Egotism

[MorganaFang]

This goes hand and hand with my expert thing methinks, but heres my opinion on egomaniacs. Ego is good, but to imply greatness or divinety is absolutely outrageous. No one is the utmost authority on anything and no one gives better than the next person, its all perception. Course I know I am wrong in some people's veiws but this is mine.

So whats everyone else think of them ego's, eh?

[DarkWolf]

I don't think implying greatness is wrong per say. If you spent a lifetime aiming for something to be great and you are pleased with the results, I see nothing wrong with claiming that you think your achievements are great for you. I do think, however, implying greatness OVER somebody is wrong and false. Nobody is better than anybody else, everybody has a goal, an ambition, and everybody fights for those goals. The goals simply being different, doesn't show greatness over another, merely greatness in each and every one of us at achieving what we had set out to do.

I think in some aspects ego can be a drive, when in moderation. Being overly egotistical is never a good thing. If you are proud of who you are, but realise you're not perfect... I see nothing wrong with that.

[MorganaFang]

But does anyone ever achieve greatness? *hums zen prayer*

[DarkWolf]

To me greatness is setting a goal, even a small one, and achieving it. As long as that goal doesn't involving hurting somebody, I think it is a great achievement.

Some people walk miles in only a few steps, they are willing to love despite broken hearts, and some are willing to risk their lives to save another. To me, that is greatness.

[Darth Cluich]

Ego is good, but to imply greatness or divinety is absolutely outrageous.

This is essentially the distinction between egotism and egocentrism.

[MorganaFang]

But many do imply greatness over people, example... Random quote:
(I) have contributed more help and advice to the use of this site than any other mod.
As the way I've been taught, no one does ever achieve greatness over another person though I've come to understand in their mind they may have. This is unfair but unchangeable unless an egocentric person is willing to eventually humble themselves. But even I am an example that doesn't happen.

My English teacher whom studied at Oxford once said that when we are teenagers we think we know everything. I see this as true because here I am trying disprove I don't know everything with all the knowledge I have, thinking I'll eventually beat her, even though I am proving her point. Age really isn't an issue though, maturity is definitely.

[DarkWolf]

I agree with Morgana. Everybody has ego, in some form or another. We are all guilty, at some point, of thinking we have done or achieved more than somebody else. Ultimately, we probably haven't, but at the time we don't always think beyond our own closed minded perceptions.

[WhiteCrowUK]

I think there are two kind of people really.

There are those who really are great, and provide us with ideas which are just truely unique (thinking of say Stephen Hawking).

And there are those who allude to greatness - but they only make themselves look great by trashing everyone else. Alas there are a lot of these catagory "B" people on the internet - the ones who never give ideas, but just trash what everyone else says! :(

[blueeyes]

Well, they say the expert is someone who knows the limitation to their knowledge on a subject. So egotism would be somewhere under greatness. To think of oneself as the best only limits what you can learn, and there is always something to learn. Of course, if you aren't willing to stand behind what you think is right, you can't discuss, and without discussion, you can't find out any truth.

"For the expert, there is one path; for the novice, a thousand."

[WhiteCrowUK]

My English teacher whom studied at Oxford once said that when we are teenagers we think we know everything.

At work, a lot of people are trying to show their greatness, and there can be little egomaniacs you have to suffer. A lot of it is to do with politics. I once knew someone (Richard) who went around saying he was a great programmer - then someone in our office repeated socially that Richard was a really good programmer. I felt the need to question him on this - Richard hadnt programmed in over 2 years, and all this guy (who had been with the company 6 months) had to go on was Richards word. So repeat something enough times and people will believe it!

