Posts
Egoism
Alot of religious traditions are hostile towards the notion of the ego. It's someting that is seen as a thing to overcome since it hides the reality of the world. Now there is a basic difficulty in regards to what is meant by "ego". The word itself comes from latins "egō" which supposedly means "I". Usual definitions of ego consists of it being the most concious part of our self, the individual as self-aware or, as this dictionary puts it (in regards to psychoanalysis), "that part of the psyche which experiences the external world, or reality, through the senses, organizes the thought processes rationally, and governs action: it mediates between the impulses of the id, the demands of the environment, and the standards of the superego."
Now in hinduism the ego is bad because they say it conceals the truth that what we ultimately are (atman) is in reality a part of brahman (the ultimate reality). The distinction between the two is a created one because the ego interprets things as seperate from eachother while all is, in reality, one. Buddhism has a different approach in that they claim that man does not have a self at all (anatman). This is not to say that people does not exist but they claim that the whole world in reality is change and there is nothing stable. Therefore searching for a self or a core within man (or anything else) is like pealing a onion. We remove layer after layer but when we come to the core there is nothing there (sunyata). This has a strong relation to modern subatomic physics which claim that there is no atom at all (atom in the original meaning of the word as the smallest material building block from the greek word ἄτομος noun use of an adjective ‘indivisible’). It seems like everything is just energy in constant change which makes things appear solid.
Now I definately lean more towards the buddhist view that everything is all changing. The only thing that does not change is change itself. Therefore humans can't have a core self, a stale soul or anything along those lines. However I would like to argue that the use of sematicts such as "anatman", that there is no self at all, is misleading. In all this change of energy things do appear and while they may be maya (illusion) in regards o us not knowing what it really is (if there is no such thing as the smalles material building block) it does indeed exist. I exist, this table exists and you exist. My conciousness exists and is seated somewhere, somehow in this body that I call "myself". Therefore I argue that there is a self but that we need to recognize that it is ever changing, never standing still.
‘Ego’, sayest thou, and art proud of that word. But the greater thing—in which thou are unwilling to believe—is thy body with its big sagacity; it saith not ‘ego,’ but doeth it. (Nietzsche - Thus Spoke Zarathustra).
I prefer to look upon the ego as a part of this self. I have no exact definition but I do like the thought that it is like the tip of the iceberg. That part which interacts and gathers information from all things that is not "I" through the senses. Thst thing which is able to make distinctions. While all things come from the same source, that hidden dark force of change doesnt change the fact that all things can also be seen as seperate and it is indeed a critical need for us to even be able to live. In singularity there is multiplicity and reverse.
Egoism is the "doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action" (merriam webster). Now the word itself is very misinterpreted. Most people seem to equate it with "self interest without any regard for others". This would indeed be pure stupidity. Is it really self-beneficial to disregard everyone else? I think not. If one uses egoism like this that person will most likely fail to achieve his or her goals because they become to involved in their own world and loses the attachment to reality. So while they may think that they act in self-interest they are in reality making things worse for the own self which os course is never the goal of egoism.
One writer puts it in a really nice way which is better than I would be able to describe things:
In brief, egoism in its modern interpretation, is the antithesis, not of altruism, but of idealism. The ordinary man - the idealist - subordinates his interests to the interessts of his ideals, and usually suffers for it. The egoist is fooled by no ideals: he discards them or uses them, as may suit his own interest. If he likes to be altruistic, he will sacrifice himself for others; but only because he likes to do so; he demands no gratitude nor glory in return. (John Beverley Robinson)
Striving for self-preservation is natural and the want for growth for oneself is equally important or maybe even more important. I actually think that absolute altruism in itself is impossible which is also why the strife to destroy the ego never ever appealed to me. One can not ever do things without regard for his or her own self. Its not possible. One can help others, get injured while helping others and putting oneself in great danger because of others but it is never done without regard of ones own self-interest.
What would we be without a ego to interpret the world through? Ethical egoism claims that doing things in ones own self-interest is actually necessary but it say nothing on what one is supposed to do or how. In this way it is very amoral. It will not tell you what is good or bad. That is something that you have to decide or find out for yourself. Everything is relative in regards to oneself. Indeed everything, and I do mean everything, is relative according to my point of view. Well except change itself maybe ;-)
We are like individual waves on a ocean. Part of the big oneness of the massive amounts of water but also distinct from everything else since one can make out the individual waves. I say lets create a great wave for oneself, the wave in reality is change and movement in the water - with the water. Lets be as great as we can be until we roll up unto the shore and with a splash that ends our individual existence!
No comments:
Post a Comment