/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6966736]

Race is a spook. Gender is a spook. Sexual orientation is a spook.
>The entirety of Stirnerfags just got BTFO

[Anonymous No.6966747]

Worst troll I've seen in a while. Try thinking of something people will give a shit about.

[Anonymous No.6966977]

>>6966747
Fuck you

[Anonymous No.6966994]

i have a huge penis op

[Anonymous No.6967002]

OP's faggotry isn't a spook.

[Anonymous No.6967012]

Max Loser

[Anonymous No.6967013]

>>6966994
Big dicks are spooks.

[Anonymous No.6967025]

>>6967013
>big penises spook him
Ahah, look at this virgin that won't put out.

[Anonymous No.6967088]

I don't see what the big deal is about Spooks. I mean, as long as you know that everything is a spook, empty of essence, an illusion, etc you can still live by affirming some spooks and not affirming others. After all, its impossible to live completely spookless, because spooks are all there is, its turtles all the way down, so just chill out, don't take life so seriously, and pick spooks which are healthy, empowering and make you happy.

[Anonymous No.6967117]

Actual observed biological differences aren't spooks. It's like saying rain is a spook.

[Anonymous No.6967123]

>>6967117
>Muh science is always right
Better call the Ghostbusters

[Anonymous No.6967128]

im dancing and singing disco music because disco is not a spook

[Anonymous No.6967133]

>>6967123
It's not, but these things about as debatable as the existence of rain.

[Anonymous No.6967947]

>>6967117
Does race involve observable biological differences?

Skin color is certainly observable but the connection between skin color and other fenotypes is not yet clear. Intelligence is not biologically or otherwise observable, that is the spookiest of spooks.

Does gender involve observable biological differences?
No, since gender is a non-biological component by definition, gender is about behaviour and it's spooky as hell at that.

And?
Sexual orientation has not been found to be biologically observable, good luck finding even junk science saying otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6967953]

>>6967947
>what is genetic distance

[Anonymous No.6968002]

>>6967133
still waiting for the essay post challenging the existence of rain

i'm sure one of you fuckers can do it..

[Anonymous No.6968023]

>>6967947
>No, since gender is a non-biological component by definition, gender is about behaviour and it's spooky as hell at that.
>unronically thinking that behavior cannot be "biological"

http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-Synthesis-Twenty-Fifth-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0674002350/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

>Skin color is certainly observable but the connection between skin color and other fenotypes is not yet clear.
>Unironically thinking that skin color is a main component of race and not simply the easiest to pick up at a glance
Also denying the linking of many haplotypes to usual races is not a smart move, including harmonal patterns which have absolutely-zero-effect-not-at-all on behavior.

>Intelligence is not biologically or otherwise observable, that is the spookiest of spooks.
This really is bait for a byzantine discussion about playing on words about what "intelligence" is.

[Anonymous No.6968069]

>>6967088

Not really, because Stirner just too the Hegelian essence very literally.

If you are paying lip service to spooks you are doing nothing more than ideological lip service to mere shadows. While the noble lie could stand in political/societal contexts (this is of course the first definition of ideology, what you are doing is pointless/irrelevant in actual conditions yet you are doing it anyway), it makes no sense to defend them in a philosophical context.

Stirner is in many ways the precursor to Derrida and deconstruction, but instead of doing it textually he too the Hegelian dialectical to it's limit and resulted to the sovereign ego.

[Anonymous No.6968084]

>>6967947
The Gender-Sex distinction is a spook.