>trying to live the egoistic amoral life >wracked by guilt

File: stirner8.jpg (38KB, 476x417px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 476x417px

>>34584944
Nice dubs my spooky friend
What kind of things are you doing that make you feel guilty?

File: tsgxxmq14pix.jpg (41KB, 500x497px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x497px

Nobody can be spook free, there will always be spooks. If they weren't a thing we would never think about them. The whole idea of a spook is you don't let it get to you and affect what you truly want.

Being altruistic is not the opposite of egoistic. If you happen to find that you like doing things that help people instead of harm them, well that is truly what you like. We are a collective of egos trying to will ourselves onto others. Generally, you have noticed that when you are kind to others, they tend to respond better to you. Your ego enjoys other people being pleased with you.


>TL;DR: There is nothing wrong with you OP and you aren't spooked as far as I can tell.

>>34584944
>doing something that causes displeasure
>pretending to be spook"""""-free"""""
Just be nice if you like it

>>34585106
this is correct tbqhwy op

Maybe you should stop fucking people over rather than being spooked by being out for yourself and only yourself. In the end it is to etch your own way of life that you want rather than being guided by someone else's vision of how people should lead their life.

>>34584944
>he thinks he can't be egoistic and also nice
If you want to be nice then be nice dude, the whole point is to live how YOU want to.

>>34585106
>>34585105
>>34584944
why haven't i seen this before?

>>34586062
>>34585474
Wrong. To be non spooked means to also lose the desire to put other's well being over your own. If you'd be truly spook free you wouldn't feel regret, as regret itself is a spook. You maybe live individualistic, but not spook free.

>>34585957
or maybe you should try not being spooked

>>34586129
Stirner is a top tier everything.

>>34586186
But how can you determine another persons well being over your own? How can you know how much you can benefit from it? Can you quantify this?

>>34586129
/lit/ meme cross-posting. Was daily a few months back. Stirner's work is worth a read though.

>>34584944
You don't have to try and fail to be a sociopath anon.
Stirner himself loves others but he loves because it is natural for him not for the sake of Love.

>>34586314
There's no need to quantify anything, OPs case is an example of that. He already puts his own interest over others - is non spooked on a basis of his actions - but still let's guilt and regret get to him. Being non spooked is not determined by how you act, but by how you think. The thought of helping others to your own disgain wouldn't even come to the mind of an egoist, as he has shed those spooks from his mind a long time ago.

>>34584944
>tfw stirner meme is a spook

>>34586358
What if helping others is to your own gain because it makes you feel good? You're not helping others as slave to idea of society or charitably but simply because it is natural pleasurable to you.

>>34586370
Memes aren't spooks, simply because they are symbolism for things we find amusing. No one gets spooked by Stirner because his whole image symbolizes ones own acceptance of their ego.

>>34586392
Like I said, if you'd be a true egoist, helping oithers wouldn't make you feel good, since you realized that altruism is a spook in itself. If you feel good by helping others, go for it, but that means you aren't spook free. That poses the question, do you really want to be spook free if you derive such pleasures from helping others.

>>34586316
I always thought it was more of a /leftypol/ meme but I guess I've never been to /lit/

>>34586433
/leftypol/ tends to infest /lit/ so you're probably right. They don't like him because he BTFO their patron saint.

>>34586433
Stirner memes have been used on /lit/ years before 8chn even existed.

File: 1482272619307.jpg (32KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x360px

>>34584944
>Being amoral.

That's the easiest way to hate yourself.

Amorality can only make logical sense as a contingent descriptor if what is contingent is the conditional parameters of knowledge of good and evil. And your place within those two systems at any given moment.

Only those who know they are selfish, and know they are egotistical, and know they are immoral, can ever derive satisfaction from the suffering of others at their ill gotten gains. And to be amoral is to accept no responsibility for your knowledge of good and evil.

So, don't delude yourself. You're either trying to be good, or trying to justify your continued existence to yourself so you don't feel bad about how much of a failure you are.

File: 1485920350280.png (392KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1000x1000px

>>34584944
>he feels guilt

File: 1486030199423.png (804KB, 1720x2988px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 1720x2988px

Are we posting spooks now?

