I think that you are going to feel bombarded by all the responses you have, and all the startling, offbeat ones.


I had noticed that you had not posted on this site for a long while, and had thought that you had become completely fed up with this site. If nothing else, perhaps all the responses you are getting, suggests that your whole philosophy of egoism is an important area, worthy of debate.

As far as I am aware, I am not sterile — Jack Cummins

I hope I am. Literally zero downside that I can see.

For example, I have gone into a pub, with a book, wishing to be left alone , just to be given space to read and, despite the social distancing rules, I have been told to move, to make way for groups. — Jack Cummins

The fact that we have intrinsic social capacities does not necessitate that everything we do must be social: we have other (more selfish) drives as well as other wants and needs. Hunger, for instance. It just means that, whatever we do, we have some social consideration. When you read your book in the pub, you probably assume that you'll be left alone because 'alone with book' signals 'doesn't want to chat about football'. That's a dependence on social awareness right there. And if you see that the woman next to you leaves her purse when she goes, you're probably going to holler after her even though you could totally get away with pretending not to have noticed (altruism) because, shoe on other foot, you'd want people to do the same for you +reciprocal altruism).

I think it is about self interest, but with a need to respect others.

Right now, the rules are that I can buy a drink if I buy food. So, reading a book is okay if I eat and drink, but becoming fat would be worse than sterility. I do get involved in philosophy discussion sometimes in the process, which is far better than football, although music is my football.

But I don't want to mess up Gus's thread any longer with the narcissistic aspects of my own ego. But I do believe in the importance of the ego, so I am trying to argue in favour of the argument of the post thread, and the importance of the individual.

So was I. An individual is a single, a single is one, and one is a fundamental unity. The common meaning of "individual" is a fundamental unity. You might say that an "individual" is a person. But isn't this exactly what a person is, a fundamental unity? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't quite see where you get the unity aspect from. And I think the concepts of single and multitude are mutually dependant. They only become intelligible in conjunction with the other. If there was only one of a kind of entity, we wouldn't call it a "single entity", we'd call it by it's name. Just like we'd not call someone named "Jason" a "single Jason" unless there was some need to differentiate.

At this point you seem to concur, that the existence of the group is caused by the existence of the individuals. But if this is the case, that the capacity, or propensity for empathy is prior to the group which it produces, it creates a perplexity. Why are individual living beings naturally endowed with a propensity toward creating groups? — Metaphysician Undercover

From an evolutionary perspective, it seems like some kind of gathering would have had to come first. A random mutation for sociability wouldn't benefit a species unless they were interacting in some way.

From an evolutionary perspective, it seems like some kind of gathering would have had to come first. A random mutation for sociability wouldn't benefit a species unless they were interacting in some way. — Echarmion

What do you mean by “random mutation for sociability”? A mutation of what?

In one of my posts I mentioned “ Before the community, or tribe, he was an animal trying to survive from one day to the next.” But having thought about it that seems a bit far fetched. I had imagined this lone creature struggling alone within an inhospitable existence. But I don’t see how that creature could survive like that. Nor is there any reason for that creature to leave the security of its family. So if a creature is born, already endowed with a sense of empathy, within a small social group, being the family, then I can’t see what sort of mutation might have brought people together. It seems to me that just human warmth would be enough to perpetuate feelings of security among others.

Edit: and of course the natural inclination towards empath thrives in a group that practices it.

I don't quite see where you get the unity aspect from. — Echarmion

I told you where i get the unity aspect from. Individual is defined as single, and single is defined as one, which is define as a unit, or unity. Therefore an individual is a unity. Can you imagine the possibility of an individual which is not a unity?

And I think the concepts of single and multitude are mutually dependant. — Echarmion

This is quite clearly incorrect. To understand what a multitude is requires that one understand what as a single, or individual is, because a multitude is made up of singles. But one need not understand what a multitude is in order to understand what a single is. That is why we learn what one is, and even how to count, what two is, and what three is, before we learn what a multitude is. It's only through philosophical inquiry when we ask what's the difference between one and the other numbers, that we compare the concepts of single and multitude.

If there was only one of a kind of entity, we wouldn't call it a "single entity", we'd call it by it's name. Just like we'd not call someone named "Jason" a "single Jason" unless there was some need to differentiate. — Echarmion

Each entity is a single entity, and this is how we can assign a name to it, by recognizing it as an individual. There is no need to understand the meaning of "multiplicity", or "plurality" in order to recognize an entity as an individual, and give it a name and distinguish it form other entities which are recognized as individuals as well. In other words, we recognize things as individuals, and name them as such, long before we learn how to recognize individuals as part of a group. We even learn how to count individuals before we learn how to distinguish members of a group

From an evolutionary perspective, it seems like some kind of gathering would have had to come first. A random mutation for sociability wouldn't benefit a species unless they were interacting in some way. — Echarmion

From an evolutionary perspective, a single-celled organism came first. Putting aside the question of abiogenesis, or how the first organism came into existence, we need to consider why a single-celled organism evolved into a multi-celled organism. There appears to be no survival advantage in moving from simple to complex, so associating "benefit" with survival cannot be supported, if making one organism out of numerous cells is supposed to be a benefit. Likewise, the benefit of sociability must be something other than survival.