Its interesting in a similar way you mention about your teacher "studied at Oxford" - its a similar method of self-publicising. I just wondered if you had to put up with every lesson "when I was in Oxford ...". ;)

I would just like to say at this point what an all round genius I am combined with a passionate lover ... :D

[Hellcat]

Everyone has ego, its how you use it. I can tell you that I'm bloody good at defleshing mammal skulls. Thats ego. I could tell you that I'm better than anyone at defleshing mammal skulls. This is also ego. The latter is also arrogance. How could I determine that i am better than anyone at defleshing mammals skulls? It's a bold assumption based on nothing but ego. I haven't gone around the world comparing my handy work with every one elses. Instead I've made a statement that has no solid fact behind it. Where as if I say I'm bloody good at defleshing mammal skulls I am basing this on being proud of a personal achievement without feeling compelled by insecurity to over-look anyone elses capabilities. Such forms of ego, I believe, are based on insecurity, a fear that nobody will recognise a personal achievement and reward you with praise, and lack of self confidence- one feels obliged to over-rate ones own achievements to feel confident in a world where they feel unimportant. That is my theory anyway. Hence, every morning I wake up and I look in the mirror- I see one ugly bitch looking back at me and I say to myself "I am fucking lovely". It seems extremely arrogant but it boosts myself confidence- If I can't believe in myself I can't expect anyone else to either :D

[Klark]

Personally, I don't shoot for ego. I'm better than noone. Granted, I may have more "skills" in a matter than someone, but that means they have more "skills" in a matter that I don't. There is always a balance. For instance, I'm excellent in physics, yet I suck at mechanics. So, my friend is excellent in mechanics but sucks at physics. Balance. That's what I like.

The balance for egomaniacs are people with low self-esteem. Between the two types is a middle ground and one needs the other in order to learn and reach that ground.

[LV426]

This goes hand and hand with my expert thing methinks, but heres my opinion on egomaniacs. Ego is good, but to imply greatness or divinety is absolutely outrageous. No one is the utmost authority on anything and no one gives better than the next person, its all perception. Course I know I am wrong in some people's veiws but this is mine.

So whats everyone else think of them ego's, eh?
So you are trying to tell me I am not God.
Well then .... **Smites Genna with her bolt of static electricity**

[MorganaFang]

So you are trying to tell me I am not God.
Well then .... **Smites Genna with her bolt of static electricity**
No no gods are a different matter entirely, you are God!

[WhiteCrowUK]

So you are trying to tell me I am not God.
Well then .... **Smites Genna with her bolt of static electricity**

If you're god, suddenly my life makes so much sense ... :p

[AlphaMale]

First I'd like to address the notion that no one person is better than anybody else. I think this is untrue. A person who gives his time to help needy/homeless/sick children is better than the person who molests children. If you could assign a numerical value to a life, the former in this example is much more valuable than the latter.

Ego and arrogance is fine so long as one can justify that ego. It's not only a matter of skills. It's the totality of the person that counts: what values one holds, what virtures one uses to attain those values, if one adheres to his moral pronciples even when inconvienent or ignores them when they become inconvienent. Skills and achievments are simply reflections of those values.

IMO, people with a truly healthy sense of self-esteem are able to let their ackomplishments speak for themselves. The ones who have to broadcast how good they are are the ones who irritate me. I once had a boss who spent most of his time telling me how cool, great, and smart he was. All he could talk about was himself. "I remind myself of Ender from Ender's Game", he said on multiple occasions. His need to verbalize his ego led me to believe that he didn't have a healthy ego and that he needed my confirmation to validate that ego. I gave him no such validation. Healty, well deserved egos need no one else's validation.

[MorganaFang]

First I'd like to address the notion that no one person is better than anybody else. I think this is untrue. A person who gives his time to help needy/homeless/sick children is better than the person who molests children. If you could assign a numerical value to a life, the former in this example is much more valuable than the latter.
I'm saying with ego and having done good deeds then obviously that can't make you a better person because well hell you're doing it to serve your own ego.

[AlphaMale]

I'm saying with ego and having done good deeds then obviously that can't make you a better person because well hell you're doing it to serve your own ego.

What's wrong with serving your ego? What if your deeds help a multitude of people? Is a deed considered "good" only if it doesn't result in a boost of the doers ego?

And how does this answer my assertion that a person who helps children is a better person than one who molests children?

[MorganaFang]

What's wrong with serving your ego? What if your deeds help a multitude of people? Is a deed considered "good" only if it doesn't result in a boost of the doers ego?

And how does this answer my assertion that a person who helps children is a better person than one who molests children?
What if the person helping children was a murder in the past, but doesn't harm the children?
Or anything just as worst, they just don't molest children?

[WhiteCrowUK]

Remember the story in the Bible (actually I'm not sure it is now)...

Some rich people go into a temple and make a big deal of giving a whole sack of gold to the temple.

