/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11402355]

>everything is a spook
What kind of useless “philosophy” is this?

[Anonymous No.11402363]

Not Stirner's.

[Anonymous No.11402365]

>>11402355
a spooky one for sure

[Anonymous No.11402431]

>>11402355
>t. Never read stirner
We can tell from your poor understanding , OP.

[Anonymous No.11402770]

>>11402355
A true one. I'm sorry that this hurts your little pragmatic burger fee fees, sweetie.

[Anonymous No.11403020]

>>11402770
This. Considering the extent of bullshit the average man will have to wade through to actually get a clear picture of the world as it actually is rather than how it's (((presented))), assuming everything is a spook is far more rational than most other philosophies.

[Anonymous No.11403024]

>>11403020

But it shouldn't end there. What happens when all the spooks are vanished? You'll be left with nothing worth preserving. The whole concept of spook-hood ought only elucidate what spooks are actually worth believing in. If all you want to have in the end is your self (ego) then you may as well be a literal animal (and treated as such).

[Anonymous No.11403033]

>>11402431
>implying reading something makes it true
>no, u just don't understand!!

[Anonymous No.11403049]

>>11402355
I'm gonna be honest with you OP.
I wish I was a spook.

[Anonymous No.11403084]

>>11403024
If you need external pointers to tell you what shall be preserved maybe you should reconsider why those things should be preserved in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11403108]

>>11403084

You misunderstand. Deciding what ought be preserved is necessarily something that would come from within. I'm not against individualistic modes of thought independent of authority. However, to me, Stirner's outlook on the whole robs the individual themselves of the agency to engage with spooks.

[Anonymous No.11403447]

Anybody read the new translation?

Also, how much of an influence was stirner on Foucault? Seems that there are a lot of parallels tbqh

[Anonymous No.11403477]

How would the world not descend into absolute chaos if people followed his ideas, I don't get it.
It actually sounds like satire to me

[Anonymous No.11403517]

>>11403447
stirner and nietzsche is more desireable, I think

[Anonymous No.11403524]

>>11403033
>>implying reading something makes it true
No but it is a prerequisite to deciding if it is

[Anonymous No.11403530]

>>11403024
>what spooks are actually worth believing in
But that's a spook, you dumb nigger

[Anonymous No.11403532]

>>11403477
Stirner didn't write his ideas to help society.

[Anonymous No.11403544]

Not everything is a phantasm. Those ideas that you allow to take hold of your mind, your whole being, and direct your thought and action as if you were some kind of instrument to be played upon, or marionette to spin about--those are phantasms.

[Anonymous No.11403547]

>>11403477
>implying he doesn’t already know it will
Some men just want to watch spooks burn

[Anonymous No.11403559]

>>11403530

You do realize that your line of thinking simply ends up with a cascade of negations and ultimately never produces, describes, articulates, or explains anything? Right?

[Anonymous No.11403563]

>>11403559
It affirms the ego and that's all Stirner's thought ever was for. Trying to shittily hijack Stirner's philosophy for intellectual points is dumb and you should feel bad.

[Anonymous No.11403577]

>>11403563

I'm not hijacking him. My original reply was that the concept of "spook" is useful, but people take it way too far and don't fully appreciate the damage it could cause someone ideologically. Actually, the concept of spook becomes infinitely more valuable when you remove it from Stirner's autistic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11403582]

>>11403477
>if people followed his ideas, I don't get it.
The absolute filter.

[Anonymous No.11403606]

>>11403447
I just finished it last week. It's very readable, though there are a few hiccups.
Foucault and Stirner hold opposite concepts of 'the subject'.
For Stirner, 'subject' or 'ego' is spontaneous and self-creating, though of course limited in capability and often hampered by ideologies alien to it. Additionally, the 'ego' is not an entity; 'ego' or 'the unique' is just a name for an event, or a process, which is the activity of whatever it is that's designated by these terms.
Foucault sees the 'subject' as always fully determined by its position of power, relative to other 'subjectivities', but even more so to institutions and the procedures of certain ways of thinking and speaking, or 'discourses'. There is some overlap, I think, in Foucault's notion of discourse and Stirner's Spuk, in that they have an influence on the subject. But for Foucault, the subject doesn't really 'exist' outside discourse, an idea Stirner would find preposterous.

[Anonymous No.11403630]

>>11403024
>You'll be left with nothing worth preserving
Except the Ego and it's Own. Hence Egoism

[Anonymous No.11403659]

>>11403630

And what can a single ego do on it's own? What can the ego, independent of the human animal containing it, actually accomplish? And what is the ego if not another specie of spook used to reference some underlying biological cognition?

I understand why the ego is important. I understand why the creative nothing aspect is crucial to the ego. But does this not all seem like a pretty drab, life denying philosophy? We live in a world of spooks necessarily. We aren't simple animals. It is the phantoms of the mind that allow us to navigate reality as we know it. I don't even think it's possible to live outside of some of these more fundamental spookish concepts.

[Anonymous No.11403826]

>>11403659
>what can a single ego do on it's own?
Whatever pleases it, whatever is in its nature

[Anonymous No.11403874]

Stirner’s philosophy is a man’s game. There are many posts in this thread that are spooks, and simply don’t belong.