File: SPOOKY.png (72KB, 500x604px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x604px

>>34586555
>that last one
My fucking sides, too accurate
Keep on spooking on mate

So I know the right and left dichotomy is a spook but can Stirner's ideology be placed on the political spectrum?

>>34586480
Fair enough. I am a fan of the spookster though

>>34586597
Hes on the Z axis far above all other 2d ideologies

>>34586514
>believing in morality


If no one ever told you what was good or bad, would you figure it out if it were objectively grounded? Or would you figure out on your own what is right or wrong? How can you hate the only thing you are ever certain of unless you let some other force act itself upon you?

>>34584944
Just because you are recognize spooks, doesn't mean you have to be free of them. They don't exist in a vacuum

>>34586651
>If no one ever told you what was good or bad, would you figure it out if it were objectively grounded?

If you were raised to believe 2+2 = 3, you'd be misinformed. But the human brain comes equipped with the tools to deal with these types of problems. And can teach itself to correct blatant misinformation.

Morality, or at least functional morality, is one of those such things. We are, naturally, capable of learning through either genetic time, or trail and error, that certain behaviours are not conducive to social cohesion. And therefore survival.

Looking at morality as an abstract concept is erroneous at best and foolish at worst.

>>34586597
Placing yourself in a group of people because you agree on certain things is spooky.

>>34584944
Well congrats, you aren't a jaded retard.

File: 1432156965761.png (59KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x640px

>>34586597
Yeah, right here.

>>34586706
In my mind 2+2=4 similar to your mind. We can look at evidence and deduct our own truth of it. However it is our own truth and no one else's. That is beside the point. Morality is not a truth in this way because not everything can agree on it. You can't teach morality like math because morality cannot be defined and agreed upon by all parties with evidence. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could prove 2+2=3, because it has never shown itself in that way. Morality has many faces and has never reached an agreement. It changes constantly and always will. I know for a fact what you believe 2+2= but I cannot know for a fact what anyone thinks is right or wrong. If you cannot know it for certain it can't actually be a thing.

>>34586803
Maybe morality is like a more complex fact of math that can be proven but is inaccessible to most or even all people.

What is a spook? is it supposed to be a reference to a ghost?

>>34586857
If objective truth were only available to certain people or no one at all, it would be meaningless. Hence we are always true. If one decides that one was wrong prior, it is simply one's new truth.

>>34586962
It is suppose to be something that haunts your mind and make you do irrational things that would disadvantage you for no reason but that "spook" influencing you.

>>34587008
How do you know what is a disadvantage for you?

>>34584944
you should realise that must people are like you

>>34587015
>Me telling your what could or couldn't disadvantage you
Are you telling me to spook you?

>>34587028
I am asking how you know what is a disadvantage to you.

>>34587002
The objective truth of Fermat's last theorem is unavailable to the vast majority of people.

>>34586514
Being moral is the easiest way to hate yourself and have a negative impact on your own existence.

When you place too much stock in how other people think and feel, it starts to fuck you over

All you have to do is look at the millions of utter morons who do things against their own well-being so they can look better to their neighbours, or show off to random idiots on the internet or "feel good about themselves" which to be honest is nothing but delusion.

>can ever derive satisfaction from the suffering of others at their ill gotten gains.

It's not about getting satisfaction from treating people like glorified NPCs... You're completely missing the point.

>>34587015
Because you decide it isn't an advantage to you. If it isn't useful to you. It is useless, its nothing. When you let something that isn't advantageous (nothing) unnerve or distract you, it is the same as thinking there's a ghost in your closet only to open it and find nothing. When you think of what a ghost does, it scares people or makes people feel a certain way and nothing else. It "spooks" you.

That for which you can find no meaning or purpose for let still effect you is a spook.

>>34587100
>Because you decide it isn't an advantage to you.

As a conscious decision or is it a gut-feeling?

>That for which you can find no meaning or purpose for let still effect you is a spook.

Wouldn't one man's purpose be another man's spook in that case?

