/lit/ - Literature

What is the primary opposition of takes with respect to the self?

Intuitively, it seems like it would be between the existence of a substantive, unified, soul-like self versus a kind of illusionism. However, nearly all of the philosophical literature seems to accept the self as non-substantive, and they're mostly concerned with how it emerges.

I've read people saying that it emerges psychologically on an individual level, and postmodernists who say it emerges through social relations. There is also a wealth of people who say it's a combination of the two. People also have takes about it being narrative-driven, and others saying that it's a result of "mental time travel", projecting ourselves into our past and future. Once again, there's a gradation of takes in the middle.

Does anyone actually make the case for the self as substantive (since Descartes/Locke), or does everyone just accept that it's a mental construction?

What is the main debate here?

>>12130596
>>12130301
I also relate to this post in impossibly specific ways. After doing lsd on around 10 different occasions as well as some lower mushroom doses over the course of 3 years, I came to the conclusion that "real answers" can't really come from psychedelics. They're incredibly fun in low doses and in higher doses they make you forget all your preconceived notions about reality, leading to some interesting periods of self assessment and changes in values. Beyond that, I think it fails at providing meaning to life in the way that a lot of people are lead to believe. I still plan on using them occasionally for the reasons I mentioned, but not often or when I have to worry about other responsibilities.

>>10379780
It's autism you dip.

>>10371768

What is what's both spatial and temporal?

What is what's both spatial and not temporal?