/lit/ - Literature

You're spooking me.

>>8981136
Fuck off with the memes man, seriously I want to know how & why this guy made Engels & Marx collective jimmies rustle so much

he's babby's first existential nihilist

>dude laws and principles aren't real dude

Wanna know how he's shit? Imagine a nation filled with stirnerists. they get invaded by a nation full of Christians or Muslims. The stirnerists are call military training and hierarchy a spook, masturbating behind a tree during drills, running away during combat because they want to, and end up getting slaughtered and conquered by real principled men.

His only redeeming quality is that he's technically got proto-pragmatist qualities, but all of his philosophies fall apart once you begin understanding basic cultural psychology.

Not to mention that every single stirnermemer is a fedora-tier retard.

>>8981156
>Imagine a nation

Why would I do that? "Nation" is a spook. There is no such thing.

Issue with Stirner is that there are people that read Stirner.

>>8981133
I fucking love that description. Fucking kek'd

>>8981156
I doubt a Stirnerist would have joined the army as the army isn't an egoistical union

>>8981209
army *wouldn't be

>>8981209
>a nation filled with stirnerists
A nation needs a military in order to survive a scenario where they're being invaded. In a nation full of stirnerists, what type of people would that nation's military be comprised of? It'd either be stirnerists, or every stirnerist enlisted would abandon their duty and the nation would be completely without a military. Either way, it goes to show that a stirnerist philosophy is a failing one as a nation guided by stirnerist principles wouldn't survive basic competition.

>>8981222
That's why you unite the WORLD under the spook flag.
Duh!

>>8981222
Again, there is no such thing as a "nation." You have this concept in your mind but it does not exist in reality. Look how it controls your actions even now.

>>8981222
>nation guided by stirnerist principles

uhh that's prolly because stirner's philosophy is inherently individualist? A stirnerite "nation" wouldn't have been a nation.

He's a functionally illiterate quack no one should be paying any noticeable amount of attention to.

>>8981226
A nation is a group of people on a plot of land. Think of a family, or a town, or a state, but on a larger scale. The fact that nations exist on every piece of land, and have existed since humans have existed should lead one to think that nations aren't purely 'spooks'.

really guys stop with the spook memes it's giving me ansxiety

>>8981234
Bad news: you're chronically sp00ked.

>>8981231
>A stirnerite "nation" wouldn't have been a nation
So you admit that he's a degenerate, and a group of people governed by judeo-christian philosophies would ultimately be superior by a Darwinian metric?

>>8981238
>So you admit that he's a degenerate
No?

>>8981238
uhh okay, dude

[get a fucking load of this /pol/ack cam]

>>8981241
You just said that he's an 'individualist' and that a group of people guided by his principles couldn't form a nation.

>>8981156

You clearly haven't actually read Stirner, you only have an elementary understanding of what a spook is.

>>8981234
>Think of a family, or a town, or a state

Those are all spooks, bud. Any abstract concept that exists in your mind is not actually real. It is a mental shackle that you let impede your (non-reified) self. If you want to limit yourself in this way, based on nonreal things, that is your choice, but those things are not real.

>>8981242
>/pol/ack
spooked m8

>>8981243

They would transcend a nation. Go read

>>8981247
>Those are all spooks, bud. Any abstract concept that exists in your mind is not actually real
The people are real, and the land that they inhabit is real. The force that they threaten anyone who violates their border with is real.

>>8981246
Define spook for me then.

>>8981251
>They would transcend a nation
But they would get conquered by a foreign nation. The Chinese or muslims etc. would invade and do whatever they wished with them, their wives, their land. If that's a satisfactory endpoint for you and your philosophies, fine, but I think you're retarded desu.

>>8981256
see
>>8981224

>>8981256
>Missing the point this hard

spooked

>>8981256
Which philosophy allows for defending your nation against the invading chink muslim hordes again?

>>8981256
Wow, I love how you're taking this in a high school history textbook scale

>>8981254
>Define spook for me then.
You haven't even read Stirner and you want to shit on him?

...Do you actually let /lit/ memes determine what you do and don't like?

>>8981259
What does that mean exactly? What actions would the stirnerists take when they 'unite under the spook flag'? Would they form a military with a rigid hierarchy for the sole purpose of warfare? Would the flag represent something one would typically call a 'nation'? Aren't nations just spooks?

>>8981254
>The people are real, and the land that they inhabit is real.

Yes they are, but considering these people on that land as an abstract object known as a "nation" is not reflective of reality. This "nation" exists only in your head, it is not concrete.

>The force that they threaten anyone who violates their border with is real.

Who is "they"? Just individuals who take orders from someone that they think has authority over them (authority is a spook). There is no "nation."

>>>8981246
>Define spook for me then.

A spook is a reification. It is when you consider an abstract thing or concept to be concrete.

>>8981254
spook is any abstract concept, that you elevate above yourself. that you are serving instead of it serving you

>>8981261
One that's not individualist. Why would an individualist ever put their life on the line in military combat?

>>8981266
I've never met a stirnermemer capable of defining 'spook', yet they use the word as an argumentative crutch all the time. Truly the most pseud on 'philosophies'.

>>8981133
i think stirner is very legit.
to me he is actually marx, freud + nietsche and ahead of them all.
plus it is a very good critique of christianity.
however, when he emphasizes, that it is also in our interest to protect the week it becomes a little sophistic, but which philosophy isnt?
maybe read "die anarchisten" by mackay to grasp him better

>>8981267
Yes, "nation" is a spook. "Spook" is a spook. It's about freeing yourself from these things.

