/dead/ - dead

>>1430
If you post a specific example I can cross-check with the German text and tell you

>>1431
Like this from the new translation (old translation is similar), towards the end of "1.2.2.2.1 The Phantasm":
> But it is not only the human being, but everything, that “haunts.” The higher essence, the spirit, that haunts everything, is at the same time bound to nothing, and only—“appears” in it. A ghost in every corner!
It's mainly the "—" that's strange to me and Stirner uses it a lot. Maybe it's the framing of Wolfi's foreword but I can't help but read it as comedic timing for Stirner's stand-up comedy routine.

>>1432
Yeah, he really has a weird way of using that sign. He definitely likes parodying the other Young Hegelians, but I couldn't say whether the punctuation in particular is a jab against them. That specific passage reminds me a lot of Marx actually, but mostly because of the way he uses "appears" (erscheint).

>>1433
It was just an example, I wasn't particularly interested in it. The book is full of sentences where Stirner is making an argument and then inserts a dash just before— the point.

But if we got this example, I have to ask: why does it go down to such a detail that we have section 1.2.2.2.2 of three pages but then 2.2.2 is a single hundred page chapter?

>>1430
> It makes me feel like it was written to be read aloud.
I think John Henry Mackay theorised that alot of der Einzige was stuff Stirner actually said at Wippel (where the young hegelians would meet) in discussions and wrote down ones he came home.
I really like the flow of this writing style too, it's alot easier to follow than Marx's or hegels work.

This Stirner guy is pretty wild, first he defends property from Proudhon, accuses communists of making everyone a pauper and tries to justify slaver, then he shits on competition, admits that the commies are kind of right and goes on a long monologue about trade unionism??

>>1432
> comedic timing for Stirner's stand-up comedy routine.
I've read his essay on Art and Religion, it pretty much confirms it.

Question: what does the "fixed" in the "fixed idea" refer to?
1) It is the idea that is fixed, i.e. unchanging.
2) It is the mind that is fixed on the idea, i.e. obsession.
3) It is a technical term from psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_(psychology)

>>1530
The first two, psychology wasnt a thing when Stirner wrote his shit

>>1532
Wikipedia says the term is from 1812 though, that is 32 years before the Spook Book.

>>1530
add to that that in german 'fixe Idee' also is a compliment for a good idea (which he probably uses ironicly)

>>1534
>in german 'fixe Idee' also is a compliment for a good idea
nod really

>>1535
Doch klar, haste noch nie gehört oder was? Vielleicht auch schon etwas älter, aber fix im Sinne von 'flott' oder 'schnell' in meiner Gegend immernoch sehr häufig verwendet.

>>1536
ok, vielleicht was regionales

>>1537
hier, hab auch quelle

I asked because some people seem to be fixated on the fixed idea even though to me it does not seem to be the best term to describe a spook. Many seem to think that it means that the idea itself is fixed or unchanging, which is misleading. First of all, ideas are obviously changing all the time. If you attack the spooks of the priestly person they will start inventing all kinds of bullshit to defend their delusion. The idea might change in all kind of ways but if it is not destroyed, they will still have a fixed idea. Second, it implies that a willingness to change your mind is a possible way of escape. But weak conviction is not ownness. Changing your clothes every day does not make you a nudist. For whatever it's worth, I think Stirner would agree. Below are some quotes from the Spook book for an appeal to authority. In Art and Religion he describes religious thinking as "Understanding", which in Hegelian terms apparently means that it can only think about its object, but never beyond it. Stirner describes it as an obsession (without actually using the word), something that captures thought and does not let it go. However, Understanding consumes its object, and ceases to be as soon as it is understood. Therefore the object has to be constantly renewed, to preserve the mystery that fuels the obsession.

> So if criticism says: You are only human when you are restlessly criticizing and dissolving! Then we say: I am human in any case, and I am I as well; therefore I only want to take care to secure my property to myself, and to secure it, I continually take it back into myself, destroy in it every movement toward independence, and consume it before it can fix itself and become a “fixed idea” or an “obsession.”

> The good, returning under a thousand names and forms, always remained the premise, remained the dogmatic fixed point for this criticism, remained the—fixed idea.

> The idea of right is originally my idea, or it has its origin in me. But if it has sprung out of me, when the “Word” is out, then it has “become flesh,” a fixed idea. Now I no longer get away from the idea; whichever way I turn, it stands before me. So human beings have not again become masters of the idea “right,” which they themselves created: the creature is running away with them.

>>1452
It's called character development