Lacanians

What is that?
Not sure I understand what this has to do with power structure. Are we using the same definition? I mean to say the power that gives force of one entity over another in society. Is Freud saying that structures of power are inherent in humans, and if so, how? Also is it instinctively inherent or a learned behavior in his model? I haven't read Freud.

Your posting is without substance.

ideology is material

Then explain post-reformation-era religion. nobody is forcing you to worship an imaginary god, you're only forcing yourself. As soon as you realize you are spooked, you can break free of its grasp.

If you want to go further than that, even Sartre agrees with Stirner in his thesis of Radical Freedom; you can always choose to ignore the law, even if it does have drastic consequences, but frankly it is always a choice available to you. Stirner also agrees that the poor are just as much to blame for being poor as the rich, since they allow themselves to be exploited instead of rising up.

It has been a while since I last read lacanian literature. The Father in psychoanalysis has the function of introducing the law, to determine what may and/or should be and what may and/or should not. The law can also be understood for it's common meaning, a set of rules, but is at the same time language, which delimits the world around us. This is this, that is something else.

I used those words vaguely, with those I was mainly referring for instruments of rule like the state, the police, masters, teachers…

Not really, law is not inherent to us, we don't hold laws by default. We learn of laws through our interaction through language. Most people internalize this law, but some do in different ways or don't at all, merely imitating them (with this I refer to the diagnostic categories Lacan put forward, neurosis, perversion and psychosis in that order).

Mind you, I can't really speak for Freud since I have yet to read him, but I believe Lacan is the one who speaks the most on the law.

as soon as you can untie a knot, you can free yourself of the ropes. are ropes imaginary?

form matters a lot in this discussion. literally everything is a choice, you not cutting your dick right now in this very moment is, technically, a choice. the very fact that cutting your dick is undesirable for a variety of reasons though is influent in your choosing whether you're gonna do it. in fact, even if someone got you 100% reliable proof that cutting your dick is beneficial, you probably still wouldn't do it. catch my drift?

well stirner agress to something silly

Sartre wasn't a Lacanian. He didn't believe in an unconscious. But he and Beauvoir make a good ontological case against egoism by asserting Heideggerian intersubjectivity as part of the structure of existence. I haven't read Stirner, but egoism really doesn't hold up to basic phenomenology.

How exactly does this contradict Stirner, then? Stirner just says that things like religion and morality are spooks, abstracts that limit our freedom, but as for HOW these spooks become engraved into us he gives a dialectical approach of children being born free voluntary egoists who are spooked into rights and religion by their parents. It doesn't sound like any of this contradicts what he's saying. Am I missing something?

The main argument here is that it IS in fact a choice, nothing more.
Again the argument is that it is a choice. the consequences of those choices don't matter from this standpoint, the main argument.
Didn't say so, but his views on freedom seem to be similar to Stirner, which is my point.
OK, and how about explaining this in layman's terms, professor?
Stirner wasn't referring to psychological egoism (all motives are driven by self-interest) he was referring to the sole individual (the egoist) being the source of all value

Shit I forgot to quote
in

well you see, it's quite a spook that something i don't like shouldn't automatically be silly.

Human beings exist not as individuals but as one human among other humans. Being with-others is part of the structure of our existence. In order for the individual to be the originator of value he/she would have to deny an essential part of the structure of his/her being.

What's your problem, user?

What credence is there to give relevence to someone outside oneself? It sounds like an abstract concept to be adhered to, such concept limits the sole individuals' freedom (even in thought) and is therefore a spook.
This sounds like some weird sort of metaphysical nationalism except with human beings instead of nations.

Also if it's really "humans among other humans" then explain hermits who never interact with other humans and live on their own, do they account for this, and if so, how?

Even if you never see another human being, you are aware of the possibility that another human being could have their gaze on all of your actions. Heidegger says in Being and Time, "By ‘Others’ we do not mean everyone else but me—those over against whom the ‘I’ stands out. They are rather those from whom, for the most part, one does not distinguish oneself—those among whom one is too… By reason of this with-like Being-in-the-world, the world is always the one that I share with Others."

The concept is as abstract as the ego or the self. As Beauvoir would say, you limit your freedom by not realizing your obligation to promote the freedom of others.

