Max Stirner to your relatives

As this comment was posted, two things happened simultaneously. Somewhere in Germany a faint mocking laughter could be heard from the grave of a Johann Kaspar Schmidt, and at the same time half a dozen teen age boys decided they would read the ego and it's own.

read it again, take pen and paper and write down your explanation of him. No offence, but your inability of easy explanation is here just because you don't understand it properly.

Yeah I ain't denying that. Bit of a brainlet tbqh so normally I just shut up about it but for some reason after a few pints for some reason I decide everyone needs to know.

Your dad is right.

...

You can read a book and not agree with it's ideas while trying to understand the point of view of the writer.

...

Stirnerites irl

You just keep sitting in the pub yelling about spooks.
You will make some tourists very happy.

This board prohibits smoking, user

Honestly I don't think Ted was insane either.

All I took from Stirner was that I can disregard Stirner and that I'm spooked but at the same time I can consciously choose my spooks because we're all spooked and its impossible to be completely unspooked so the concept of spooks doesn't really matter because I'll be spooked anyway on the idea of what and what isn't a spook.

Just don't let those spooks control your life, that's all it boils down to tbh.

Serious question, is the Unabomber manifesto worth reading?

Yes, just read it critically. Ted wasn't all there. And that quote is kind of good and bad. On the one hand, "mental health" favors people who are better slaves. On the other, mental health as it actually works is a lot like regular health in that circumstances affect it, and it's not just genetically determined or something. Capitalism will fuck you up and harm your mental health, and the result of poor mental health is pretty likely to be correctly identified by contemporary psych. What often won't be correctly identified is the cause of these problems (e.g. "you don't handle stress well" instead of "your job is unreasonably stressful")

take it with a grain of salt and ignore most of what he writes about "leftists" which is really just Ted bitching about idpol sjw liberals over a decade before they became prominent.

I think the biggest problem here is what you define as "control". If someone wants to engage in a spook at what point is it "controlling" them. If engaging in the spook is what is desired by the indvidual and the action will occur either way with the same sense of feeling or thought when engaged in, what matter is it whether the spook is known or not besides a sense of knowing it is? It basically boils down to a perception of what is "really living" or the concept of the "real life". Stirner seems to go in with this perception that if one can realize that they act in their own interests rather then a higher cause that they can become a freely acting individual. But the idea of the "freely acting individual" is an empty concept, a "spook". Yet it is a spook we must accept to become. To be without higher cause becomes the higher cause in of itself. To be spooked or unspooked is meaningless yet it is somehow of great importance. It all comes to a conclusion with the idea of being unspooked being a spook, the idea of being "free" or "self-interested" or even acting in accordance with your ego in of itself a possible affront to the ego that we must somehow simultaneously act in and yet be hesitant of, as if not knowing of spooks in the first place is to be free of them, a strange realization that the individual was always self-interested and in accordance with their ego to begin with. Stirner more or less writes a book about how we must act in accordance with his spooks, with his ego, in an almost poetic projection of his egotistic interest.

you are mistaking desires with thoughts (spooks)

Sorry, meant when I said
>If engaging in the spook is what is desired by the indvidual and the action will occur either way with the same sense of feeling or thought when engaged in, what matter is it whether the spook is known or not besides a sense of knowing it is?
As in someone engaging in a thought in which one completes and which one sacrifices oneself to. As in, what difference does it make whether one is aware one is spooked or not when a person devotes oneself to an idea.

The thing about combatting spooks is that they do hold material ground. We see evidence that traces back to the mental constructs throughout societies, no? A spook is just an analytical term to combat abstract thoughts gaining material ground as weird mental checks exerting power over a subject; internally and externally. This is where ownness comes in. Stirner never really advocated acting in a weird abstract thing as "self-interest" but just a series of autonomous checks in every domain that the unique can extert his power (in the many forms it comes in).
It really, really boils down to how central power is to Stirner's work, and how you can not only exert it externally, but internally as well. The Ego (more appropiately: Unique) isn't a "freely acting individual," but a continous development, never fixed and is always formed by whatever fills it (the development of the Unique).

I think this is the smoking gun on people thinking Stirner is an idealist, but I always thought that the feedback between our ideas and our material world was a very real thing and not just hogwash. A different mental state will produce a different result, different results produce different mental states.

You're such a faggot, how about you try reading Stirner before spouting bullshit about his philosophy. Consider suicide.

Why? What he wrote about "leftists" is true in that contex. Just because you associate with the term and someone says it that doesn't mean to dismiss it.
You can still take it with salt.

No it wasn't. That shit about the oversocialization of leftists can apply to just about any group in modern society, it's not exactly an incisive criticism.

pastebin.com/setAKNnR

notes to keep you on track.

A spook is a belief you hold that goes against your self interests. Destroying capitalism is in the worker's self interests. It would be a spook if you were bourgeoise and still wanted to destroy capitalism.

This is all pretty interesting, especially the second part. Care to elaborate more on it?

Life would be better for bourgs under communism though? Assuming they survive the revolution

I'm a brainlet so don't expect much, I've seriously only read The Ego. Basically from my lurking I see Stirner confronted as an idealist for thinking that thoughts are the summation of the world or at least the main influence of it. But I don't see how this is the case, Stirner aimed at basing his Unique in the transient, unfixed subject. We know it exists uniquely and acts materially but processes everything in abstract concepts. We know that moods are highly influenced our personal thoughts and ideals (as my many months of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy proves). If I'm correct, there is a massive network that connects our material inputs and outputs to a complicated array of desires, feelings and thought. Therein lies the crux of avoiding spooks, it is literally avoiding mental constructs that can affect behaviour out of interest in a mental autonomy which therein lies the behaviour towards physical autonomy ( both forms of ownness).
I may be retarded though, not sure yet.

Of course it wouldn't. Do you think you'd enjoy your life more with an unlimited supply of cocaine, hookers, and traveling the world on a yacht, or having living standards matching your skill level?