>>8981270
because he wouldnt want to end up a slave or conquered?
also there is is the verein, that could serve perfectly even in combat
>>8981270
--->>>8981269

>>8981270
just read the thing you pleb.
not being conquered is your real self interest
you dont need a state to enslave you for that
also implying chinese wouldnt read stirner

>>8981269
Many of the things that you call spooks aren't spooks. Are engines a spook? No, you can point to an engine, and it has a practical and real function. Are nations a spook? No, you can point to a specific group of real people, the exact piece of land they inhabit with a defined border. Are laws spooks? The retaliatory force at the hand of the state you're threatened with for violating the law is certainly real. Your whole fetish with overusing 'spook' is a product of you having an extremely poor relationship with the nature of definitions.

>any abstract concept, that you elevate above yourself. that you are serving instead of it serving you
Is dying to protect my family a spook? I've elevated the survival of my offspring above myself, but it's a legitimate survival strategy for my offspring. Many people alive today are the descendants of men who were willing to fight wars to protect the sovereignty of their nation and their family within it. So what you call a spook is actually a very legitimate evolutionary survival strategy.

>>8981279
Thank your for your input.

Any other supplementary books I ought to read?

>>8981289
Holy fuck this is Casper flying over your head, dude.

>>8981289
Engines are concrete things. I can point to an engine and measure it. It is material.

Nations, laws, are not real. Show me a law. You can show me a piece of paper with ink on it. You cannot show me a "law." Our survival doesn't matter objectively. If you want to care about it go ahead, but it has no value outside of your mind.

>>8981287
>not being conquered is your real self interest
Which is why the stirnerist would simply flee. Being on the frontline and drawing fire for your brothers in arms is a spook after all.

>you dont need a state to enslave you for that
What exactly does one refer to when they say 'state'? Think about it.

You need a 'state' to tax the population and maintain a standing army (especially today) in order to survive as a nation.

This whole stirner meme is for edgy fedora teenagers who at their core are just angry at their parents and the kids who rejected them in high school. You'll grow out of it, kiddos.

>>8981295
Nothing is flying over my head. Every stirnermemer I've ever talked to on 4chan has been stupid as fuck. I think it's a matter of you being legitimately too dumb to understand what I'm saying.

>Nations, laws, are not real.
I've already stated the pragmatic effects of these concepts. The force you're threatened with for violating the law is the real part, and it exists to deter potential criminals from committing crimes in the first place. This is some serious autism on your part.

>Our survival doesn't matter objectively
Sure, so kill yourself. My hypothetical nation will survive, and yours won't. There's nobody technically correct here, but my projected result is undeniably better than yours.

>>8981299
see >>8981322

>>8981322
>>8981326
>>>>>>>whoosh>>>>>>>>

>this thread

S P O O K E D
P
O
O
K
E
D

>>8981322
>The force you're threatened with for violating the law is the real part

So a law isn't real, you concede? If I do something someone doesn't like they may initiate force. Where is the "law"? It is nowhere.

>Sure, so kill yourself.

Killing and not killing myself have the same objective value: null.

>My hypothetical nation will survive, and yours won't.

And? (And no they won't survive because they never existed)

>There's nobody technically correct here, but my projected result is undeniably better than yours.

Yes, your life of obedience to things that don't exist is admirable.

>>8981330
Not him, but stop using reddit slang, mang.

>>8981339
Yo'r to self consus.

>>8981222
if it was in their own self interest to fight collectively against an invader that doesn't pose any problems for someone who holds stirnerite views. read the fucking book you pleb

>>8981353
Yes, it is possible to act in concordance with a spook if you deem it to be in your best interest, while simultaneously understanding the spook is not real.

>>8981330
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm missing the point. If anything, stirnermemers are the ones failing to understand.

>>8981334
There's no physical object called a law, but the concept of law and the laws we enshrine guide our behaviors. We have a police force that will hunt you down and throw you in a cage for violating the law. Why do we have laws? Some people are animals that would murder and steal freely were they not faced with the threat of force at the hand of the state.

When you're thinking of the definition of 'law', or any definition really, think of what results it produces. What do 'laws' make true?

>Killing and not killing myself have the same objective value: null
I get that, but you don't kill yourself right here and now. Why?

>tfw you ask a qt to be your gf and she tells you being a gf is a spook

>>8981156
Winning is a spook.

If you kill me, I win.
I win anyway.

>>8981372
Let me try to put this in simple terms. Things that are not material objects are not real. If it is not a material thing, it is not real. Anything that you conceive of that is not material is not real. Nations, laws, morals, relationships, etc. are not material and are not real. They just exist in your mind. If a bunch of people pretend these things are real, it doesn't make them real. These things that are not real, that people pretend are real, that people allow themselves subject their selfs to, these things are called spooks.

Is god a spook?

>>8981394
Yes but the consequences of these things are real. They cast a shadow, as it were.

I'm sure Stirner was massively revelatory to people in the 19th century, where social systems were pretty much all there were to define ones life. But there's nothing interesting about someone pointing out that a law takes no physical form in 2017. If you live your life without regard for spooks/things that hold no physical form, you'll be thrown in jail for not paying your taxes, or just starve to death because fiat money is probably a spook and you can't shoplift indefinitely.

