No, there is no other experience for the individual than just his own. In that case, putting yourself at the center of all attention is not wrong, because how can it be? If the only way for my “I” to witness the world is through my perspective. In a physiological sense, there is no other way to perceive the world than your own, you are its center, the nexus of all events, learnings, lessons, visions, concepts, etc ... — Gus Lamarch

But this is falling for the Cartesian division in which there is this "self" who represents "the world". So you are taking the self as something that brutely exists. Along with a world that also brutely exists.

A more correct (Kantian, Peircean) psychological view is that self and world are two aspects of the one co-construction.

What brains do is model the world. There is a modelling relation. And that results in a sense of self, a point of view, that stands in contrast as "all that which is not the world".

This is the embodied or enactive story of cognition. You can chew your food without also eating your tongue because you have created a clear sense of self vs not self. And this is something basic to the very possibility of cognition. Even your immune system is making constant self/non-self distinctions at the molecular level.

Then the other side of the coin is that "the world" is not actually the world - the noumenal thing-in-itself - but what semioticians would call your umwelt. Your interpretation. A constructions of signs.

So the world is composed of 3D shapes. Now what would be the true objective experience of a object like a cat? Where should we stand in spacetime to "see it"?

Obviously, we build up our view of the world in terms of being used to seeing the cat at some general distance from one particular angle. We don't see it from all sides at once, at every distance from the other side of the Universe to our nose buried in it fur.

So even in a trivial way, our experience of the world already includes the fact of our embodied viewpoint. We are already in fact experiencing the world as a modelling relationship. We are seeing the cat in terms of a distance and orientation. We are already conscious of how "graspable" it is by "ourselves".

So to get to your point, empathy is completely reasonable for a social animal like a human. Egocentrism would be a failure of neurobiology.

We are evolved to have a consciousness that is "us" in a modelling relationship with a "world" that is full of social significance, and not just physical significance. The world as we are meant to experience it is the one full of cultural and social signs.

A reason for big brains is the need to be able to model our reality in a complex social fashion. Empathy is wired in by greater top-down connectivity between the orbitofrontal cortex and amygdala for instance. We can see it is what we have been designed for (along with the hostility and cold blooded aggression that is also part of our evolved social complexity).

The world is watched by different egos at all times, each individual, with its own central system, its “egocentrism”, yet they continue to deny their own existences. This is perverse work, which has been working hand in hand with nihilism, always moving towards the total perishing of its own identity, the ego. — Gus Lamarch

So I dispute the factual basis of your argument. If you are going to invoke the existence of individual neurobiology, you also have to take account of its species setting.

Science makes the point that any nervous system exists to produce "a self" set against "a world". So nothing really exists as "an egocentric individual" until there develops this state of awareness as an embodied contrast. The self and its world go together as a co-construction.

And then humans have a particular kind of nervous system - one highly evolved for sociality and cultural learning. We also have a whole new kind of self-world making in the semiotics of language. We now speak our worlds - our umwelts - into being.

It doesn't make much sense being "a self" in a world that lacks sociality (with its demand to balance empathy against hostility and other complex judgements).

On the other hand, linguistic culture can indeed construct antisocial and nihilistic worlds for people these days. That is what your post was doing, wasn't it?

So we have now developed that kind of thought freedom. But that doesn't make it good philosophy as it is based on a fundamental failure to understand the actual evolutionary basis of the human mind.

So you are taking the self as something that brutely exists. Along with a world that also brutely exists. — apokrisis

The physical world and the human ego - mind, individual, use the synonym that you prefer - could normaly exist without one another, the point is that on the individual level, it doesn't matter what a- for example - chair is, because it could be - with the individual interpretation - anything that the self wants or needs it to be. We are embarking on the world of pure relativism. You could say, but what isn't pure relativism? Even our scientific knowledge could be completely wrong if the majority of scientists agree that something else is right. What is good, is only good on the egocentric perspective of the person in question, as a simple "gum" is only a gum if the person sees a gum, if not, it is something else but a gum.

So to get to your point, empathy is completely reasonable for a social animal like a human. Egocentrism would be a failure of neurobiology. — apokrisis

Empathy is only moral because people accept it as something good and that should be encouraged. But empathy - if seen from another point of view - could be simply someone portraiting itself to be good for its own advantage. Ex: A cat is up a tree, someone goes there, saves the cat and deliver it to its owner, and now the owner has a positive view on the savior, but the only purporse of the cat beeing saved was the need of the person that saved it to be seen as someone good, and now beeing seen as good, many benefits will befall the "good person". It isn't always counsciously that people make this kind of acts - of being good only for its need of egoism - but everyone does it unconsciously.

