Why humans can't get rid of their egos ?

[Atla]

"thinks they know everything" describes you well, yes.

It doesn't.

I keep telling you I have no knowledge, but you keep calling me a liar...

Stop projecting your knowledge-religion onto me...

You sure spend a lot of time trying to convince people of things you have no knowledge of.

[onglob]

It seems that the problem of human egoism , as we have seen in this thread , has been a lengthy and old discussion although I think it's not solved yet .

I presume the problem has two aspects .
One is intrinsic in human nature , a drive or an incentive based on an instinctual sense of pleasure for three major desires : power or superiority , passion or sex and wealth or possessions (either food or territory) that are inherited in our genes and are not acquisitive as some mentioned .
And that's why I think robots (contrary to some science fictions), intrinsically , cannot be a danger to human race , unless they would be programed to be malicious (possibly by humans themselves) .

The other aspect , that some mentioned in this thread , is acquisitive and as I mentioned , we are somehow misguided , as I presume , by wrong attitudes and incorrect values .

I quite agree that not all of us :
love sport because we are enchanted by champions .
love music because we are fascinated by music stars or music idols .
love art because we are intrigued by artists and celebrities .
denounce other's identity because their identities are different from, or inconsistent with ours .

But if a considerable percent of humans do so , as it can be seen , it's reminiscent of wrong attitudes and incorrect values in human societies .

Almost everyone agree that humans are fallible , but high self-confidence is considered a privilege almost everywhere .
If "self" is fallible , then how it can be confided ?

I also agree that not everyone denounce the identity of others , but many does and it depends on the culture .
Identity , as I understood , is the all recollections and affinities in ones memory from birth to present that a person assumes that he or she belongs to .
It is a natural inclination that life repels emptiness as it repels death (as well as loneliness), so all of us tries to adhere to an identity that includes everything we have been familiar with : our family , our society , our beliefs or religion , our home town , our sex , our race, our ethnicity , our rituals, our traditions , our language . . . . . . .

My problem with these affinities is where they interfere with our knowledge and independent way of thinking .
So most of Christians are Christian because they are born as Christians
as most of Moslems are Moslem because they are born as Moslems
and as most of Jews are jew because they are born as Jews.

And that's where discrimination or conflicts between humans happen that in turn embolden our egos .

[Age]

It seems that the problem of human egoism , as we have seen in this thread , has been a lengthy and old discussion although I think it's not solved yet .

I presume the problem has two aspects .
One is intrinsic in human nature , a drive or an incentive based on an instinctual sense of pleasure for three major desires : power or superiority , passion or sex and wealth or possessions (either food or territory) that are inherited in our genes and are not acquisitive as some mentioned .

But power or superiority over others is NOT within genes so wanting power or superioty over others can NOT be inherited in genes. Power or superiority over others is NOT something that children are born with. That behavior is just learned by children from witnessing that behavior among adults.

Passion or sex is within genes so having passion and wanting sex with others is inherited in genes. In order to keep a species alive or existing there has to be a natural drive and desire to procreate.

Wealth or possessions is NOT within genes so wanting wealth and possessions is NOT inherited in genes. No child is born wanting wealth nor possessions. Very young children only want what the body NEEDS to stay alive and keep existing, just the same as all other animals do. Human children however quickly learn to want wealth and possessions from watching extremely greedy adult human beings wanting wealth and possessions.

Behaviors are NOT within genes, but drive and desire is. Unfortunately though human beings confuse this drive and desire for what is NEEDED with what is WANTED.

The wanting of power and/or wealth over others is an acquired learned behavior.

The drive to have sex and procreate, in order to keep a species existing, is a need built within in genes.

NEEDS are a built in mechanism within the genes of a physical body.

WANTS, which are NOT NEEDS, are just learned along the way and are within thoughts. They are NOT in the genes.

[henry quirk]

The impulse to self-preserve is 'in' the flesh: craving power or control is a natural and normal expression of that impulse.


need: to eat food

want: to eat pizza

'want' always extends from 'need'


it's ALL 'in' the flesh

[onglob]

The point that the desire for power and the desire for wealth(possession) is in our genes , is a matter that should be scrutinized in biology and evolutionary trend of our genes , but at least the causes or origins of these desires are intrinsic since power and wealth paves the way to satisfy our sense of pleasure and intrinsic needs : to survive and reproduce .

But my goal for this debate is to indicate the intrinsic tendency of humans for egoistic behaviors and how the values , attitudes , cultures and any other acquisitive beliefs and behaviors in our societies may deter or escalate this tendency .

I am not going to deny our intrinsic needs or sense for pleasures , but I suppose they can be satisfied apart from our egos or egoism .

[Greta]

The ego is a shield. The ego says "I am" (and hope to be around for a while).

Why would we insist on keeping our shields? It's a jungle out there! :)

[Nick_A]

But I am looking for solution.