and individualism is a recent invention. — Echarmion

I believe that the individual is the fundamental threat to the group, despite being inherently required for the group, hence the insistence by the group to subjugate the individual. — Book273

I think you’re right there, even though I find myself resisting and considering the value of “the individual” as an essential element within the group. But of course, let’s call it “the cult of individuality” would perpetuate the idea that the group cannot survive or grow without the genius of the individual.
Because it does serve the egotism of people, that “I’m important”, simply by being. Which is why business can sell ripped jeans for hundreds of dollars. And of course I don’t want to give up my sense of individuality. In someways it’s a sort of pretentious anarchy. Once again it serves the ego.

If nothing else, perhaps all the responses you are getting, suggests that your whole philosophy of egoism is an important area, worthy of debate. — Jack Cummins

It is a fascinating issue. It is concentrated or purified romanticism. Both Christ and Socrates are individual heroes. But with artists it's even more concentrated. The product is a singular, nonfungible entity, an irreplaceable personality. The 21st century entrepreneur has a Youtube channel and lives their brand, is their brand. Yeah, it's all paid for by ads, but at the center is the mystique of genius.

This also came to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People Or we can consider Anthem, and watch how the pronoun 'I' is rediscovered by the 'we'-drugged protagonist.

Also it's kind of you to speak up as you do above, just in case someone is feeling persecuted. But I suspect that egoism feeds on that kind of misunderstanding. The last thing the egoist wants is the banality of egoism.

hence the insistence by the group to subjugate the individual. "The good of the many outweigh the good of the one", "the greater good", etc. With the determination of the self, as an independent entity and unattached to the group, comes the threat that said determination may spread throughout the group, reducing the engagement in the group and weakening the group. — Book273

Do you think this is the reason people want to fit in so badly or is there something else going on?

but I am wondering how do you define the ego? — Jack Cummins

Natural egoism arises together with the conception of the Being to existence, that is, the ego is part of what makes us beings of the form, way, way of being, and all perception, meaning, and existence, is felt through our free conscience towards the use of our own egoism.

Does this mean that we are all already destined to do acts only for the sake of self-interest? Yes, however, how each individual will project his nature into existence, its a unique choice of each Being.

Egoism is not a projection of our ideas, concepts, subjections, prepositions, languages, and not even of our consciousness of Being, but rather all of this arises from egoism that comes into existence with existence itself.

You care about yourself, right? Wish to survive, live, and thrive? Others wish to do the same. Tell me, exactly how much land, resources, and people do you think you could protect on your own? How much can the larger group protect? So, by protecting the larger group and being selfless, you protect yourself and your own freedom to be selfish. Ironic, I suppose. — Outlander

The fact that you seem to deny is that the group is only conceived if the individual's will decides to grant it conceptual life. Obviously, if two beings with the same goals and purposes - like 1 and 1, where both complete the same goal - add or subtract 1 - - come together, the tendency is for them to unite. My point is that the root of all interpersonal relationships is not the community, but the individual.

I think that you are going to feel bombarded by all the responses you have, and all the startling, offbeat ones. — Jack Cummins

In no way. The only answers I give my attention to are those that really seek (1) or answer my questions differently, or (2) deepen my questions, or (3) refute my question. And until now, the good answers are overshadowing the bad ones.

I had noticed that you had not posted on this site for a long while, and had thought that you had become completely fed up with this site. — Jack Cummins

I am like this in this forum: - I come and go like dead leaves in the wind. There are hiatuses like death and moments of great participation like life.

I probably won't have the same presence I had before for now, as I'm focused on other projects - aka, my second book -

My point is that the root of all interpersonal relationships is not the community, but the individual. — Gus Lamarch

In the afterlife, there will be no marriage. We'll all be well-rounded self-pleasuring hermaphrodites. Or Hamlet jokes something along those lines. I suggest that your 'individual' is a quasi-theological figure or fiction, a repetition of the God image.

In fact we are animals programmed to die, and generally given only half of the species' reproductive technology. If we consider ourselves the divine ape, it's because we can bind time with language, which is essentially a shared institution. It's true that some kind of grand autonomy is the goal for those in our culture at least.

Obviously, if two beings with the same goals and purposes - like 1 and 1, where both complete the same goal - add or subtract 1 - - come together, the tendency is for them to unite. — Gus Lamarch

Two beings with the same goals and purposes are basically one being in two bodies. Or are we to take their location in separate bodies terribly seriously? More than just about anything else perhaps, we humans seek to recognize and be recognized, to be understood.

To me it seems that the higher egoist wants to share in an especially pure vision of autonomy. Let's say I think I'm a genius, a soaring eagle. Of course the rabble won't understand me. But the difference between one and none is immense. 'Some are born posthumously.' Born when finally recognized by some tiny, elite, community to come. Life finally lived in the afterlife after all.

I think it is about self interest, but with a need to respect others. — Jack Cummins

I disagree, science disagrees too, but what you're describing is already social. If we have a need to respect others, we are social animals.

