Which spooks are Sup Forums still haunted by?

Which spooks are Sup Forums still haunted by?

I see a lot of posters here who still unironically believe in something called "ethics"

>pic of average spook poster

Stirner's philosophy is literally a meme, and no "spook poster hehe" could coherently argue against moral realism lmfao.

The only spooks folks should be worrying about here are the ones working for Intelligence.

Nationalism
Racial pride for the sake of muh race
Gender roles
Sexuality being black and white
Not being a Egoist Communist and seizing the means of production

Biggest spooks around here. FUCK SPOOKS

Stirnerposters, apparently

>forgetting individualism, racism, utilitarianism and anti-semitism

What is not a spook?

>born Johann Kaspar Schmidt

why do jews always change their names? What a red flag.

Things which are real

best post

>because abstract things aren't tangible they aren't real

also, wasn't this dude a moral relativist? Talk about judaism...

So is basically pseudointellectual bulshit that means nothing, if everything is a spook then nothing is a spook

>stirner's philosophy is a spook

nationalism is the most infectious spook on Sup Forums right now
some of the more sociopathic fascists would be agreeable if they dropped the arbitrary conviction and dedication they have towards genetically similar individuals.

>Implying morals are even real in the first place
No not all things are a spooks, nationalism and god are spooks though
Fascism is one of the most spookiest things out there. Ghost busters would have a field day

exploitation, social justice, collective liberation, economic classes, 'workplace democracy'.

Those are the spookiest spooks of all.

Isn't that racialism you're describing?

>morals aren't real
So you're basically advertising that no one should take you seriously? Go ahead and keep believing that, it'll allow for the sane folk to know how to treat you and your ideas (like a joke).

Ethics are important since you need values. The current widely accepted ethics of equal outcome and changing your way of life and stepping aside to accommodate people from other countries (which results in you having no place in the world) is totally wrong.

True ethics (with the top ones being more important than the bottom ones)

1. Traditional Family
2. Ethnic pride and preservation
3. Nationalism (2 will eventually make 2 and 3 more or less the same)
4. Individual rewards for productivity which is of benefit to the aforementioned values

Unironic confidence in one's freedom from ethics is pretty remarkable, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Very clumsy, crude ethical thinking at this stage in western thought. Quite significant regression over the last century.

>morals aren't real
the absolute state of leftists

>So you're basically advertising that no one should take you seriously? Go ahead and keep believing that, it'll allow for the sane folk to know how to treat you and your ideas (like a joke).
Not an argument spooky fag and you need to actually do some reading.

spooky, go join the deus vult kiddies

O X Y M O R O N

>morals
My infallible morality system is the correct one and is totally real and not just a thing make up by humans

Read Kant and Moore faggot holy shit.

>Not being a Egoist Communist and seizing the means of production
>Communist
no, stop, you're doing it wrong

One of the primary failures of contemporary ethical thought is the general lack of awareness of the difference between ethics that judge the acceptability of actions according to rules or mores, and on the other hand, principles that offer a positive, aspirational value system, that are expressed in an open-ended process of creative action, rather than criticism of completed action.

Roughly, the former could be said to correspond to classical civilization, and the latter to Christian civilization.

>he thinks stirners philosophy isn't a spook
>he thinks the idea of a spook isn't a spook

is torturing a baby MORALLY good or bad?
if you literally cant think of an objective answer there is no hope for you

A demonologist transcended mongolist professor and Geist activist was flying a plane, known CIA.

"Before the flight begins, you must get on your knees and worship the end of history and accept that Absolute Idealism is the most highly-evolved sophism to make us feel good about ourselves the continent has ever known, even greater than self-serving petit-bourgeois protestant theology right after I file this flight plan with the Agency!"

At this moment an uncaring if he was brave because being judged by illusionary social standards was of no importance to him, egoist, unique girl's school teacher who had smoked more than 15000 cigars in Hippel's winebar and understood the spookiness of all ideology and supported whatever he felt like stood up and held up "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum".