Meanwhile a poor, old woman goes in an without any ceremony and gives just a single coin.

Jesus asks who gave the most - it was the old woman.

[Fascination]

Theres actually an old fable about that, but its an old man who travels the length of the land to give the king a single fig which had been the only one to grow in his garden. The king is delighted and offers the old man gold, which he declines.
A rich merchant sees this and delivers an entire crate load of figs to the king, expecting to be offered gold likewise.
he king sighs and points out that, to the old man, that single fig had represented everything the old man had had to sell yet he had chosen to give it to his King, where as to the merchant an entire cart load of figs was nothing.
Its not what the object that you give is, or its quantity; its how much it means to you.

[AlphaMale]

What if the person helping children was a murder in the past, but doesn't harm the children?
Or anything just as worst, they just don't molest children?

Then you would have to judge whether his current actions and values have made up for his past. Has he earned redemption?

I would argue that he is still a better person than the child molester but not quite as good as a similiar person with no such murder in his past.

[MorganaFang]

Then you would have to judge whether his current actions and values have made up for his past. Has he earned redemption?

I would argue that he is still a better person than the child molester but not quite as good as a similiar person with no such murder in his past.
And what if I said there is no such thing as a good person?

[AlphaMale]

And what if I said there is no such thing as a good person?

I would politely disagree and ask you to explain why you think that way?

[chriz]

Remember the story in the Bible (actually I'm not sure it is now)...

Some rich people go into a temple and make a big deal of giving a whole sack of gold to the temple.

Meanwhile a poor, old woman goes in an without any ceremony and gives just a single coin.

Jesus asks who gave the most - it was the old woman.

Of course, all that does is define "give" as sacrifice. Clearly the sack of gold is more than the single coin, and it's worth more to the temple, too, in absolute terms (it will feed more hungry children, build a bigger wing on the temple, whatever). But since the temple really wanted sacrifice, the old woman made the more valuable contribution overall.

[MorganaFang]

I would politely disagree and ask you to explain why you think that way?
Because thats all relative, one person's idea of a bad person is always going to vary from the other. I consider a good person one who doesn't feel they have to do anything, that is happy, that just lives their life. Doesn't make them better than anyone else just makes them well them. The whole ideals of someone being above someone is so trivial its the basis for many bad things in our society like caste systems, cliques and a poorly run government. Having this belief that one person is better than another also leads to people being hurt. Even if this person is "better" because they do in what many consider good things. Someone else who can't live up to that standard feels loathsome.

[AlphaMale]

I consider a good person one who doesn't feel they have to do anything, that is happy, that just lives their life.

Life requires effort. You can't just "do nothing and be happy being alive". As a living being, you have needs that must be met. Meeting those needs requires effort. Part of the foundation of a healthy ego is meeting those needs without having to depend on others.

The whole ideals of someone being above someone is so trivial its the basis for many bad things in our society

I would argue that ethical relativism is the basis for many bad things in our society. Realizing ethical absolutes and forcing ourselves to individually adhere to them would fix those problems, IMO.

Even if this person is "better" because they do in what many consider good things. Someone else who can't live up to that standard feels loathsome.

At the risk of sounding too harsh, I would suggest such a person quit hiding in their sense of self-loathing and go out and do something worth feeling good about (ie quit feeling sorry for yourself and go accomplish something). Not directed at you per se, but at our hypothetical person.

[MorganaFang]

At the risk of sounding too harsh, I would suggest such a person quit hiding in their sense of self-loathing and go out and do something worth feeling good about (ie quit feeling sorry for yourself and go accomplish something). Not directed at you per se, but at our hypothetical person.
Now if you controlled everyone that could happen but nope, everyone lives for their own.

Ethics, values and morals are all pretend.

[AlphaMale]

Now if you controlled everyone that could happen but nope, everyone lives for their own.

My statement wasn't one of control. It was a suggestion to someone who feels self-loathing for not being able to accomplish what someone else could.

Ethics, values and morals are all pretend.

Is that so? Ok, let's look at a couple definitions.
Value- what one seeks to gain
What are some examples of value, ie what do people seek to gain? Let's take a couple necessities of life for example: food, water. Are these values just pretend? Can you live without food or water for long? If you were to try, you'd come to a realization as to how REAL they really are.