>>8981405
Plato pls go and stay go

>>8981405
See >>8981353 >>8981356

>>8981394

You do realize that by that definition that the concept of spooks are themselves a spook, right? And that the processes of avoiding spooks is therefore to be governed by the spook of spookiness itself?

Seems like a pretty sound philosophical foundation m8.

>>8981394
>Things that are not material objects are not real. If it is not a material thing, it is not real.
I understand that my man. These principles that you call 'spooks' like laws and nations etc. produce real results in the real world though. They guide our actions as a collective in a way that wouldn't be possible without them. Also, your definition of these concepts is fucked up. When you think of what a law is, you either have a very emotional and basic understanding or you're trying to think of what everyone else thinks a law is. Forge your own pragmatic definitions.

Gonna paste the smartest thing I've read on /lit/ about Stirner:

You're making a fundamental mistake with Stirner: his philosophy isn't one of possibility and generality, but of reality and particularity. You use his terminology to compare individuals and societies when not doing that is precisely his point.

Say you poor that tomato juice. You have interacted with the ocean. In that stuation, you have dirtied its waters, let's assume that was your intention, and as such have made the water your Own. Then you find the water becomes blue again. Does that mean you have lost ownership of the ocean? No, the view of the blue water is still *your* view, still your Own. But because you compare the red and the blue; then you imagine the ocean has an agency of its own, which is more powerful than yours. From this to sacrificing virgins there's only a few steps.

The problem arises because there's a fixation. You have two memories which you compare, in order to extract some sort of abstraction or truth. You are thinking in terms of possibilities and generalities. That's not how Stirner works. His ownership is an *active* ownership; things are only your Own so long as you can interact with them: he doesn't think you can lay claim forever to anything by just touching it once--unless you make others deluded, and then only so far as you can keep up the play. His might is not a matter of authority, it's not ownership in legal, ad futurum terms. The point is to quit equating your sensory perceptions to abstractions and inferations, and treat them as they come along.

As for the savages, they don't philosophize in the same way they don't speak English like we do, and don't have wings like birds do--so really your issue with them is that they're not more like your Own. A stupid issue: you only have your own petceptions of them to compare to. Likewise with society: saying the individual finds *himself* weaker than society, is based on *his* assesment.

Lastly, Stirner really isn't against society at all. He only speaks to perpetuate his ideas, which can only happen upon others hearing them and propagating them, ideas which are based on self-aware and self-honest interchange. It's pretty much the complete opposite of being autonomous in the traditional sense, the boundaries typically assigned to the individual don't exist in a fixed state to him.

>>8981416
Of course spooks are spooks. Who said that the concept of spook is a real thing? It's a mental concept to help you identify other mental concepts (spooks).

>tfw stars in the sky are a spook

You can't hold or feel a star, all you can see is the physical side effects of its presence in the form of light reaching your eyes during nighttime. This is functionally the same as a law, which has no physical form that you can touch or feel but which has physical side effects, like when you break it and pigs break your kneecaps.

>>8981222
Better check my nations blood pressure and feed ut plenty of fruit so that it survives haha

What are you doing at the doctos m8? Oh my nation has this persistint cough haha

>>8981372
You haven't even read Stirner. Every point made has gone completely over your head. You are some 17 year old who thinks he can argue against a philosophy he hasn't read by making poor hypothetical situations. It's embarrassing.

>>8981430
You can see stars, dumbass. And you can feel the closest star.
>heat

Jsut fuck off.

>>8981238
Selection takes place at the genetic level, spooker

>>8981442
Sight is a spook though, isn't it?

>>8981448

>>8981443
Man is to nation as cell is to body. The fact that getting conquered drastically reduces your chance of genetic continuity still remains.

>>8981456
Can you touch sight? Sight isn't a physical object so aligning your beliefs with what you can see is a spook, and therefore simply seeing (or feeling by the same logic) the sun doesn't prove that it's not a spook.

>>8981442
>You can see stars.
You stupid piece of shit, you mouthbreathing pile of masturbating, shitfucking human refuse, you don't see STARS, you degenerate cum-guzzler, you just see the LIGHT from what MIGHT be a star. You fucking retard, you double-stupid dickbreather. That could be light from literally anything, you don't know.
>You can feel what the sun generates (heat), but you can't feel what a law generates (coercive governance).

pour yourself a big fucking stein of bleach my guy, ill even jerk off into it so you get a nice frothy head on that bitch, I want you to turn that shit upside down in your mouth so the whole thing goes right down your cock-loose gullet and finally removes you from this universe, and then when anyone asks about you I can say they're in thrall to a spook because sorry, brainless shitboi 69 is no longer with us and you know what THAT means.

>>8981461
Stirner is literally 2deep4u buddy.

>>8981470
From how you memers represent him, he appears to be a flaming dumpster fire retard.

>>8981469
>You stupid piece of shit, you mouthbreathing pile of masturbating, shitfucking human refuse, you don't see STARS, you degenerate cum-guzzler, you just see the LIGHT from what MIGHT be a star. You fucking retard, you double-stupid dickbreather. That could be light from literally anything, you don't know.

AHAHAHAH HOLY FUCK

Guys, can we touch 4chan? Is using this website a spook? Are we spooked as a result of shitposting on /lit/?

