empathy is nothing more than a tool to project your own ego on others — Gus Lamarch

Empathy/love/compassion is to understand and value something beyond the ego. It is spiritual maturity.

So, the more one loves, the more egoistic one becomes? — javra

Not necessarily. Love may be pure in the beginning but the ego is an opportunistic leech; it tries to appropriate everything, even love, to itself. What begins in innocence becomes corrupt by the ego.

I actually agree conscious thought takes place at the level of the individual. It's bizarre people see that as erroneous in some way. The more I'm alone the more my mind seems clearer. It's only in a crowd it dissipates. Meditation only seems to enforce the ego to the point of their being too much "me" and my body becomes tired.
I don't see the OP as being the worst person on the board at all. On the contrary, extolling the virtues of the crowd is also to ignore the nastiness of it too. My nastiest moments were being part of a crowd. Those were as a child though before "I" developed my mind. I have no clue how grown adults can partake in "callout culture" or cancel culture as it is now known.

I actually agree conscious thought takes place at the level of the individual. — Forgottenticket

It's always nice to find 2 individuals thinking the same conscious thought - especially when their very agreement proves them wrong. :rofl:

Proper philosophy depends on overcoming egotism — Wayfarer

Egotism, in fact, is a negative thing- in both contexts, individual and collective - but what the overwhelming majority of people have forgotten is that "egoism" and "egotism" are not the same thing, and end up using both terms interchangeably, which makes the concept of both also blend. Current knowledge about "egoism" is a poor corruption of itself. Egotism is the drive to enhancement in the degradation of others. Egoism is the theory that treats self-interests as the nature of humanity.

But many of the classical philosophies, East and West, see the task of philosophy as being able to rise above the ego — Wayfarer

And many of those who tried to idealize a world beyond the ego, only collaborated with the detriment of humanity itself in favor of a "greater good". I do not preach anything like a "higher purpose". I don't even want a "greater good" to exist to indoctrinate the people. If a "higher purpose" does indeed exist, let it be achieved indirectly by realizing the individual wills of each ego. Only true monsters disguise themselves as holy saviors.

Ok. Provide me with a definition of you, Gus Lamarch and I'll show you you're not unique enough to be different from all of us. — TheMadFool

The problem is that you are trying to contextualize my concept of "unique" as a philosophical principle. - Where is the ego in the Universe? What can you compare it to? Is it something based on a physical world? None of these questions will give you an answer that satisfies you, and the reason is simple: - The individual is enough for itself. The ego, when embraced as part of you - or me - opens up as a field of infinite decisions, without moral, ethical, or metaphysical restrictions; Life is an eternal process of the satiation of the eternal hunger of the egoism, a hunger that if satiated, will also satisfy yourself.

Empathy/love/compassion is to understand and value something beyond the ego. — EnPassant

Empathy, love and compassion are just unconscious methods of proclaiming your egoism towards others. Negative-egoists, by denying their nature, practice actions that they consider as being of external characteristic - of benefit to another - but little do they know that they are only fulfilling their own desires, their egos, indirectly. Again I repeat, being altruistic is not a bad thing, but it is just a more "cordial" way of projecting your egoistic accomplishments on others.

extolling the virtues of the crowd is also to ignore the nastiness of it too. — Forgottenticket

The "virtues" of the crowd are only considered "virtues" because they are a part of the crowd. At the level of the individual, these same virtues become void.

My nastiest moments were being part of a crowd. — Forgottenticket

If an action is inflated to the extreme, it no longer draws attention, as it is now part of the "mass consciousness". Don't get me wrong, selfishness is still there, but totally deformed and corrupted, a shadow of its former self.

I don't see the OP as being the worst person on the board at all. — Forgottenticket

Thank you.

iduals thinking the same conscious thought - especially when their very agreement proves them wrong. :rofl: — unenlightened

It's "really" interesting the arguments presented here. Thank you for your deep contribution to the discussion.

Honestly, I am not entirely sure what your position is but I don't think that people are escaping their own perspective using empathy. The way we do it is through understanding causation, interactions and so on. So you can understand economics without empathy, you can view the world through economic theory without empathy and so on. You can't learn much by just looking out of your own eyes, it's all intellectual right?

Only true monsters disguise themselves as holy saviors. — Gus Lamarch

There would be no fool's gold if there were no gold.

The problem is that you are trying to contextualize my concept of "unique" as a philosophical principle. - Where is the ego in the Universe? What can you compare it to? Is it something based on a physical world? None of these questions will give you an answer that satisfies you, and the reason is simple: - The individual is enough for itself. The ego, when embraced as part of you - or me - opens up as a field of infinite decisions, without moral, ethical, or metaphysical restrictions; Life is an eternal process of the satiation of the eternal hunger of the egoism, a hunger that if satiated, will also satisfy yourself. — Gus Lamarch

Now you've changed tack, gone off in an entirely different direction.

Now you've changed tack, gone off in an entirely different direction. — TheMadFool

How so?

Life is an eternal process of the satiation of the eternal hunger of the egoism — Gus Lamarch

This is seriously deluded. Life is not an eternal process.

Life is not an eternal process. — JerseyFlight

I don't get the point of coming, throwing information with no context behind it, just hoping that the receiver understands your thinking ... Want to discuss? Contextualize!

Want to discuss? Contextualize! — Gus Lamarch

There would be no point according to your egoism, that would assume something could be gained from it, but how can an ego be great if it is not complete? How can it be great if it needs something from the outside? You cannot even justify this thread.

Hopefully you are just a young person that grew up without guidance, searching for some kind of meaning, and you landed on Ayn Rand. If that is the case I'm here to tell you that you got duped. If you are seriously interested in reading outside your ego you might start with sociology or social psychology. Try to account for the word ego without making reference to society.

How so? — Gus Lamarch

Well, you were talking about individuals, people, and suddenly you switched to the universe's ego.

Again I repeat, being altruistic is not a bad thing, but it is just a more "cordial" way of projecting your egoistic accomplishments on others. — Gus Lamarch

That argument asserts that there is nothing outside the ego that has any intrinsic value in itself: that only by way of satisfying the ego does it have any value. This is demonstrably false since there are many things that can be loved purely because they have intrinsic value. The love of science, mathematics, art, literature, another being, nature, life itself...egoism is a denial of the good.

The logical end of egoism is insanity; left to its own devices, unbridled, it becomes megalomania, tyranny, pathology and ultimately evil. The psychopath thinks the whole world is there to satisfy his ego: nothing has any value unless it serves his grotesque selfishness. The psychopath is a complete narcissistic failure who fails to recognize the intrinsic value of life.

I don't see why we need an ego to value anything outside the ego.

There would be no fool's gold if there were no gold. — Wayfarer

:100:

Hopefully you are just a young person that grew up without guidance, searching for some kind of meaning, and you landed on Ayn Rand. If that is the case I'm here to tell you that you got duped. — JerseyFlight

Your "arguments" are based on personal attacks without any depth on the subject and the discussion in question. I have not seen - until now - any answer from you to my questions about the ego, without any personal opinion or attacks on me. If the purpose of your philosophy is controversy, you are doing a terrible job, because you are simply managing to look bad. Good Day/Good Evening.

egoism is a denial of the good — EnPassant

Your argument fails where you claim that "egoism is the denial of what is good". Good is simply a projection of the egoism itself, as much as evil is also. You can make good deeds, have altruistic views on life, and that doesn't make you less or more egoist, as having negative or evil attitudes doesn't make you more or less egoist. You are egoist. It is the human nature.

Your "arguments" are based on personal attacks without any depth on the subject and the discussion in question. — Gus Lamarch

I admit there is some truth to this, I consciously have chosen to approach a person like yourself with your dogma, from a different perspective. It's hard to offer a serious reply to something that is not serious to begin with. I did in fact make important and valid objections to your position multiple times. You don't even comprehend the presuppositions of your own premises and you are complaining about a lack of depth, how can one go deep with ignorance?

I admit there is some truth to this, I consciously have chosen to approach a person like yourself with your dogma, from a different perspective. — JerseyFlight

For someone who says that they place their "duty" over their real interests on philosophy, and are against - and here I quote you - "intellectual responsibility, objectivity, and self-interest", is very easy to see why you did not try to answer my questions in depth in this discussion. You are - and realized that you are - a egoist, and a negative one! It is amazing how those who say they are most concerned about everyone, are the ones who care most about only themselves. Hypocrites using hypocrisy to their advantage - Doublethink! -.

universe's ego — TheMadFool

I'm just talking about the individual egoism of each human being. At no time did I try - or am I trying - to transform it into something that encompasses more things than the individual. I have the slight impression that you are not trying to understand, as you do not agree with my perspectives. No problems, good day/good night.

I'm just talking about the individual egoism of each human being. At no time did I try - or am I trying - to transform it into something that encompasses more things than the individual. I have the slight impression that you are not trying to understand, as you do not agree with my perspectives. No problems, good day/good night — Gus Lamarch

It's likely that I misunderstood you. Sorry. :smile:

Your argument fails where you claim that "egoism is the denial of what is good". Good is simply a projection of the egoism itself — Gus Lamarch

Beauty is part of the good. Surely it does not need egoism to exist? Surely things have value in themselves. How could they need someone's ego to confer value upon them? The good involves recognizing that things in themselves have value. We can love the beauty of the stars without egoism. Love is, in fact, the opposite to egoism.

Another point is that if someone values themselves - egocentrically or otherwise - then why does another person not have value also? Are we to say that the only person who has value is the ego and nobody else has value?

Life is a communication between minds. To be alive the ego must go beyond itself. Life and the love of life, is beyond ego and does not depend on egoism. In fact ego is corrosive of life and love because life looks outward, ego looks inward. Ego is the beginning of evil.

how can an ego be great if it is not complete? How can it be great if it needs something from the outside? You cannot even justify this thread. — JerseyFlight

I read a bit about Ayn Rand. I think her philosophy is nothing more than simple psychoanalysis: made up stuff that is easily refuted.

The dynamic between the love of something for its own sake and egoism is at the heart of the human condition. Some things are so sublime they almost command our admiration with no reference to the ego.

But as I said, the ego attaches itself to almost everything we love purely.
The scientist begins with the love of science, but the temptation towards fame and vanity insinuates itself and the scientist is distracted by worldly fame. Likewise the artist begins with a passion for art but the personality insinuates itself; fame beckons. But fame and fortune are not science nor are they art. They are of the personality and the world. They are ego.

The ego wants to take possession of the object of love. This is a problem.

Also, there is the force of necessity acting on us. We need to eat and have a home and survive and these necessary pressures force us back to number one, ourselves, because we must preserve ourselves and survive. Even the most egoless person must survive and look after number one, out of pure necessity. This is also a problem. We are driven.

The ego is insecure and fear driven; it wants to take and posses things that should be free. Life should be free of all bondages but the ego wants to take possession. This is what the ego is, a desire to possess. But every ego knows it will eventually fail.

Some things are so sublime they almost command our admiration with no reference to the ego. — EnPassant

There is no such thing as "no reference to the ego". Admiration for beauty - love for something other than yourself - is born out of the very human nature of wanting to fulfill your egoism. Admiration is nothing more than one of the infinite possibilities that we - individuals driven by egoism - have and use to make us achieve our purposes. Things exist, and only start to make sense at the level of the individual - in the ego - and that eventually, through communion between egos, creates concepts and comparisons that will be projected as absolute truths to the external world. To say that "something can be sublime to the point of commanding our admiration with no reference to the ego" is the same thing as saying that the physical world can be witnessed through vision to an individual who has never seen and does not even understand the concept of "seeing ". Both would project an inconclusive existence, as they would be imperfect.

the ego attaches itself to almost everything we love purely. — EnPassant

This sentence doesn't make sense because you ignored my argument in a previous answer, that love is also born out of the human ego.

The ego is insecure and fear driven; it wants to take and posses things that should be free. Life should be free of all bondages but the ego wants to take possession. This is what the ego is, a desire to possess. But every ego knows it will eventually fail. — EnPassant

Human egoism cannot have characteristics that only arise from its own use by us - individuals -. Good and bad, security and insecurity, happiness and sadness, all of these and other more characteristics are born from the use of the ego. How egoism will be projected depends on the will of each being, however, I agree on the questions of what the monstrous masses are, what I call as "negative-egoists". People who uncousciously - or consciously - make evil decisions about how to use their egoism.

This sentence doesn't make sense because you ignored my argument in a previous answer, that love is also born out of the human ego. — Gus Lamarch

But this ignores my contention that it can easily be verified that there are things that are beautiful and of value and our admiration of them is simply a recognition of their value. You are saying that nothing has intrinsic beauty or value unless the ego can get something out of it. I disagree.

How egoism will be projected depends on the will of each being, however, I agree on the questions of what the monstrous masses are, what I call as "negative-egoists". — Gus Lamarch

I think it is more correct to say that the ego attaches itself to the things we love: this is what possessiveness means: the ego wants to possess what should simply be loved. I don't disagree with you in the sense that the ego insinuates itself and looks for food. But this insinuation is not necessary to appreciate beauty or value.

You are saying that nothing has intrinsic beauty or value unless the ego can get something out of it — EnPassant

It is not just the fact that the ego wants something of it. "Intrinsic" beauty exists only if the individual - or in the case of the crowd, the individuals - and his ego decides that it has intrinsic value. That same being may not want anything concluding that "something" must have a natural value. For something to be beautiful, egoism has to find it beautiful, but it does not necessarily have to want something of the same beauty.

I think it is more correct to say that the ego attaches itself to the things we love: this is what possessiveness means: the ego wants to possess what should simply be loved. — EnPassant

This vision of yours is tied to the prejudice attributed to egoism, so maybe you see the ego as a cancer, a parasite that destroys everything it touches; the ego is seen as something "evil", dark, which brings disgrace, and removing that layer of prejudice is my goal. Egoism was never a monster, but it was transformed into one by the same "negative-egoists" that I mentioned earlier.

looks for food — EnPassant

Again, the stigma that was stuck with egoism. If we exchange "food" for "purpose" and transform egoism into a motivating and potential force to covet not only the complete change of the individual life that each of us has, but also of eventually, indirectly completely change the perspective of life from all over the world, egoism reveals itself as one of the greatest virtues that man allowed himself to lost. You don't change the world by proejecting the change into others, you don't even change the world! You have only the potencial and purpose of fulfilling your individual life, and that's great, because the world changes only when its people change themselves.