>>34587061
Just proves there are an infinite number of truths, and whether you discover them or not only matters if you decide they do.
>>34587125

>As a conscious decision or is it a gut-feeling?

It's the same thing whatever you decide.


>Wouldn't one man's purpose be another man's spook in that case?

You're starting to get it. You are the only one who can truly decide what is purpose because you are all you know. The other man is irrelevant because his advantages aren't necessarily advantages to you. If you only believe what the other man believes is purposeful you are being spooked.

>>34587192
>If you only believe what the other man believes is purposeful you are being spooked.

but you can only believe what you believe. so you can never be spooked.

>>34587239
BINGO, nice ego friendo.

what background do I need to read Max Stirner?

>>34587267
Well if you can never be spooked what is the point of the concept?

>>34587301
Don't think (or worry) about things that aren't even real.

>>34586186
Basic human instincts aren't a spook.

>>34587326
Well you can't possibly know what is real.

>>34587366
Empathy isn't an instinct, it is taught. The only human instinct that comes from oneself naturally is self preservation.

>>34584944
I've been trying but i can't.
I've been corrupted by shonen anime and believing in "greater things".

I think thtis comes to the fact that i just can't believe in myself so i stick to "higher" things to give me the purpose of existence

>>34587371
What is real then? If you KNOW that nothing can be real, Isn't that therefore a reality to you?

>>34587403
>What is real then?

Does all of Stirner's philosophy depend on not defining the words you use?

>>34587396
If you decide what is higher and lower, how can anything be above you if you decide what it is to you?

>>34587391
>t. armchair biologist

File: Chart-web.jpg (823KB, 472x669px) Image search: [Google]

823KB, 472x669px

>>34587424
Well, that's true.
I'm going to focus seriously on reading Stirner. Already downloaded the book. They say it's a great read for INFP's

>>34587422
I'm not strictly quoting Stirner just speaking from myself. Who else gets to decide what something means?

>>34584944
Be on the receiving end of injustice, incompetence, negligence and malice and you may find your sense of guilt becomes dulled.
You may develop a generalized sense of disdain, mistrust and contempt, you may become mature into misanthropy and with that the opinions of others will lose all value to you unless it is functional for your own benefit to take it into consideration. You won't feel guilt or shame because you do not have the conception of value to be violated or will not allow your own value to be compromised by those you do not value or hold in contempt.

File: lolistirner.png (8KB, 200x252px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x252px

>>34587469
>that chart
>praises (((Chatolicism))), (((spirituality))) and (((moral values)))
Oh my oh dear that's really quite spooky if I do say.

>>34587472
It sounds like complete nonsense to me. If you should let 'real' things affect you, and 'real' is whatever you want to be, then we arrive at the same conclusion.

That it is completely impossible for anyone to ever be spooked.

File: stirner.gif (401KB, 128x330px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 128x330px

>>34587498
What if i feel genuinely good at endorsing those ideas? What if i realise that abiding to that ideology for the sake of my well-being is quite egoistical of me because the said ideology tends to be harmful towards other people?

>>34587434
Why don't you look objectively at children and see how empathetic they are?

Spoilers: They're literally sociopaths

>>34587536
however, they are not MEN

File: stirner7.jpg (166KB, 956x960px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 956x960px

>>34587530
>What if i feel genuinely good at endorsing those ideas?
Does it matter to me? I just wanted to post my lolistirner picture my spooky dude and you gave me a good excuse.

>>34584944
I know that feel, OP. I always feel guilt when I do something bad to someone, sometimes even if they deserve it. I'm not cut out for the self-centered life

>>34587546
How does society define MEN? They are raised by their parents into adolescence, obtaining the values and moral their parent and indirectly society deems correct. Thos values are taught, not natural.

>>34587569
If those value have to be taught how would they ever develop to begin with?

>>34587569
>Thos values are taught

That's why we must discard them, they are nothing but spooks. Like when children overcome a physical obstacle allowing them access to the forbidden area, the young men must discard the moral obstacles (spooks) that were given to him in order to become a true men

Egoism is a one track road to no fulfilment and the constant hedonistic goose chase for the next "high" that becomes more and more unachievable.

