in a thousand different ways, they have different words with different meanings and different connotations that innately shape your views.
A language being a useful tool doesn't magically mean it has no power over you.

does stirner even actually use the word "spook" or refer to things as "spooks" in his writing?

or is the spooky meme in itself just a spook

You can go with a spook as a kind of gamble.

If you absolutely had to double your money in a day, going to the casino and putting all your money on black might be the most feasible means of doing so. You would not be doing so because you "feel lucky" or any other spooky reason, in terms of achieving your outlandish goal this has the most chance of success.

In the same way if a spook means that much to you you can try it, but it is ill advised. You might want to re-evaluate your priorities.

>>1727242
Stirner uses the word "meme" and calls things "dank memes".

>>1727242
50 times apparently
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own.html

>>1727242
>>1727261
interestingly he uses "spirit" 552 times

>>1727261
>mfw he has a whole fucking chapter dedicated to spooks called "The Spook"

fucking spooky

>>1727265
Apparently he used the word spook to mock the Hegelian idea of Geist. Dunno though

>>1727191
>>1727134
Do you autists actually think you're making some sort of refutation or clever satire of Stirner this way? I hope this is bait

I once tried to explain Egoism to a black classmate at university. I told him that in order to live life to the fullest we must rid ourselves of spooks. He punched me in the face.

>>1727472
well he was getting rid of spooks, just as you had instructed him

>>1727120
Meme philosopher

What is self-interest?

>>1727598
spooks

File: spooks.png (3MB, 1468x5376px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1468x5376px

>>1727185

>le everything is a spook man

You do know this guy was a meme started by /lit/ to troll lefty pol and /his/ right?

No one actually takes this guy seriously

>>1727706
>le everything is a spook man
not everything is a spook, he never claims that
>No one actually takes this guy seriously
loads of anarchists do

>>1727713
>anarchists

Yeah like I said, no one takes this guy seriously

>>1727720
ebin

>>1727620
No, really. How does one define self-interest.

>>1727713
>Anarchist
>people

>>1727598
Depends on each individual self.

>>1727120
Okay, can someone actually explain what a "spook" is? I've had it defined before but from the way people are using, I think I got it the wrong way.

the concept of spooks are spooks in themselves with regards to threads like this

>>1727890
it cannot be explained, for any explanation in itself cannot be fully explainable

such are the nature of spooks

>>1727895
Then give me an approximation.

>>1727890
a fixed ideal that you hold above yourself despite the fact that this ideal contradicts your self-interest

religion is a spook in the sense that you fear doing things out of a fear of hell even though hell is a man made concept

morality is a spook in the sense that it prevents you from doing things on the basis of "it's the 'wrong' thing to do :(" because morality is a man made concept

masculinity is a spook because it prevents/forces you to act in such a way you're not comfortable because "m-muh manhood"

and so on, and so forth

>>1727915
Alright, that makes sense to me.

do u guys think stirner wouldn't have become a meme if he just used a different word other than "spook"

spook is such a meme word

if he used geistthen maybe stirner would have remained a literally who

>>1727934
>stirner wrote in english

>>1727946
then why did all the translators use spook

it's just too spooky to be true, anon

>>1727946

That didn't occur to me - what word does he use?

Google translate says Spuk.

File: spuk.png (14KB, 879x134px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 879x134px

>>1727946
>>1727951
>>1727958

Question not some kind of witty "haha gotcha philosopher who's way smarter than me", but if I have an interest and derive pleasure from religion, is religion a spook for me?

Does Stirners thought rely on nominalism?

File: 1444684433261.png (246KB, 599x540px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 599x540px

>>1727706
Stirner predates both of those on /lit/.

>>1729797
I think it's more important that you recognize a spook rather than avoid a spook.

"There was a sign over the living-room door of the apartment: PROPERTY IS THEFT-a quotation from Proudhon. Pictures of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Johann. Most hung on the walls, and, of course, the Chicago Martyrs.

Perhaps Maurice wouldn't have left Stirner out, but no picture of him existed. A bookcase was filled with brochures on anarchism and Socialism. I forgot to tell you I was an ardent follower of Stirner. I had studied not only Stirner but also Feuerback, whose disciple Stirner had been before he rebelled. My own ideal was a 'community of egoists'. I want to become the 'perfect egoist'-a 'world history in iself,' ready 'to serve myself and everything that is mine.' Those were the Stirner phrases. For Proudhon, property was evil; for Stirner, property was the essence of humanism.