"You're a big guy."

The arrogant Bane smirked synthetically and smugly replied "Only in relation to you, I'm not big at all, decadent egoist, its the stern, reluctant working of reason towards the full realization of itself in perfect freedom which makes the fire rise!"

"It's been a few years (time is nothing) since I, Bane, created it. if it was not mine, and idealism, as you say, is not a spook...for if I pulled off the mask of reason and embraced insanity, you'd know that if I removed your mask it would be extremely painful."

CIA was visibly shaken, and dropped his copy of Plato's dialogues.

The mercenaries applauded and all started milk shops that day and accepted their Self-Enjoyment as the end of philosophy. An eagle named "Union of Egoists" flew into the room and perched atop the copy of "Stirner's Critics" and shed a beer on the hardcover. "Ich hab' Mein Sach' auf Nichts gestell" was said several times, and Renzo Novatore himself showed up and demonstrated how hand grenades are nothing but a means of killing police officers.

CIA lost his flight plan and the plane was crashed with no survivors that very day, his flight plan was disregarded for all eternity.

I admit the wording there was wrong but Sup Forums is full of brainlets and I like the word communist since it sends most of the people here into a rabid shitfest

I think it's morally bad, but that doesn't mean objective morality exists. Are you too much of a brainlet to understand the distinction?

Equality is one of the biggest spooks

baiting brainlets with communism can be fun that's true

NO It is objectively wrong to torture a baby, there is no debate. That is objective morality, anyone who disagrees is fucked in the head and wrong.

Well I like babies their pretty funny and nice and they grow into people who are fun to hang around with so I'm not going to torture a baby.

Anyway you would say throwing rocks at a woman till she dies since she showed some ankle is barbaric but Muslims are fine with it

It's even funnier to imagine someone with such a low IQ that they can't see the contradictions in Marx's theory and continue to waste their time on a project that was funded by the Philips and Rothschilds in order to enrich the industrialist/banking jews further. Not that you'd know anything about analysis and making conclusions of your own.

>muslims have no morals so morals don't exist

>being edgy for the sake of being edgy
Comrade Stalin says you go to death camp to eat tree bark.

hope is a spook

Nope, it's subjectively wrong. At most, you can extend that to a large culture. But it's not objective.

you strongly dislike it
that doesnt mean there's some transcendental ought dictating that it is wrong behavior

>NO It is objectively wrong to torture a baby, there is no debate.
What if that baby will grow up to be Hitler? Or has information related to an upcoming terrorist plot?

It does not matter how many people think it is right it doesn't make it subjective, stoning women is wrong i refuse to waver to this sick depraved idea that since it cant be proven then it is not right. Stoning is wrong, torturing a baby is wrong, rape is wrong. I dont need evidence for these things because they simply are.

My infallible Christian based morality system is correct everyone Else's is wrong. Also muh white pride muh nation . Just ignore the fact Romans/Greeks,Persians,Egyptians etc had stable nations and entirely different outlooks on Gender and Sexuality

wew lad

>middle school thought experiments
simply epic
Creating an ontological paradox doesn't make your theory any more logical.

They are wrong by our cultural consensus, but they are not objective facts about reality. You are really a brainlet.
Good luck proving objective morality. Greeks couldn't do it, I'm sure a brainlet like you will do just fine.

>Romans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians had stable nations
You wanna know how I know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about? Stable like how? Switzerland stable? We're talking about overexerted empires with massive slave populations that regularly revolted... or well, nevermind, I'm a christian for believing in non-aggression as a universal moral whoops gonna go pray to the jesuits brb

>objective morality
It is wrong to harm innocent people.

gee wow holy shit I just solved a three millennia old conundrum where's my prize

On what basis? Your subjectivity? Sure.

My magic book is correct! All the other magic books are wrong, and I know I'm right because my specific version of the specific book told me

The absolute state of morals

My post claimed it to be objective. The fact that you have to ask if I meant subjective means you're really stupid, to be honest.