We are evolved to have a consciousness that is "us" in a modelling relationship with a "world" that is full of social significance, and not just physical significance. — apokrisis

The mind that was evolved with humanity was lost when we began living sedentarily and in not-nomads societies. The current human consciousness is a construct of millenium of doctrines being stamped unto us from people high on the hiearchy. Ex: Pharao's worship, Heavenly Rulership, Mesopotamia's god fearing, Christianity, Confuscionism, etc... The only thing that survived from the nomad period of humanity is power. - Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.

It doesn't make much sense being "a self" in a world that lacks sociality (with its demand to balance empathy against hostility and other complex judgements). — apokrisis

I'm not saying that empathy, altruism, goodness, compassion, etc... isn't necessary, i'm saying that it is only beeing done because we are egoists that are egocentric.

On the other hand, linguistic culture can indeed construct antisocial and nihilistic worlds for people these days. That is what your post was doing, wasn't it? — apokrisis

If you don't agree with me, ok, but I don't see the need to eventually attack my person.

So we have now developed that kind of thought freedom. But that doesn't make it good philosophy as it is based on a fundamental failure to understand the actual evolutionary basis of the human mind. — apokrisis

Read the answer to the second quote.

I'm not saying that empathy, altruism, goodness, compassion, etc... isn't necessary, i'm saying that it is only beeing done because we are egoists that are egocentric. — Gus Lamarch

You’ve not said anything to rebut my points, just restated your faulty conclusion.

You’ve not said anything to rebut my points, just restated your faulty conclusion. — apokrisis

It seems to me that you haven't been able to read my entire answer. Have a nice day / good night

there is no other experience for the individual than just his own. In that case, putting yourself at the center of all attention is not wrong, because how can it be? If the only way for my “I” to witness the world is through my perspective. In a physiological sense, there is no other way to perceive the world than your own, you are its center, the nexus of all events, learnings, lessons, visions, concepts, etc ... — Gus Lamarch

So by this understanding or fact, the entire OP is something of an autobiography. How could it not be? Hm?

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

Well... I dunno stop doing that and actually care for others for a minute lol :grin:

So by this understanding or fact, the entire OP is something of an autobiography. How could it not be? Hm? — Outlander

And what philosophy, deep down, is nothing more than a mere internal projection to others?

Well... I dunno stop doing that and actually care for others for a minute lol :grin: — Outlander

The cynicism and lack of respect here is really impressive. Have a nice day / good night

The physical world and the human ego - mind, individual, use the synonym that you prefer - could normaly exist without one another... — Gus Lamarch

But this is wrong already. Sensory deprivation experiments demonstrate how depersonalisation sets in once the active relation between self and world is severed.

What I am objecting to is the lack of scientific support for your basic position. That is what you would need to respond to.

Even our scientific knowledge could be completely wrong if the majority of scientists agree that something else is right. — Gus Lamarch

Science isn't right because a bunch of egotists agreed. It is right if a bunch of people find they can use a perspective to control their reality in a shared pragmatic fashion. It is right to the degree that it is a model which achieves "real world" purposes.

Pragmatism isn't relativism. Pragmatism focuses on the modelling relation in which "selves" and "their world" are co-creations - the two ends of the same deal.

That is the evidence-based view that kneecaps your egocentric musings here.

What is good, is only good on the egocentric perspective of the person in question — Gus Lamarch

Not if people have to live in a shared social and cultural reality.

Feral children (reared by wolves, etc) would be your truest egocentrics. But I don't think you would envy them.

For us normal humans, everything about "us" comes by way of our evolutionary history and current cultural circumstances. Even this Romantic notion of the "ego" that is so fashionable.

Empathy is only moral because people accept it as something good and that should be encouraged. But empathy - if seen from another point of view - could be simply someone portraiting itself to be good for its own advantage. — Gus Lamarch

I wasn't making any argument that empathy was "good" - some kind of abstract moral judgement. I was saying it is functional in obvious evolutionary ways. It is a large part of our basis as social creatures.