>>1727120
The whole message to take away is to be wary of irrational subjective ideologies. You're not supposed to take him 100% literally but rather understand that he was shitposting which pissed off contemporary philosophers bound by the spooks of morality, tradition and god and could only speak in apologetics to such.

>>1727634
A perfect explanation by the man himself, and nobody fucking reads it.

Fuck /his/. pack of faggots

>>1730641
Since I did not approve of the slogan above the door, I immediately feel into debate with Maurice. That's all he wanted. He was always ready to argue. I went on quoting Stirner and he went on quoting Proudhon. I had taken the room without meals, but Libby had made me supper anyhow. We were all three sitting at the table, and Maurice was railing against property and everything connected with it. He foresaw that after the revolution the words 'mine' and 'thine' would be dropped from the dictionary. I asked him, 'How will you tell a man the good news that his wife has given birth to a son?' And Maurice screamed, 'The whole institution of marriage will disappear! It is all built on slavery. What right has one person to own another?' He became so wrought up he nearly knocked over the table. Libby said to him, 'Your plate-I mean our plate-will soon fall. and our belly will remain empty. In addition, we will make spots on our pants.'

File: existentialsloth.png (14KB, 452x1012px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 452x1012px

>>1727130
that is existentialism

>>1730641
>>1730652
Did these people ever accomplish anything? Did they found a trade union? Raise money for orphans? What did they do with all the wisdom they accumulated and opined over?

>>1730664
It's fiction.
What happens is the egoist guy sleeps with Maurice's wife (Maurice encourages this) and they both obsess over him. Eventually however they find another anarchist figure to obsess over, and the egoist guy is kicked out basically. Later he finds out this new anarchist they worship was actually just doing it for the image and mooching.
I just found it interesting coming across a short story by random that was about a Stirnerite.

>>1730669
Who is Maurice?

>>1730708
The anarchist in the story who likes proudhon and wants to erase all notion of ownership and property.

>>1727915
>and so on, and so forth
Missed an opportunity to meme, there.

>and sho on *sniff* sho on sho on etchetera etchetera etchetera *sniff*

I've started Stirnerposting in my dreams.

Is this a problem?

Is...is this a spook?

File: 1474310767766.png (473KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 600x800px

Is Stirner's proposal, in itself, a spook?

we dont need to rid ourselves frm them -we cant- nor do we need to recognize them -we can only do it through new spooks-.

we just need to live and stop the ranting, or design a channel to allow it to flow when it comes.

and for the long run, we need to create a system where new comers will build a silly worldview, and give them the time and space to realize the spooky character of the reality they constructed so they realize by themselves -it is the only way- what the human mind is and how it guides us.

>>1730646
I read it last night

>>1727120
rationality is a spook

File: ego.gif (150KB, 245x320px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 245x320px

>>1727120
Good question. Since some spooks are useful, people should utilize them to their advantage. If somebody can recognize something as a spook, they can make an informed decision on wether or not to utilize it. Spooks will never go away; you just have to not get spooked.

>>1731567
>you just have to not get spooked.
>have to
hold it with the spooks, man

File: 1473285479948.jpg (23KB, 527x409px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 527x409px

>>1731657
Isn't it true that Stirner believed that one ought to recognize spooks in order to flourish?

File: Deltron.jpg (24KB, 341x341px)

24KB, 341x341px

Are the lyrics of Deltron 3030 a spook?

>>1732158
Is your post a spook?

>>1732167
Hard to say. How "Spooky" is shitposting?

>>1732179
You should know shitposting is just a spook.

>>1730463
He also had a presence on /pol/ long before becoming a full blown meme. He tended to crop up in anarchy threads, and I recall his position tended to cause a lot of butthurt to both the social anarchists and an-caps.

>>1732183
What if shitposting is actually the opposite of a spook. It goes against society's (The 4chan community) ideals despite being fun for the actual shitposter himself.
>tfw shitposters are the ubermensch

>>1727351

its probably not satire of Stirner as much it is satire about how /his/ sees Stirner

>>1732243
tfw /his/ is actually secretly the satire board

really makes you think

>>1732249
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6QMmrM4BmI

>>1733141
fuck me the dancing halloween guy always gets me first

bretty gud tho

File: spurdostirner.png (120KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 800x509px

>>1727193
This. Linguistic prescriptivism has become so pervasive. A speaker of a certain dialect is often made to feel that their dialect is "inferior" and they ought to strive to speak a "superior" dialect, i.e., one more like the ruling classes'.