I was being sarcastic about believing in Christianity, clearly. I'm bored with this thread now, you folks are retarded. Enjoy!

> kiddies

Says the anrcho communist meme flag faggot

Nissen, it's closing in on that time a year again.
He was here last year and kicked my stairs outside the door of my house, it's of metal and you heard it really loud.

I hadn't put out food to him, so I almost crapped my pants and ran down to the store and bought poridge and made it for him. I will not be doing the same mistake this year...
>Fug

I can.

Here's my argument: you cannot prove X (say: killing innocent children) is right nor that it is wrong.

You cannot prove it. You can prove you dislike it. You can prove most people dislike it. You can prove I would be arrested and sentenced to death if I were to kill innocent children. But, and this is a BIG BUT, you cannot prove it is wrong nor that it is right.

You need to have values to have morals and to understand ethics. Values are something leftist's and all postmodernists are notorious for ditching. They can be used to make value judgments and to rank things and people, so it's no surprise. Try to unlearn some of your leftist indoctrination, and you might come in touch with your humanity once more. Then you'll understand this elusive concept of "ethics".

Then why did you list race?

>monkeys actually think you can't prove taking a life out of this world isn't bad

no wonder your country is such a shithole.

is bad*

I know you guys don't believe in anything, but try and fucking feel that gigantic hole in your chest where your humanity used to be. YOU KNOW that certain things are objectively morally wrong, you are simply denying it. torturing an innocent toddler for no reason (not even pleasure), will you at least admit that that is fucked no matter what lens you look at it from.

>My post claimed it to be objective. The fact that you have to ask if I meant subjective means you're really stupid, to be honest
On what basis is it objective? Saying "it's objective! Because, uhm, I said it's objective!" does not prove its objective. You're the dunning kruger effect personified.

If you had any values, like pretty much every single living thing has, you'd be easily able to reason why killing innocent children is a bad thing. For instance, evolution itself operates on survival. The ultimate trancendetial value is survival. Killing children goes against the survival of your genes, i.e., it's bad.

As humans, we have a few other values. We can suffer and we know how to cause suffering. We try to avoid it, since we know that everyone feels bad. Killing children is bad, since it causes suffering.

As westerners, we have Christian values. We try not to kill, unless absolutely necessary, since bible tells us to not kill. Killing innocent children goes against this commandment, i.e., it is bad.

I was pointing out that you having to ask me instead of presenting an argument for murder's subjective moral value shows that you're not creative and not smart. But sure, I'm the dunning-kruger durrr where all da babies at I needs me a snack durr nothing wrong here just eating some infants :^)

You don't live in reality, so your observations of reality have no merit. You're just a joke, as your theory. It's something I hope you embrace, because it makes it very easy for people like me to know who to avoid when you push garbage ideas from the 19th century that were laughable then and laughable now, albeit a bit more dangerous given the political climate in the west.

> killing babies means population decline, results of killing babies ensues

> not objective

That’s an incredibly subjective opinion you have on an objective reality. Are you mentally ill per chance?

A spook is an idea which controls the way a person acts, yet is non existent. E.g: The State, Religion, Society, Property... It's used all the time because it's a funny sounding meme. Originates from Sup Forums's /lit/ board.

...

Are you actually trying to blackwash Stirner or are you a real proponent of his?

That was stupid for me to ask, of course you're sincere.

Shut up Steve Ceru....

How does this not have (you)s?
Criminally underrated

Yes you can prove that killing children is right or wrong very easily.

Is it for the betterment of a people?
Does it agree with an objective material reality?
Does the objective reality negate the long term results of a subjective opinion on the matter?

The problem with emotional people is that they are so emotional they end up finding a way to turn every single possible decision in their life into an emotional ultimatum.

> is killing babies wrong

You may have a personal subjective opinion on the matter but it will always result in an objective material outcome and therefore is right or wrong in regards to the ultimate objective reality that materializes

why do communists post stimer memes when they are all moral objectivists?

