>>836787you not having read him is what makes you have a charitable interpretation because stirner's philosophy is internally incoherent
you're charitably reading him as a critic of ideology. he's way more "radical" (nonsensical) than that.
it's precisely his point that spooks have no reality, not even in the "real abstractions" sense, or else he wouldn't be able to dismiss them: if an idea has a real hold on you, then it has a practical reality to it, and is therefore no longer a "spook", is it?
ok then, it'd be fine if he was a fully committed nominalist, but somehow he treats the "state" as a slightly more real abstraction than every other, in that it's worthwhile to fight against "the state", but fighting for the working class? spooked. communism? spook.
not to mention that "ego" or "the unique" are also spooks, they're the universalization of the particular. he says it isn't and by "the unique", "this one", he means precisely the non-universal particular, but "this one" is already a universal, a pure particular would would be non-generalizable as a word at all