Can someone coherently explain what Stirner meant by the

Anything that told him he was being a cunt

>>3335662
Know nothing about it but I do get the feeling this is pretty spot on for some reason

File: loli_stirner.jpg (50KB, 613x771px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 613x771px

From what I've understood, it's basically what is immaterial, a "forgery of the mind", here's a quote from the "Ego and Its Own", maybe this'll explain more
>He who believes in a spook no more assumes the 'introduction of a higher world' than he who believes in the spirit, and both seek behind the sensual world a supersensual one; in short, they produce and believe another world, and this other world, the product of their mind, is a spiritual world; for their senses grasp and know nothing of another, a non-sensual world, only their spirit lives in it.
p. 66

File: pepestirner.jpg (26KB, 331x334px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 331x334px

>>3335670
Here's a better quote regards to "spooks"
>And to get to the bottom of this spook, to comprehend it, to discover reality in it (to prove 'the existence of God') -
this task men set to themselves for thousands of years; with the horrible impossibility, the endless Danaid labour, of transforming the spook into a non-spook, the unreal into something real, the spirit into an entire and corporeal person - with this they tormented themselves to death. Behind the existing world they sought the 'thing in itself', the essence; behind the thing they sought the un-thing.
p.40

an unreal ideal that was placed above the 'self'
"God" or "Religion" is a spook because it places the individual's will beneath that of an unseen master.
"The Nation" was a spook because it placed an unreal abstraction of 'king and country' above the individual
"Humanism" was a spook because it subjected the ACTUAL living human being under the ideal of 'The Human Being'. Something advanced for "Humanity's sake" made actual human beings inhuman in the way it used them for a goal that wasn't THEIR OWN

He goes on at length against socialism & liberalism and how their claim to represent HUMANITY is a total abstraction that interferes with the actual living human being,

>>3335670
I'm not going to dig up an exact quote, but it's not just something that lacks a material existence, but specifically an idea that you attempt to give life to by placing ahead of yourself as though it were something greater than yourself to serve. This in mind, the idea of something material can become a spook if you attempt to serve it ahead of yourself, and not every idea you value is spook.

File: ghost_story.jpg (17KB, 390x310px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 390x310px

>>3335676
Oh yes, that is a fantastic explanation of the spook, I believe Stirner explained it in a different way without mentioning it as a spook, how dumb of me. He explains this as the way of "Fearing your own conscience", it's literally in the start of the book, hell, here's the quote:
>As in childhood one had to overcome the resistance of the laws of the world, so now in everything that he proposes he is met by an objection of the mind, of reason, of his own conscience. 'That is unreasonable, un-Christian, unpatriotic', and the like, cries conscience to us, and - frightens us away from it. Not the might of the avenging Eumenides,s not Poseidon'sY wrath, not God, far as he sees the hidden, not the father's rod of punishment, do we fear, but - conscience.
p.15

>>3335653
Basically, ideas that you hold above yourself.

Ideas that you recognize as your fabrications are not spooks.
Principles you base your decisions on, aren't spooks if you recognize that you choose this principles because you wanted to.

Emotions and your actual wants aren't spooks, however. They aren't ideas, though they certainly shape those.

Honestly, has there ever been a good refutation against him?

I'm not talking about "muh morals" or any other meme arguments but some actual analysis and criticism. I have the feeling that Stirner is the one of the few philosophers who basically "figured it out". I may not agree with all his conclusions but the base thesis seems very sound and is even compatible with other philosophies, ideologies and religions as it explains them.

It would be very interesting to hear some counter arguments.

>>3335653
things that aren't real.

>>3335653
Take LSD, think about what you do when you call a chair "chair", think about what similar mental activities can be related to what you have figured out (virtually all of them), realize that we are fundamentally incoherent, and in fact no such thing as "coherence" can be properly concieved.

Spooks is basically any metaphysical reference, anything that is "out there", and to Stirner literally everything is out there. I've mentioned LSD, but anything that will trigger in you derealization will show properly his absolutely material point of view.

>>3335833
Best answer ITT. None of these ideas are innately toxic to the ego, but it is the ego that makes it toxic to itself.