>>1734337
She told me not to worry about him because if I did I would realize how spooked she and her egoism is

You can always tell a retard who doesn't truly understand Stirner's philosophy by how many times they repeat "LE SPOOK MAYME XD".

>>1731695
>Ought
No. Stirner takes a rationalist approach, not an ethical one. It's not "You HAVE to get rid of spooks". It's "Getting rid of spooks would help you".

>>1727720
>Renzo Novatore
>Albert Camus
>Carl Schmitt
>Probably Nietzsche as well

>>1733141
topkek

>>1734590
>probably Nietszche
>the guy who plagiarised his work only probably took him seriously

>>1731695
No, he just wanted to let you know you are spooked.

Why did Stirner dedicate TEAHO "to [his] sweetheart Marie Dähnhardt"? Sounds like a possessed sort of love to arbitrarily write your work - which is merely an "outlet for your singing" - for someone else?

Also his note "to secure [him]self from criminal charge" when he uses the word "insurrection" confuses me when I consider how literally every page is an opportunity for censorship.

>>1735595
I don't see how him dedicating it to someone he loves is contradictory.

>>1727120
>Do we need to rid ourselves of spooks?

Only if you aren't scared of death or going to prison, then yes, you can honestly do what ever you desire.


>Or do we just need to recognize them?
This

I'm pretty sure getting killed or put in prison aren't desirable to you so you'll just have to deal with things like society, law, taboo, and such.


>Language is a spook

This is where you went full retard and showed that you don't really understand what a spook is. (oh how much I hate that term even if it is mildly humorous)

Simply put, a spook is any idea which coerces you to behave against your personal desire/destiny in one way or another. You know you're dealing with a spook when someone has to refer to a 3rd party for a reasoning not to take a certain action (It's against the law, it's immoral, it's not something a 'good person' would do. What will the neighbors think?)


I don't kidnap people and rape them because it's 'wrong' or against the law but because I just have desire to do something like that to another person.

>>1735710
>just have NO desire to do

fix'd, kek

File: h15xU1l (1).gif (406KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 500x500px

>>1735710

>>1735728

?

>>1735710
what if my self-interest doesn't break the law (or break it too much)

File: xb47JVb.gif (57KB, 268x278px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 268x278px

>>1735736

>>1735739
>what if my self-interest doesn't break the law (or break it too much)

Then do it.

File: uNDQ86q.gif (1003KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 500x281px

>>1735728
>>1735741
is anime a spook? it's in your self-interest to get a cute gf instead of jerking it to your waifu

>>1735742
Just wondering.
This was a very enjoyable temporary union of egoists, I rate it 4/5.

>>1735744
>it's in your self-interest to get a cute gf instead of jerking it to your waifu

How so?

You have to understand that your self-interest is not the same as other people's self-interest. This is part of the process of growing up, knowing that you are unique, just like everyone else.

>>1735665
>>1735665
Stirner describes love as only being beneficial when you use the one who you love as an instrument for your enjoyment. Dedicating his book to someone doesn't seem to be an act that he would enjoy, at least to me: after reading the book I feel like I've discerned a little of his nature.

>>1735754
Just because it's described in rather 'selfish' terms doesn't mean he can't appreciate romantics and lovey stuff.

>>1735754
>doesn't seem to be an act that he would enjoy

It makes perfect sense since he derived enjoyment from her enjoyment

>>1727915
What if you don't fear hell but want to go to heaven instead? Would it still be a spook then ? I'd imagine it wouldn't be because it's heaven.

File: mio.gif (1MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x169px

>>1735753
yeah but it's hella pleasurable to have a cute gf who you love and who loves you back. Pleasure's in my self-interest isn't it?

You advance your social status too, is advancing your social status in your self-interest? Or is that another spook, giving a shit what other people think of you, even if it's a useful tool?

De-spookifying is hard.

>>1735762
>What if you don't fear hell but want to go to heaven instead?

Read Dante


Also are you actually suggesting that those places exist? because I might have some disappointing news for you anon...

