The ego is an illusion; being so, it can't die because it's not alive. Does a stone die?

I think self and ego are not the same. The self is one's individuality, the ego is self-ish or self-centered. Love looks out and loves what is not self: one loves poetry, art, nature, another being... these are not self. Ego looks inward and loves the self. Love and ego are opposites. Too much inward looking ego becomes pathological; the megalomaniac, the tyrant etc.

How exactly is the ego an illusion? People say that a lot but is there a way to truly know?

one loves poetry, art, nature, another being... these are not self. — EnPassant

Well they are self though in that they are what one "likes" which is a personal thing. I don't think there is such a thing as being truly selfless as everything is motivated by some level of egoic desire.

A person cannot experience ego death if they cease to exist as a separate entity. — hopeful

I think these sorts of terms are poetic understandings and not to be taken literally.

How exactly is the ego an illusion? People say that a lot but is there a way to truly know? — TerraHalcyon

The ego is an illusion to the extent it can't be zeroed in on. Can you tell me what's your ego? Is it your body? Is it your mind? Quid sit?

Can you tell me what's your ego? Is it your body? — Agent Smith

Exactly! It's your body. You walk and talk between the world and your brain.

If the ego talks to itself, who does the talking or who does it talk to? Who is it even? The root of identity crisis. Who am I? What's ego? The body. All problems solved. So no illusion at all.

Exactly! It's your body — Raymond

Not all will agree I'm afraid.

Not all will agree I'm afraid. — Agent Smith

Thats true.

The self is certainly an illusion, at least in terms of the perception of separation. We generally believe in ultimate unity.

Disagreements in an illusory world do not truly matter, so no worries ;)

The self is certainly an illusion — DA671

Then who wrote these words, if it wasn't you? Or is "you" equally illusionary? The illusion seems pretty real. I think the ego is called an illusion to counteract the egoism present in our world.

The ego is an illusion to the extent it can't be zeroed in on — Agent Smith

This is the root of the identity crisis. Who am I? Every time you think you have found yourself, it slips away. Why can't you zero in in on yourself? Because you stand always one step behind it? There only is one you. Not you and you looking at it.

It was "I", but it really wasn't anybody in a fundamental sense. However, it's impossible to live one's life not interacting with the world as it appears to us. The illusion is certainly quite real.

Perhaps we cannot look truly "look" at us from a bird's eye view because there isn't any possibility of a duality in perspective. Advaita: Not two :)

It was "I", but it really wasn't anybody in a fundamental sense — DA671

Nobody is fundamental. We are all children of the universe, created by the eternal beings. If you want to make an illusion out of that, no problem. :wink:

Nobody is fundamental indeed, because the distinction between everybody and nobody isn't as easy to make. For us, eternity is certainly a characteristic of the ultimate reality, though it's also dynamic. ;)

Nobody is fundamental indeed, because the distinction between everybody and nobody isn't as easy to make — DA671

I see what you mean. No one is unique, contrary to what commercials show you. In that sense the ego is illusionary. Only isolated egos are unique.

Agreed. Unbridled individualism can blind us.

Yes, indeed. Just like unbridled collectivism. Attention to the individual might blind us for other people and can lead to nasty behavior towards other people (or lack of contact). Attention to the collective only can lead to nasty behavior towards the individual. So both can lead to nasty behavior. The collective, as well as the individual, are abstractions in the sense that they don't have an independent existence, and any claim on individuality or collectivity is a claim that ignores reality.

Exactly! People tend to gravitate from one extreme to another these days. I think it's necessary to have a balanced perspective.

I think there is a difference between the sense of self and the self itself. — hopeful

It would be useful to have some context for particularly the notion of ego death. If people talk about in descriptions of NDEs etc, it because it is a term familiar from elsewhere.

Ego death is a "complete loss of subjective self-identity" — Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death

This fragment allows me to rephrase your opening remark: there is a difference between the self and the self-identity/ego.

Now identification is a familiar process that has great importance, for example, to mushroom gatherers. They need to reliably identify the edible and poisonous mushrooms and ensure that they only pick the edible ones. Note that it is a process of thinking that humans go through. The mushrooms are passive, and oblivious.

So self-identification is a thought process humans go through to distinguish self from non-self. for example:

These are my thoughts, which I give to you and the world to read, typed by my fingers on my laptop inmy living-room, as a member in good standing of The Philosophy Forum

Thus it can be seen that self-identification includes the mind and body and material objects, places and associations - to greater or lessor extents. There're core and peripheral aspects. It hurts when I lose my laptop, and it hurts more when I lose my finger. But these thoughts are immediately replaced in the same way that lunch follows dinner.

And all of this (as I identify myself) is ego. And it is all an ongoing habitual way of thinking, which might cease, but probably won't. The permanent cessation of this process of identification is what constitutes ego death. There is a body still and thoughts and a computer, but I am no longer attached to them, they are just part of the local scene. whether or not such a complete cessation occurs in any individual case, is a matter of speculation, but it is "philosophically possible" in that it is not, ahem "self-contradictory".
It would be self-contradictory though to to claim ego death as an identity; hence "Those who speak do not know, Those who know, do not speak."

High ten, Dasixsevenone! Let's call the ego real as well as illusionary. Real in the sense it interacts with other egos, creating a sense of community, illusionary in the sense it stands apart. And a similar for the community, and it's relation to other communities. More balanced we can't get! A dynamical balance.

"A dynamical balance"

Excuse me, but when did I share my personal diary with you? ;)

Haha! Guess we share a secret diary... Like all of us. :smile:

Maybe it is not so "personal" after all :D

Ego-death! From a cursory reading of the Wikipedia entry, is simply the loss of self-identity; happens all the time, doesn't it? In fact ego-life (gain of self-identity) is rare, occasions when one is self-aware are few and far in between. Either live life as a zombie or as a narcissist. Tough choice! Both are deadly.

I think there is a difference between the sense of self and the self itself. Perhaps a person can lose the sense of the self but the sense continues to exist. — hopeful

One's self-concept (also called self-construction, self-identity, self-perspective or self-structure) is a collection of beliefs about oneself.[1][2] Generally, self-concept embodies the answer to the question "Who am I?"[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-concept

Self-as-context, one of the core principles in acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), is the concept that people are not the content of their thoughts or feelings, but rather the consciousness experiencing said thoughts and feelings.[1][2] Self-as-context is distinguished from self-as-content, defined in ACT as the social scripts people maintain about who they are and how they operate in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-as-context

Either live life as a zombie or as a narcissist. Tough choice! Both are deadly. — Agent Smith

Damn you Agent! How come you make me laugh every time? :razz:

psychedelic experiences — hopeful

But first, are you experienced? — Jimi

Living without an image of yourself how you should be leads to ego death. Living like you feel makes the mental image of yourself disappear and you are as you are. You're your body then, fully alive between the outer physical world and the inner mental world, without a second you disturbing.

The ego is an illusion to the extent it can't be zeroed in on. Can you tell me what's your ego? Is it your body? Is it your mind? Quid sit? — Agent Smith

Just because you can't zero in on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is an illusion. There are lots of phenomenon like that.

Living without an image of yourself how you should be leads to ego death. Living like you feel makes the mental image of yourself disappear and you are as you are. You're your body then, fully alive between the outer physical world and the inner mental world, without a second you disturbing. — Raymond

From what I read about Buddhism and the ego the goal isn't ego death, because then there wouldn't be anything to keep you alive. They would also strongly argue that you aren't the body, for a lot of reasons.

I also find it odd you're positing an external reality when in my thread you tried defending solipsism, just a side note.