/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11823614]

>nation
>race
>private property
>god
>morality
all spooks

[Anonymous No.11823619]

Your post is a spook

[Anonymous No.11823625]

>>11823614
A-am I a spook?

[Anonymous No.11823632]

>>11823614
How do i become a male gold digger like stirner?

[Anonymous No.11823765]

What's a spook? Like a ghost? You should respect ghosts.

[PHONEPOSTER69 No.11823782]

LE SPOOKS XD XD XD XD LE SPOOKS

[Anonymous No.11823785]

Stirner fans are embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.11823787]

>>11823782
>>11823785
cringe is a spook

[Anonymous No.11823793]

>>11823614
Pretty much all abstract concepts, no?

[Anonymous No.11823807]

>>11823614
>finds the Stirner meme endearing back in 2013-14
>reads The Ego and Its Own and finds the reasoning impeccable, rejects spooks and think I'm a greater person because of it
>stay with philosophy though
>sort of forget about Stirner until I start reading Hegel more seriously
>now thinks Stirner is not all that interesting even if he brought up some interesting points he's severaly lacking and it's mostly just sophistry

Like, I still think Stirner is good and I learned a lot of things via reading him, but he's not the final boss of philosophy that people make him out to be. Morality being a form of social control and not an actual system of truths is a good idea but it doesn't cover everything.

[Anonymous No.11823815]

>>11823807
sophistry is truth, hegel was full of hot air

[Anonymous No.11823832]

>>11823815
As far as I can tell, only people who don't read Hegel, or read him only to find something to dismiss him over, say this. I don't sophistry is bad or useless, but it's not constructive argumentation in the long run.

[Anonymous No.11823857]

>>11823832
Hegel has no concept of the future. Thought is a dog chasing its own tail, Hegel is the dog finally biting down. He is the king of ontotheology. It's gnosticism. Hegel's faults were most aply described within the affirmationist élan that animates the Deleuzoguattarian corpus. Hegel's dialectic is seen as external to and dependent upon prior identities, so the main criticism is that Hegelian thought can't conceptualize difference in itself. This is seen in dialectics and Marx's diamat as well. It's historical predeterminism, pure fantasy. The future is in flux.

[Anonymous No.11823864]

>>11823857
The Enneads
Phenomenology of Spirit
The Corpus Hermeticum
Zhuangzi Complete Works
Plato Complete Works
The Heart Sutra

[Anonymous No.11824385]

>>11823793
Pretty much all concepts

Since concepts only exist in the brain, you may have the physical world but the concepts about the physical world are all spooks

For example you may have this concept of an object called a "bed" but the concepts "object" and "bed" are both spooks

[Anonymous No.11824410]

>>11823785
NPCs are spooks

[Anonymous No.11824434]

>>11823625
>>11823632
>>11823782
>>11823785
>>11823807
>>11824385
>>11823864
>>11823857
>>11823815
>>11823793
>>11824410
All spooks. Halloween is near.

[Anonymous No.11824560]

proto deleuze

[Anonymous No.11824648]

Wasn't Stirner racist?

[Anonymous No.11824655]

>>11823614
God>family>friends>nation

Since OP's post is bait let's discuss proper ordering

[Anonymous No.11824667]

>>11824648
Much like Proudhon's sexism, Stirner's writings on race seem to be inconsistent with the analysis that he was doing (indeed, I use egoist arguments in favor of anti-racism all the time) and not really all that critical to what he was doing, anyway. Race is a spook.

>I say: You are indeed more than a Jew, more than a Christian, a Negro etc., but you are also more than a human being. Those are all ideas, but you are corporeal.

[Anonymous No.11824669]

>>11823614
spooks are themselves spooks, therefore there are no spooks other than the concept of spooks

[Anonymous No.11824680]

He was the first transhumanist

[Anonymous No.11824707]

[Anonymous No.11824740]

>>11824385
On the other hand, conceptual representations are encoded in physical (brain) matter, giving them *some* kind of reality, no?

[Anonymous No.11824794]

>>11823793
stirner hated correlationism

[Anonymous No.11824878]

When Stirner talks about "spooks" he refers to social institutions which force people to act certain ways and which aren't grounded in any objectivity. Morality, states, religion and etc, all of these are spooks. It has nothing to do with how you personally want to lead your life

[Anonymous No.11824901]

>the word spook isn't even said once in the "better " translation

but its such a useful word what is it replace by

[Anonymous No.11825150]

>>11823785
you're his property though

[Anonymous No.11825183]

>*demonstrates the impotence of liberal anthropology and justification of a ruler from those that are ruled by them*
Thanks Stirner, very cool!

[Anonymous No.11825192]

>>11825183

[Anonymous No.11825421]

Max Stirner's "spook" is similar to Ayn Rand's "anti-concept"; just less concrete.
In Stirner's writings he indicts systemic philosophy as such and attacks the notion of values held by others (either of the state or other men) as impositions on the individual to be rejected at his pleasure.
Ayn Rand's view of a logically defensible system of Ethics demanded by man's nature (and metaphysically derived) if he expects to live in a world among beings of the same nature is objectively better. The anarchistic world of Stirner's ideal is utterly trumped by the minarchistic one of Rand's.

(Not saying Stirner is AnCap here) LfCap>AnCap because Minarchism>Anarchism and in turn because Objective Law>Polycentric Law. Laws both Stirner would reject as "Spooks" and "impositions on the individual".

Stirner's prose is filled with sweeping indictments of society, morality, and even civilization itself. Rand and Stirner were both very controversial but in Rand's case she would wax iconoclastic only in areas which warranted it and no further. Stirner was widely iconoclastic often for the sake of being iconoclastic. Stirner does not strongly derive his epistemology from metaphysics (Man's nature causal from the facts of material reality). Stirner evacuates epistemology of its objects, namely the ideas, of which he shows the "historical and psychological roots". Something Objectivism would never do; that is an inherently nihilistic mental act.
Rand rests her entire philosophy on ONLY one axiom in Metaphysics: that existence exists. That reality is an objective absolute and that man's nature is derived from it. All else proceeded from here concluding in LfCapitalism.
Striner can be observed to rest upon an axiom IN ETHICS that morality is neccessarily a constraint and impostition of which he takes as undesirable as given. A floating abstraction.

Honestly at the end of the day the most fundamental difference between Rand and Stirner is the the latter held convinction in the idea that Might makes Right whereas the former held convinction in the same but with the principle that Might be subordinated to Right rationally and directly derived from the facts of man's existence.
When the day comes we upload our minds into the internet and enjoy indestructibility and immortality in it; THEN I will soft-convert to Stirnerism. That's what would be required in a world of Stirner's Anarchist ideal. Max Stirner is actually a great read (and honestly if we're talking pure writing ability; superior to Rand.) and I find his world view to be iron-clad IF I rhetorically accept his axioms and premises. Which I, in fact, do not.
Rand closed the book on philosophy without having read the canon.

[Anonymous No.11825699]

>>11825192
Is this sattire?

[Anonymous No.11825703]

>>11825699
it's post satire

[Anonymous No.11825705]

>>11823787

[Anonymous No.11827044]

anyone here actually read him or just like the cartoons?

[Anonymous No.11827316]

>>11824667
wasnt his writings on race supposed to be parody/making fun of hegel?

[Anonymous No.11827320]

>>11827316
yes you're right

[Anonymous No.11827322]

>>11823614
Max Stirner was the original shit poster with useless ideas. Mad respect.

[Charlie No.11827387]

>>11824385
No no NO
A spook is an 'ought' concept
The bed is not a spook, but the imaginary monster under it is

[Anonymous No.11827466]

hegel was a bitch