>>8981145
>I want to know how & why this guy made Engels & Marx collective jimmies rustle so much

Stirner kept shouting "SPOOK" from the back of the room and interrupting the meetings. M&E got pissed. Also he kept shouting "you can't argue with me until you've read me!" which was equally annoying.

All joking aside, M&E realized that Stirner could not contribute to their ideas of government and economics. Really Stirner can't contribute to any such attempts not only because he would regard government itself a spook but also because his philosophy can't serve as the foundation to any reasonable political theory.

Imagine there is a philosopher who is a completely committed and dogmatic "brain-in-a-vat" solipsist. Like they're not even doing it as a thought experiment, they genuinely believe that their consciousness is the only thing that exists. What does this person think about free market economics? They don't even care because free market economics doesn't exist nor do the people that practice it. The only direction they can consistently approach the "outside world" in is one of hedonism because that means that their ends are strictly contained in their own consciousness. It's not really possible to have a constructive dialog with such a person because they can dismiss anything you say as being "not real."

Stirner isn't quite that bad but he gets pretty close. A Stirnerist would be governed completely by his own ego (which is at its core a form of hedonism) and so would be difficult to wrangle into any sort of system of governance because he doesn't want to be ruled by anything other than his own ego. This sort of person is not the type you want to build a society on. Really the only justifiable government to this sort of person is anarchy, which M&E weren't interested in at least for a long time into the future. You could also say "a union of egoists" but that hasn't really worked out so well historically. Everyone has the incentive to screw everyone else over because their own ego desires the rewards.

Just to be clear I'm not a Marxist or anything (and I think M&E had a lot wrong) but I couched the discussion in terms of them because that's what you asked. The above paragraphs could be easily rewritten to apply to nearly any philosophy because they are heavily reliant on what Stirner would call spooks.

> inb4 your argument relies of society existing, which is doesn't

>>8981492
Data is a physical object.

>>8981426

So do you agree that stinerists are governed by spooks, then?

>>8981501
Can you touch words? Are words physical objects? No. Your whole post is a spook.

>>8981509
The concept of 'law' and 'nation' takes up 'data' in the brain so to speak, so they're no longer spooks.

>>8981509

ITT thread: A Stirnerist who makes fun of everyone for not understanding Stirner but can't denies the implications of Stirnerism to himself

>>8981517
4chan IS data. You are something else entirely for nations and laws, that they exist outside of the mind/data.

ITT: assravaged brainlet lashing out at Stirnerbros

>>8981523
>4chan IS data
So are laws. So are all ideas. There literally are no spooks. Nothing is a spook because every idea is data.

stirner BTFO

>>8981289
o lord,you have no idea.
just read it mkay? if you don't get what >>8981269
is saying, no one can help you

>>8981309
just get into anarchy you fucking pleb
i dont need state to protect/enslave me

>>8981536
At this point I think you simply don't want to understand. Oh well.

Why does it matter if something is a spook or not?

>>8981322
JUST READ IT BEFORE SHITPOSTING
man
stirner is about taking yourself seriously. and not being determined by some abstract slave morality that wants you to sacrifice your life for the "nation", "church" or whatever. it just gives you the power to elevate yourself above those concepts. if you don't get it then stay a slavish person controlled by abstract concepts
or READ A FUCKING BOOK

>>8981558
Ultimate it doesn't. But if you would like to recognize things that are not real, but which exert a controlling influence over your actions, you may find the concept useful.

Why is Stirner still used to get (you)s? I recall a time when /lit/ more or less agreed that stirner discussion was subtle trash

>>8981562
So far Stirner just seems like a bunch of semantics. 99% of people will agree that govt has no physical form and that it's a wholly social/mental concept that only "exists" inside people's minds.

And then Stirnerites go BUT DONT YOU SEE IT HAS NO PHYSICAL FORM SO IT DOESNT EXIST JUST READ STIRNER YOU FAGGOT

Yeah everyone agrees with you, dude, they just don't have your weird complex about the word "exists."

>>8981560
That's great... if you live in a vacuum... by yourself...

>>8981573
The problem is that you admit it isn't real, then tell me that I have to obey it. No I don't. I can choose to if it suits my interests. I have no obligation either way.

>>8981573
This. We also don't think that constructs are bad either.

Why are spooks bad? Isn't the concept of 'bad' or 'wrong' itself a spook? Does stirnerism rely on subjecting oneself to spookiness? Doesn't that at least suggest that the entire philosophy might be trash? Is philosophy a spook?

>>8981560

Stirnerfriends are the only people on this board that demand you read their philosopher before arguing with them. They know they'll get their scrotum shredded so they demand a huge investment from the opposition in an attempt to scare them away from the argument. No one else pulls this because they'd rather have a real discussion than tell everyone to go read 2000 pages of Hume.

> you just don't understand

There is one dude ITT who's struggling to wrap his mind around the concept of a spook and ten others who have described it well and/or crapped on it. You're focusing on the one dude who you can spout the "YOU HAVEN'T READ HIM" meme at in an attempt to make it look like Stirner is this put-upon understood guy. 90% of the people who disregard Stirner do it BECAUSE they understand him, not because they don't.

So anyways, congrats on getting me mad. I'm glad we could spend our Monday morning this way.

>>8981562
>But if you would like to recognize things that are not real, but which exert a controlling influence over your actions, you may find the concept useful.

Isn't that just common sense?

