Very Funny,. You guys kill me. You act as if you had a choice. Ha Ha Ha. For a fun little change, take a sec and think of the most profound thing you could do and imagine doing it. Why aren't you then? I am interested to know. Perhaps life just is. The least, most, best, only thing to have. Change it, i dare ya.

yeah, whatever. I'm just here for the girls

Where is this link? I clicked on the @schopenhaur1 and found a huge plethora of discussions.Please excuse i am a new member and may not be the best at navigating here. Otherwise i am intrigued to even think there is a realistic counter argument to my satement.

Perhaps you are right sir. It may be my own inadequacies that are offensive to me. I agree that your points are substantive and high quality and i can't help but promote that in a discussion of philosophy. This environment is new to me. I have spent a majority of my life with only the comfort of books while the only human interaction was with those who may have read only one or considered them weapons.
It seems i am far behind, yet i will not let that deter me. Excuse me please if i get testy sometimes.
As to your last point to "Is where or who an argument comes from that much more than the arguments themselves?" well no, i think an argument stands for itself. Which kind of makes me ashamed for my previous comments about your professorial tone. I recall listening to a podcast, i believe was "Making Sense" not too long ago and the podcaster spent a long time defending his decision of interviewing a person of which had racist beliefs. The interview wasn't on those topics and the subject was relevant, yet he (the Podcaster) was vilified by VOX for giving a platform for this ideologue So in actuality, perhaps the messenger (or perception of the messenger) does matter if the point of communication is to get ones view across to the most.

Yeah well its the best we got. Life is.

You give too much sir at one time. Parse it out please.

I am astounded and offended at the same time. At one point i am intrigued with your connections, yet next offended with your professorial tone. I (we) know nothing about you sir. I am intrigued non the less. And to your point of Martin Luther King Jr. I don't believe he had a choice as to his punishment yet took what he was given. What prisoner is given an option for imprisonment or not? A Pope Maybe? What other options did he have? I don't mean to lessen the man or what he stood for, on the contrary, He helped changed the Law. The Law (social dynamic) is our creation and should always be something to be proud of maybe. If at least better than before, right. I am kind'of the mind that maybe we should be looking mor to the future of some kind of post-humanism where these values that we hold as humans now aren't so applicable. This Truth we hold so precious will change.

I think i must disagree with a lot of the previous statement. It seems like you are describing an ant colony. Currently, we seem to tolerate the rebels and defective. How would they fit into the collective ego? I seem to remember the rebels as being one of the greatest influences of our history. I am concerned that your idea of "if education were structured in a certain way and really was equally accessible to all, we could theoretically shift focus onto the collective ego by recognizing that a collective ego does acknowledge the individual." tends to fascism.

Well, thank you for that journey into psychology. As your question, "If we accept the existence of a dialogical self, then is the agent of the individual ego the same agent as the collective egos of national and unified? " Well, I would say yes, not only is there the question of what other agent would it or could it be, but to "if we accept the existence of the diological self," from what i was able to quickly glean from Wikipedia the dialogical self included extensions of ones self ((extension=modes,) am I equating that right?) capable of holding a multiplicity of viewpoints. Do you think i am reading this right. All in all, I still think that yes a human can hold multiple, and even logically contradictory viewpoints at the same time.

Sir, I see that we are on different levels here. I am fascinated by some of your terminology, specifically the "dialogical self," I feel i must do some research before i can offer anything of value. Please excuse me while i upload. Thank You

Sorry to drag along in my thoughts. As far as a unified species ego, I think that might be hard to define. I mean, we have had the cinematic scenarios that depict us as a species rising up against the existential threat from the Others, but i can't think of anything real where that has come into play despite the many things that i think should be addressed as a species. I can see the idea passed along in grade school that you might be referring to, (look how far we have come, from rocks to space and all that.) I guess we as humans have learned to want to belong to some group. And the importance of thats groups exclusivity is a whole other subject.

Perhaps it is a matter of need and perceived threat only. I am sorry to say that i have a rather pessimistic view on humanity in general.

Well, I think it is all the same aspect on our evolutionarily adapted instincts. Some more than others. As in the expression of beneficial traits may be expressed more strongly in some lines but not yet in other lines due to other supports of propagation. However, wouldn't a best case scenario be an individual who recognizes each for itself. Let me rethink here>>> I am not sure that a single person couldn't have all three of those egos at different times, even if they were to logically conflict. Think of the partisan supporter at a rally of the winning candidate extolling the supposed virtues of the country yet denouncing that same country the next october.

I downloaded that article you mentioned and am giving it a bit more attention. The Moral jiu-jitsu is interesting. I hope to have an opinion on it in a few days. Till then

Hey, i was able to read a little of Richard B Gregg article on The Power of Nonviolence and my immediate impression was that their prohibition on violence coincided with their inability to effect change with it. I mean, the few examples i read were examples of peoples who were the weakest and really couldn't do more than the walkouts or refusals and whatnot. My question is; wouldn't doing all those things and also being willing to violently defend or even attack been more effective? I seem to think that compared to the history of violence involved revolts the examples of truly effective non-violent ones are few.

I enjoyed your comment. As new member myself i welcome your posts and felt yours was well said and i agree in that a collective that Ethically Egoist would be a much better state of affairs. However, i am not sure that has much chance with our as humans strong individuality and general stupidity. Hope to hear from you again.

Boy, i seem to have gotten behind. These last few comments are to the point really. I suppose that Egoism that is Ethical would be the same as any self interest that is in one self's (and by extension one's communities) interest, but does one have to be aware of it then, or can it just be a belief or intention that one has that he or she only thinks is in their interest. I am not sure if we should't separate the objective reality that ultimately self interest is based in our social ideal with the individuals belief. Although it brings to mind the example of a soldier obeying orders that gets him killed. Are those collective interests helping him then?

I am thinking, sorry i don't get much time to research, Too much work. One quick question though, do you think Gandhi would have had as much of an influence without the multitude of disenfranchised Indians?

Well, thanks for your conversation "thewonderr" I have to go (domestic duties). maybe next weekend.

Anarcho-Pacifist, I am unfamiliar, just googled, was surprised by the influences of Tolstoy and Gandhi. Not convinced of its efficaciousness though. Wouldn't having a sword in a sword fight be beneficial? It seems like you as an anarcho-pacifist are depending on the instincts of others to accomplish your ideal. I am new to this whole thinking about thinking thing so please forgive my errors.

I guess it is as dynamic and ever changing as we are. I don't know about you but i am a different person after every book i read or experience i have.

Yes, I think so, Please forgive my slowness to respond, my typing skills are minimal. I am not sure to what circumstances you are referring. As social creatures, any anti-social behavior is inherently detrimental to the system. Paradoxically, it seems that some of the rebels have actually contributed the most, but i guess that only goes to show that the system wasn't correct.?

i am thinking at the moment that ethical egoism is the current state of affairs. Even if we don't realize it our social behavior has been shaped by many years of trial and error. It seems that we use others and are used by others in a systematic way that "lifts all boats" so to speak.