A strong, traditional, conservative lifestyle is the only possible way to true happiness and contentment.

>>34587595
>A strong, traditional, conservative lifestyle is the only possible way to true happiness and contentment.

Nothing against if that's what gives you your kick

File: stirner6.jpg (9KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 223x226px

>>34587595
>A strong, traditional, conservative lifestyle is the only possible way to true happiness and contentment.
Look at him everyone. Look at this spook and laugh.

Pro tip, you can be an egoist and still live a "strong, traditional, conservative" life.

>>34587527
Everything comes back to you in the end. Theres no sense to make. Everything in existance that you see, feel, hear, whatever; only exists because you make it so. It's only here because you are here to see it. So when you see someone talking about something that YOU know doesn't exist, you interpret it as them being spooked like a child and a monster under the bed.

File: 399.png (65KB, 266x427px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 266x427px

>>34587588
they wouldn't develop on their own, that's why they are spooks. Read the god damn book.

>>34587591
this

>>34587656
>you interpret it as them being spooked like a child and a monster under the bed.

From their perspective they wouldn't be.

>>34587670
>they wouldn't develop on their own,

They did.

>Read the god damn book.

Fuck your stupid book.

>>34587692
They developed only through a believe in a higher power, only existing out of fear of that power and a punishment if one doesn't adhere to them. Then they have been integrated into society and passed on.

>>34587692
>From their perspective they wouldn't be.


So? What does that mean to you?

>>34584944
I think you are born in it. Ive always been amoral, i hardly understand moral complexes people get

>>34587536
>little kids are short so being tall is a social construct
same goes with empathy

>>34587746
>make a bad analogy
>think this makes your correct.
Except every child will get taller 99% of the time as they develop into an adult, while they will only develop morals if other force those morals onto them.

>>34587732
It means to me that the concept of a spook is stupid. People don't need someone telling them to do what they want, they do that on their own.

>>34587710
>They developed only through a believe in a higher power, only existing out of fear of that power and a punishment if one doesn't adhere to them

Seems like an unfounded assertion. One that is in contradiction with modern biology.

>>34587777
>state some thesis
>don't have anything to support it
>think this makes your correct.

>>34587795
>Can't disprove a theisis
>somehow thinks this lets him disregard that theisis
Really makes the noggin jog

>>34587794
How would biology explain morality? It certainly isn't a benefit for the individual. Morality is a purely spiritual occurence and nothing more than a spook in the mind.

>>34587777
Quads confirm that spooked idiots are getting btfo RIGHT NOW

>>34587814
You conflate empathy(which is instinctual) with morality which is consciously developed.

Both have 'benefitted' the individual in the evolutionary sense by strengthening social cohesion.

>>34587809
Burden of proof lies on you, as you started this argument here >>34587391
Also here are actual scientific papers on the subject
https://www.google.pl/search?client=opera&q=emotional+development+in+children&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=emotional+development+empathy
literally googled it.

>>34587887
I myself don't benefit from social cohesion, so even if it was a instinct, it wouldn't matter. I don't care for the well being of others and I don't need to bow to a principle so it benefits me in an evolutionary sense. Only benefit in a direct, personal way lies in my interest, the bigger picture is nothing more than an illusion.

>>34587937
>I myself don't benefit from social cohesion

In the evolutionary sense you do. Social cohesion increases your chances of producing viable offspring.

Without it you would almost certainly be killed and cannibalized.

>>34587957
Like I said, the bigger picture doesn't mean anything to me. The order is already established, why should I submit to its principles? I don't say we would have reached this point if everybody was an egoist, definetly not, but why should that mean I have to care for the future of humanity? What has humanity ever done for me besides existing? I am on my own and I won't be controlled so some evolutionary sense is fulfilled.

>>34586803
>If you cannot know it for certain it can't actually be a thing.
Man, you're fucking retarded

>>34588040
>why should I submit to its principles?

Why, you shouldn't anything really. This is a conceptual discussion on the philosophy of Stirner, and not a discussion on what you ought to do.