Ethics- the exploration of right and wrong, good and evil
Would it be wrong to undeservedly murder an innocent person? Are there any circumstances that would morally justify the undeserved murder of an innocent person? My answer is no to both.

[Klark]

Life requires effort. You can't just "do nothing and be happy being alive". As a living being, you have needs that must be met. Meeting those needs requires effort. Part of the foundation of a healthy ego is meeting those needs without having to depend on others.

That's not what she meant. She meant that she considers a person good when they go out of their way to do something that they didn't have to do in first place. Something that brightens someones day, something just to make someone feel good about themselves while not directly thinking about him/herself. Something as simple as a hug to a stranger could be doing something that they didn't have to do at all, but did anyway.

Value- what one seeks to gain
What are some examples of value, ie what do people seek to gain? Let's take a couple necessities of life for example: food, water. Are these values just pretend? Can you live without food or water for long? If you were to try, you'd come to a realization as to how REAL they really are.

Got some bad news for ya buddy, those values that you listed, they aren't merely values. They are what is called necessaties. The values that she was talking about are things like Honesty, Trust, Truth. Those are values, not necessaties. You can live without them, but it's not gonna be a good way to live, IMO.

Ethics- the exploration of right and wrong, good and evil
Would it be wrong to undeservedly murder an innocent person? Are there any circumstances that would morally justify the undeserved murder of an innocent person? My answer is no to both.

Got some more news for ya. Good and Evil are pretend. They are made up in the human mind. It is another way that we try to reduce the amount of chaos in the world. Take this for example:

A woman goes to the airport, she hasn't eaten all day long and she's quite hungry. She stops at a shop in the airport where she purchases a drink and a small bag of chips. She then goes to seat herself at a table and notices that all the tables are taken. She spots a man who is wearing a suit and reading a newspaper sitting by himself and hopes that he wouldn't mind her sharing his table, so she goes to him. She takes a seat opposite to him and she places a straw into her drink. The man lowers a corner of his newspaper and gives a small nod before going back to reading. She reaches for a chip and takes a bite. Upon hearing the crunch, the man lowers his newspaper and he glares at her. She finds this to be most uncomfortable but she continues on, eating another chip. The man reaches his hand forward, slowly, still glaring at her, takes a chip and eats it. She doesn't know whether to look at him or not so she alternates looking at him and looking away. They continue this exchange of her eating a chip and then him eating a chip until all the chips were gone. She finds that this man is a weirdo because who eats another person's chips? Especially when that other person is a stranger. She gets up immediately and leaves the table. She gets in line for the plane and she reaches into her bag looking for her ticket when she comes across a bag of chips. Her bag of chips. It dawns on her that she was the stranger eating another person's chips.

To the man, the woman was evil. She came to his table, sat down. That was ok, but then she started eating his chips, and that was his reason for glaring at her. She, on the other hand, thought that he was evil for glaring at her like that and eating what she thought was her chips.

That's a pretty loose example but think about this. When there is a fight between two people, both people view themselves as good and the other person as evil. Same with war. So yes, Good and Evil, it's all the head, it's all pretend.

In my opinion, of course, of course......

[Hellcat]

Ethics- the exploration of right and wrong, good and evil
Would it be wrong to undeservedly murder an innocent person? Are there any circumstances that would morally justify the undeserved murder of an innocent person? My answer is no to both.

And just how does one define what is good and bad? I for one see murder as a bad thing, but some other people believe that it right to kill your own children if they dishonor you. On the other hand i thinks it right to kill a pig to eat it, some people would disagree. Ethics are variable things that have established themsleves in modern society, they are (probably) not vital to our exisitence, they are only vital to our co-existence ie the people we live with and/or around. Ethics are something very different to law. Ethics is a belief within your self that one way is a right way to behave, the other is wrong way to behave. The law on the other hand tells you how you must behave. There is no right or wrong about the law, the law just IS.

[Darth Cluich]

She meant that she considers a person good when they go out of their way to do something that they didn't have to do in first place.

That's called altruism, and it's not always done purely for the other person. It is often done to make the person doing the helping feel better about themselves.

[Klark]

That's called altruism, and it's not always done purely for the other person. It is often done to make the person doing the helping feel better about themselves.

