What is a "spook"? Seriously, there has to be an agreed

>>8887028
>gave me the impression that total freedom from ideology
Remove 'from ideology.' Way to completely miss the point.

>So what's the point?
Remember when those unhelpful fucks were telling you to "Just b urself"?

They weren't unhelpful, they just didn't discuss the issue in a 300+ page book with you.

>>8887028
Definitions are a spook desu.

>>8887038
So individuation then.
What if I hate myself? What if being myself means I act in bad faith? Is there a way to be a stirnerite without being perceived as a hypocrite?
"Just be yourself" misses out on how hard it is to actually know ones true self. It just seems like he's dismissing the arduous path to self realization by claiming an early victory. It's literally taking the easy way out.

>>8887052
>What if I hate myself?
Not my problem.

>bad faith
Spook.

>Is there a way to be a stirnerite without being perceived as a hypocrite?
Not getting caught.

>>8887076
This is genuinely very illuminating, thank you.

>>8887052
the /lit/ definition of spook is just a clever way of saying nigger.

However people read too much into it in 2015 and somehow it evolved into a completely different meaning and now its used to describe the following:

1) people who are scared of the world, of failing, or of mediocrity in their life. Its usually derived from reading some of the classic literature, which ends up painting their perception of the world black. So in a /lit/ sort of way seeing only the black, and none of the grey or white is why they're called spooks. They can only see the world through nigger glasses.

2) Genrefags that think classic "normal" literature, including biographies, time pieces and philosophical musings are stupid or don't partake in them. Basically amounts to "wasted less time in Literature classes in college".

3) Anyone who does not know X novelist that the OP is currently discussing. The current meme version.

>>8887101
I could kind of see that.

Is it the board equivalent to nigger, pleb, cuck, normie etc? Some vague insult directed at those who oppose the values of the most assimilated board denizens?

Does it have anything to do with Stirner at all?

>>8887138
You're being trolled by a copypasta.

>>8887161
Okay.
So he's a meme then? He generates more posts than any philosopher on the board except maybe Nietzsche, yet I've never seen anything resembling a half-serious discussion about him.

Not OP but I also want to entertain stirners philosophy with you.

Does his anti spook philosophy inevitably lead to social isolation? It seems that it is the spooks (religion, patriots, fascists etc) that bind people together.

If one lacks any form of social belongings how can one be really happy with life?

On another note, is being fascinated with the physical attractiveness of a specific gender a spook? In other words are evolutionary instincts spooks or are they something different?

>>8887187
The most spooked poster in this thread.

>>8887187
I would go into detail about it but it basically all boils down to "You're not attractive enough to get the girl you want" which is where all the memes come from about spooks. I'm pretty sure the sex lives and romantic successfulness of most of the venerated writers here was below average or non-existent. Most of the sexually fit males are not writers, they are fuckers.

>>8887028
Holy shit, I've never seen someone so spooked before.

>>8887171
>So he's a meme then?
Hard to deny this is the case. Of course, his work wasn't written with a message board about Chinese cartoons in mind.

>yet I've never seen anything resembling a half-serious discussion about him
If my bloody archive wasn't down I'd point you towards some.

I suggest you keep reading his book, because despite being rather boring with his writing style he's more thorough than your typical Stirnerite, that's why we keep writers to do the job for us around, after all.

And if you need more, Max Stirner also wrote Stirner's Critics in response to 3 of his critics.

>>8887187
>Does his anti spook philosophy inevitably lead to social isolation?
If anything it's improved my social relations.

>the spooks (religion, patriots, fascists etc) that bind people together.
People bind people together.

From here, looking at how fractured religions and nations are, within themselves and between each other, they clearly don't bind enough people, and don't bind people enough.

I'd rather be myself.

>If one lacks any form of social belongings how can one be really happy with life?
It's almost like a person derives happiness from many different sources, and the effectiveness of a source compared to another would depend on whichever relevant characteristics the individual in particular has.

> is being fascinated with the physical attractiveness of a specific gender a spook?
I fuck who I want.