So trying to argue about whether it is good or merely self-interested is to miss the point in two ways. My argument is based on empathy being "self-interested" as a fact of being a social creature.

Although to forestall further strawmanning, part of the complexity of being a social creature is to also to be able to make "egocentric" calculations as to self-advantage vs group advantage.

So we have some deep-rooted pro-social instincts that are functional, even if apparently contradictory. It is of evolutionary value to both be empathetic and hostile - as a group behaviour. That is, as individual interest groups we can compete with outside interest groups while also, by definition, cooperating as a group.

And then - as we became really complex social animals with our linguistic overlay of symbolic culture - we could really crank up the intricacy of our social relations. We could make the kind of self-interested calculations about personal advantage that you cite - especially as part of that modern creed of individualisation and self-actualisation that is so central to being .... a cog in the modern economic machine with its atomisation of society. :grin:

Congrats if you think that is the right outcome for egocentric Romanticism as an ideology.

The mind that was evolved with humanity was lost when we began living sedentarily and in not-nomads societies. — Gus Lamarch

Nope. The neurobiology and its functionality are still there inside every head.

The current human consciousness is a construct of millenium of doctrines being stamped unto us from people high on the hiearchy. Ex: Pharao's worship, Heavenly Rulership, Mesopotamia's god fearing, Christianity, Confuscionism, etc... The only thing that survived from the nomad period of humanity is power. — Gus Lamarch

Yep. The good old Romanticism schtick. Surely this cod Nietzscherism is getting old. We now have a century of social biology to tell us what actually goes on.

I'm not saying that empathy, altruism, goodness, compassion, etc... isn't necessary, i'm saying that it is only beeing done because we are egoists that are egocentric. — Gus Lamarch

If it is necessary, it is necessary because it is basic to humans as social and cultural creatures. Any selfhood we have arises out of that.

So your individual notion of "self" is secondary to the general socio-cultural model of selfhood prevalent in your neck of the woods. This "you" you claim to be primary is just a member of some crowd. It needs that crowd to exist.

Of course, this crowd may be defined by sharing the same Romantic trope. And it may be functional only in the context of the modern consumer society where "be yourself" is what Apple, Nike and every other expensive crap peddler will empathetically sell you as society's core message.

Or at least that is my argument based on the sociological evidence - the position you are not countering.

No, there is no other experience for the individual than just his own. In that case, putting yourself at the center of all attention is not wrong, because how can it be? — Gus Lamarch

My god man, you live in a Matrix of one. Fella finds a formula to justify the pathology of his egosyntonicness, then labels it as intelligence.

In my humble opinion...

All people, excepting the delusional and those who're hallucinating, are in agreement on what it is that they perceive through the senses - no grounds there for any uniqueness in experience that could define an individual ego.

Then comes the matter of beliefs - there too people behave like birds of the same feather, they flock together.

That exhausts, in my opinion, all that could've defined an individual ego, distinct from another - there can be no such thing as an singular individual distinguishable from the rest. If so egocentrism is an empty concept unless you want to base it on physical features like the contours of your face and body.

Not if people have to live in a shared social and cultural reality. — apokrisis

How so? If the argument you'll use is that what is good and evil is decided not by the individual but from the group that said person lives in, this is wrong. The "absolute" truth is only real because it was constructed by the individuals truths of the people. It is a joint of egoists.

Feral children (reared by wolves, etc) would be your truest egocentrics. But I don't think you would envy them. — apokrisis

I don't see the point of using people who have had no contact with a society to try and contradict my point that the world is infinitely individual. There is no hypothesis, theory, opinion, agreement, decision, etc ... that proves that I can put myself in your shoes and see the world through your eyes. With that point in place, the Universe can only exist to my point of view, my experiences, myself, me - again I affirm the point that this does not apply only to me, but to all individuals, you, my dog, your friend, etc ... - .

For us normal humans, everything about "us" comes by way of our evolutionary history and current cultural circumstances. Even this Romantic notion of the "ego" that is so fashionable. — apokrisis

I still disagree. Our minds could still be the same product of our past nomad ancestry, but through the mending of cultures, new inventions like religion, ideology, and even philosophy, our minds work in a completely different way than the ones from our ancestors.

I wasn't making any argument that empathy was "good" - some kind of abstract moral judgement. I was saying it is functional in obvious evolutionary ways. It is a large part of our basis as social creatures. — apokrisis

Humanity is naturally egoistic, good and evil, are just ways of projecting this egoism to the world.

- especially as part of that modern creed of individualisation and self-actualisation that is so central to being .... a cog in the modern economic machine with its atomisation of society. :grin: — apokrisis

Not so modern, we already experienced these "creed" of "individualisation" and "self-actualisation" at least 3 times during recorded human history: Bronze Age - 3.000 BC to 1100 BC - Classical Age - 900 BC to 476 AD - and our "modern" period - 1453 to present -. People forget how lucky we are from living in a period where you and I can chat about different opinions without being killed our being exiled - although we are beginning to see the symptoms of the end -. Individualisation is ending by becoming mundane, the ego is again being misrepresented. And if the point of this comment was to try to somehow denigrate my thinking by putting it as something "created by the consumer industry", I saw it, and it didn't work. - Just to make it clear -

Nope. The neurobiology and its functionality are still there inside every head. — apokrisis

Read the answer to the third quote.

If it is necessary, it is necessary because it is basic to humans as social and cultural creatures. Any selfhood we have arises out of that. — apokrisis

Its only necessary because we created this necessity. Think about it.

This "you" you claim to be primary is just a member of some crowd. It needs that crowd to exist. — apokrisis

The crowd only exists because the individual exists, without it the crowd is nothing but a concept. The individual - so, the ego - is the core of human society. We wouldn't create complex concepts, inventions, technologies if we didn't need them for doing something that would realize ourselves individually.

"be yourself" is what Apple, Nike and every other expensive crap peddler will empathetically sell you as society's core message. — apokrisis

"Be yourself", and everyone looks the same boring gray. I don't know why you compared me - or at least thought about comparing - to that type of person. I tell people to be selfish, not decadent, rotten hypocritical consumers who embrace the status quo.

My god man, you live in a Matrix of one. Fella finds a formula to justify the pathology of his egosyntonicness, then labels it as intelligence. — JerseyFlight

Attacking a person you don't even know is your way of presenting your arguments to me? Well, welcome!

All people, excepting the delusional and those who're hallucinating, are in agreement on what it is that they perceive through the senses - no grounds there for any uniqueness in experience that could define an individual ego. — TheMadFool

Just the fact that no other individual can feel and witness what another individual feels and witnesses. What we have are just theories, but there is no way I can feel what you felt 20 years ago, or are feeling now reading this. The individual is the ego, is unique in its experience.

Then comes the matter of beliefs - there too people behave like birds of the same feather, they flock together. — TheMadFool

The flock only exist because of the individual, without it the crowd, flock, pack, etc... is a empty concept.

In my humble opinion... — TheMadFool

Finally a person that didn't attack me in the first comment. Thank you for your cordiality.

Just the fact that no other individual can feel and witness what another individual feels and witnesses. What we have are just theories, but there is no way I can feel what you felt 20 years ago, or are feeling now reading this. The individual is the ego, is unique in its experience — Gus Lamarch

What constitutes the uniqueness of my experience if not as one filtered through my beliefs and no one has a monoply on beliefs, right? You and I could have the same beliefs and if we do, my experience and your experience will not differ to such an extent that the two of us could be distinguished and seen as two and not one individual.

The notion of a unique ego or self has to contend with the fact that beliefs and circumstances go hand in hand in shaping our experience of the world and both beliefs and circumstances are not unique to a single individual but constitute a shared universe and being so, there'll always be more than one individual with the exact same sense of self/ego which is to say egocentrism understood as an individual thinking of him/herself as distinct from everybody else is an impossibility.

The flock only exist because of the individual, without it the crowd, flock, pack, etc... is a empty concept. — Gus Lamarch

How so? The flock/pack/crowd is only possible if attributes are shared i.e. no single individual can stake a claim on the attributes in question as their own personal possession.

Finally a person that didn't attack me in the first comment. Thank you for your cordiality. — Gus Lamarch

:smile:

What constitutes the uniqueness of my experience if not as one filtered through my beliefs and no one has a monoply on beliefs, right? You and I could have the same beliefs and if we do, my experience and your experience will not differ to such an extent that the two of us could be distinguished and seen as two and not one individual.

The notion of a unique ego or self has to contend with the fact that beliefs and circumstances go hand in hand in shaping our experience of the world and both beliefs and circumstances are not unique to a single individual but constitute a shared universe and being so, there'll always be more than one individual with the exact same sense of self/ego which is to say egocentrism understood as an individual thinking of him/herself as distinct from everybody else is an impossibility. — TheMadFool

I still cannot see how would you perceive the universe in another shoes. You could compare your experiences, feelings, etc... with other people, but that would not make you less unique. You would still be the only one to be you, see as you do, be your own self.

How so? The flock/pack/crowd is only possible if attributes are shared i.e. no single individual can stake a claim on the attributes in question as their own personal possession. — TheMadFool

Can I share the feeling of my leg to you? Can you feel it as I do, can you touch it as I do? I think not. I can't "share" myself with anyone but myself.

I still cannot see how would you perceive the universe in another shoes. You could compare your experiences, feelings, etc... with other people, but that would not make you less unique. You would still be the only one to be you, see as you do, be your own self. — Gus Lamarch

Ok. Let's do a survey of "individuals" to get a handle on the issue. Isaac Newton developed the theory of gravity and many other scientists and ordinary people too followed in his footsteps, up until Einstien that is, and believed it too. The purported distinguishing feature that defined Newton was then not unique to Newton, right? How can Newton claim a unique sense of identity when many others believed the exact same thing - gravity - as he did? That's the mental aspect of the matter.

Now come to the physical. You and I both would cry out in pain if we fell from a high enough place due to gravity, no? In other words, in the physical sense, our perceptions are identical and shared between us and with other people. Where's the unique identity that differentiates you, I and others in this?

I guess what I'm saying is that there are only so many shoemakers in town and sooner or later you'll meet someone wearing the same shoes as you are and in that we lose our uniqueness, our identity - egocentrism has no leg to stand on.

Doesn't all these kind of discussions spin down to some guys having a lot of mirror neurons and some not?

The "absolute" truth is only real because it was constructed by the individuals truths of the people. It is a joint of egoists. — Gus Lamarch

My perspective is based on the dynamic of competition~cooperation. So it recognises “egotism” over many scales of social organisation without lapsing into claims that self interest is purely a matter of individual psychology.

I don't see the point of using people who have had no contact with a society to try and contradict my point that the world is infinitely individual. — Gus Lamarch

The point is that your “individuality” only exists in opposition to “sociality”. You could never have come to your views unless they were already widely entrenched as a cultural meme that you could learn and pretend to be implementing.

I still disagree. Our minds could still be the same product of our past nomad ancestry, but through the mending of cultures, new inventions like religion, ideology, and even philosophy, our minds work in a completely different way than the ones from our ancestors. — Gus Lamarch

But I already say that we have become culturally very different. However the neurology underpinning empathy still exists.

Not so modern, we already experienced these "creed" of "individualisation" and "self-actualisation" at least 3 times during recorded human history — Gus Lamarch

Sure. Culture evolves. Ancient Greece was especially important for shaping the modern cultural notion of the rational and democratic polis.

Out of curiosity, what were you thinking of as a Bronze Age step towards the social invention of individuality? [Edit: Gilgamesh?]

The crowd only exists because the individual exists, without it the crowd is nothing but a concept. — Gus Lamarch

Again my own position is based on the interaction between the individual and the social group. I just say that societies need to create the right kind of individuals if they are going to persist. So the causality is switched around here. The individual only exist to the degree that “the crowd” supports that as a functional concept. (Or to the degree the crowd can afford to be indifferent to individual variety.)

. I don't know why you compared me - or at least thought about comparing - to that type of person. I tell people to be selfish, not decadent, rotten hypocritical consumers who embrace the status quo. — Gus Lamarch

I was pointing out why the slogans “be yourself”, “because you are worth it”, “stand out from the crowd”, “feel the power”, and a thousand other ad punchlines push the same social message.

What is the right way to be individual? That might have a lot to do with traditional ideas around stoicism, rationalism, personal responsibility and other pro-social cultural attitudes.

But when is “be selfish” ever a recipe for success? Maybe you can explain.

And again, my own position - based on social systems theory - is that individually it is perfectly fine to be making rational calculations of personal good vs collective good. The intelligence of the system as a whole is founded on a capacity for such trade offs.

So what I have objected to is just a one sided stance of “be selfish” that speaks to half the story.

The ego is an illusion based on past experiences and future aspirations. It is literally worthless and the cause of much personal grief. If one is interested in happiness for oneself or others, the ego should be regarded with nothing but suspicion.

Attacking a person you don't even know is your way of presenting your arguments to me? — Gus Lamarch

What I said was based on your own premises. You are, by far, the worst person I have ever encountered on this forum. You are a raving narcissist, completely ignorant of the fact that any quality you possess came through the medium of a social process. I hope you continue to get crushed on here. TheMadFool has already demonstrated gigantic gaps in your dogmatism. Woe to those who fall across your path; woe to those who consider you a guide! Self-assertion is not the same as intelligence.

You aint too introverted, right?

Is there a way to perceive the world, the Universe, from someone else's perspective? — Gus Lamarch

Isn’t that what empathy is? The web definition is ‘ the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.’ Certainly everyone is different, but difference does not necessarily mean division.

empathy is nothing more than a tool to project your own ego on others, whether in a positive or negative way, it no longer depends of my person. — Gus Lamarch

Oh, poor me. Something which is not dependent on me. Let’s kill it.

Empathy is only moral because people accept it as something good and that should be encouraged. But empathy - if seen from another point of view - could be simply someone portraiting itself to be good for its own advantage. Ex: A cat is up a tree, someone goes there, saves the cat and deliver it to its owner, and now the owner has a positive view on the savior, but the only purporse of the cat beeing saved was the need of the person that saved it to be seen as someone good, and now beeing seen as good, many benefits will befall the "good person". It isn't always counsciously that people make this kind of acts - of being good only for its need of egoism - but everyone does it unconsciously. — Gus Lamarch

Ok, i want you to blank out your mind and let go of your determination to defend your original idea. Done that? Good.

Now, in order in this paragraph, you use the words people, something good, seen from another point of view, cat, tree, the owner has a positive view, purpose, cat being saved, need of the person that saved it, be seen as someone good, being seen as good, many benefits befall the "good person". Literally every one of those concepts is fully constructed on your personal belief in the existence of a physical world that you share with other minds and beings. You even constructed a little society of two people and a cat.

So to paraphrase your last sentence, some people consciously attempt to deny anything but their own ego, but unconsciously every one if them knows they are wrong.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are only so many shoemakers in town and sooner or later you'll meet someone wearing the same shoes as you are and in that we lose our uniqueness, our identity - egocentrism has no leg to stand on. — TheMadFool

I, again affirm: - There is no way in reality that you could feel, perceive, live, etc ... as someone else, just compare your experiences and accept - in a way - that both are equal, however, nothing can be me except me. Individuality - or the ego, as I put it - is born and dies with its own.

My perspective is based on the dynamic of competition~cooperation. So it recognises “egotism” over many scales of social organisation without lapsing into claims that self interest is purely a matter of individual psychology. — apokrisis

"Egotism" is not the same as "egoism". "Egotism" is bad, "egoism" is the nature of the human being..

The point is that your “individuality” only exists in opposition to “sociality”. You could never have come to your views unless they were already widely entrenched as a cultural meme that you could learn and pretend to be implementing. — apokrisis

Sociability is a creation of the human ego itself. To benefit- and also benefit those closest to me - remembering that selfishness can also be used to benefit others - - I participate in a community with other entities similar to me, and they all work together - in the matter of society -. My point of view was not born through memes, but through a research base in existentialist philosophies. Memes don't build thoughts - even though most people today take them seriously -.

Out of curiosity, what were you thinking of as a Bronze Age step towards the social invention of individuality? [Edit: Gilgamesh?] — apokrisis

The first point that we can claim to have had a "globalized" society was during the Akkadian Empire - 2334 BC to 2154 BC - where the whole known world - practicaly mesopotamia at the time - was under one state and a free person could travel and make business through cities like Ur to all the way up to Assur, and bilingualism became widespread with the use of both Sumer and Akkadian.

Again my own position is based on the interaction between the individual and the social group. I just say that societies need to create the right kind of individuals if they are going to persist. So the causality is switched around here. The individual only exist to the degree that “the crowd” supports that as a functional concept. (Or to the degree the crowd can afford to be indifferent to individual variety.) — apokrisis

Of course, a society may well develop the right individuals so that it becomes eternal, however, one of the consequences of this individualization is the creation of individuals aware of themselves and their surroundings, individuals who would no longer seek the realization of society through their actions, but the realization of their individual purposes. Civilization in a way - to function perfectly - kills this natural selfishness of the human being. The human being is naturally egocentric, selfish, and that is not a bad thing, it is something that makes him even richer, and is the engine of our entire existence. We exist to be.

But when is “be selfish” ever a recipe for success? Maybe you can explain. — apokrisis

I can give you an example of that:


You are poor, or even miserable; empathy, humbleness, and other of these "virtues" would not help you out of this state at all. What would benefit you most would be the act of focusing on yourself, getting a job in some way, doing things that otherwise would be seen with evil eyes - like leaving your family, your friends aside, but not because you are evil, and yes because the purpose of getting out of this miserable state is greater -. You work, you even change your personality - in a way, all the people you have a good relationship with today only have that kind of relationship with you because you are what you are, a drastic change in thinking, way of acting, can make that many will not be ble to cope with this breach of comfort - and eventually - over days, months, years, etc ... - manage to turn the corner and become a very successful person, financially stable, etc... This person's act of selfishness was to focus only on what he needed at the moment, now, having realized his needs - in a way - that person could very well be an empathic, charitable, kind person, but only because he can and not because it's the rule. Also, all these virtuous acts - unconsciously, or consciously - are done selfishly - you help others not because you love them, but because seeing them well accomplishes you individually -.

The ego is an illusion based on past experiences and future aspirations. It is literally worthless and the cause of much personal grief. If one is interested in happiness for oneself or others, the ego should be regarded with nothing but suspicion. — Tzeentch

Egoism is the nature of humanity. You'd not have come here to say this, if it wasn't fulfiling you individually.

Oh, poor me. Something which is not dependent on me. Let’s kill it. — Wayfarer

I'm not saying this, but ok.

Now, in order in this paragraph, you use the words people, something good, seen from another point of view, cat, tree, the owner has a positive view, purpose, cat being saved, need of the person that saved it, be seen as someone good, being seen as good, many benefits befall the "good person". Literally every one of those concepts is fully constructed on your personal belief in the existence of a physical world that you share with other minds and beings. You even constructed a little society of two people and a cat. — Pro Hominem

The point is that you cannot be the cat, or the tree, or the street, but only yourself. I can't feel what you're feeling, as you can't feel what I'm feeling right now. From your point of view, the world spins around you, as it does to me.

Also, all these virtuous acts - unconsciously, or consciously - are done selfishly - you help others not because you love them, but because seeing them well accomplishes you individually -. — Gus Lamarch

You here deny the reality of love. I think I can see why. Love as a pure ideal is an unadulterated selflessness of being, is being sans ego; and, in practice, the degree of love one holds for other(s) will in due measure make one less selfish and more selfless in respect to those loved. I’m not here talking about having the hots for another, nor about love of inanimate objects like money or ice cream. I’m talking about compassion, valuing of another not as an instrument toward one’s own selfish interests but for their own sake as fellow beings, and the like. When we willingly risk and sometimes sacrifice the welfare of our own self for some other solely out of a desire that they are not harmed, this is the effect of love in dire times. And with love comes first an openness and then a craving to see the world through someone else’s eyes. When mutually shared, love binds egos into a greater self. Such that when one’s loved child, parent, lover, or friend dies so too dies a part of one’s own self.

In short, you’re denying the reality of love because love is the destroyer of ego in beings that yet are. And this runs counter to the thesis you’re presenting.

Do correct me if I’m wrong regarding your stance on love.

Ps. I say this without denying that first-person points of view are just that. But when we close our eyes and stop focusing on specific percepts of the external world, we can find ourselves being of the same (or nearly the same) first person point of view as others in terms of the values and beliefs which define what might well be our core identity.

Egoism is the nature of humanity. — Gus Lamarch

Perhaps it is the nature of your humanity.

You'd not have come here to say this, if it wasn't fulfiling you individually. — Gus Lamarch

I believe what is truly good for the individual is also good for the whole.

Do correct me if I’m wrong regarding your stance on love. — javra

Loving is the act of using - and being used - as an object by another selfish individual other than yours; the unique existence cries out for the experience of others and for the tear in the factory of the universe that makes you "owner of your self" and, at the same time, to be able - in prolonged moments of conscience - to tolerate - and to be tolerated - and to understand - and be understood - that the other is not and cannot be part of what makes you unique and be able to deal with that fact.