Max Stirner and Spooks

File: morality.jpg (13KB, 600x518px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 600x518px

>>1909609
Skip him. Mad Max isn't academically relevant outside of commentaries on Nietzsche anyway, so you aren't missing anything crucially important to a wholesome understanding of western philosophy.
Though, to his credit, I think it's easier to misinterpret the ideal of the overman more than it is to misinterpret spooks.
Good luck on your journey!

if you've made any "progress" that stirner's book would destroy, it's not actually progress. that would mean you've been building an artificial source of meaning in your life, to put it in more referential terms, "spooking yourself". it "works" as a bandage, as neechee was so desperate to try and "prove", but in reality it's a crutch that you don't need to survive and be happy. stirner organized these thoughts into a concise document that can be very useful to read if you're interested in having both a logically valid AND sound basis to your phenomenological outlook in life.

>>1909642
>academic relevance
sounds spooky

OP didn't say anything about understanding "western philosophy as a whole", so why are you responding with this ugly, wrong post? literally 99% of western philosophy derives "ought" from "is" and is objectively non-sequitor. literally 99%. not an exaggeration. and you tell him to skip reading part of the 1% that doesn't?

>>1909609
t. riven main

>>1909642
Stirner is necessary to understand Socratic virtue

>>1909609
You desperately want to keep your fragile delusions alive by avoiding reading anything that challenges them?

>>1909858
He wants to believe his fragile values aren't spooks even though he knows they are.

Egoism is a necessary stop in the road towards enlightenment. People treat Max as the "final boss of philosophy" but i don't think this is the case.

>>1909886
explain more?

>>1909609
People like to act like his work is a dark secret of philosophy, but this is generally due to misinterpretation of his work compounded with memery.

He really isn't as radical as people make him.
Look at a biography on him.

File: In a nutshell.jpg (111KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1200x1200px

>>1910012

File: 1421454371855.jpg (18KB, 274x234px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 274x234px

>>1909609
Personally reading Striner helped me a lot in making things clear and setting priorities in my life and that is very useful in my quest for self-improvement

If your motivation comes from religion then you're pretty spooked and probably wouldn't enjoy him if you can't handle your ideas being opposed

>>1910026
I did read his biography and it seems like he lead quite the uneventful life, trying to get rich and failing to do so only to meet a tragic end to the bite of an insect

>>1911932
This is the egoist.

I don't mean to play down his work, which I feel is quite valuable in it's own way, but this is the man who is extolled as one of the most radical thinkers.
He tried to open a milkshop, taught at a girl's school and evaded taxes.

The thing about Stirner that is often not mentioned is that his work doesn't stand too well on it's own, because it isn't supposed to.
How can a system that says value comes from the Ego tell YOU what ought to be valued?

This is my reading of his work,
Stirner's intent isn't to pull back the curtain and reveal 'all these things are spooks! falsehoods!',
but rather set the reader on the path of self-emancipation. After all, how can there be a set way to learn about Yourself and what you value?

The Egoist has no obligations to anyone but themselves, and as such, may be as kind, generous, cruel or miserly as they desire.
Provided this is a path of their own choosing, and not unknowingly pushed along by others.
Stirner would agree with the criticism that the concept of spooks is a spook in itself.
Should we throw away an idea if we consider it a spook? On the surface, it seems we should, but again, the onus of value rests upon ourselves.

The Ego and It's Own works in tandem with The World. Understanding this is key to Stirner.

>>1911999
>He tried to open a milkshop, taught at a girl's school and evaded taxes.
This all sounds quite based, actually.

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

3MB, 1468x5376px

>>1911999
>How can a system that says value comes from the Ego tell YOU what ought to be valued?
you can't derive an ought from an is without making a leap in logic. why ought he tell you what you ought to do? why do you assume he should?

>Stirner would agree with the criticism that the concept of spooks is a spook in itself.
but that's not true. "spook" is simply a simplified synonym for "artificial abstraction used as a basis for decision making or an argument". this does not apply to the concept itself, as there is no "ought" involved telling you to do something utilizing the concept. re-read the material.

>>1912113
Let me clarify my points a bit,

>you can't derive an ought from an is without making a leap in logic. why ought he tell you what you ought to do? why do you assume he should?
That is the point I am trying to say, though I may have worded it poorly.

>but that's not true. "spook" is simply a simplified synonym for "artificial abstraction used as a basis for decision making or an argument". this does not apply to the concept itself, as there is no "ought" involved telling you to do something utilizing the concept. re-read the material.

I meant it more in the sense of the way it is now used. The most common usage now is the single utterance of 'Spook' (perhaps like 'Fire!') is now used as an argument to invalidate an idea.
I am trying to avoid its classification as such.
Perhaps it would be better if I described it as 'Spook-Seeking'?

I just don't want to see the original idea tangled up with it's present connotations.

>>1912151
yeah you're correct in that the concept of spooks has been morphed by many into a spook itself, but I feel like this is largely from people on this image board who got meme'd without reading the material. that being said, I wouldn't be surprised if this image board was by far the largest group that reads his material.

>The most common usage now is the single utterance of 'Spook' (perhaps like 'Fire!') is now used as an argument to invalidate an idea.
I enjoy how the word "spook" points out in very few word(s) how an idea is non-sequitor, when used appropriately. I see it misused more often than applied properly, though.

>>1909609
>>1909609
Dude don't worry about it, egoist anarchism is completely compatible with anthroposophy and spiritualism. As a matter of fact, I can't even imagen where the the conflict might arise.

It may have gone over your head, but presuming that anarchism can only unfold itself under dialectical materialism is one large-ass spook too.