/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9166589]

Serious question, boys:

How do I become unspooked? I've read most of Stirner and I'm still having a hard time because I am so spooked.

[Anonymous No.9166608]

Wanting to know things is a spook.

[Anonymous No.9166620]

Being a Stirnerian egoist would require constant mental attention an is thus not feasible. Hence not being a Stirnerian even looks like Buddhism sometimes, where you turn yourself off and detach.

The book is full of theoretical arguments and in particular also neglect that you're surrounded by very uneffective people all the time, who basically work against you.

So I donno, bre. A question that can't be bad is: Do you do you mostly feel in the present with your mind and do the things that you like doing?

[Anonymous No.9166622]

>>9166589
Spooks are a meme. Only a true skeptic would be able to live unspooked. And the search of true skepticism is a spook too.

The people that say that spooks are inherently bad are retards.

[Anonymous No.9166627]

>>9166589
being "unspooked" is a spook my friend. might I suggest kys

[Anonymous No.9166643]

Being a Stirnerian egoist would require constant mental attention an is thus not feasible. Hence not being a Stirnerian even looks like Buddhism sometimes, where you turn yourself off and detach from lots of things others deem important.

The book is full of theoretical arguments and in particular also neglect that you're surrounded by very uneffective people all the time, who basically work against you and lead you down their paths.

So I donno, bre. A question that can't be bad is: Do you do you mostly feel in the present with your mind and do the things that you like doing?

>>9166608
Yeah, but dropping this one and keeping many other doesn't solve anything.

>>9166622
>The people that say that spooks are inherently bad are retards.
I agree (although I don't see a point of the insult)

>>9166627
Wanting to be can be one, not being it.

>Only a true skeptic would be able to live unspooked. And the search of true skepticism is a spook too.
Those two don't imply you can't obtain spooklessness.

[Anonymous No.9166656]

>>9166643
spooks are useful. Go to a mountain, detach yourself from any contact with humanity, from any material commodity; you will inevitably find yourself "spooked" by a search of meaning. Spook is only a meme term used by people in an attempt to erase inconvenient ideologies without actually bothering to create a counter-argument for them.

[Anonymous No.9166660]

>>9166620

I try to do things I like, honestly. They do not always coincide with the things that are best for me though.

An example (and a definite spook). I still love my ex-girlfriend and she loves me. I don't have a job right because the ones around here are shitty and boring or out of my reach. So, I will do odd jobs once in a while or have an idea and make some money from that. Nothing steady, right? She said she would want to date me again (which I want desu) but does not want me to be financially dependent on her. I can see her point, but do you see the spook here? I want to continue my life of leisure and getting money when I need to, but I also do love her and want to be with her.

[Anonymous No.9166722]

>>9166656
I said I agree with you right away, m8

>>9166660
>but do you see the spook here?
No I don't.

The feeling of hunger is not a spook.
Being afraid that your father is going to punch you is not a spook.

Wanting to be the richest man in the world is a spook.
Thinking you should to marry and have kids is a spook.

Why do you think Stirners book would give a solution to every trade-off decision in life?
Besides, the book talks much longer about Stirnerian property than it talks about spooks. Spooks really are a meme, here. Stirner doesn't fucking equal spooks. That's just the first part of the book.