>>8981270
You've been repeatedly told the definition, and the book clearly tells you the definition. You're meant to at least pretend to read on /lit/.

>>8981592
>>8981593
>being this insecure

>>8981592
Stirnerposters fail to see their own contradictions. Stirner's philosophy is really nothing more than a justification to being a self-centered asshole and memer.

>>8981594
>most people have common sense

>>8981579
Yeah but that's not what people are arguing about ITT, dude, they're all on one side or another of the WHAT DOES EXISTS REALLY MEAN ANYWAY shitposting divide

It sort of seems like the thing radfems do, the "Motte and Bailey" shit. Like when you say "Hey I don't agree with feminism" and the radfem says "But feminism just means equality why do you hate equality?" But when the radfem isn't in a position to be defending her views, suddenly "feminism" means a shitload more stuff, like hiring quotas and male castration regimes, etc.

I feel like Stirnerites do this shit too, when they're just like "Oh Stirner's about recognizing that things you think are real only really exist in the minds of others" but then you look away for two seconds and they're hooting about "FUCK DUDE LOOK AT THIS STUPID PIECE OF SHIT PAYING TAXES AND SPEAKING HUMAN LANGUAGE DOESNT HE KNOW THOSE THINGS ARE JUST SPOOKS??"

>>8981596
>insecure
Spook

>>8981569

largely /lit/ still does. It's just that there are 10 people who still find Stirner memes funny and one dude who actually drank the kool-aid and takes Stirner seriously

the latter can be identified by his constant shouting about how no one has read Stirner

>>8981592
>Why are spooks bad?
Why did you think they were?
>>8981597
Stirnerposters know what egoism is.

>>8981600
>most people read stirner

Why is this guy so butthurt about Stirner?

>>8981603
>not understand Stirner this hard
wew my lad

>>8981596

You: HAHA YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS NO ONE HERE UNDERSTANDS ME
Those guys: Dude shut up you're being an idiot
You: WHY ARE YOU SO INSECURE DUDE HOW DUMB DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO ACTUALLY TAKE ME SERIOUSLY HAHAHA

>>8981594
Tell that to all the people who want to die for their country, for example. They think it is a real thing. People suffer horribly because of spooks.

>>8981614
At this point I'm starting to hate the anti-Stirnerfags more than the Stirnerfags.
>>8981619
Like this.

>>8981611
No, my point was that most people don't have common sense.
Ergo, they need the Stirnman.

>>8981605
>Why did you think they were?
Stirnermemers constantly call things spooks as if it's an argument.

>>8981615
You're the same douchebag last night in the Socrates thread bitching about people being able to sum up both you and Stirner with greentexting

>>8981620
>People suffer horribly because of spooks
Suffering is a spook though, isn't it? Like it's not a real physical object. Implying that suffering is bad is a spook.

>>8981624
your post is a spook

>lol why does Kierkegaard want to be a knight of faith feudalism is dead
That's not what he mea--
>WHY DO YOU THINK I HAVE TO READ KIERKEGAARD TO UNDERSTAND HIM REEEEEEEE

>>8981627
>You're the same douchebag last night in the Socrates thread
'no'
Nice paranoia tho. Stay sp00k3d.

>>8981631
got 'eeeeeem

>>8981627
Spooks are according to egoists irrational. Arguments are supposed to be rational. Though, I suppose that wouldn't apply to you.

>>8981620
I would say spooks are a net benefit.

>>8981640
B T F O

>>8981640
Except you cannot prove why morality and beneficial societal constructs are irrational

>>8981642
>net benefit
spook

>>8981647
This is why everyone hates you, you cannot actually discuss anything.

>>8981631
Yeah he's spooked af. He's also not an egoist, obviously.
>>8981646
>no your argument is wrong
Wow you sure showed me.

>>8981647
So? Why does that matter?

Was she a Stirnerite?

>>8981650
Why do you assume he's a Stirnerite?

>>8981655
Was she rolling around in her own feces and autistically screeching the entire time?

>>8981655
Nah, no fedora.

I think the problem is that retarded people equate "spook" with "something that has to be resisted at all cost" when Stirner is apparently just about learning that you don't actually have to obey all spooks everywhere.

This philosophy doesn't really seem trememdously useful in 2017, where postmodernism has already subsumed literally the entire domain of Stirner's thoughts.

>>8981593
>Stirnerfriends are the only people on this board that demand you read their philosopher before arguing with them.
WHAT

YOU SHOULD DO THAT WITH EVERY PHILOSOPHER

THIS IS A BOARD FOR LITERATURE YES YOU SHOULD READ LITERATURE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>8981665
>only complete retards unironically tout stirner
woah, you're right

>>8981670
>agreeing with a pomo memer
it seems you have been memed my friend

>>8981675
>agreeing
that's a spook

>>8981675
>memed
Getting pretty spooky in here.

>>8981602
>>8981501
>>8981419

Only good posts in this thread tbqh.

I would be open to the Stirner guy posting more in-depth stuff but he seems to just be accusing everyone else of not understanding Stirner instead of addressing the content of the other posts.

Rationality is a spook

>>8981677
>>8981679
These are FALSE FLAGGERS

They are NOT STIRNERFAGS, in fact I would go so far as to suggest they are ANTI-STIRNERFAGS

DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM they will LIE to you
>>8981682
Yay you did it.