Probably by even communicating on this forum we are social animals.

If we did not respect others at all, life would be constant war and conflict every moment, as everywhere we go we have to meet others, bigger and stronger, like in the school playground.

Yes, I think that your idea of ego makes a lot of sense, especially when you say that, 'egoism comes into existence with existence itself'. Here, it can be seen as being like a driving force within the human being, because, of course, you are speaking of humanity, who have evolved with language and reflective consciousness.

I see your perspective as being more in line with the existentialist vision rather than the psychoanalyst. The question which I am left with is whether your perspective is descriptive or prescriptive? We are all striving for our own pathways of existence and does this mean that it is the way it is, or that we should seek to make sure that this can happen?

Perhaps it is a good thing if the rights of the individual can be seen as important rather than the collective needs of groups being seen as primary. Perhaps we have been living in a world which places value on institutions, especially the family. We cannot just assume that we all living in little, happy communities.

Generally, I tend to be on the edge between an existential and psychological viewpoint. If anything I would wonder if Jung's idea of the shadow touches upon the whole area of egoism because he speaks of the way in which socialisation forces us to repress important aspects of ourselves, and that we need to reclaim some of these repressed elements which are a shadow, not inherently bad, but if left unconscious, can be destructive. Perhaps we repress some of our essential egoist elements and this can result in depression and despair, or destruction tendencies.

I wish you the best for writing your new book. I have writing on this site, almost compulsory, since I found it in September. But I cannot imagine that I will do this always, because I will want to get on with my own creative projects as well. But in the meantime, having never been on a forum before, it is a wonderful means of communicating idea with people from many cultures, and it makes a change for me, used to writing in my notebooks.

If we did not respect others at all, life would be constant war and conflict every moment, as everywhere we go we have to meet others, bigger and stronger, like in the school playground. — Jack Cummins

I agree, but I think that is a need arising from being in a society, not a need to be social in the first place, i.e. it is circumstantial. More fundamentally, we have a drive to be altruistic that, though tempered by the precise social structures and modes we inhabit (which are not conducive to reciprocal altruism), are nonetheless part of what we are (bar some exceptional edge cases). Respect is a manifestation of this: treating others as we would wish to be treated, although the precise treatment (how I wish to be treated in a given circumstance) could be quite arbitrary.

Precisely, we don't all want to be treated in the exact same way. That is where difficulties of social contracts come in.

In speaking of universalisation, we almost getting back to Kant's categorical imperative, of considering the idea of considering the universalition of principles, of everyone doing a certain act, such as lying. However, he was concerned primarily with moral duty and intention as the main principle rather practical consequences.

But your point is valid. So, how are we meant to find practical means to overcome our individual egos battling for attention and importance in the jungle of life? Even if people with common goals unite they may still be minorities, overshadowed by majorities who disagree, as the history of politics show us. And, this year and all the conundrums arising has been the most turbulent ever, in recent history.

I find it difficult to ascertain why people want to fit in so badly. I am unconcerned about fitting in at this stage, experience has demonstrated that I will not be successful even if I attempted to and I long ago lost the urge to try.

I constantly strive to understand the "why" of trying to fit in. It seems to be based primarily on perceived inadequacy of the individual trying to fit it, as if by not fitting in "they will be found out" and then their created world would implode, or some equally horrific result will come about.

My questioning in this area has yielded a multitude of answers that boil down to "because not fitting in is bad, because it means you don't fit in with the group." Clarity here would be appreciated. Being an outlier creates anxiety in everyone except those of us that are ok with it. Not very helpful.

hence the insistence by the group to subjugate the individual. "The good of the many outweigh the good of the one", "the greater good", etc. With the determination of the self, as an independent entity and unattached to the group, comes the threat that said determination may spread throughout the group, reducing the engagement in the group and weakening the group.
— Book273

Do you think this is the reason people want to fit in so badly or is there something else going on? — Brett

I constantly strive to understand the "why" of trying to fit in. It seems to be based primarily on perceived inadequacy of the individual trying to fit it, as if by not fitting in "they will be found out" and then their created world would implode, or some equally horrific result will come about. — Book273

You seem to be saying that the problem of fitting in is a problem that the individual has with themselves. That once their inadequacy is revealed their world will implode. Are you saying that you think that of the individual or that the community thinks that?

My questioning in this area has yielded a multitude of answers that boil down to "because not fitting in is bad, because it means you don't fit in with the group." — Book273

We may have reached a point where traditional ideas, evolutionary ideas, on community and the individual have reached a point of no real relevance. People really don’t feel they need others to survive. What was once done by the community is now done by the government. Add to that the influence of technology and we have a very atomised community. So how can people relate to ideas of the individual and community?

Originally the individual and the community operated on one hand washing the other. The individual contributed to creating a community, the community offered the individual permanence and security to grow, and so on.

It’s possible the inadequacy one feels in not fitting is a very existential moment. Living completely alone with no contact with others over a long period of time does have an effect. We simply need each other, even if we can’t stand each other.

the root of all interpersonal relationships is not the community, but the individual. — Gus Lamarch

Define interpersonal.