Serious Question

If everything is a "spook", then how come Communism, or any form of seizing the means of production, not a spook? If everything is a spook (i.e subjective), than seizing the means of production is a "spook", and you've fallen for a trap set up by your own post-enlightenment philosophy.

Why not just call yourselves what you really are, anarchists? I would contend that anarchy is the only form of government that is not a "spook", because it relies on the fact that you, yourself, are the government. How can you reject this? Even if some of you agree with this, isn't anarchy just self-defeating?

It seems like the entire wave of post-modern philosophy is a load of self-defeating, pseudo-scientific rubbish.

Other urls found in this thread: Marx-Engels Reader.pdf

spooks are a spook

Marxism is modernist, you nonce

it isnt.

Haven't you claimed that traditionalism is a "spook?" That makes you post-modern by default.

Everything isn't a spook, and Stirner wasn't a communist, he was a socialist. He rejected humanism but supported labourers seizing the means to further their own interest.

It is. Post-modernism isn't bad.

Post-modernism rejects universal truths, but the rejection of universal truths is a universal truth.

Why aren't you guys anarchists?

The enlightenment was anti-traditonalist and 1900s modernism was a search for new values. Jesus, you really don't know anything

Not everyone here is a Stirnerfag

Objectively false. Many scientists in the age of enlightenment were religious.

Post-modernism is deconstructionism, not nihilism.

Stirnerist are, I'm not.

Their beliefs did not persist after their deaths, the contradictions were to strong

Can you explain more? You;re just changing the goalpost

It was about (among other things) reconciling scientific fact with religion, no they weren't all atheist immediately but they recognised that not all traditions were right

Okay user, Voltaire, Rousseau, and the French Revolution were all in support of divine right monarchy, landed aristocracy and clerical authority.

capitalist system of exploitation doesn't not let my ego fulfills its desires of seeing a world where other egoists can fulfill theirs

Post-modernism isn't "rejecting" universal truths necessary, it's deconstructionism of what were known as universal truths. They're trying to reach truths that don't require dogmatism, ala Nietzsche.

That's retarded. Dogma did not create universal truths, it only enhanced them.

You're confusing spooks and the Ego with marxism theory. They're different things.

Take for instance, murder. Ever culture agrees that murder is wrong, but the way they go about murder is different. Just because murder in the bible correlates with murder, doesn't mean it needs to be rejected.

What is "the Ego?" Like Freud's Ego?

Why does Holla Forums ask so many annoying obvious fucking questions

Just stay on the board for five god damn minutes will you please

Can you just answer, you asshole? Who said I'm from Holla Forums?

No one said anything about rejecting truths moron, it's about deconstructing universal truths. There are ways to justify murder being wrong without appealing to deontology. "I think murder is wrong" is a valid reason for murder being wrong.

Modernism was just as anti-traditionalist as post-modernism.

Arguably, every major philosophy and political ideology after the Enlightenment was anti-traditionalist to a greater or lesser degree. Traditionalism these days is simply a nice way of referring to political reaction, the elements of society merely opposed to change.


Dude, the whole spooks thing comes from the book The Ego and his Own, by Max Stirner.



My gott I can't believe we have to spell this out for you

this is the ego and its own
It's a book by max stirner, who founded the philosophy of egoism

This is das kapital and the Marx-Engel's reader Marx-Engels Reader.pdf
They were written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, who founded the philosophical school of Marxism/dialectical materialism

they are to very different and only tangentially related things

Read: "criticizing and complaining without offering any constructive input"

t. someone who hasn't read post-modernist philosophy
If Nietzsche wasn't offering any constructive input then okay, because post-modernism is heavily inspired by Friedrich "there are no facts only opinions" Nietzsche.

Are spooks really that difficult to understand? If a concept describes nothing physical and definite but frightens you into doing stupid shit that runs contrary to your interests, then it is a spook.

That fedora suits you.

Yes. This is why the Stirnerfags mindset is highly dangerous.

Who cares what's on the book if you say everything is a spook? In the end you interpretation is what matters. And i just find your logic very dangerous.
I honestly can't understand why Stirnerfags are alive. Everything is a spook, so why living Stirnerfags?

Beacuse its in my self-interests to be alive, you utterly retarded mouthbreather

You have no critique to offer up, you're acting like post-modernist aren't offering constructive input which isn't true. You were making assertions over and over, you were providing no arguments. I'm sorry that examination of what we hold to be universal truths is uncomfortable, and the idea that the world is completely indifferent and aliens to humans is scary, but that doesn't mean you have to act like a retard.

I would actually go even further, and posit that postmodernism is inherently retrograde, because of its very common overlap with romanticism. Most strains of postmodernism have a sentimental attachment toward superstition, neopaganism, "traditional" culture, prehistory, "nature" (in scare quotes because of the rather arbitrary partitioning of different inherent qualities of the universe that truly form nature), and misanthropy.

Modernism, on the other hand, firmly rejects all of those things, recognizing both the human capacity to successfully understand the world around us, and the suitability of insights gained thus in distinguishing between effective versus ineffective methods to achieve our goals.

Oh, it gets better. He was so butthurt over Stirner, Marx wrote several hundred pages of scathing dismissal against him: