/lit/ - Literature

Who is Your favourite cross-eyed /lit/ figure? Pic related is mine.

>>12722223
That depends on how much you fear the spooks, friend.

It seems like if we accept naturalism we are necessarily brought to a reductionist 'bundle theory' view of the self, wherein the self is a bundle of properties, a category, with no underlying substance (spirit) of which said properties are a part. In other words, there is no core substance, no spirit, which "takes on" our properties, and which would remain intact even if our properties were wholly replaced; instead, we are a collection of those said properties given the illusion of a cohesive self by our memories.
This means that we are not the same person over the course of our lives; we are only what we are at the present. Therefore, 'acting in self-interest' = acting in the interests of your present self, as serving the cause of your 'future self' would be the same as serving a foreign cause.

So, does egoism require the existence of the spirit?

>>12684158
>We do not aspire to a communal life but to a life apart.

What are some good a part from pic related.

Can Stirner's egoism be refuted?
And yeah, spooks are fun, but let's be a bit serious.

Is anarchism the ultimate pill to outsmart any conversation about almost any topic?