>In other words are evolutionary instincts spooks or are they something different?
Just ask yourself: Do you control them or do they control you?
>self-renunciation is common to the holy with the unholy, to the pure and the impure. The impure man renounces all “better feelings,” all shame, even natural timidity, and follows only the appetite that rules him. The pure man renounces his natural relation to the world (“renounces the world”) and follows only the “desire” which rules him. Driven by the thirst for money, the avaricious man renounces all admonitions of conscience, all feeling of honor, all gentleness and all compassion; he puts all considerations out of sight; the appetite drags him along. The holy man behaves similarly. He makes himself the “laughing-stock of the world,” is hard-hearted and “strictly just”; for the desire drags him along. As the unholy man renounces himself before Mammon, so the holy man renounces himself before God and the divine laws.
I don't want to renounce myself to any such drives.

File: 1398744824480.gif (1MB, 299x363px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 299x363px

>When you see Stirner fags refer Spooks as an actual concept

The only difference between cuckfags and Stirner fags is that Stirner fags have somehow found a way to cuck themselves by themselves.

What is far more important than dispelling yourself of all spooks is to recognize all that is a spook and keep the ones that serve your best interest

>>8887264
what the HECK are you freaking talking about?

>>8887262
>bloody archive wasn't down I'd point you towards some.
https://warosu.org/lit/ ?

>>8887028
spooks are human constructs that people hold to be above themselves as individuals

>>8887028
>What is a "spook"?
>Seriously, there has to be an agreed upon definition of the word.
Actually it's right there in the original. Stirner gets his (semantically redefined because language is a cage and so on) Spooks/Spuk from the verb spuken. Which is linguistically wrong but again that was his thing. But that's not even the end of it you also have to be careful about false friends in translation. "Spuken" in German does not mean so muchc to spook like scaring people but to haunt, chase. He was going for the "haunting" part even though he was talking about spooking but really that's up for debate and there is no philosophical content to be found here, it's practically mysticism at that point and Stirner operates on such ambiguities throughout the book.

I could go on but let's simply say the definition is that which haunts you physically or mentally regardless of you being aware of it or not.

Of course for you and me this raises paradoxical questions about his definition of self interest but then we would be reading Stirner as if he were alive today (but there was no field of psychology nor neuromemes nor darwinism) and more importantly as a neutral as well as philosophical inquirer which is simply naive.
Stirners mode of operation was trolling his contemporaries and their grand philosophical ambitions whether humanistic, nationalistic or metaphysical and Stirner was not a philosopher but a poet with a timid heart and a would-be polsci/sociologist/pedagogue, not necessarily in that order.

In other words there's better stuff you can read if you're into systematic philosophical inquiry like you're doing right now albeit a little clumsily.

>>8887171
>>8887347
Well here's a long thread, for example:
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S8670590

>>8887384
Such as?

What if one generates joy out of a spook? For example, what if one loves looking at slutty women at strip clubs and his free time is devoted to looking at them and spending all the money on them. Would stirner consider this a no no?

Or if one is a patriot who enjoys his country and spends time and money on this spook?

What I am trying to get at, is whether spooks can be hobbies. And if they can why would they be detrimental to ones life if one generates joy, even if temporarily, out of them?

Lastly, what is stirrers ultimate human prototype? Is that ubermensch spook free ?
If so that ubermensch still has evolutionary instincts (hunger, sex) which he can never overcome except via suicide. Which brings me to my last question, does stirner advocate suicide?

It's also about recognising spooks and then you decide what to do about them

I don't think anyone who goes "I can't do this because it's a spook" is unspooked desu

>>8887533
>What if one generates joy out of a spook? For example, what if one loves looking at slutty women at strip clubs and his free time is devoted to looking at them and spending all the money on them. Would stirner consider this a no no?

Not a spook.

>Or if one is a patriot who enjoys his country and spends time and money on this spook?

Most definitely a spook.

>>8887603
>instead of clarifying what anon1 means, anon2 arbitrarily decides what is or is not a spook based on how ideological it sounds
anon3laughing.jpeg

It's an unexamined premise or assumption that has not been substantiated.

Spook doesn't mean bad or good, it means you are not making explicit what you are taking for granted.