Human beings have a need to adhere to internalized norms.
Morality is not a spook, but an intrinsic part of the human psychological architecture.
Most people adapt to the norms of the people around them, because they want to fit in and belong to their group.
There are two types of deviations:
1. Slightly autistic people, who don't simply follow the herd, but instead require a "reason" to follow any group norms. This kind of autism is amplified in modern societies where the individual is more at liberty to live independently from the group, since most interactions with society are mediated via economic transactions. I don't need to be "nice" anymore to get food and shelter from the group anymore, i just need to have money and then go McDonald's to buy myself a cheeseburger, whether the vendor likes me or not is completely irrelevant, as long as i can pay.
2. Sociopaths.
Sociopaths have no need to adhere to internalized norms to begin with, whether reason based or not. They interact with society in a purely selfish fashion, treating the other as just another object in the environment to be used instead of interacted with.
Stirner was wrong
How about reading Stirner some time? =)
When you're too nice you end up with "not a people-person" syndrome. Stirner and egotism took this to an extreme, because people are God afterall.
...
Wait, are you saying humans have an intrinsic "morality" and should follow it, or that humans need to follow an intrinsic morality?
The former violates the is-ought problem and ignore the entire point of Stirner's work, which was to follow one's own ego. The latter is a spook.
The latter it sounds like. Are you saying that saying humans desire/require spooks is a spook?
Do they desire them? Perhaps so, they are as Stirner called them the involuntary egoists. Do they require spooks? No, because we have the voluntary egoists.
It seems like to me OP is making an argument for "if we abolished our spooks society would become chaos" which:
1. Ignore Stirner's view that society should not be responsible for the safety of its own citizens
2. This would be a spook itself since it sets a standard outside the invididual "you MUST be spooked to maintain the order even if it's outside your Own"
3. An appeal to consequences, even if society does go into chaos, doesn't make Stirner wrong in that spooks are still spooks, whether you like them or not.
looks gay.
t. Noam Chomsky
...
Stirner's never been more important than he is now - as a shitty meme. If you're seriously arguing about him, you're making the same mistake Marx did in giving way too much attention to an irrelevant clown.
No, you don't. You most likely were already, if not you're just another sheeple, attracted to whatever idea comforts you, not a brave iconoclast.
So much this. Stirner is a giant red herring. Dumb kids pick him up for the first time and believe they've discovered something "deep" or enlightening that only they understand. He becomes pretty useless and laughable once you move on.
When did Stirner even talk about norms?
Stirner had some good ideas though.
This isn't an argument.
'human nature' is always relative to time and place. the greeks liked to fuck underage boys, so the need to fuck underage boys is intrinsic to human nature?
also come back when you've actually read stirner because your post clearly proves you haven't
(i'm not a stirnerite btw)
Yeah, please point out where Stirner contradicted these facts or GTFO. You'd think pointing out that these things are fixed ideas people have IS recognizing them as such and not contradicting them.
So it's just "exactly what anyone with a brain cell already understood". Pretty powerful ideology there.
In here, maybe. Out of here, not so much.
You think normies are going to be blown away by edgy QWoC's screeching spooks then explaining haha no the smirking four eyes was just a jimmy rustler, now that I've got your attention it's just a fixed idea, still believe it if you want, but critically this time. But if you do still believe it I'll be all like get a load of these spooks.
What does this accomplish that generic, if not automatic, skepticism does not?
Put that way, obviously not.
Every person responds differently to different ways of putting your opinion out. Knowing how their thinking works is essential to get the anti-idea into their head to fend off fixed ideas.
Because people can be skeptical of a lot of things, but avoid touching fixed ideas. There isn't even a contradiction here.
Stirner is just more word salad soup.
spooky
Why is it always a bunch of autist getting triggered that Stirner is discussed? Even if you feel egoism is wrong or Stirner as a whole is someone we shouldn't accept, he does have some useful ideas and we shouldn't just ignore things like his concept of spooks which is genuinely useful for breaking liberal ideology just because you think he's nothing but a meme philosopher.
...
Because Stirner advocates for a form of pre-Marxian leftism
the dialect and practically everything post-marx is 2spooky for him and practically impossible to impose as todays society is too butt fucked by ideology
th cenutyr>which is genuinely useful for breaking liberal ideology just because you think he's nothing but a meme philosopher.
Except "lololz spooked out bruh" breaks the conditioning as much as a Holla Forumsyp calling anyone or anything he doesn't like cuck/cucked
I think you missed the point, Stirner advocated egoism, just that, egoism, and nothing else. He said people should just live themselves out without any devotion of their self to a cause because it clouds the evil; the only reason some Holla Forumssters don't like him is because they can't seem to find a way to use egoist anarchism as a way to push forward with marxism/communism, but it's not supposed to. That's like saying I don't want to own a car because it can't possibly further my goal of helping me cook food.
Granted, there are ways that communism and egoism overlap, but egoism isn't directly supposed to lead to communism, because it would mean lowering oneself and leading them a life of spooked devotion to a fixed idea.
*clouds the self