Can anything be justified under egoism? Stirner seems to acknowledge

>>1899060
>justified
Spooky.

File: becoming.jpg (4KB, 125x123px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 125x123px

>>1899060

It's not an ideology. You may live according to your self interest only because you aren't required to live in the interest of an authority.

File: keep.png (17KB, 125x123px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 125x123px

>>1899080
>>1899060
50 kalpas in ms paint

>justified
I think you're missing the point.

>>1899060
>I'm mainly asking because the way people talk about egoism is as if it's an idealogy rather than simply a way of viewing the world.

Keep in mind that most of that is meming. There are some people that have genuinely taken that understanding from it, but I don't think it's appropriate to the text.

Just about anything could be justified under Stirner's egoism, the main things he cautions against are intellectual dishonesty and anything that could wind up binding you to your previous fancies (so taking direct part in governmental structures, for instance).

There is no justification under egoism, just your actions.

>>1899255
>>1899214
>>1899075
That was the best word I could find to convey what I was trying to say.
What I meant is could anything be followed since it could be justified under sentimental terms? Even things usually considered spooks like God, nation, etc?

>>1899235
I think I understand. So what he advocates is not ignoring something because it's considered a spook, but acknowledging it's a spook, and taking that into account in regards to your self-interest?

>>1899277
>I think I understand. So what he advocates is not ignoring something because it's considered a spook, but acknowledging it's a spook, and taking that into account in regards to your self-interest?

More or less. His conception of egoism has less in common with Ayn Rand, and more in common with Sartre's conception of living in good faith. You pursue thing and value things because you want to pursue them or value them, rather than because you feel you ought to.

This is what he was trying to get at with everything being held as your property that you have yet to claim, you evaluate it as it interests you, not as it interests some ephemeral notion of property.

>>1899330
Did Stirner just rephrase is-ought into is-spook? Like brain in the vat guy and Descartes?

>>1899060
>>1899075
>>1899390

Forgive me for my ignorance but I am finding difficulty getting a concrete answer.

What does the term "spook" essential entail?

>>1899390
I'd say it shares some elements of skepticism, but it's never really a core component of it. His egoism is sometimes compared to solipsism, but he never claims you should doubt the existence of an external world, only that you should (well more aptly that it would be irrational not to, though he says even rationalism can become a spook if you attempt to hold it above your interest) evaluate it as it relates to you (because you are ultimately the center point of your world, and all you can ever experience is yourself).

>>1899402
Basically anything you attempt to give a semblance of life by placing it ahead of your own self interest. Morals aren't a spook, until you try to make them into something more than an idea by holding them to be greater than yourself.

It's possible that the term spook (aside from being useful for underscoring the insubstantial nature of such ideas) is him making fun of Hegel's spirit.

>>1899418
Huh interesting
I think I understand the concept thank you for explaining.
So for example, for a passionate political figure such as Marx. Communism would be a spook to him?

>>1899418
>>1899790
Because it's an idea that he is consumed by/forms his self identity around?

>>1899402
>>1899790
gee anon if only there was some sort of work that clearly explained what a spook was along with related concepts. maybe, a philosophical work of some sort, published by the creator of "the Spook"? hmm

>>1899790
Yeah, for early idealistic Marx who derived it from some sort of moral ought. Latter Marx (who was influenced strongly by Stirner) derived it from a basically egoistic premise, and wouldn't be considered to be trying to serve a spook.

>>1899808
Well, because he considers it something he needs to suppress his egoism in favour of; something "higher" than himself, when in reality he's just pursuing his egoism in a roundabout fashion.

>>1899814
>Latter Marx (who was influenced strongly by Stirner) derived it from a basically egoistic premise, and wouldn't be considered to be trying to serve a spook.
Marx's relationship with Stirner seems pretty weird. He seems to have taken a fair bit of inspiration from him, yet he did that vicious attack on him.

>>1899827
My thoughts on this boil down to "there's a reason he didn't actually publish the German Ideology."

>>1899402
when an edgy teenager is butthurt his dad is making him go to church he calls it a spook

thats all you need to know

>>1899812
gee anon if only you weren't being a pretentious cunt I would gladely take your recommendation on what exactly to read

>>1899818
>>1899814
>>1899827
Hmm maybe Marx was a bad example for me to use to clarify my understanding.

>>1899843
Because his dad puts it before himself? err Greater than himself?

>>1899827
Never actually published by Marx. The fact that he wrote so many pages on Stirner proved how much he thought about Stirner's ideas, and ultimately made him rethink his own. The German Ideology was written only a year after The Ego and His Own was published. Marx's friend Engels was also a huge fan of Stirner, even if early Marx reacted poorly to Stirner's ideas.

File: dropbox_Baby_being_fed_from_istock_for_crib_sheet.jpg (75KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1200x800px

>>1899898
You're missing the point. There's no universally agreed definition of a spook on /lit/, a bunch of pseudobabies ask for definitions, things get lost in translation, and everyone has different interpretations.

You're not going to know what a Spook is by asking in a vacuum. You have to understand what an egoist is, the difference in a conscious and unconscious egoist, and so on, and so forth.

>knowing some is worse than knowing nothing at all

>>1899906
>Hmm maybe Marx was a bad example for me to use to clarify my understanding.

I'll use an example that might help. Let's take Johnny the fundamentalist Christian businessman: he's having a hard time getting his business off the ground because his "higher" source of morality prevents him from taking on a loan due to prohibitions of usury. What's he's not acknowledging is that he just finds the idea of being in debt distasteful, and is pursuing what is still an egoistic aim, while dressing up as something higher, and inhibiting his ability to consider alternate courses of action.

>>1899941
>There's no universally agreed definition of a spook on /lit/, a bunch of pseudobabies ask for definitions, things get lost in translation, and everyone has different interpretations.

Yeah you'll find that difficulty with almost any idea.

>You're not going to know what a Spook is by asking in a vacuum

Yeah and I'm not going to know what a Spook is by never asking anyone

See >>1899970
On how to not sound so pompous

>What's he's not acknowledging is that he just finds the idea of being in debt distasteful, and is pursuing what is still an egoistic aim, while dressing up as something higher, and inhibiting his ability to consider alternate courses of action.

Now I think I'm understanding it better. Along with the themes the above Anon mentioned, any particular reading you suggest I do ?

>>1900008
Have you considered reading Stirner?

The reason he is so offensive to everyone is not because he has a pompous haughty abstract idea, but he takes a simple idea and applies it so universally down to very basic things. Here's an example of his taking his idea to the next level.

>Look at Stirner, look at him, the peaceful enemy of all constraint.
>For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
>Soon he will be drinking blood as though it were water.
>When others cry savagely "down with the kings"
>Stirner immediately supplements "down with the laws also."
>Stirner full of dignity proclaims;
>You bend your willpower and you dare to call yourselves free.
>You become accustomed to slavery
>Down with dogmatism, down with law.

>>1900008
>any particular reading you suggest I do ?

The Ego and Its Own
Stirner's Critics
The Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Max Stirner is also helpful.

>>1900056
>>1900059
Very informative and very helpful

Thank you Anon

>>1900095
No problem. I'm always happy to try and clarify Stirner's ideas, because I get very sick of arguing with people that have only a meme-level understanding of him.

>>1900100
Ahh of course, what would be an example of Stirner on a meme level?

>>1900107
Calling something a spook and saying it's invalid because it doesn't physically exist.

>>1900121
"muh spook" is a perfectly valid response of "muh property"

>>1899060
Feelings don't matter. Who cares about feelings?