He's bound by moral conventions and spooks like degeneracy and nationalism

>he's bound by moral conventions and spooks like degeneracy and nationalism
>calls anyone else a cuck

cuck

>>>/leftypol/

What's the relationship between stirner and the word spook?

froghead

English translation of the ego and its own.

Spoopy

>spooks

Freedom isn't defined by the ability to do, but the capability of saying "No I will not do that thing"

>What is that guy doing?
>I think he's looking at something on his phone
>Ew what is he doing with his hand?
>It's exactly what you think
>Should we call the cops?
>Don't bother, they can't do anything, there are too many
>I'll pray for him

So stirner himself actually refers to things as "spooks?" What's the context?

Either way, That's pretty funny, I might have to check that out

>calls a nation's consensus-derived morals a spook
>is the sole reason why cultural relativism turned malignant
>throws away culture and national pride and offers nothing in return; kind of like the shell of a country we see today in germany and sweden
basically communism
kill yourself OP

it's the retarded reasoning why communists are so eager to destroy the concept of the nation state
>morals don't exist, therefore following them is stupid, so morals derived from nationalism are stupid, therefore communism

>trespass
>get shot

Stirner was an anarchist, not a communist.

Once again right wingers prove themselves to be illiterates :^)

original communism is anarchist, you utter imbecile
the original anarchist rebels were always communists
but it's a pipe dream and it practically impossible, which is why it always became authoritarian
back to led dit faggot

...

...

>implying marx didn't envision a stateless, classless society

shoo shoo

Wojak looks happy, good for him!

spook is a cause or motivation not inspired from the self. for example, nationalism and the honor of war is sold and taught to you by a state that has interest in you holding this value and cause - it is not a value arisen from within the true you (the unique nothing) and therefore is like a spook, a false ghost that haunts you and leads you astray from fulfilling what within you is true desire

stirner was NOT for hedonism, he claimed the pursuit of endless pleasure is itself a spook and distraction if obsessed over (for example - the related desire to be seen as a "stud" or a "high roller" or whatever is a spook, this is a distraction from the pursuit of true individual empowerment, of establishing free and honest relationships with other persons, etc)

>implying there aren't anarcho-communists
>implying that Marx himself didn't ultimately advocate for a stateless, classless, moneyless society

There's a good chance this is picture of your feet.

>wojak is a bootlicker ancap

no wonder he's a virgin!

notions of honour through war persist throughout history and cultures independently of "the state". muh spooks is just babby tier nihilism. how can you define "the true you" for other people? there is literally nothing to any of this, just crying "muh spooks" to things you don't like and not to things you do like. it's a fucking meme.

Dude I'm pretty sure the original communist, Karl Fucking Marx, hated Stirner.

subjectivity m'boy

enjoy dying for a false cause because bankers

falstaff had it down centuries before stirner and HE DOESNT EVEN REAL

implying i am in favour of war for wars sake. all im saying is that human nature is far more complex then simply "just bee urself :^)" which is all lefty/pol/ "muh spooks" "philosophy" boils down to, except for the concepts that you decide are valid (garbage materialist marxist doctrine). there is no substance, it's shit. and the funny thing is youre some teen who doesn't even know himself.

...

i dont agree with stirners assessments at all, I'm just trying to explain what he meant. I think people can derive some valuable personal lessons from his work but he is delusional about the human condition and human nature - he completely fails to define the self. Also worth noting, Karl Marx hated Stirners guts and devoted a lot of time and attention to publishing brutal critiques of Stirner.

>reads philosophy

cuck

>any defense of my position is a spook
>any argument against my position is "muh subjectivity"

If I could go back in time and blow Stirner's brains out I would.

i think the arguments against moral absolutism or moral truism stand. a moral trait or universally preferred behavior being a component of general human nature doesn't prove anything about the metaphysics of ethics other than it being partially or wholly biologically determined - that's hardly inspiring

Stirner is just the new Nietzsche. A foreign, centuries old philosopher for pseudo-intellectuals to fawn over while actively ignoring modern thinkers.

People like systems that makes them bond with others and gives an explanation for why their life sux.
Be it another race, degeneracy, or the patriarchy. Of course it's all must simpler than looking at yourself and most likely finding a lot of work to do and self-confrontation.
Once you clarified Stirners terms for yourself, the problem is that you still lack a whole bunch of answers and so it's hard to recommend going into it tbqh.
Perversely, working and dying for someone elses (other people or an abstract spook) cause might be more comfy than not knowing what to do.

Why're people using his name all of a sudden?

>he doesn't realize that everything defined by the subjective human mind is a spook
>he doesn't realize that these spooks are what hold civilization together
>he wants to live like a mud-eating, spear chucking nigger in a mud hut

Stirners Unions of egoists are a baseless utopia.
That being said, if something "holds civilizations together" then this doesn't mean it's not something that harms the individuals that civilization is composed of. You should read Stirner for yourself, not for forming Kantian laws that should hold and benefit everyone.

Moreover, even if people are memeing too much, "spook" doesn't simply mean "made up concepts" - if that were so, then one wouldn't have to use another word. For exmaple, a spook is always something that guides your actions.

You being hungry and wanting to look for food is not a spook.
Your father being strict and punishing you for doing these and that things, that's not a spook.

You saying I can't eat meat because I'm a vegetarian, that's a spook.
You feeling bad for doing this and that because a holy book says so, that a spook.

Stirner is about cultivating your property.
If you have a garden, you can't make plants grow over night. There are natural bounds. But if it's actually yours you can decide if you want to grow it this and that way, or you can give it away and stop owning it, if you wish so.
If you don't find yourself in the position of letting go of your garden, then it owns you and rules your behavior.

You'll naturally care for your things, your friends and your land - they are your property in this most general sense. Stirner says to own them, and not get owned by them. Nationalism is thus spooky, it's a tool for you so you can be lazy and not think, have an external rule book tell you how to do things.

pepe went main stream so we need a new icon

Hey fag, would you die for Stirner?