Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Walker]

Rand also said that if you face a contradiction, check your premises because one of them is wrong.

Ego as both creator and destroyer is an enormous contradiction.

The premise of all-powerful ego would be a convenient starting point for checking.

[Age]

But I am looking for solution.

Firstly, I would like to know the psychological reason for human egoism .

The human brain's truly amazing ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing unfortunately allows it to also learn bad/wrong behaviors, and then reason out or "justify" those bad/wrong behaviors as being good and/or right, also.

If a good or better internal feeling is associated with the bad/wrong behavior, then "justification" of that behavior and reasoning why to do it more just grows and grows.

Dishonesty and not accepting nor not taking responsibility for one's own bad/wrong behaviors is when the ego starts and where ego originated from.

TRYING TO "justify" one's own bad/wrong behaviors just feeds the ego more.

This now habitual behavior among adult human beings can be witnessed just about all the time.

Is it an indispensable part of our consciousness or our subconscious ?

There is consciousness and there is subconscious, but there is no "our" in regards to consciousness or subconscious.

The ego is very easy to dispense of once you know what it is exactly and how to dispense of it. But that is not to say that it can just as easily creep back into play from time to time.

Why we adhere to an identity ? and denounce those who don't belong
to it ?

Not all do that.

But the reason why 'you' do that is because there is an actual 'I', which exists. Unfortunately though human beings have not yet been able to recognize and accept who/what this 'I' is just yet. They just think/believe that their ego is that identity, which they see as being separate from "others".

Secondly, I would like to know what's wrong with our philosophical
attitude ?

The answer to that would depend on how 'you' are defining 'philosophical attitude' here?

But what is basically wrong the 'philosophical attitude' in adult human beings is just about all of it has been completely lost.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with 'philosophical attitude' in very young children. But again, unfortunately, due to the amazing ability of the human brain to learn absolutely any thing the 'philosophical attitude' (of being an extremely inquisitive and wondering creature) slowly deteriorates and sadly diminishes completely with and from the incorrect and wrong form of educating that is passed around.

Are we still misguided by the famous Descartes' "Cogito" ?

What is that "famous" thing and what does it entail?

(Just out of curiosity when is the exact moment a thing become supposedly "famous"?)

Also, just to make it clear I do NOT know what this "descartes' cogito" thing is or is supposed to be. I could of course just go and look it up, but to me if a person is serious about wanting a question answered, then they will share what their definitions are that THEY give to words.

The solution to getting rid of the human ego, once and for all, is really rather very quick, simple, and easy. Finding people who are serious about doing this is another matter though.

Can we say "I exist" ?

You are free to say whatever you like. But if one is still looking for the answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?', then would saying "I exist" actually be a True statement?

Would not one have to know what they are before they could truly say that they existed?

What's the exact definition of existence ?

There is NO exact definition of any word. Unless of course you can show otherwise.

But some might suggest that a better definition of the word 'existence' is known and understood, when one knows who/what they truly are, why they are here, and the reason for ALL-THERE-IS.

And what can be acknowledged to be existing at present ?

The 'I'?

I just acknowledged that 'I' exist, at present, when this is written, so then this is what, literally, can be acknowledged to be existing at present.

[Age]

Could it be that egoism is what got us to become the dominant species on Earth?
We took responsibility for our well-being in our own hands. We got smart and we met our needs.

We are victims of our own success. The exponential growth of the human population has made it very difficult to meet human needs without having a measurable impact on the environment.

I think you will find that human needs will NOT have a more measurable impact on the environment than any other species needs has an impact on the environment.

Human wants, however, is a completely other issue. Human wants have a very measurable impact, and eventually a very demonstrable impact, on the environment, for all species, as can been seen, observed, and witnessed, already.

What to do then? Genocide or efficiency?

Or, just change their wrong behaviors?

Sustainability under exponential growth is hard!

Not really.

There is a whole Universe to live, and play, in. That is, if human beings live long enough, here on earth, in order to be able to learn how to live, and explore, correctly and properly.

I think you will find that the Universe is actually big enough for just one species exponential growth. That is, if that species does not wipe itself first.

[Age]

Could it be that egoism is what got us to become the dominant species on Earth?
We took responsibility for our well-being in our own hands. We got smart and we met our needs.

We are victims of our own success. The exponential growth of the human population has made it very difficult to meet human needs without having a measurable impact on the environment.

What to do then? Genocide or efficiency?

Sustainability under exponential growth is hard!

“Dominance” is a human invention, nature knows nothing of it. Nature works in a symbiotic way, taking and giving, eating and being eaten.
Becoming dominant means being out of tune with nature, not controlling it.