[Anonymous No.11403946]

>>11403544
please go on. Im actually very interested

I consider myself free yet maybe theres an aspect im missing

[Anonymous No.11404176]

>>11402355
>>11403659
>And what can a single ego do on it's own? What can the ego, independent of the human animal containing it, actually accomplish? And what is the ego if not another specie of spook used to reference some underlying biological cognition?
>t. skipped the section on the Union of Egoists, and the section where he explains why the Ego is not a spook
Finish the book.

[Anonymous No.11404311]

Was anything like evolutionary psychology already a thing by Stirner's time?

[Anonymous No.11404315]

>>11402431
understanding is a spook

[Anonymous No.11404331]

>>11404176

I have, and I'm not convinced. What the ego signifies is certainly real, but not the ego as interpreted by Stirner.

[Anonymous No.11404335]

>>11404311

He would have called evopsyche a spook even though it is (supposed to be) purely descriptive.

[Anonymous No.11404367]

>>11404311
kinda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthilf_Heinrich_von_Schubert
>Symbolism of Dreams (1814)
>History of the Soul (1830

[Anonymous No.11404392]

>>11404331
What specifically about his argument doesn't convince you? Can you tell me the point where his reasoning goes from seeming sound to seeming unsound?

[Anonymous No.11404490]

>>11404392

I did some reading from outside sources and apparently there is a discrepancy between "ego" and "Einzige" and this translation problem means that I'll have to rethink my position to even say what I mean to say.

[Anonymous No.11404543]

>>11404490
If it helps, Wolfi renders der Einzige as 'the unique' and makes this synonymous with 'own' and 'ownness'. In certain places, Stirner calls the unique the unnameable, or the unidentifiable.
Here's a passage from Wolfi's introduction:
>...Stirner emphasized the transience of each individual and rejected any crystallized, permanent "I" as much as any other permanent idea, seeing it as yet another phantasm ['Spuk']. He saw getting beyond the limits of thought as a necessary part of living fully as one's transient self here and now. He saw self-enjoyment as most fully achieved in self-forgetfullness. And in Striner's Critics he spoke of the unique (der Enizige) in ways quite similar to those used to speak of the tao in the Tao Te Ching: "Stirner names the unique and says at the same time 'names don't name it'. He utters a name when he names the unique, annd adds that the unique is only a name." "What stirners says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is neither a word, nor a thought, nor a concept. What he says is not the meaning, and what he means cannot be said."

[Anonymous No.11404551]

>>11404543

Hmm, interesting. He almost seems like a Taoist

[Anonymous No.11404978]

>>11403659
>What can the ego, independent of the human animal containing it actually accomplish
There's no dualism, the Unique is whole and mighty albeit limited in its opposition to other individuals for self-assertion.

[Anonymous No.11405013]

>>11403524
nope, once you read something you're invested in it and can't be impartial. Best way to objectively decide if it's worthwhile is to see it from the outside through memes, then dive in if you could see yourself identifying with it's proponents.

[javascript:quote('4942612');(...) No.11405337]

>>11404978
My comment was less about some mind body divide and more about them being two interconnected entities. You're mistake is assuming that I assign them some equal value. The body is crucial to the ego, but it is subordinate to it. It is one entity, but what are you actually going to do if you aren't biologically functional?

alternative question: Does Stirner's philosophy necessitate that we have access to objective reality? If it doesn't, then would a subjective reality negate the rejection of spooks?

[javascript:quote('4942612');(...) No.11405350]

>>11405013
Not same guy, but this is interesting. Would this be like interpreting a sign without experience of the signified?

[Anonymous No.11405625]

>>11403606
Who do you feel more persuaded by? Personally, it’s hard for me to conceive that environment does not totally determine our traits; yet liberalism depends on that principle. For stirner’s egoism to function, one MUST believe the ego is spotaneous. Follow the enthymeme: for Foucault, power , among other things, is used to correct, improve, utilize. Make things as efficient. If all are correctible, then liberalism is REAL.

[Anonymous No.11405717]

Everything is a social construct, though. In a way it's both enlightening and aggravating when you can acknowledge it and understand it.

Everything is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11405721]

>>11405625
ye ye, and of the advocates for the new 'soft paternalism' or neoliberalism-brought-home or the New Market Discipline, Stirner would only see more tongues wagging the head. And an easy remedy to Foucault's institutional paranoia would be a quick read of Kesey's post-script to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It's all too easy to paper over individuality or uniqueness or whatever you want to call it in abstract analysis. All Stirner is saying, ultimately, is: it's all just abstraction! Tend to the moment you're actually in! Look about you, notice where you are--and maybe take a peek in your attic, see what's accumulated over the years. Anything you can be rid of?
And to the rejoinder, 'It's just not that simple!': Well, I mean, have you actually tried?

[Anonymous No.11405759]

>>11402355
what makes you think a process of reduction to a single (not singular) concept is a philosophy

cashme $400 and i will tutor your pathetic ass

[anonymos No.11405862]

>>11405721
I want to stay on guard against naiveté, it's something that I struggle with. the naiveté for Stirner: believing in the spook of the material; as if there were a material that had a referent (Baudrillard). I often find myself too engulfed in the phantasm of its own iridescence; how the second-order phantasm prowls.

tl;dr haunted with the Idea (spook) of a material, entropic world (Stirner) (2nd order, elusive spooks) > greater spook > haunted by that which does not hide itself (i.e. spook)