So, first off, I used to be a huge Tolle fan. I had both Power of Now and A New Earth and read both several times. First: He is a terrible writer. I don't recall the vast majority of those works because they were badly organised and didn't provide much by way of systematic information. That's just technical, but may explain gaps in things I'm saying.

Tolle looks at the way ego involves formsof identification... — Jack Cummins

I thikn is his biggest error (ironically). He seems to operate from the premise that ego need be overcome. I mean, if that's your goal, sure, but for most practical goals a human could want, overcoming hte ego is extremely context bound: surrendering some autonomy in order to learn adequately, surrendering self-interest to raise children or a family more generally, setting aside one's ideological commitments in order to assimilate another intimate partner into one's life etc.. etc.. etc..

So, the error is not that Ego causes problems and must be overcome in some sense. But his thesis consistently returns to the idea that, as a species, we must transcend the concept of "i" to avoid suffering. Its repackaged Buddhism, but that side, it doesn't actually work unless you're at least semi-ascetic. Most people can't do this, including his fans.

For instance, "we are right, they are wrong" is factually true most of the time. It's just perhaps unclear who is who. But that doesn't mean we should forego attempts to arrange our selves in service of hte fact.

I feel that Tolle's ideas are important for thinking about human values and the future. — Jack Cummins

Probably true - but they are not en vogue any longer and I don't see a return to a mainstream meditative practice any time soon.

Is ego a stumbling block in philosophy? — Jack Cummins

I think the artificial shedding of 'ego' has lead to the modern phenomenon of absolute bullshit being published constantly. But humility is important - i just seriously doubt shedding humility is analogous to shedding ego.

Not sure I believe in the idea of ego except as a poetic way to organise different aspects of self. Personally I doubt it adds anything to our knowledge of personality and it probably promotes a lot of nonsense. Modern psychology doesn’t seem to use the term.

The use of "ego" seems to always require an arrangement of associations that set the scene for its appearance. Narcissus falls in love with his reflection. The image is not the lover. The myth captures a moment without movement.

In various developmental models, the goal has been to find what happens to everybody. In Lacan, the "specular self" trying to find itself in space and time starts working on a "social self" when it can't. Lacan says one can become less frantic about the gap but never suggests it could be closed.

Jung thinks that the desperate life of the isolated self is in a dialectic with a larger version. There is movement in that model but it is based upon an unmoving underlayment as firm underfoot as the Narcissus myth.

Models of the self by Vygotsky involve learning in the context of other people where the individual and the society are involved with each other from the beginning. Can that approach be set side by side with the Lacanian view? I don't think so. There is not a ring to rule them all.

In considerations of the value of the "self-less" as an aspiration, that has been the hockey putt of thinkers on morality since we learned to disagree with each other. While that thinking may invoke primary human conditions, that should be viewed in a different light from those who can tell you exactly what those are.

What do you think of the value and limits of the ego in life and human thinking. Is ego a stumbling block in philosophy? To what extent has it led to humanity's downfall and is possible to achieve a vision beyond the perspective of egoism? — Jack Cummins

Ego is really 'the self's idea of itself'. I take it to refer to our conscious self-image, how we see or imagine ourselves to be. For Freud ego is the conscious, rational part of the mind that mediates between instinctual desires (the id), moral constraints (the superego), and reality

In spiritual philosophies, such as Eckhart Tolle's, or the popular forms of Indian spirituality from which his ideas are drawn, ego is something to be overcome or released. But then, this is also central to the Christian gospel. Consider such injunctions as 'He who saves his life will loose it, he who looses his life for My sake will be saved' (Matt 16:25). This is clearly an injunction for the sacrifice of self or ego. But in more contemporary terms, it can be understood as relinquishing the inner narrative of 'I, me, mine' and all of the clinging and attachment that comes with it.

Bernadette Roberts’ book is relevant here, because she distinguishes ego-transcendence from the much rarer experience of “no-self,” which she argues is neither moral self-denial nor loss of agency, but a structural shift in subjectivity itself, from within a strictly Christian devotionalism. See 'The Experience of No-Self'.