Also, dominance didn’t further our “well being”, look how depressed and unhappy most people are, all it did was lead to unchecked multiplying, but this will soon change as we not only eradicated our enemies but also our friends (plants, insects, etc etc).

Maybe we should measure "our own success" in units of happiness... that's what it's all about, isn't it?
Sadly, on the happiness scale, human kind might not be dominant, rather the opposite...

Almost everything in nature is about dominance, there is no taking and giving.

Do you have any specific examples of this?

I do not see how almost every thing in Nature is about dominance.

The apparent symbiotic way only happens because otherwise some species become too dominant, then overpopulate, consume all the available resources, and then die out. So an equilibrium is forced onto them.

Are you saying here that through equilibrium it is Nature that really is in control and that really has dominance over all things?

I can NOT think of one thing, besides Nature Itself, that is even close to being dominant.

There being one species having somewhat more power and more control over other species on one minute planet in the Universe is not exactly about dominance. That human beings have the power to destroy, and to create, is just a very sad FACTat the moment, when this is written.

[Logik]

Could it be that egoism is what got us to become the dominant species on Earth?
We took responsibility for our well-being in our own hands. We got smart and we met our needs.

We are victims of our own success. The exponential growth of the human population has made it very difficult to meet human needs without having a measurable impact on the environment.

I think you will find that human needs will NOT have a more measurable impact on the environment than any other species needs has an impact on the environment.

Human wants, however, is a completely other issue. Human wants have a very measurable impact, and eventually a very demonstrable impact, on the environment, for all species, as can been seen, observed, and witnessed, already.

What to do then? Genocide or efficiency?

Or, just change their wrong behaviors?

Sustainability under exponential growth is hard!

Not really.

There is a whole Universe to live, and play, in. That is, if human beings live long enough, here on earth, in order to be able to learn how to live, and explore, correctly and properly.

I think you will find that the Universe is actually big enough for just one species exponential growth. That is, if that species does not wipe itself first.

1. Distinction without without a difference between “needs” and “wants”.

Do you NEED to have ablution and sanitation systems or do you WANT to have them?

Why can’t we just shit on the streets and drink water from rain ponds?

2. Change our behavior HOW? How do you think we should behave?
3. Where in the universe do you propose we move to? When are you moving there?

I want to see how long you will make it alive without all the infrastructure you take for granted.

[Age]

Well, the reactions have been much more pessimistic and hopeless than I have expected.
And it seems that the warnings in medias has caused panic and anger instead of provoking our
curiosity to find the causes of this dire trend towards extinction.

“Dominance” is a human invention, nature knows nothing of it. Nature works in a symbiotic way, taking and giving, eating and being eaten.
Becoming dominant means being out of tune with nature, not controlling it.

That's true , during millions of years of evolution and before the industrial revolution , Humans was just a creature , although an intelligent one , as many other creatures in the evolutionary battle for survival going on in the nature .
And now that humans has become the dominant creature , they have violated the balance in nature and natural evolution of creatures including themselves .

Can any thing actually violate the balance in Nature?

One would have to apart from or outside of Nature, Itself, in order to be able to violate It, correct?

How could any thing, which is just a part of Nature, Itself, be able to violate the balance in Nature?

Human beings, at the moment of when this is written, are nothing but a minuscule speck on a minuscule ball in the Natural Order of ALL things called the Universe. Human beings can NOT violate the balance of ALL-THERE-IS. But, human beings TRY TO override the balance, then they will surely be shown what is Truly dominant. Human beings will be blown out like a candle in the wind, in relative terms.

But it can be , or it could be , a transition period from natural evolutionary trend into intelligent evolutionary trend , that would need too much intelligence and calculated predictions that can be or could be achieved with the aid of super computers .

But the prerequisite of such optimistic prospect is the realization of our serious responsibilities for our environment and departing from our egoistic behaviors .
So again we face the question that why we cannot get rid our egos and egoistic behaviors ?

When you use the word 'we' here, who are you referring to?

You can speak for you, and maybe a few "others", but you can NOT accurately speak for ALL.

One can get rid of ego and egoistic behaviors.

Why we love sport not because of the sport itself , but because we are enchanted by champions ?
Why we mostly love music not because of music itself, but because we are fascinated by music stars or
music idols ?
Why we mostly love art not for the art itself, but because we are intrigued by artists and celebrities ?

Do these apply to ALL?

[Age]

Could it be that egoism is what got us to become the dominant species on Earth?
We took responsibility for our well-being in our own hands. We got smart and we met our needs.

We are victims of our own success. The exponential growth of the human population has made it very difficult to meet human needs without having a measurable impact on the environment.

I think you will find that human needs will NOT have a more measurable impact on the environment than any other species needs has an impact on the environment.

