Spooks

There were some people interested in Stirner in one of the Discord servers I'm in and I realized that despite the resurgence in name-recognition due to all the memes, a lot of people don't really understand what a fixed idea is. I spent some time finding useful quotes from The Unique and It's Property and provided some light explanation in my own words in between. I figured that since I had already spent the time writing it all out I might as well post it somewhere that won't forget about it after a few days. I figure it could also be a resource for people who get tired of constantly explaining such a central concept of egoism. Let me know if I made any mistakes in my analysis!

To understand what a spook is you first need to understand that Stirner believes everyone acts in their own self-interest, it's just that some people, the 'involuntary egoists,' believe that they are actually serving a higher cause or purpose which exists outside themselves. Sacred things exist only for the egoist who doesn't recognize himself, the involuntary egoist, for the one who is always out for his own, and yet does not consider himself the highest essence, who only serves himself and at the same time always thinks of serving a higher being, who knows nothing higher than himself and yet is crazy about something higher; in short, for the egoist who doesn't want to be an egoist, and degrades himself, i.e., fights his egoism, but at the same time degrades

himself so that he will " be exalted;' and thus gratify his egoism.

Because he wants to stop being an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings that he can serve and sacrifice himself to ; but however much he shakes and chastises himself, in the end he does everything for his own sake, and the disreputable egoism never gives way in him. This is why I call him the involuntary egoist. The 'higher beings' that Stirner mentions are later expanded on in his outline of the 'fixed idea.'

To provide some context, Stirner is explaining this concept alongside his critique of humanism which he believes has not truly reached the atheism it claims. The atheists carry on their mockery of the higher essence, which also gets worshiped under the name of the "highest" or [supreme being] and trample one "proof of its existence" after another into the dust, without noticing that, out of a need for a higher essence, they only destroy the old one to make room for a new one. Isn't "the human being" a

higher essence than an individual human being, and aren't the truths,

rights, and ideas that arise from the concept of it supposed to be revered as revelations of this concept and-held as sacred? For Stirner, something doesn't have to be directly associated with religion in order to become "sacred." For example, above all, the "Holy Spirit" is sacred, the truth is sacred; right, law, the good cause, majesty, marriage, the common good, order, the fatherland, etc., etc., are sacred. Despite proclaiming a rejection of belief in God or gods, many so-called atheists remain devout in their belief in other metaphysical concepts. When people continue to place ideas like the 'nation,' the 'common good,' or 'rights,' above themselves have they not simply created new gods with secular names?

To put it simply, a fixed idea is an idea that subjects people to itself. This does not mean that ideas are sentient things which consciously affect humans, but that certain ideas hold so much sway over people that they can be analyzed as if they were conscious. Man, your head is haunted ; you have bats in your belfry! You're imagining big things and painting for yourself a whole world of gods that is there for you, a haunted realm to which you are called, an ideal that beckons to you. You have a fixed idea! In the involuntary egoist's attempt to deny their own egoism they distort reality to allow for these fixed ideas.

Another user on Discord posited this question to me (paraphrased) If everyone is always fulfilling their egoism isn't that a truism? If I choose to accept spooks then that would necessarily be in my self-interest, since I can't possibly choose otherwise, right? My response is that Stirner believes everyone is always trying to fulfill their egoism, but they do not always succeed. Whether or not fixed ideas are in your self-interest depends on what the concept is and what you as an individual actually want. The problem with fixed ideas is that they are ideas that you do not allow yourself to have control over but rather let control you. In this sense they are always a distortion of what your desires actually are.

For example if I desire to make other people happy (because their happiness makes me happy) I may claim that I am acting in service of a religion or moral system. Both of these concepts may still allow me to fulfill my desire to help others, but in reality the desire comes from me, not from the cause I serve. And while it is true that fixed ideas often fulfill some self-interested desires, by their nature they cannot fulfill all self-interested desires because of the limits they place on the individual.

Finally I would like to address a common misconception about Stirner and egoism. Many people seem to believe that all of this talk of rejecting causes and freeing the individual implies certain anti-social tendencies, but this is certainly not the case. I love men too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love. Stirner's egoism is not a rejection of empathy, rather it is a reclaiming of empathy from the fixed ideas that would draw it away from the individual. For in reality a concept can feel no love for human beings, those emotions come from us. If I embrace and cherish you, because I have love for you, because my heart finds nourishment, and my need satisfaction, in you, it is not for

the sake of the higher essence whose sanctified body you are, thus not

because I see a ghost, i.e., an appearing spirit, in you, but out of egoistic pleasure : you yourself, with your essence, are of value to me,

because your essence is not a higher one, not higher and more general than you; it is unique like you yourself because it is you. In my opinion, by rejecting morality, religion, humanism, etc., Stirner actually winds up with a much more positive view of humanity then believers in those other concepts do. We love not because we are commanded to, but because we want to and we value others not because we see physical manifestations of some higher essence, but because we value that individual in their uniqueness.

Credit to TheNamelessRanger#5847 and S Λ V Λ K#5320 for contributing in the original discussion.

Credit to /u/hipstergarrus on reddit for the compilation

That's one of the biggest and most frequently asked questions about them and yes. You use them, accepting or discarding them at your own discretion as they serve you and your self interest. The quality of money is the fact that you must surrender yourself to the system in order to acquire it, whilst being alienated and exploited. Money is also heavily fetishised and it disempowers people as they pursue opulent bullshit that they otherwise wouldn't require or even want. Materialistic gratification subordinates an individual's consciousness to the motive of profit and an endless indulgence of bullshit as an ideal. @jellisb blah blah blah

WHY NOT TO CARE WHEN PEOPLE CALL YOU NAMES YOU DON'T LIKE

It’s not an offensive thing to me, it’s about denormalizing terms used to divide people into us & them

FluffyFris -Today at 4:19 AM
By that logic you assume that by normalizing words they maintain a hostile definition instead of becomming gutted of meaning as any past offensive word has by overuse, cunt for example in australia has being gutted of its original use to be able to apply to anything without any power. Mainting and submitting to give words their undesperved power is granting the power of the opresser to harm you in symbolics, and if you can not defend yourself against the symbolic then you have not a single chance to survive against the physical. it essentially is granting narritive to dictate words to those who have or dont have harmfull intend.

Its a cultural stance really tho, i think granting the symbolic any power is extremely self defeating and creates a culture of injury that makes you completly unable to face the harshness of life and makes you depend on a community instead of depending on yourself to face anything thrown at you. its leftist drivel to make the individual powerless and to always depend on community, having a culture where slurs or political incorrent langauge isnt allowed wont prevent assholes to be assholes, they just are allowed to hide better as we usually forget that when it comes to langauge the intend or context is mroe important then gutting the intend.

But who can you beleave nowaday if you feel like everybody is out to get you in a culture of fear that creates a desire to be around a culture of acceptance and submission to the community that leftists set up to controle and regulate the people they actually dont give a fuck about. They would only care about what you are instead of who you are.

Anyway not everyone has the same cultural stance so the general dont be an asshole rule stays and if folk dont want slurs around or give words power wich i disagree with then ill let them and just stay nice and not use slurs as that can ruin someones day if it offends them and i dont want to be an asshole.

thats my personal take on it.