>>8981686
>suggest
super spooked, my dude

>>8981693
I am not your dude, my dude.

>>8981686
>LIE
Spook.
This poster is the false flagger.

>>8981696
>I
Spook

>>8981686
False flags are spooks

>>8981699
Do you lie to your mother with that mouth?

Disgusting.

>>8981681
I know, I wrote the first post you linked and I was sort of sad it immediately got rolled up by a million LMAO HOW CAN YOU TALK ABOUT SPOOKS THE CONCEPT OF SPOOKS IS ITSELF A SPOOK meme garbage posts.

>>8981419

I would love to see how Stirner reacts to someone stealing his car.

> Hey, that's my car!
You weren't using it, how can you claim it? This object doesn't belong to you just because you touched it.
> Sure, I guess, but I have a title!
A piece of paper that says you have ownership? Who gave it to you?
> The governme...oh crap
You think that nonexistent entity gives you "rights"? What even are rights? Show me you rights.
> But what you're doing is against the law...uh oh
What is a law, just some idea you made up in your head?
> Just give me the car
It's not in the interest of my ego to do that. Later, dude.

>>8981707
>lie
Spook

>>8981681
>the Stirner guy
There's more than one Stirner guy you dongle.

And, in fairness, most posts in this thread are obviously based on knowledge learned solely through the power of memes. Like this one: >>8981713

It doesn't take a genius to work out the philosophy works both ways.

>>8981714
Do you lie WITH your mother with that mouth, motherfucker?

>>8981713
Yeah, Stirner only appears to be useful in the context of reminding people they owe no inherent obligation to anything beyond what they actually want to owe, by calling anything that has no physical form a spook and thus "revealing" that you really do always have some type of choice re: obeying the dictates of like, govt agencies or your step-mother's guilt trip.

But that's not fucking useful in 2017, because this idea is just postmodernism in a microcosm. Postmodernism has swallowed Stirner completely, to the point that there's probably no reason to read it because most people have been raised in these ideas since the 60s.

>>8981718
>knowledge
pretty sure that's a spook

>>8981156

>real principled men

dying for women is so accomplished

>>8981718

So how would Stirner react to someone stealing his car? Please share your opinions as someone who understands Stirner.

>>8981731
>anti-Stirner poster trying to false flag as an /r9k/ poster

>>8981731
Dying for anything outside of yourself fits the criteria of 'principled'.

>>8981726
STOP SHILLING POMO
>>8981733
He'd do whatever he wanted. Presumably that would mean preventing his car from being stolen. Assuming this hypothetical situation would legitimately be solved by telling the robber to stop robbing, he'd do that.

He might even call the police.
>police are based on spooks
So?

>>8981726
>postmodernism
This is a spook therefore I win the argument lolololol

>>8981733
Understanding is a spook

>>8981743
Incidentally, sacrificing yourself to save those you love would not be spooked. If it hurt you more to see them die than to die yourself, that is.

That's why "egoism is for self-centred dicks" is a meme.

>>8981745
>shilling POMO
Telling people that Stirner is just a subset of postmodernism is not shilling. I fucking hate postmodernism.

>>8981222
>>8981156
why should stirners philosophy be spread as a gospel to every man woman and child like it was christianity?
>why would he otherwise write the book if he didn't want people to read it
stirner said that he wouldn't care if his book destroyed the world, he just wanted to state his case (upon nothing)

>>8981417
I'm not a muslim but belief in Allah has some pretty serious consequences for the real world. Does this mean Allah is the one true god?

>>8981756
Stop shilling pomo.

>>8981754
unironically made me think

>>8981761
Oh i get why anti-Stirnerites keep doing the le ebin spook mem

It's because that's approximately the level Stirnerite cultists engage at.

Let's see if i can do this.

Uh.

>shilling
spooked

Did I do it right?

>>8981763
It's all yours friend.
>>8981767
No.

>>8981745
>>police are based on spooks
>So?

I love how Stirner supporters make fun of everyone for being governed by spooks. Then when someone points out they're governed by spooks as well they go "so? I don't care."

If you admit it's fine for you to be governed by spooks (which you are) stop making fun of other people for the same thing.

>>8981770
>friend
Spook

>>8981767
2 spooky 4 me

>>8981771
>Then when someone points out they're governed by spooks
>implying
This is where you explain why using the police is being governed by spooks btw. Just in case you were wondering.
>>8981775
Friends are unironically the least spooky things there are. Egoistic union &c.

>>8981770
>writing words
somebody seems awfully spooked

>>8981133

Literally nobody who actually does philosophy for a living gives a flying fuck about Stirner. The only people who do, are found on internet anonymous boards, are probably around 16 years of age, and lean so much to the left they probably have USSR memorabilia in their bedrooms.

>>8981779
Unions are spooks

>>8981322

>There's nobody technically correct here, but my projected result is undeniably better than yours.

>>8981785
>living
mmmmmmspooked

>>8981782
>writing words
Oh, you poor naive child.

>>8981785
Yeah but anybody who actually does philosophy for a living is an analytic.

I think that ends this argument.

>>8981785
I literally don't understand why people give a shit about Stirner. His ideas are stale, there's nothing interesting about them that isn't already widely known. The fucking Professor in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a better Stirnerite than Stirner and that book was like 150 pages.

>>8981779

Police are an organization endowed by the government to punish violators of the law and protect the rights of citizens.