Firstly, I would like to know the psychological reason for human egoism .
Is it an indispensable part of our consciousness or our subconscious ?
Why we adhere to an identity ? and denounce those who don't belong
to it ?

Secondly, I would like to know what's wrong with our philosophical
attitude ?
Are we still misguided by the famous Descartes' "Cogito" ?
Can we say "I exist" ?
What's the exact definition of existence ?
And what can be acknowledged to be existing at present ?

"Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

But what if she is right? The problem isn't that we have an ego but that it has become corrupt. Our ego should connect our inner world with the external world. We cannot do it consciously. Imagination prevents it. The ego is an essential part of human conscious evolution. its corruption prevents it and is what has made us wretched. The question becomes how to deal with imagination so as to overcome the corruption of our being?

[Logik]

One is intrinsic in human nature , a drive or an incentive based on an instinctual sense of pleasure for three major desires : power or superiority (etc etc.)

I have a problem with this conception.

If ego is the pursuit of power
And if knowledge is power.
Then the pursuit of knowledge is ego.

Surely you are not suggesting that there is such a thing as too much knowledge?

[Lacewing]

the answer fits in with your already held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Do you acknowledge the distortion being caused by your own beliefs and assumptions? How do you know that your perception of another's perception isn't a distortion in your own perception? And that your idea of "clarifying" isn't based on your own distortion?

[Logik]

the answer fits in with your already held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Do you acknowledge the distortion being caused by your own beliefs and assumptions? How do you know that your perception of another's perception isn't a distortion in your own perception? And that your idea of "clarifying" isn't based on your own distortion?

He rejects the very idea that he has beliefs and assumptions. Or perhaps he doesn't know WHAT his beliefs and assumptions are yet.

All we know for sure is that he doesn't allow for the possibility of being mistaken. Which, I guess is another way of saying "He thinks he is always right".

Are you 100% certain that you aren't mistaken?

Yes. I gave evidence for this. Both in the examples I provided and in the explanations attached to those examples

[Age]

the answer fits in with your already held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Do you acknowledge the distortion being caused by your own beliefs and assumptions?

You must NOT have read my earlier posts where I inform the readers; I have NO beliefs.

I have also informed; Although I never want to make assumptions sometimes I do, unfortunately, make them.

Now, do I acknowledge the distortion being caused by my own beliefs and assumptions, then the answer is no. I say no because, for starters, I have NO beliefs whatsoever, and, if I knew I was making an assumption, then I would NOT write it down. However, in saying that, I acknowledge that there quite easily COULD BE distortions in my THINKING, but again I would NOT write them down if I had NOTICED them. Therefore, I could NOT acknowledge that what I do NOT know.

By you asking me, Do I acknowledge the distortion being caused by my own beliefs and assumptions, implies/infers that I have beliefs and am making assumptions firstly. Now that you have implied/inferred that, please provide the examples of where and when you think/believe that I have beliefs and have made assumptions.

After you have done that, then you can provide the distortion that you see. Asking me if I acknowledge the distortion ... ? Infers that you, yourself, can SEE a distortion or THINK there is one there. So, whereabouts is the distortion that you see and/or think is here?

How do you know that your perception of another's perception isn't a distortion in your own perception?

I KNOW my perception of another's perception is ONLY 'a perception', which could be true, partly true, or false. 'A perception' is NOT the Truth. Therefore, I am NOT believing that my perception is even remotely true, right, nor correct, THUS, the very reason WHY I LOOK FOR clarity from the other person, BEFORE I make an ASSUMPTION, is so I can gain thee Truth from them.

If another person has written some thing down, and so have I, then the actual EVIDENCE is HERE, for ALL to SEE.

And that your idea of "clarifying" isn't based on your own distortion?

One definition of 'clarifying' is to ask another what they meant, when they said some thing.

If I have 'clarified' what another meant and/or what definition/s they are using, with the words they use, then I have been 'clarifying'.

What "idea" do you have of the word 'clarifying'?

My "idea" of 'clarifying' is to do it from a Truly OPEN perspective. I only 'clarify' to better understand another, by gaining better or more clarity of their point of view, from their perspective. 'Clarifying' is NOT based nor done on distortions or not. 'Clarifying' is based upon and done on and for, better, UNDERSTANDING.

One can have a 'distortion' of the Truth. One can NOT have a distortion of 'clarifying'. If one has a 'distortion' of the Truth, then this, it will be found by some, is because of an already held 'distorted' BELIEF and/or a 'distorted' ASSUMPTION.

If, and when, one is Truly OPEN, then they do NOT have any BELIEFS nor are they making any ASSUMPTIONS whatsoever, therefore there are only able to SEE the Truth of things. They may, however, have a distorted 'thought', but if they are NOT believing that that thought is true, or false, then they are still OPEN to SEEING the Truth of things.