What we were talking about specifically was whether empathy and morality would develop without being taught, which they did.

File: c4c5e8dd109c49972607cc9696405f635704bee1.jpg (29KB, 371x196px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 371x196px

Jesus christ, it's almost like this thread was meant for me.

I'm beginning to think I only came into egoism as a way to justify my borderline psychopathy, and I feel guilty as fuck about it (which is why it's only borderline). I just genuinely do not give two shits about moral obligations, other people's feelings, or society in general. But even when I can stave off the guilt, I feel completely alienated from humanity due to it.

For instance, I got really into anarchism from Stirner, but I don't fit in with most anarchists or lefties even remotely. I spent all of yesterday browsing /leftypol/ just to found that I have nothing in common with these people. I think the State is a monstrous, oppressive institution, but I don't give a fuck about activism or social justice. And I generally find physical violence to be repulsive, so I'm not exactly applauding nazis getting punched in the face, even if I vehemently disagree with their ideology, and I wouldn't be much help in """the revolution""". It just feels like every single one of my opinions and ideas is contrarian without me intending it to be, like I'm just naturally the opposite kind of person society and others want.

And despite being an egoist, I'm perpetually in a state of low self-esteem and paranoia. Sometimes I become ultra self-pitying and feel like all the people who disagree with me and call me an asshole are just domineering moralists who can't stand people who don't conform to their needs. And then I think I really am just that asshole who gussies up his actions in intellectualization to excuse himself from moral responsibility.

But no matter what conclusion I come to, it's suffering. I'm either shrouded in a cloak of narcissism, feeling like a victim of civilizations' omnipotent chokehold, or I let the spooks get to me, and I feel like a selfish brat with no capacity for empathy or regard for others.

>>34586514
>subscribing to the simplistic fiction that is the good and evil dichotomy

Ya dun goofed from the first stand point.

>>34588589
You're probably just smarter than other people. It's alright. It happens.

>>34588589
>It just feels like every single one of my opinions and ideas is contrarian without me intending it to be
Well said. I relate so much to everything you wrote you articulated it well. I bet a lot of other /r9k/ anons feel very similar.

>>34588589
This hits way too close home, anon. Those typical anarchists have nothing in common with Stirner anyway. Stirner was an individualist and had no respect for those collectivist fools.

File: itire.jpg (185KB, 491x750px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 491x750px

>>34588589
>And I generally find physical violence to be repulsive,
Fucking this, I don't get how these normies get so worked up over other people simply having different political opinions to them that they would want to hang every last one from a tree. This applies to both /leftypol/ and /pol/.

I just want to fuck off into the woods without moral busybodies trying to police me.

That's really the worst thing about spooked people, they just HAVE to try and spook you too or kill you if they can't spook you.

I hope one day humanity reaches the stars, so I can fuck off far, far away and make a union of egoists on a distant rock where nor moral busybodies would ever bother to come pester me.

>>34588589
>I really am just that asshole who gussies up his actions in intellectualization to excuse himself from moral responsibility.

Guess what? That's completely correct.

Anyone find it interesting how movments like MGTOW align with spookbusting?

File: 1485671823386.jpg (41KB, 680x684px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 680x684px

>>34588617
>>34588635
>>34588671

Glad that my rant hit home with a few other ego-bots, makes me feel just slightly less alienated.

I didn't want to go too deep into specifics, but the contrarian thing is what really kills me the most. I don't enjoy offending other people or hurting their feelings, but I also feel completely justified in doing so if that's what the situation calls for. It may be the source of the constant fluctuation I have between self-righteous indignation and deep-seated feelings of guilt and shame. Most of my political beliefs and my very cold and aloof manner of dealing with touchy subjects are just pure normie repellent, and I'm not even a conservative/alt-righter. I'm a pretty hardcore lefty through and through, but there isn't a single philosophy, creed, or calling that I can find myself identifying with or believing in. Stirner's egoism was the first thing that ever really spoke to me since like LaVeyan Satanism and Objectivism did when I was 14. And in many ways Egoism was the more intellectually rigorous and mature conclusion to those initial steps.