Lacan was a charlatan.

None of it contradicts Stirner inherently, except that Stirner seems to underestimate the force that what he calls spooks exert on us. We are also products of society, and he posits that it is just a matter of separating oneself on it.

Hello underage. You'll understand one day that calling people you don't like poopooheads is no substitute for arguing.

Ideology is superstructure you absolute moron

I understand, but this doesn't answer my question;

The self is the creative nothing. It cannot be defined, even as "unique" is moreso used as a sign to point to a direction, rather than a label itself. It's constantly in flux, and it is posited by the (arguably, only voluntary egoist) person, creating and dissolving in itself. It may undefinable, but that doesn't mean it's non-existent.
Obligations are abstracts that exist to hold power over you, while promoting freedom for others may be what you want to do, you have no obligation to do it, that is a spook. Beau here seems to be talking from a moralist standpoint, morality is also a spook. Besides, freedom as Stirner describes is the absence of limitation - and of course, having power over someone else grants you more freedom than not having power over them.

Explain further, asshole.

this thread is spooked yo

that much is obvious. Egoism isn't saying other people don't exist. Stirner implies that "the ego" is the very existence of being for specific individuals.

The base of society is material, the economic and physical reality. It is reproduced by the superstructure, an arrangement of human ideas and relationships. Ideology isn't material, you can't reach out and touch it, and it's not even a relation to a material thing.

I have read all of Stirner's works
Literally what have I said that contradicts this?

No shit, but even so, you can disregard the laws (spooks) even if it has dire consequences, you have that freedom. Your saying that humans are obligated and powerless to resist this system is wrong.

The ego or the self is not abstract. I can point to myself, I can think, I can be. The Ego is only another name for a highly specific thing, in the same way one refers to specific person when they call out for "Bob".

That is in no way a limit on freedom. I have no obligation to promote the freedom of others, only to the extent it promotes my freedom, or assists my property in a way that pleases me. I might very well promote the freedom of others, either because I want to help those around me, or because they will reciprocate.

Meant to reply to

Different user

Lacanians have something to offer.

Not an argument.

nod ein argumentum, either :Dddd

no arguments all the way around, ye?

Lacanians are pretentious assholes, stirnerites are autistic assholes, what's new?

what does this even mean
is this something interesting or is it obscurantism?

you can't reach out and touch the neurons in your brain. are they immaterial?

of course it is

t. stefan molyneux

How is this wrong? Is it not in the intereat of the proletariat to not be exploited by porky?

Actually, you can, it's just rather unpleasant

Well, technically everything is. This relationship, however, is indirect.

Saul Newman seems to like both Stirner and Lacan. He calls Stirner a "proto-poststructuralist." People shitposting with Stirner memes aren't a good representation of Stirnerites.

Because Lacanians are mysticists who believe in esoteric >>>/fringe/ bullshit while egoists are completely despooked.

>>>/n1x/

n1x believes in "magick" they are spooked af

OP is a faggot, stirnerites is the worst that has happened to imageboards

...

Lacanians are in fact spooked as hell, Stirner is pretty much debunking Idealism, Lacan has build some quasi-mythology/metaphysics around Ideas.

How about another take on the subject. What if experience of 'being with-others' is in fact a soliptic reproduction of external stimuli?

The spooked absolutely cannot abide being informed that they are slaves to fixed ideas. Rather than look at themselves, they blame the messenger trying to save them from themselves. Truly they are a lost flock.

Am I incorrect in thinking that Lacan offers an even more radical conception of the spook? For instance Lacan's description of language or even the entire symbolic order could be interpreted as spooks. Language is necessary for communication however the introduction of it into the symbolic order structures our thought. Language creates the order of our thoughts but is unable to hint at their true quality since the signifier can only reveal a footprint of the signified. Language is therefore an external construct which introduces an order that binds our thought, so it is like a spook. I think that Lacan even goes as far as to suggest that 'identity' is a spook in this same sense. Since the subject constitutes the ego from external sources that are mimicked, the ego is fragmentary and from a place unknown to the subject. The 'spook' here is the perception of our reflection as a whole and rational being. Am I reading too far into it?

Spook is a great term (pic related), it just got turned into a meme phrase for faggots who're losing an argument.