Also IIRC Striner did speak about not letting your appeitites rule over you too so he isn't preaching mindless hedonism

File: Love_is_a_spook_comrade.png (32KB, 1300x417px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1300x417px

>>3335833
>Emotions and your actual wants aren't spooks

:^)

File: fucking_austrians.png (107KB, 953x1760px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 953x1760px

>>3335666
Satan calls it like it is.

>>3336075
I think his point about hedoism is more that he thinks most people dont actually enjoy being a hedoist so they wouldnt do it anyway.

>>3335833
what if my actual want is to put someone the rest of my fellow humans above myself via a mechanism of the state?

e.g., representing in political circles

File: 149329432131.gif (1MB, 279x219px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 279x219px

>tfw you realize at the end of the day Stirner was a naturalistic Fichte, and thus, retrograde.

>>3335653
How can you be too stupid, to get Stirner? It's literally just extreme egoism, my ego > whatever shit the world cares about. Morale? Duties? made by someone else, don't care, not my own. "Mir geht nichts über mich". A spook is obviously every outside force trying to impact or dictate your life, it's not a law of nature and you can choose not to follow it.

>>3336487
Now if I'm understanding your question, then:
You're doing this out of self-interest, so there's no problem with that. A spook would be more of you choosing someone you disagree with to represent the political circle, simply because it would be "patriotic" or whatnot. Stirner explains we're all incomprehendible individuals, so for someone, their self-interest would be to be altruistic, for the other it might be selfish.

>>3336452
Love as a strong feeling of affection is not a spook. The idealized version of "Love" you see in movies or read in cheap stories is a spook.

Also I'm really mad that those Communists use Stirner in any way or form.

File: 6a60779776122b8d3b849c29e7468718dffe2687.png (135KB, 2134x2060px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 2134x2060px

>>3336842
>Also I'm really mad that those Communists use Stirner in any way or form.
I hear ya, literally have to rip fucking quotes from The Ego and Its Own to show them that he's not some pro commie fag. Do they even know about that one work where Marx shits on Stirner?

>>3336452
The possessedness of love lies in the alienation of the object, or in my powerlessness as against its alienness and superior power. To the egoist nothing is high enough for him to humble himself before it, nothing so independent that he would live for love of it, nothing so sacred that he would sacrifice himself to it. The egoist’s love rises in selfishness, flows in the bed of selfishness, and empties into selfishness again.

Whether this can still be called love? If you know another word for it, go ahead and choose it; then the sweet word love may wither with the departed world; for the present I at least find none in our Christian language, and hence stick to the old sound and “love” my object, my — property.

Only as one of my feelings do I harbor love; but as a power above me, as a divine power, as Feuerbach says, as a passion that I am not to cast off, as a religious and moral duty, I — scorn it. As my feeling it is mine; as a principle to which I consecrate and “vow” my soul it is a dominator and divine, just as hatred as a principle is diabolical; one not better than the other. In short, egoistic love, i.e. my love, is neither holy nor unholy, neither divine nor diabolical.

File: stirner8.jpg (59KB, 477x583px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 477x583px

>>3336842
Stirner is a leftie meme

>>3335653
Spooks are anything that autistic people like stirner can't understand. Abstract concepts and the like.
Also, a true stirnerist would probably be someone like Gordon Gekko, how leftists like him is beyond me. If personal interest is all that counts, why the hell should I be a leftist when I can gain a lot more material wealth under a capitalist system than a socialist one?

>>3336941
>Lefties using a philosopher who goes against their beliefs as some representative of their ideology
Do they not sense the irony or?

File: Leftycancer3.png (514KB, 760x482px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 760x482px

>>3336973
Is this autism?

>>3336981
>blobbing Stirner with Communism and Marx, a man who literally wrote a book to criticise Stirner
Yes

>>3336973
>not being able to have a discussion about anything without trying to start a left / right argument

>>3336996
He said "a leftie meme", so I replied accordingly.

>>3337005
It applies to both of you.

>>3337012
I reply however I fucking please.

>>3336996
>too intelligent to have a political opinion

So spooks are social constructs basically?