[roydop]

Humans harmful behaviors against their environment and against other humans and species is as archaic as
the advent of modern humans.

As humans settled and human societies emerged, conflicts and damages due to those harmful behaviors
impaired the whole society. so humans devised god or gods and religions to justify moralities to avoid
those harmful behaviors.
But as the history tells us the problem didn't solve, if not deepened and became more complicated as
religious wars, theocracies and religious dogmatism proved to be even more harmful.

So again puzzled humans and philosophers tried to find a way out and harness immoralities in
human societies and put forward new ideas or philosophies as Socialism, Marxism, Communism,
Humanism, Existentialism, . . . . . . .

Now as we are witnessing :
The wide gap between poverty and wealth.
Ethnic, religious, sexual and racial persecutions.
Persistence of despotic regimes.
The new rise of national sense of dominance.
Deterioration of our natural environment.

Can we say the problem is solved or even alleviated?
Simply , as I suppose ,The problem of Human Egoism.
Or perhaps , the instinct of survival as inherited from our brutal origins ?

No systems of thought have made anything better. This is obvious to any objective scrutiny. Any lessening of physical suffering has been replaced and eclipsed by psychological suffering.

Thought is causing the problems, and our chasing of the thought process is exasperating the issue.

[roydop]

The "I..." thought process is what creates the ego "your name here". Until the "I..." thought process is transcended the illusion, and suffering, will continue.

[Lacewing]

I inform the readers; I have NO beliefs.

That's what you think, yes?

I have also informed; Although I never want to make assumptions sometimes I do, unfortunately, make them.

What are your assumptions based on? Are they based on more than what you think?

I could NOT acknowledge that what I do NOT know.

If you can agree that other people's assumptions can cause distortion, and that you can (unfortunately) at times have assumptions, then why can you not acknowledge that your assumptions can cause distortion in what you think?

the very reason WHY I LOOK FOR clarity from the other person, BEFORE I make an ASSUMPTION, is so I can gain thee Truth from them.

What you hear is still being filtered through your way of thinking, correct?

Do you think that what you think is truth?

If another person has written some thing down, and so have I, then the actual EVIDENCE is HERE, for ALL to SEE.

And there are lots of interpretations. Do you think that there is one interpretation that is the truth?

One can have a 'distortion' of the Truth. One can NOT have a distortion of 'clarifying'.

Isn't "clarifying" affected by interpretation? And don't interpretations cause distortion?

[Age]

the answer fits in with your already held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Do you acknowledge the distortion being caused by your own beliefs and assumptions? How do you know that your perception of another's perception isn't a distortion in your own perception? And that your idea of "clarifying" isn't based on your own distortion?

He rejects the very idea that he has beliefs and assumptions.

Well, once again, you are WRONG.

When have I ever rejected the idea that I have assumptions?

WHEN are you going to take notice of what I actually write?

Also, if, as you are trying to imply here, I have a belief, then present it. Just implying that I have some thing or that I do some thing without ever providing actual evidence for what you say shows nothing at all.

Or perhaps he doesn't know WHAT his beliefs and assumptions are yet.

Again, if you want to imply I have them, then present them, that is; if you can.

All we know for sure is that he doesn't allow for the possibility of being mistaken.

LOL

If that is All you know for sure, then you are far more twisted and distorted than I had even imagined.

When have I ever NOT allowed for the possibility of being mistaken?

You must of MISSED when I wrote, I could be completely WRONG or partly WRONG.

Which, I guess is another way of saying "He thinks he is always right".

That brain within that head twists the actual Truth of things so far that you are completely BLINDED by it.

In the ONE example below, which OBVIOUSLY is NOT for ALL cases, clearly SHOWS that I had first GAINED evidence, and then PROVIDED that EVIDENCE for what I had said.

If you, by your OWN words, provide the ACTUAL evidence for what you, yourself, does, then HOW could I be mistaken? YOU are the ONE, through your own words, who has actually backed up and support the conclusion. You provided the actual evidence yourself.

Are you 100% certain that you aren't mistaken?

Yes. I gave evidence for this. Both in the examples I provided and in the explanations attached to those examples

SEE the difference between you and I. you make assumptions and present beliefs about me without presenting any examples nor any evidence. Whereas, I do the opposite. I present examples and provide evidence. I SHOW support for what I say. I gain clarity FROM YOU about what you do, then PRESENT this to back up what I say about you. You just express your assumptions about me, think that just because you BELIEVE your own assumptions are true, then that is all you NEED to say.

If you do NOT like the evidence I PROVIDE, then either SHOW where and why it is incorrect or just accept that it that is correct.

Also, what you are doing here is just providing more evidence of how the brain works compared to the Mind. you ignored me and will NOT answer my questions directly, yet you will freely respond to others when TRYING TO ridicule me and/or put me down with absolutely WRONG and DISTORTED information about me.