But you also find many injunctions against egotism in the indian sage Ramana Maharishi, who's entire teaching was grounded in seeing through the illusion of egoic existence.

Of course not all of us can be spiritual renunciates in the sense that they convey. Ego has real value: it enables reasoning, responsibility, creativity, and ethical life. The problem arises when ego becomes totalising — when its perspective is taken as exhaustive of reality. Ego may not be a stumbling block to philosophy as such, but philosophy that never questions the egoic standpoint is something else. Traditions that point toward a “life beyond ego” are valuable not because they negate ordinary human life, but because they reveal the limits of the standpoint we so easily mistake for the whole. So I think it's healthy to recognise those who call to a 'life beyond ego', as it is so radically different to what we generally encounter in an individualistic and 'ego-logical' culture such as ours.

I am not sure that it is how possible to relinquish identification and that is where I do wonder about an error on his part. If anything, his ideas may work better in sustaining those who are experiencing a wounded ego or loss of pride. But, even then, most people hold onto remnants of ego identity. Too much ego loss may be a source for the development of mental illness, so it is a fairly sensitive area. But, of course, those with a strong sense of ego may be the aggressors who wound others' fragile egos.

I had never thought of 'ego' as being a poetic model, but it is, of course bound up with language, especially in the formulation of autobiographical narratives.

As a construct the ego does seem to be about a window of consciousness in relation to the subconscious aspects of human experience. I am not sure to what extent many thinkers in twentieth first century psychology dismiss the ego or the subconscious. Part of the issue may be that there is no distinct boundary between the conscious ego and subconscious memories in the stream of consciousness. There is fluidity. Some may challenge depths beyond the conscious experience of the ego and it is a question of how deep is the human psyche? I am inclined to the view that there are many layers, with ego as a negotiated frame of identity against a background of awareness of an infinite source of potential experience. I am probably drawing more upon the Jungian idea of the collective unconscious behind the persona as the face of the ego, or personal identity.

There are such varying models of the 'self'. This applies in both psychology and philosophy. I am more familiar with the psychodynamic thinking of Freud and Melanie Klein, as well as Jung. As I understand Jung's approach, even though he incorporates Eastern approaches to philosophy he does seem wary of Western people trying to adopt the Eastern model in renunciation of the self. He sees individuation as an important part of life with a more spiritual approach in later life in general.

With regard to moral aspects of going beyond the self I am aware of the discussion about agreement and disagreement about ethics in 'Ethics and Language', by the twentieth century philosopher, Charles Stevenson. He looks at the way in which ethical disagreements are based on different underlying beliefs and attitudes. In considering this here, it may be about the threshold of being able to reflect on conscious beliefs and attitudes and gaining some awareness of the subconscious elements too.

This is the crossover between psychoanalysis and philosophical analysis. I am not sure that this would involve going beyond ego as such but more of an expensive reflection of the spectrum of self identity and what impacts upon it.

I had never thought of 'ego' as being a poetic model, but it is, of course bound up with language, especially in the formulation of autobiographical narratives. — Jack Cummins

I mean it's a defunct idea and now used mainly in literary circles, not in psychology. These days psychology tends to talk of conscious and unconscious processes as interacting cognitive mechanisms, not separate layers of a psyche. Modern research explains identity, memory, and awareness through processes like executive control, attention, and memory systems, making notions of a layered “ego” or collective unconscious metaphorical and now a historical notion. I think some people like the old language because it was used so much in the 20th century by modernists and artists, giving it a powerful poetic legacy.

In my view, ego is an expression of the, often completely legitimate, wants and needs of a person.

We all have wants and needs, and this is not something that ought to be overcome unless you want to travel down a path of complete self-negation (and end up mummified in a Tibetan cave somwhere for later generations to marvel over). One's wants and needs are not illusory at all, and it will have very real consequences if they are systematically neglected.

It is however important to understand, reflect over and control our wants and needs (and thus our ego). Past experiences, societal conditioning, etc. can distort one's mental landscape and cause all sorts of aberrations in that regard.

The association of the ego with something negative is not a healthy thing. It's a form of self-flagellation.

Problematic expressions of the ego can easily be traced back to unmet wants and needs, which is the actual problem - not the ego itself.