>2016 >still being a slave to spooks Daily reminder that

some ideologies do serve you in one way or another, though. in fact most do. that's how they maintain themselves.

it would be more accurate to say that any ideology you follow is likely serving somebody else more than it's serving you.

>>2016254
I don't understand why /his/ is so obsessed with Marx Stirner.

Everybody on here has been exposed to him by now, we're all familiar with "spooks", most of us weren't terribly blown away by the idea. Can we please move on now?

>>2016254
>2016
>still shitposting meme-philosophers

>>2016271
>we're all familiar with "spooks"
unfortunately not even remotely true. most people think it's just a fallacious label for things you dislike.

>>2016271
most of us were horribly offended by it so not really until it stops generating butthurt

File: 1479519721678.png (123KB, 900x950px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 900x950px

>>2016271
If people stopped posting spooks we wouldn't have a reason to mention him.

on a more serious note it seems that we have a lot of obsessive autists on this board who will keep on reposting over and over the same meme (myself included). Before spookposting got extremely common on /his/ Voltaire and HRE threads were spammed into oblivion for at least a whole month for dying down to acceptable levels. I suppose this could just be the board's next fad for spamming before we move on to someone else.

File: Straight Iron Rod.png (650KB, 1200x1826px)

650KB, 1200x1826px

>>2016291
stirner has been around on /lit/ for years, been on /his/ since the beginning and is here to stay.

stirnerposting should be a bannable offence

>>2016303
I know, I'm just saying that right now might be his day in the sun with unusually high levels of posting on this board, just like we had with Voltaire. HRE threads haven't gone away but there was a time were we had 2 or 3 every day and nearly every thread someone post a variation of
>
>
>

I don't want stirner to go nor do I think he will, I just think he might be replaced as top meme

>>2016254
Daily reminder that Stirner's greatest mistake was not realising that ego is a spook too.

get outta here retard

>>2016319
there is phenomenological evidence of the "self", and no evidence to the contrary.

>>2016279
>>2016308
>>2016320
If any of you had actually read Stirner you'd realise that there's nothing to be buttmad about.

File: 1478317603896.jpg (23KB, 425x292px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 425x292px

>spooks
not an argument friend

>>2016331
>We can perceive ourselves, therefore self-serving isn't a construct
Did you reply to the wrong post?

>>2016291
how about you argue against the specific spooks labeling them spooks does nothing.

>>2016331
I think even Stirner simply thought the ego a starting point rather than an absolute

>>2016346
>argument
that's a spook

>>2016346
>Comments on concepts without understanding them
Ego: 6
Int: 3

File: IMG_6127.jpg (183KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1600x1067px

>>2016357
>>2016355
lolololol

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

3MB, 1468x5376px

>>2016347
self serving isn't a construct though, it's an action. like walking or pissing. are walking and pissing artificial constructs?

>>2016352
stirner elaborated on phenomenological evidence of the "self", thought I don't recall where in the book. someone let me know if they just happen to randomly know the page number so I can add it to my screencap collection.

>>2016346
understand the material pls

>>2016350
labeling something a "spook" is a shorthand argument. it's declaring "your statement/argument is invalid because it has artificial/subjective bases".

>>2016386
That's just begging the question in that it assumes subjective or artificial premises are automatically to be discarded.

>>2016400
I hope this is a joke

>>2016382
The idea that "we should be self serving" is a construct, which is clearly what I meant.

>>2016386
That depends on your concept of validity.

>>2016412
It's not.

Prove that hard materialism is worth following.

>>2016254
Daily reminder that you can literally sum up Stirner and egoists in less than a minute.
>>>/wsg/1406149

>>2016386
Look, it's a history and humanities board, it's safe to say we're going to argue about subjective things on here, occasionally. Often. Constantly.

It's also safe to assume that the people doing so have their reasons. Maybe they disagree that whatever particular thing is being discussed is in fact a spook. Maybe they admit that it's a spook but feel like it's worth discussing anyway. Maybe they think Stirner's a twat and reject the whole idea of spooks.

Disagree with them on any of those counts? Fine. Fair enough. Start a thread about it. "Is [x] a spook?" "Are spooks ever worth arguing about, once you've all agreed they're spooks?" "Was Stirner a twat?"

But bursting into completely unrelated threads and wailing about how YOU ALL KEEP ARGUING ABOUT SPOOKS just derails threads and shits up an otherwise-decent board.

>>2016426
i subjectively believe so

>>2016413
no, it is not clearly what you meant whatsoever, your words in quotation marks are a fresh concept. they are also an "ought" that is irrelevant to stirner's work. he doesn't argue that you "should" act within your self interest, simply that you can.

>>2016434
>
But bursting into completely unrelated threads and wailing about how YOU ALL KEEP ARGUING ABOUT SPOOKS just derails threads and shits up an otherwise-decent board.
helping people understand what subjective reasoning is improves the board state. quit being salty because someone proved the milk in your corn flakes isn't actually real.

>>2016444
Fug. Got me there.

>>2016434
Strinerposting isn't as destructive as you think it is

>>2016451
No he didn't.

>>2016448
Everybody already understands what subjective reasoning is. This isn't exactly rocket science, it's a pretty basic concept to grasp.

It's not that people haven't been exposed to the concept. They've been exposed, and they've either rejected it, or they still feel like discussing whatever they were discussing anyway. Why? Who knows. Ask them. There's enough reasons to go around, including "Fuck you, we just both feel like it."

>>2016457
I don't think it's destroying /his/ or anything, but it sure is annoying. It's the (much less racist) equivalent of /pol/ putting three parenthesis around whatever they don't want to discuss.

>>2016479
You must be a buttblasted ancap, because the only time Stirner gets pulled out full force to not discuss a topic is ancap because muh property spook. And it's a perfectly valid argument unlike saying ancap scholars are Jews, which they are.

>>2016448
>no, it is not clearly what you meant whatsoever, your words in quotation marks are a fresh concept.
Perhaps you misinterpreted me because I was more succinct than clear.

>they are also an "ought" that is irrelevant to stirner's work. he doesn't argue that you "should" act within your self interest, simply that you can.
So Stirner doesn't endorse valuing ego?

>>2016487
Oh, shush. You know perfectly well he gets pulled out in all sorts of circumstances -- whenever anybody's criticized on moral grounds, for instance.

>Remind me what was so bad about the Japanese Empire, /his/?
>Well, they sure killed a lot of people ...

>2016
>being this spooked

>>2016509
You described it as
>It's the (much less racist) equivalent of /pol/ putting three parenthesis around whatever they don't want to discuss.
That pretty much only happens when ancap comes up. Someone tossing in an occasional meme Stirner is not the same.

trolled

>>2016487
you are delusional mate stirner posting annoys more than ancaps

>>2016412
isn't this a fucking humanities board?

>>2016519
literally not the reality.

Spookism is just a less comprehensive and true version of buddhism. Without open heart there is no open mind.

>>2016386
No it's not.

>>2016386
You don't know what a spook is

>>2016785
I just read this thread and I don't know what a spook is.

>>2016785
>>2016782
you say that, but you don't elaborate. read the material, it's even been posted in this thread.