Human wants, however, is a completely other issue. Human wants have a very measurable impact, and eventually a very demonstrable impact, on the environment, for all species, as can been seen, observed, and witnessed, already.

What to do then? Genocide or efficiency?

Or, just change their wrong behaviors?

Sustainability under exponential growth is hard!

Not really.

There is a whole Universe to live, and play, in. That is, if human beings live long enough, here on earth, in order to be able to learn how to live, and explore, correctly and properly.

I think you will find that the Universe is actually big enough for just one species exponential growth. That is, if that species does not wipe itself first.

1. Distinction without without a difference between “needs” and “wants”.

Do you NEED to have ablution and sanitation systems or do you WANT to have them?

Why can’t we just shit on the streets and drink water from rain ponds?

2. Change our behavior HOW? How do you think we should behave?
3. Where in the universe do you propose we move to? When are you moving there?

I want to see how long you will make it alive without all the infrastructure you take for granted.

ONCE AGAIN, YOU make up all these ASSUMPTIONS, based solely upon your OWN past experiences, and ask questions around them without the slightest bit of real curiosity about another's perspective, nor any real clarity sought either.

You have MISSED the mark, completely, once more.

Just keep THINKING, ASSUMING, and BELIEVING the way that you are now and you will NEVER be able to distinguish between human's real 'wants and needs'. You HAVE TO OPEN up to be able to SEE the Truth of things in Life. Just LOOKING from your own tiny little life experiences will NEVER allow you to SEE what IS actually True and Real in Life. Asking questions based around your own little life experiences will also NEVER allow you to UNDERSTAND the Truth of things in Life.

[Logik]

I think you will find that human needs will NOT have a more measurable impact on the environment than any other species needs has an impact on the environment.

Human wants, however, is a completely other issue. Human wants have a very measurable impact, and eventually a very demonstrable impact, on the environment, for all species, as can been seen, observed, and witnessed, already.



Or, just change their wrong behaviors?



Not really.

There is a whole Universe to live, and play, in. That is, if human beings live long enough, here on earth, in order to be able to learn how to live, and explore, correctly and properly.

I think you will find that the Universe is actually big enough for just one species exponential growth. That is, if that species does not wipe itself first.

1. Distinction without without a difference between “needs” and “wants”.

Do you NEED to have ablution and sanitation systems or do you WANT to have them?

Why can’t we just shit on the streets and drink water from rain ponds?

2. Change our behavior HOW? How do you think we should behave?
3. Where in the universe do you propose we move to? When are you moving there?

I want to see how long you will make it alive without all the infrastructure you take for granted.

ONCE AGAIN, YOU make up all these ASSUMPTIONS, based solely upon your OWN past experiences, and ask questions around them without the slightest bit of real curiosity about another's perspective, nor any real clarity sought either.

You have MISSED the mark, completely, once more.

Just keep THINKING, ASSUMING, and BELIEVING the way that you are now and you will NEVER be able to distinguish between human's real 'wants and needs'. You HAVE TO OPEN up to be able to SEE the Truth of things in Life. Just LOOKING from your own tiny little life experiences will NEVER allow you to SEE what IS actually True and Real in Life. Asking questions based around your own little life experiences will also NEVER allow you to UNDERSTAND the Truth of things in Life.

Whatever. Moron.

All I did was ask you three clarifying questions and you went on a rant.

Because nothing you said even remotely resembles a plan to move us forward.

Your “wisdom” amounts to nothing but applause lights.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLbkrPu ... use-lights

[Age]

1. Distinction without without a difference between “needs” and “wants”.

Do you NEED to have ablution and sanitation systems or do you WANT to have them?

Why can’t we just shit on the streets and drink water from rain ponds?

2. Change our behavior HOW? How do you think we should behave?
3. Where in the universe do you propose we move to? When are you moving there?

I want to see how long you will make it alive without all the infrastructure you take for granted.

ONCE AGAIN, YOU make up all these ASSUMPTIONS, based solely upon your OWN past experiences, and ask questions around them without the slightest bit of real curiosity about another's perspective, nor any real clarity sought either.

You have MISSED the mark, completely, once more.

Just keep THINKING, ASSUMING, and BELIEVING the way that you are now and you will NEVER be able to distinguish between human's real 'wants and needs'. You HAVE TO OPEN up to be able to SEE the Truth of things in Life. Just LOOKING from your own tiny little life experiences will NEVER allow you to SEE what IS actually True and Real in Life. Asking questions based around your own little life experiences will also NEVER allow you to UNDERSTAND the Truth of things in Life.

Whatever. Moron.

Do you really think or believe that using names like that will help you?