True, but sometimes it isn't. There's a chance that the person does it for no other reason than to just have something to do. Like if they are just standing around and doing nothing, someone comes up to them and gives them a hug, they must just hug back and never think of it again. They did it for no purpose other than to return the hug, no thoughts about whether it made the other person feel good or it made themselves feel good.

I do things all the time that I don't have to do. Many times I do them so that I feel good, many times I do them so that the person who recieves such a thing feels good. Sometimes I just do them for the hell's sake of doing them. I don't think that's anything to do with adding to my ego seeing as how I'm around the opposite end of the spectrum at low self-esteem for the most part. When's the last time you did something for someone that could make them feel good but you didn't really think about it?

[Darth Cluich]

Actually, there's a school of thought that says there are no altruistic acts, that any such acts are, in fact, done out of self-interest -- i.e., to make the "altruistic" person feel good.

[AlphaMale]

That's not what she meant. She meant that she considers a person good when they go out of their way to do something that they didn't have to do in first place.

Well then I apologize, although she never corrected me herself.

That's called altruism, and it's not always done purely for the other person. It is often done to make the person doing the helping feel better about themselves.

Very good point Cluich. All acts, even ones that seem selfless on the surface, are selfish.

those values that you listed, they aren't merely values. They are what is called necessaties.

Right, and I called them as such. The fact that they are necessities makes them values.

The values that she was talking about are things like Honesty, Trust, Truth. Those are values, not necessaties.

Those are virtues. Values are that which you wish to gain; virtue is how you go about gaining value.

That's a pretty loose example but think about this. When there is a fight between two people, both people view themselves as good and the other person as evil. Same with war. So yes, Good and Evil, it's all the head, it's all pretend.

The woman in the example was wrong. Just like whenever two people see the same thing but come to two different conclusions, one or both are wrong.

And just how does one define what is good and bad?

By utlizing an objective moral standard.

[Klark]

Actually, there's a school of thought that says there are no altruistic acts, that any such acts are, in fact, done out of self-interest -- i.e., to make the "altruistic" person feel good.

Sorry but I attended a school were thought was grounds for expulsion. :D

[MorganaFang]

By utlizing an objective moral standard.
If an animal kills another animal just for sport does that make the animal's actions wrong? (humans excluded as the animal of course)

[Sane Inside Insanity]

So whats everyone else think of them ego's, eh?

I think my last boyfriend had a big ego. Or at least after he broke up with me he did.

[Darth Cluich]

If an animal kills another animal just for sport does that make the animal's actions wrong? (humans excluded as the animal of course)

Animals -- and by that, I'm excluding humans -- don't kill for sport. That's a distinctly human trait.

Oh, and uh, Sane...I would think his ego would've been big when he was with you, not the other way around. ;)

[AlphaMale]

If an animal kills another animal just for sport does that make the animal's actions wrong? (humans excluded as the animal of course)


I'm not aware of any lesser beast that kills for sport. Please give an example.

The lesser beasts have no need for ethics as they are guided by instinct and not reason. We humans are guided by reason and not instinct which means we have to intellectually discern a code of behavior that will contribute not just to our mere survival, but our happiness as well. This code we call ethics. The animals already have that code hardwired into their brain, called instinct.

[MorganaFang]

I'm not aware of any lesser beast that kills for sport. Please give an example.

The lesser beasts have no need for ethics as they are guided by instinct and not reason. We humans are guided by reason and not instinct which means we have to intellectually discern a code of behavior that will contribute not just to our mere survival, but our happiness as well. This code we call ethics. The animals already have that code hardwired into their brain, called instinct.
What gives you right to call an animal a lesser being when they have far less woes then us humans? We're the idiots for debating stupid things we made up. Values are valueless in the animal world.

[chriz]

Actually, there's a school of thought that says there are no altruistic acts, that any such acts are, in fact, done out of self-interest -- i.e., to make the "altruistic" person feel good.

I subscribe to this school, actually. Altruism doesn't exist.

[AlphaMale]

What gives you right to call an animal a lesser being when they have far less woes then us humans

Because we have a very important tool that they lack: intellect/reason.

We're the idiots for debating stupid things we made up.