It’s fucked but so is survival and existence in general. What are you getting at here?

they arent
they view seizing the means of productions as in their subjective self-interest, not as a moral obligation

You arent saying anything clear or meaningful here.

Oh I see we have a kike with us on tonight’s philosophical discourse.

>Is it for the betterment of a people?
muh people muh race. Big fucking spook you got there
None of you can prove killing a baby is objectively wrong only subjectively from your own viewpoint. I'll let you know Ancient Greeks threw kids off cliffs and yet they had a advanced society going on

Objectivivity is based on time and material reality and subjectivity is based on the emotional present.

> nothing meaningful

Is the emotional present reality?

> muh people, muh race

Your trying to paint an objective reality as something that’s subjective. Your a retard or a kike or both.

Prove why that is objectively bad.
At best you can argue it's bad for the human species.
But species come and go.
The sun will die one day.
The universe will stop existing one day.
It's all ultimately irrelevant and cannot he objective.

Leftypoz BTFO

it is subjective
why is race and the nation of objective importance?

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The termethicsderivesfrom Ancient Greek ἠθιkός(ethikos),fromἦθος(ethos), meaning "habit, custom". The branch of philosophy axiology comprises the sub-branches of ethics and aesthetics, each concerned with values.
Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as
good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.
Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:
>Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
>Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action
>Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action

The capitalist exploitation isn't wrong since you can't prove wrong but the workers could form their own collectives in their own self interest since they don't benefit as much under Capitalism then they would under a Commune therefore blowing capitalists out of the water since no one would work for them and glorious anarchism would reign

this image is retarded
marx himself said capitalists are acting in their self-interest by exploiting the working class, not that they have committed some kind of moral sin.

> prove that killing babies is objectively bad

> within the realm that nothing in life\reality matters or is objective at all

> life is just subjective

Are you female?

> mfw your whole life is based on objective reality even if the reality that manifests came about through subjective manifestations.

WeW
e
W

Ethics severely slows down scientific progress.
Genetic engineering absolutely must happen if we are to survive the incoming climate shift and eventually explore the stars.

Give the masses their ethics but work behind the curtains to ensure their survival and improvement.

this post has ethical suppositions without your realizing. you paint scientific progress as a moral good.

You're conflating biological existence with human made values.

I paint it as necessary and that's it. What a dumbfuck self-aware specie we are, constantly manipulating the gene pool of other animals and plants to improve them while fucking cowering at the thought of improving ourselves.

It must be done if future generations are to survive, I care not for its morality.

Just jump around the argument some more. Damm I thought Nazi's at-least pretended to understand some basic morality philosophy your "god" Hitler stole from Nietzsche then changed some words around

Because it supersedes an individuals total subjective output and influence.

necessary for you

>It must be done if future generations are to survive, I care not for its morality.
>IT MUST
There's another spooky word
And I should care because?

I say calling shit spooks is a spook
Now the fuck what bitch

Morality is objective because subjective human states of consciousness are themselves objective realities.

So, if we understand objective properties of what everybody means by "better", we can find an objective method to achieve that target.

Thus the path to a better society through moral action IS an objective one.

what do you mean by supersedes? more powerful than an individual? that doesnt mean i ought to dedicate my every action to my race or my nation. that would be deriving an ought from an is. read hume, faggot.

So biological existence and human made values are not one in the same or atleast in partnership with each other? So it’s ok if I just throw the my dinner into a pile of shit because cleanliness although a human made value has no relativity on biological existence.

Shieeett

I’m entry level to a fascist mindset and I find it funny that you are squirming this much and not offering me a rebuttal. Some of the brothers who frequent here would have you crying

For the human specie, friend. The current dysgenic trash that fills the world with their unending desire for fucking is not going to save anything.

As soon as such a words becomes force, its no longer a spook.

Objective reality carries more real world bearing then subjectivity.

> money

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could just decide one day that you could just have something for free because it made you feel good to do so? . Like I dunno....survival for example?

> mfw he’s a communist and doesn’t even know it