I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I

Same. English isn't even my first language. The book makes sense in a way but I'm probably getting 40% of the actual content. That or Stirner is just a poser. I can read LotR and 19th century english books fine.

its your literacy, he's not a bad writer, it insists upon itself ever so slightly. That said, its pretty straight forward and the metaphors/allegories he uses to illustrate his vision and critiques of morality are basic and easy to handle even for the imaginatively impaired.

LoTR isn't adult literature, its for young people and you're reading heavily edited versions. It was also written and published nearly 60-70 years after Stirner's work was. Stirner was a German writing in response to other German philosophers and thinkers. His book wasn't published in english or heavily edited for english audiences. You're not that proficient in our language, please save it

what a nerd lol

a spook is simply a concept that dominates all other parts of the ego (the expanding of senses/existence), creating contradictions in the ego and therefore misery.

inb4 "isn't the ultimate decision of what concept is more important influenced by morals ?" bc morals ARE the contradiction, not the decision on what is more important.

of course there is an infinite amount of combinations of concepts that can fit together without contradictions in the ego, but if you already aren't contradicted, then why would you destroy that in order to find a different combination if all that's gonna do is take time away from enjoying yourself.

this is exactly why stirner did not wish to analyze the self, proclaimed in the quote "All things are nothing to me what is not supposed to be my concern!" if the concept is not immediately presented as something that is the concern of the ego (expanding the senses/existence) then he does not wish to concern himself with it as it simply proposes a contradiction.

reality upsetting the stirnerite folly. can't have that

i certainly dont want to die so reality isn't necessarily a bad thing, but reality can always be manipulated through science, so it can still be spooky

every creeking door is a howling banshee when you're afraid

what am i afraid of?

the actual, the movement that isn't singular to you, the spooks in the machine

exactly. whats your point?

Wouldn't the literal translation be something like, "The Singular / Only One and His Property" or whatever?

that you deny yourself a place in the world by compressing into a singular fear that is your arch nemesis

once again, a spook is just a contradictions in the ego, and there's an infinite amount of combinations of parts of the ego that can fit intact just fine.
there is no specific fear that is always a fear. if you want me to recognize something as not something to be avoided, then convince me. but since you haven't provided a specific fear than what's the point?

the ego is full of a contradictions, this is intrinsic, because the ego is a projection of what underlies underneath, the ungraspable information of brain activity -or whatever it might be- of which the translation is mistaken for the thing itself. the fear is an end conclusion of the view that we are oppressed by that which outside us, that it is constraint and not expression, the stirnerite makes it full, transcending it's standard liberalish form and postulating it as another incarnation of the outsideness, here the fear is completed, now everything that is not an infinite purity of self is a spook from another, inconsolable realm