>dude desert your family and community because its just a

>>2623357
>dude desert your family and community because its just a spook, only you matter right?
but that's not in my self-interest

>>2623393
That would defeat the whole point though because then you could say "but giving my life to God or my country is in my self-interest"

Stirner's book makes for a good read even if you're not drawn to egoism. He has delightful prose. You should give it a show.

File: 1488747368357.jpg (59KB, 607x608px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 607x608px

>>2623357

>he hasnt taken the Nietzsche pill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZY2mRG5mzg

Every day my belief that philosophy is just a bunch of bullshit gets stronger

>>2623357

HE MAKES NO PRESCRIPTIVE CLAIMS IN HIS BOOK,

HE IS JUST POINTING OUT WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO, AND HOW WE MAY BENEFIT FROM CONSIDERING OUR IMPLICIT REASONING.

It drives me nuts how many people love and hate him despite having read no further then his wiki page.

>>2623357
a-Am I a spook in my own world?

>>2623357
>Why do people here respect this guy?

You pretty much answered it in your post. It helps people on here rationalize having disappointed their parents, having failed to make a positive impact on their surroundings, and having struggled to connect with others socially.

>>2623402
No you can't
A spook is putting something above yourself. Your examples are spooks, staying with family for any reason that serves the ego is not.

He has the sloping forehead characteristic of a low functioning sociopath and petty criminal

>>2623418
But nietzsche was influenced by Stirner

>>2624272
He saw it as the as the dead end of nihilism without self-ascribed meaning.

>>2623393
(((Family))) is a spook bro

Why do I have a feeling that nobody on here or on /lit/ has actually read Stirner and that all these interpretations are Machiavelli-tier stupidity?

>>2624141

I know that feel, check out a guy named Derek Prince who was literally a Phd professor of philosophy at King's College in the UK for years before he turned to Jesus and became a minister for roughly the next 40+ years.A VERY educated man still found a real, practical use for Christianity , as many other intelligent people actually do (despite the perceived trend of it being the opposite)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vm2o4EGTNk

File: stirner nice spooks nerd.jpg (110KB, 771x1037px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 771x1037px

>>2623357
Stirner never said these things.

>Why do people here respect this guy?
Maybe you'd know if you read his work.

>>2623357
>respect
spooky

>>2624722
Respect and admiration aren't spooks

>>2624256
The man can't even sell milk yet wants to sell us his snake-oil philosophy? Preposterous!

>>2624141
that's philosophy too

>>2624819

>they exist nowhere but you're imagination
>not spooks

try again sweety

>>2623357
Etiquette is really a spook and also somewhat hypocritical.

>>2624533
Always wanted to read the Ego And Its Own, but it always put down lower down the priority list of my must-read book selection. I've read a few scholarly-ish pieces on his work/philosophy - and how he was basically the one who pushed Marx towards Materialism because he kept busting the balls of the other young hegelians because they were still idealists.
Care to give me a quick (non-memey) rundown?

I think I understand he was basically anti-ideology and an advocate of "self-ownership" or something like that. Basically some sort of nihilist/anarchist on steroids. Am I wrong?

>>2624865
It isn't put before your own interests though. Respect and admiration guides you in a self interested way.

Spooks are a spook. You literally can't prove me wrong.

>>2624872
Not quite "on steriods", he just laid the groundwork for individualist materialism. He has an aversion towards things which subvert the ego, often synonymous with one's desires. He essentially rephrases Hedonism in the context of an industrialized Christian world.

>>2624937
Spooks can be defined as thing given gravity beyond its intrinsic value. Stirrer doesn't say you must avoid spooks, he just notices that identifying them is intrinsically valuable. Not a spook.

>>2624953
What if I think there is no intrinsic value in spooks as a concept?

>>2624963
He never says the concept is a priori valuable, just that it's advantageous to use. Spook identification is just a tool in one's material interests to use.

>>2624972
What if it is used as a meme to make fun of people? Is that intrinsically valuable or just a spook?

>>2624982
Humour is self-interested if it lightens one's own spirits.

>>2625004
But what if I feel like shit when they call the things I like spooks? Does that make the humour a spook then?

>>2625011
No. Caring about what others think of your ideas is a spook w/o material reason why.

>>2625021
So I should just ignore spookposters is what you are saying?

>>2625024
Yes

>>2623357
Stirner is not a moralist. He's not telling you to do anything. He just tells it as he sees it.

File: Alabama+man+_7c3a14282e5f594101e85ac0a970a2d7.jpg (8KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 267x200px

>>2624169
I haven't even read that. I judge him purely on the character of his fanboys because they're all DESPICABLE. They pop up in every thread discussing morality just to show their contempt for the moral law. It's always
>pornography is bad
spook
>beastiality is bad
spook
>age of consent laws
spook
>the golden rule
spook
>humans have rights
spook

YES I'M SPOOKED. YOU PEOPLE SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF ME.

>tfw Stirner's been ruined by his fanboys

In exchange for a meme we've destroyed a philosophy.

Spook = virtue signalling

>>2625212
I hear so many people claim to know his philosophy only to not correct anyone on it.

>>2625252
Because the meme is funny. Everyone who understands the philosophy thinks they'really sarcastic

>>2625182
Stirner's whole point is that there is no morality though. Since at its core following morality for its own sake is a spook. All though things you said areally based on morals, which is a feels>reals situation.

The problem is people see amorality and such as a license or imperative to be an asshole. They've [spoiler]spooked[/spoiler] themselves, there is no license or imperative.

>>2625182
They are spooks, but if the majority of people find these restrictions desirable, they can be enforced regardless. Why worry? Hobbes is Stirner come full circle.