If it's so idiotic, why do you continue to debate? Debate is a very important tool for intellectual development. Don't dismiss it too quickly.

Values are valueless in the animal world.

I might agree, but we live in the human world where they are very necessary.

[Hellcat]

If an animal kills another animal just for sport does that make the animal's actions wrong? (humans excluded as the animal of course)

No, because most animals don't kill for sport. With the exception of the domestic cat, dogs & human, I can't think of any animal that kills for sport- most animals kill for what they need, or sometimes they "surplus" kill which basically means they kill more than what they need and store the surplus for leaner times. I would suspect that most animals don't have energy to waste on killing for fun, their energy is required for survival so any kill a preditory animal makes would have to be beneficial to the animal with the exception of killing in defence of either 1) self 2) off spring. Animals in general don't kill for fun. With domestic animals eg human, dog and cat, they can afford to waste their energies on pointless sports. The dog and cat is being fed by man so hell whats a bit of energy wasted here and there. Humans they work for money, money buys food- they indulge in food and have plenty of surplus energy thus they can also afford to waste energy on pointless activities be it killing for sport, playing football etc

[Darth Cluich]

I subscribe to this school, actually. Altruism doesn't exist.

For those of you who don't know, the school of thought here to which chriz is referring is objectivism.

[chriz]

For those of you who don't know, the school of thought here to which chriz is referring is objectivism.

*shrugs*

[Hellcat]

Because we have a very important tool that they lack: intellect/reason.



.


I beg to differ. Animals do have both intellect and reason. How they use it varies according to the individual species lifestyle

Blue tits have learned to peirce the foil of milk bottles to access the cream- intellect. Reason- food source

Fox has learned to push lids off bins to access garbage- intellect. reason- food

cougar attacks and kills the man that stepped into her den-. Reason- to protect her off-spring

These are just a couple of examples of animals using intellect and reasoning. Oh granted they don't sit around wondering the whys and wherefores of egotism (or maybe they do, but we don't understand their complex clicking, growling, chirping, screaming whatever noise that they make when they communicate with each other) chances are they are to busy fighting, feeding and fucking to be wasting time on trivialities such as philosphy.

[AlphaMale]

cougar attacks and kills the man that stepped into her den-. Reason- to protect her off-spring

Instinctive territoriality. Not reason/intellect.

Fox has learned to push lids off bins to access garbage- intellect. reason- food

Blue tits have learned to peirce the foil of milk bottles to access the cream- intellect. Reason- food source

Again, only instinct. No different than smelling food under some brush and clearing the brush to get to it.

Let me amend myself a bit. There are some animals that have shown the beginings of rudimentary intellect, but none equal the complexity that is the human mind.

[WhiteCrowUK]

If an animal kills another animal just for sport does that make the animal's actions wrong? (humans excluded as the animal of course)

But surely the concept of right and wrong can only apply to an entity which has capacity for a degree of self analysis.

A cat might kill a mouse or a bird - but that is due to instinct over any concept of "I'm so evil because I killed a bird for sport".

[Rlib]

A kitten may kill not for food but it is still picking up skills it may need in later life. Perhaps this was also the case with humans in the past, but now with agriculture we no longer require these hunting skills yet our instincts remain. So could morality be the overcoming of expired instincts?

[Hellcat]

Let me amend myself a bit. There are some animals that have shown the beginings of rudimentary intellect, but none equal the complexity that is the human mind.

My apologies, I'm not sure I understand your definition of intellect & reason? Gimme an example

[Rlib]

My apologies, I'm not sure I understand your definition of intellect & reason? Gimme an example

While it may not be moral our ability to think has allowed us to change the environment in ways that animals cannot, hence the rapid growth of human cities (as Smith said, humans are like a virus in behaviour...) Now as far as we know there aren't any animals with the skills to design structures, design materials to build those structures, design tools to clear land to build those structures on, design weapons to protect themselves from other animals which might try to kill them while they're clearing the land, design barriers which keep said animals out from most of the cleared land, etc, etc, etc...

Although as I said, that's just as far as we know. Maybe dolphins are super-civilised and have progressed beyond the need for such structures. Maybe mice rule the world...

[AlphaMale]

My apologies, I'm not sure I understand your definition of intellect & reason? Gimme an example

That's ok. I was using the two interchangably.