So basically they are an organization given power by a spook so they can enforce spooks and make sure spooks are not violated. It seems to me that the police are just forcing everyone to submit to the spooks of "laws" "rights" and "government" instead of being ruled by their own ego.

So yeah, I would say using the police is a pretty strong implicit rule by spooks.

>>8981798

>I literally don't understand why people give a shit about Stirner.

They don't know much about philosophy. Try to talk to these people, if you're luck the most recent stuff they've read is at least 60 years old.

How would Stirner feel about computer science being basically a huge collection of spooks?

Based on his its interpreted, a series on 0s and 1s can be an image, a text string, a videogame, a Stirner ebook, basically anything, just depending on how you feel like representing it.

>>8981802
You are correct that the police derive legitimacy from spooks. But using something which is normally justified by spooks doesn't mean you agree with those justifications.

The egoistic thing to do would be to -- do what you want. If the police help you do that, as an organisation of individuals who have knowledge and expertise in how to get back stolen cars, then it would be spooked to not use them purely because they are normally justified with spooks.

>>8981796

And?
There are and have been plenty of analytic philosopher who are meta-ethical anti-realist. They just didn't give a fuck about Stirner because his ideas are teenage rebel phase tier.

>>8981811
That's almost the opposite of a spook.

>>8981741

>>anti-Stirner

>>8981819
But a text string doesn't have any physical form, it's just a collection of 0s and 1s.

If you decide to interpret this text string and a jpg, it ceases to exist as a text string, or more appropriately, that text string never existed in the first place, it was just a collection of 0s and 1s that we arbitrarily decided to call a text string. Seems spooky to me.

>>8981743

why have principles that aren't even your own?

>>8981655

kek lmao

>>8981713
"Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property. What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing. I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"

- stirner

>>8981833
I know literally nothing about CS so I'm probably going to butcher that example.

But everything in a computer operates on physical level, no? In other words, everything is something real, even if we might rationalise it differently in order to more easily understand it.

A closer example might be "a picture on a computer screen is just a group of individual pixels, so thinking there's a picture is spooked". This sort-of gets the first half right, the "is just a product of your mind" bit, but forgets the bit about holding it over yourself. About it causing you to act differently, in other words.
>>8981862
Also to add, his (later) point was that literally everyone hold literally everything as his own.

>>8981842
What would make principles your own?

>>8981862
Stirner seems like a dick desu.

>>8981867
Deciding on them yourself. Note this is basically meaningless, as any principles "owned" by you would have to not affect your will (i.e. not have power over you), at which point they're not principles at all; they're more descriptors of your decision-making.
>>8981876
Well, there's a reason this exists. And he was a gold-digger.

>>8981862
So i guess if the guy took the car it's his, and Stirner either needs to beat his ass/kill him before he drives off, or he's out 1 car.

>>8981865
Yeah, everything in a computer is ultimately attributable to series of bits in one or another configuration. But we abstract that into instructions and other stuff to form ideas that we like better than just 0s and 1s.

>but forgets the bit about holding it over yourself. About it causing you to act differently, in other words.

So what does Stirner call a spook that has been successfully disregarded/overcome? Is there a particular term for a wholly abstract concept that doesn't hold power over your psyche? Or is that just a spook, but you beat it?

>>8981867

They aren't.

>>8981887
>So i guess if the guy took the car it's his, and Stirner either needs to beat his ass/kill him before he drives off, or he's out 1 car.
Exactly. Although, getting into the finer bits of egoism, it was always his, and it's still yours.

But also, "beating his ass" doesn't necessarily mean -beating his ass-. He could get it back any way. The point is there's no reason why he -deserves- that car.

He doesn't have another term for it as far as I know. I guess it'd just be a "concept" or something.

>>8981887
>So i guess if the guy took the car it's his, and Stirner either needs to beat his ass/kill him before he drives off, or he's out 1 car.

precisely. i doubt stirner would even have a title in the first place

>>8981865
>About it causing you to act differently, in other words.

I mean, after you see the picture you are acting differently than if you had not seen the picture, right? Or if the picture is of an infographic that causes you to change your mind about something then you have been spooked by that picture.

Was Stirner redpilled?

>>8981785
>Stirner
>left
Left anarchists (so most of them) hate him with a passion, not to speak of the socialists.

>>8981934

I didn't say stirner is left wing, I said the type of autists who like him on the internet are left wing.

An idea isn't a spook. It becomes a spook when you assign it any worth that's not egoistic by nature (egoistic here meaning that you want it in any form). So as long as you recognise the necessity of the state and the law for your comfort, wherever it's not being robbed at the streets, liking the architecture or the autistic admiration of the societal hierarchy, whatever, neither the state nor the laws are spooks, which Stirner clearly states. Only when you place the law above yourself it becomes a spook.

>>8981133

STOP POOSHING ME

>>8981991
DONT SPOOK ON ME

>>8981943
Why would they be, when Stirner shits directly on the ideas of the political left?

>>8981902
It can cause -you- to change -your own mind-, if it's (for example) an infographic, but it's not dictating them to you. It's not controlling you, it's not causing you to make different decisions than you would otherwise want to make. It's not stopping you from, say, eating pork, in the same way being a devout Muslim would.

You probably get what I mean, even if I'm saying it inexactly.
>>8982048
I can speak for myself. For me it's basically coincidental -- I think socialism is the most convincing theory, and would make things better for myself &c. If capitalism were better, I'd be a capitalist. In other words, I'm socialist, but not ideologically.