>>3337035
See >>3335833

>>3337014
So do we all, that doesn't change what I said to you.

>>3337021
Nice strawman. Trying your best to have curb your own biases and trying to form a view on any given issue based on the facts and arguments available rather than joining some "political team" and treating politics like a sports game does not mean that one doesn't have a political opinion on specific issues.

>>3337061
Why do you instantly assume I'm part of some "political team"?

>>3337080
I don't know who you are or even whether you are one of the anons I replied to, I was defending myself from the greentext accusation that I was (sic) "too intelligent to have a political position" because I criticised arguing about issues based on a right / left dichotomy.

>>3337108
My reply is here >>3336973
I didn't try starting a "left/right argument", was just genuinely curious if these "leftists" actually believe Stirner would agree with their Socialist nuances.

>>3335672
Sounds like he needs a good wank to clear the cobwebs out of his 'unthing'

>>3337121
I disagree with the way you have made that statement. I'm not part of "the left" but "leftists" aren't part of some borg collective and many of them wouldn't even identify with Socialism and most haven't even heard of Stirner.

I think it would help all of us if "the right" and "the left" just grew up a little bit and stopped treating everything as a sports game.

>>3337132
You are correct, my mistake for collectivizing everyone into a single group, something I despite as well, yet hyprocritically do. I should've simply said "Socialists" or something alike.

>>3337138
Thank you, you seem like a decent and intelligent bloke, I have enjoyed talking to you.

File: e9d.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>3335653
Not even trying

>>3335653
explanations are just spooks man >>:) haha im so clever

if u disagree then you're just defending ur spooks

>>3335653
Starting to discuss spooks will lead only to kore spooks. The point is this: virtually everything in our experience is a made-up narrative that has no validity whatsoever. You are an individual (not really since the self and free will does not exist, but I think you can grasp the conclusions of this analogy), and your point of view is as valid as any other point of view. Everything is your property, for you can get access to it and for your point of view can always validate your actions: you are as wring or right as everyone else, and unfortunately, literally no good argument can counteract this stance, especially when you truly experience it in first person.

>>3336973
Communism is a cancer on the brain

yfw 4chan plebeians only care about stirner and "spooks" because they think it sounds funny
yfw they have no clue what it means, and have effectively killed any real meaning and discussion

>>3336842
>Also I'm really mad that those Communists use Stirner in any way or form.

Them using Stirner's work as they see fit to their own ends is about as appropriate a use of his work as you can get.

>>3336863
The shift from Young Marx to Old Marx was largely inspired by Stirner. Marx never published the German ideology, and after encountering Stirner's tear-down of idealism, Marx shifted his work over to a materialistic, egoistic basis. The individual worker seeing that his interests are tied into his position as a member of a specific socio-economic class and seeking to better his conditions without regard to conventional morals or property rights is absolutely fitting of Stirner's work.

Most movements that have taken from Stirner's work have been socialistic in nature, and Stirner explains in his work "Stirner's Critics" that he's not opposed to socialism (nor morals, nor purpose, nor anything else really) providing it's not considered something sacred and untouchable.

>>3336995
A book he never published, and promptly shifted his entire ideological framework after working through Stirner's criticism.

Engels it's worth noting was also quite fond of Stirner, and felt that their communism should absolutely have an egoistic basis. The fact that Marx shifted to materialism and focused more on getting the workers to focus on actively bettering their conditions rather than worrying about moralistic concerns seems to be that he agreed somewhat.

File: Skeleton spooky dance.gif (1MB, 400x256px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x256px

>>3336973
Stirner is left leaning

Ethics, Morality, etc... anything that doesn't exist in the material world. For example, Free Will doesn't exist. What we call ''Free Will'' is literally nothing more than chemical reactions in our brain.

>>3341190
This is a horrible description of spooks

>>3335653
So my understanding of a spook is that it is something intangible and an imaginary construct that people build value around and treat as if it were real and allow it to control them?

But if something is an intangible artificial construct and I use it for my own self-interest, then is that a spook?

>>3336973
Stirner is one of the ideological daddies of anarchists