>>1735762
it's still a spook

your desire for heaven most likely impedes you from taking part in sinful activity, does it not? if it prevents you from taking part in an activity you wish to take part in, solely for pleasure or because it's in your best interest

it's a spook

>>1735761
Even though he wrote the book merely as a means to propagate his views? I don't know, they seem like oppositional sentiments to me, his love for someone and his desire to effectively tell people to only love themselves.

>>1735776
What if I don't want to commit sins?

>>1735840

You're not getting it. The idea of sin in the first place is a spook

>>1735852
How?

isn't the ego just a spook in itself? Getting rid of the ego seems like it works well for buddhist monks.

>>1735710
Am I still spooked if I recognize the law a a practical concern.

>>1735862
because you not doing something because it is a "sin" is no different than not doing something because it is "immoral" or because it is not something one "should" do

>>1735872
you're spooked if it is the only thing preventing you from doing something

"i won't drink before 21 because it's against the law" is a very spooky way of thinking

>>1735862
Because "sin" is not grounded in anything that will inherently benefit you uniquely, but in something that subjugated you to a higher power, i.e. God. Therefore you are not owning yourself when you acseticise yourself regarding sin, you are "owned" by the concept of appeasing a higher power.

>>1735872
no because you aren't viewing it as the law per se but as something that is simply beneficial to you.

>>1735910
>you're spooked if it is the only thing preventing you from doing something
But what if it's because of the repercussions of getting caught? The law isn't an absolute authority but it is a practical concern depending on likelihood of getting in trouble.

>>1735971
Then if you'd not prefer to be revenged by the state either don't do it or do it on a way that won't have you retributed.

Taking the reality of the state into account is not being spooked.

File: tumblr_m35duebjqu1rudptgo1_1280.jpg (435KB, 1280x1121px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1280x1121px

>>1735971
You have to take into consideration that "spooks" themselves, are concepts created by Stirner. They are not absolute, nor is he objectively correct; to adhere to his policy to the fullest for the sake of being "unspooked" is no different than what he argues against.

Morality is a spook, but it does not mean I have to "despook" myself if I don't want to.

The Law is a spook, but the repercussions of it are not. If you were to shoplift, but ultimately decided to not follow through in the end because "it is the wrong thing to do", you are spooked.

If you do not follow through because there is a high risk of being caught, and the repercussions prove to be more harmful than the benefit of succeeding, you are not.

spooks are spooks; they're not wrong, they're not right, they just are. you're under no obligation to be spooked, nor are you under any obligation to not be spooked, not if you don't want to

>>1735225
Not really. Nietzsche is pretty spooked.
Also, the witnesses that claim that he read Stirner aren't too trustworthy.

>>1735595
He was ironic, the bitch cheated him.

>>1736208

I'm pretty sure he would easily admit that monogamy was a spook. Do you honestly think that guy did not tap as much pussy as he could get his hands on? So what that his sweetheart was getting extra sex on the side too.

>>1736094
It's clear you haven't actually read Stirner.

>>1727165
you're using language as a tool to express your thoughts and it doesn't stand in your self-interest. how is it a spook?

>>1737994
>>1736208
>>1735595
He needed money to fulfill his boyhood dream of being a milk man

>>1735754
She paid for the publishing

>>1738577
Sauce pls

>>1727130
>breathing is a spook
clearly, you don\t understand what you're talking about

>>1735710
>you'll just have to deal with things like society, law, taboo, and such
can't you abide the law without being spooked? i wouldn't want to go to prison so trying to avoid that in this case is in my self-interest.

>>1738653
See>>1735985

File: PDVD_200.jpg (41KB, 355x381px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 355x381px

the guy from Master & Commander looks like this dude

What if spooks are spooks?

>>1727706
Stirner was a meme on /lit/ years before those boards were created.

>>1727120
Striner's philosophy itself is a spook, since you need half of the things he considers spooks (morality, social interaction etc.) in order to develop a sense of self in the first place.

>>1738743
>philosophers women will never understand

>>1738743

Cannot unsee

>>1738747

Get out of the thread zizek

>>1739354
>needing morality

>>1739354
He never says all "spooks" should be done away with, just that it would serve your interests to recognize the difference between doing things for your own good and following convention for societies' sake.

The spook might be fundamental to development shaping the way we interact with the world, but recognizing the spook for what it is empowers you.

>>1739354
>social interaction
Stirner isn't against social interaction, he even puts forward the idea of a union of egoists.

>>1739946
Not just that, he outright says social interaction is vital to the pursuit of your self interest. Which is true from the most basic psychological.