But, in truth, I'm leaning away from that nowadays. Along with other systems.

I've never been a 4chan guy so i don't alwayz "get" this sub, but i fucking love it. These posts and all of you guys are fucking hilarious. 4chan does not deserve all the flack it gets, this genre of comedy does not exist anywhere else, i don't even know what you call it. "Catfish man", the "i like this song. I don't like other songs"guy, "No tomato for the potato" guy, "fridgebro" I love them all! Keep fighting the good fight, gents :)

>>8982106

I think I understand what you're trying to say but I don't think I agree with it. What is the difference between an egotistically-made decision and a non-egotistically made decision? Just the fact that a non-egotistical decision is made in conjunction with others? If I'm religious and make a decision to not have premarital sex ideally I would be doing that out of a genuine desire for purity, etc., not just to avoid my reverend giving me funny looks. Clearly there are people who are follow religion mechanically but I think in general the idea is that you genuinely believe the principles of that religion and think it's best for you to follow it.

Any decision you make is by necessity going to be influenced by external factors. I don't see why a decision you make based on an infographic you saw online is different than the decision to believe in God after you see you mom die, for example. I don't think that the picture-based decision is inherently more egotistical.

All of this is not to say that I think it's good to make decisions strictly egotistically but hopefully this can lead to more good discussion.

>>8981802
It's not true of everyone but obviously you specifically need to read stirner before discussing him because you're not smart enough to understand the concepts otherwise.

Using spooks to advance your own interests is not being governed by them.
For example a tv preacher who doesn't believe in god and is using the concept to convince other people to give him money is not spooked. Another example would be using the government to your advantage, like faking a disability for money or retrieving stolen property.

>>8982450

Wow these egoists sound like pretty upstanding dudes. Scamming the govt. for disability money? Just call it sefl-actualization!

are people in this thread really arguing that abstract entities aren't real

>>8982450

> clearly your are too retarded to understand the magnitude of douchebag I am

>>8982654
You should want to stop other people from doing it because it's against your self interest, a good tool to do this is morals. Seems like you yourself are being controlled by that spook though.

>>8982694
Not sorry im not spooked enough to care the truth hurt your feelings.

>>8981394

>implying brain states aren't material
>implying that all reality isn't material

lol.

>>8982670
A spook, as I've been told, is an abstract concept that you allow to have power over you as would a physical law. Like you view an abstract concept like govt as being a force of nature, instead of a widely held belief that nonetheless will absolutely shoot your kneecaps off if you refuse to pay your taxes. You can recognize this, and pay your taxes to the govt, while still keeping in mind that you are paying taxes to an abstract concept that only has real world physical effects because it is a widely held belief.

>>8983077
Addendum: And that every relationship you have with an abstract concept has to be measured and considered through a lens of "What's Best For Me?" and if you end up letting an abstract concept become ossified in your mind or whatever, if you give an abstract concept power over you and treat it as a totally uncompromising force that must be obeyed at all times, you have been spooked and that abstract concept is now a spook.

So like, if your mother guilt trips you into taking out the garbage, you've been spooked. She used an abstract concept to gain power over you.

If instead, you evaluated the situation, found that the garbage required taking out, and took it out because that was a physical necessity that needed doing, rather than doing it because your mother made you feel guilty, you are not spooked.

>>8981133
Harvard English professor hear

I can confirm that he is legit, many of my colleagues speak very highly of him, myself included

>>8981934
You're pulling this out of your ass and you know it. Go ahead and list everyone who mentions Stirner in a positive light from his death to the early 2000s and almost if not all of them are left anarchists.

Source: I am a anarchist and been into Stirner since before /lit/ was a thing, or at least before I knew about it, not even Guy "I'm the only real revolutionary author since Marx died" Debord has some kind words to Sankt Max.

>>8982654
>Shit education
>Shit healthcare
>Constant and arbitrary police repression
>Scandal after scandal after scandal
>No accountability whatsoever
>Private interest is literally the only thing considered on decision making
>But it's wrong to scam the govmt :^))))

I don't even receive NEETbux since they're way too hard to get in my country, but the "nation" never did anything but supress the individual in the name of a number of elites hiding behind the "greater good" mask.

>>8981145
I haven't read the whole thread but, as I understand it, Stirner's core work, The Ego and Its Own, is addressed as a critique of certain readings of Hegel (Feurbach in particular). Marx and Engles owed a heavy debt to Hegel.

>>8983095
>Harvard English professor hear
>hear

Glad to see that the US education system is in such good hands.

Also I'm a Cambridge English professor and we all take shits on a Stirner effigy every Friday.

>>8983117
The left likes using things like Stirner and Critical Theory to deconstruct stuff they don't like as spooks or whatever. That doesn't mean they are actual Stirerites, just that they find some of the stuff he's built useful tools.

>>8981133
>>8981145
You have to know the Young Hegelians for him to make sense.

He was responding to humanist arguments that could lead to the crushing of the individual with "it's for the greater good" or even "it's for freedom" as justifications. In other words, he was afraid of liberty-as-rhetoric interfering with liberty-in-reality.

Reading him like this, he isn't even a nihilist, but just believes that individuals should decide for themselves what they should value.

>>8981156
>>8981222
Running away is historically a very effective way to avoid being ruled.