/r9k/ is the only place that makes me feel sort of at home.

>>34588720

You nailed pretty much exactly what I hate about moralists, couldn't have said it better. I constantly try to seek like-minded people, but even the egoists and post-left anarchists seem hellbent on using violence as a means of change and control. And I'm not trying to oppose it on any spooky "moral" grounds, but from a completely egoist perspective, I don't want to condone or any way enable the use of violence. I can only see it as a constant threat to my freedom of expression and physical wellbeing, and I don't want to foster a culture that normalizes its use in any capacity besides immediate self-defense. I can't shake my pacifistic leanings, and frankly I wouldn't want to.

>>34588740
Or I might just be this.

I started to see through most of the spooks after going vegan. I mean, why is stealing wrong in a society that brutalises billions of animals? Why is murdering a human a great crime but murdering 100 pigs a job?

I started living for myself and can't spare any spooks after I was nearly homeless and not even the nignog I gave $200 to would help me out. I remember that when one of the leeches tries to get me with the y u no maek me happy guilt trip to ensure I live a spook free life.

>>34589188

Tell us how you became homeless and how you got out of it, spookfreeanon

>>34588874

Well said anon. What you said has pretty much hit me on home.

File: 1475770808074.png (397KB, 438x498px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 438x498px

>>34589280(cont)

>>34588874

For example, since ive been reading Stirner ive been feeling more at ease with myself. I too am a pot of contradictions. Most of the political stuff i do is in order to repel normies or to endorse my delirious fantasies of power. I have this thing you see: since i was little ive always been bullied by pretty much everyone till 9 grade aprox. This turned me really bitter and obsessed with the idea of power and gave me a desire to relentlessly crush those who disagree
with me.


In this sense, i use morals in a way of empowering myself and seeing my persona above everyone else.
At the end of the day i'm just a big looser living in a whirlpool of contradictions and traped in a spiral of pure hatred.

However, i'm also very moved by acts of tremendous self-sacrifice and pure altruism.
In the end i think i'm just terribly obsessed by the notion of "sublime".

Reading Stirner has been helpful to ease some of my emotions

File: 1432568439639.jpg (144KB, 674x760px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 674x760px

>>34588874
>You nailed pretty much exactly what I hate about moralists, couldn't have said it better.
T-Thanks for the compliment anon.

>tfw I always end up acting really mean whenever I try and join a new group because I don't hold back on calling people out for being idiots
>tfw actually just want to be a nice person with likeminded people and people are always surprised when I calm down and act nice to them once I finish criticizing every part of them I don't like

This is hell

File: 1485540789915.gif (150KB, 245x320px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 245x320px

>>34584944
>tfw too dumb for stirner

I just think the memes are funny

>>34584944
You aren't a true robot yet then.

Give me a quick rundown on Stirner

gibbe a quick rubdown, Stirmer

i'm gonna give a rundown of my morality, skip this post if u don't wanna read
>people own their body, their freedom, their property
>whatever hasn't been used is fair game
>contracts are to be followed
>abortion is ok and the choice of the mother
>be a vegan
>anything else is fair game, if u have to crush somebody's stupid dream of being the center of attention or a "great inventor", when really u are greater, then do it, in fact, it's amoral to not do it, moral to do it.

File: stirner2.png (319KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 803x688px

>>34591929
>people own their body
>their freedom
>THEIR property
Haha, nice joke My Property

>>34591960
without property u can't have industrialization
without egoism you cant have industrialization
what philosophy is missing is that there's egoistic and egotistic altruism

>>34591756
this thread should suffice

read through

>>34592016
You talk like a retarded 14 year old
Kill yourself originally

>>34586555
>"I can't lock a person in my basement, but the police can?? God, what fucking hypocrites! Fuck this world"
>-Max Stirner

>>34588720
>Fucks of far far away with a union of egoists
>Gets killed during the trip because other egoists want his food an oxygen supply to make the trip comfier.
You can't etablish a society using egoism, it is a very individualist mindset. Egoism forces you to live on your own. If your dream is to live in a society just become a moralfag.