All I did was ask you three clarifying questions and you went on a rant.

You actually asked six clarifying questions, but sadly they were based solely upon your own ASSUMPTIONS and your own distorted BELIEFS, which have nothing to do with what I am actually saying and talking about.

Your clarifying questions were also sadly closed questions as they were based upon presumed answers.

Your views are so narrow and so closed that unfortunately you are not able to recognize and see these facts, yet.

Because nothing you said even remotely resembles a plan to move us forward.

And it NEVER was meant to resemble a plan to move you forward.

I NEVER wrote any thing that even remotely resembled any plan at all. From your perspective, am I expected to?

You NEED a few things first before you could even begin to move forward and progress, and at the moment you are NOT even able to move, let alone move forwards.

Your “wisdom” amounts to nothing but applause lights.

If you so BELIEVE. Without any OPEN clarifying questions, you will NEVER know, for sure.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLbkrPu ... use-lights

By the way, from your perspective, what are "applause lights"?

[henry quirk]

When I think 'ego' I think 'myself' (the flesh and blood and bone and muscle and brain 'me'). With that as my definition: why the hell would I get rid of myself?

Amazing how a drug addict screwed the pooch for years with his little fictional divisions of psyche or mind (ego, superego, id).

Utter manure.

[henry quirk]

difference between “needs” and “wants”.

I need food; I want pizza.


Do you NEED to have ablution and sanitation systems or do you WANT to have them?

Livin' alone in the wild: I may want them but I don't need them; livin' in New York: I may not want them but -- most defintely -- I need them.


Why can’t we just shit on the streets and drink water from rain ponds?

The good folks of San Francisco are askin' that question right now.


Change our behavior HOW?

One just 'does'...not easily, but it can be done...fundamentally: an act of will (self).


How do you think we should behave?

Self-responsibily.


Where in the universe do you propose we move to?

Up and out...lotta room for heads to move 'round in.


When are you moving there?

As soon as we start usin' nuclear thermal drives for cheap surface to orbit travel, I'm there.

Start 'now', damnit and I might walk on Mars on my 80th birthday.

[uwot]

When I think 'ego' I think 'myself' (the flesh and blood and bone and muscle and brain 'me'). With that as my definition: why the hell would I get rid of myself?

Amazing how a drug addict screwed the pooch for years with his little fictional divisions of psyche or mind (ego, superego, id).

Utter manure.

It ain't rocket science. Your id wants to eat and fuck. Your ego works out how to do it. And the superego worries about whether you should. Freud wasn't saying anything we didn't already know, hence the classical allusions.

[henry quirk]

"It ain't rocket science. Your id wants to eat and fuck. Your ego works out how to do it. And the superego worries about whether you should. Freud wasn't saying anything we didn't already know, hence the classical allusions."

You're right, it ain't: 'I' want to eat and fuck; 'I' work out how; 'I' worry about the consequences.

No reason at all to divide me up.

Siggy shoulda stuck to coke.

[Atla]

Do you have any specific examples of this?

I do not see how almost every thing in Nature is about dominance.

Your problem.

The apparent symbiotic way only happens because otherwise some species become too dominant, then overpopulate, consume all the available resources, and then die out. So an equilibrium is forced onto them.

Are you saying here that through equilibrium it is Nature that really is in control and that really has dominance over all things?

I said nothing of the sort, obviously.

I can NOT think of one thing, besides Nature Itself, that is even close to being dominant.

Then you are in error twice.

There being one species having somewhat more power and more control over other species on one minute planet in the Universe is not exactly about dominance. That human beings have the power to destroy, and to create, is just a very sad FACTat the moment, when this is written.

More gibberish

[Age]

Do you have any specific examples of this?

I do not see how almost every thing in Nature is about dominance.

Your problem.

No problem at all. It is just a fact, which you obviously can NOT or will NOT show otherwise.

The apparent symbiotic way only happens because otherwise some species become too dominant, then overpopulate, consume all the available resources, and then die out. So an equilibrium is forced onto them.

Are you saying here that through equilibrium it is Nature that really is in control and that really has dominance over all things?

I said nothing of the sort, obviously.

But that is exactly what your words say, to me.

If that is obviously NOT what you said, then are you able to elaborate and clarify what you did say?

I can NOT think of one thing, besides Nature Itself, that is even close to being dominant.

Then you are in error twice.

No am I am NOT. If you read my words accurately, then you will see that I can NOT be in error at all.

There being one species having somewhat more power and more control over other species on one minute planet in the Universe is not exactly about dominance. That human beings have the power to destroy, and to create, is just a very sad FACT at the moment, when this is written.

More gibberish

If that is only what you see, then that helps to explain your other responses too.