Bravo!
You should check out Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard, he agreed with you, and laid it out in quite explicit detail.
I’ve been far less confused since finding his philosophy. (not that I’m a member or anything)
Ghandi was indeed a great man.
The world is less peaceful because of his passing.
I am sorry that the simplicity of the sentiments lack eloquence, it is not necessary to make it flowery.
I have first hand experience growing up in the middle east. I Now live in the Far East and prior to that in North America and Europe.
Personal experience in many cultures ruled by a multitude of beliefs.
Peace is in the spirit of those that think for themselves and will not be lead by the ideologies of others.
Respect for life in all it forms is not something that I lack. However when that same respect is not returned…I am not so altruistic as to stick my neck out for those who willfully disrepect mine.
There was a lot of ‘you’ in that statement - I don’t think that we are talking about me. We are talking about us. Sometimes I feel that we in this forum oversee the fact that we need something that can ignite people without burning the whole world. I can find my own peace of mind, but can I bring a majority together to move things?
That would be OK if there were not already other forces in the world which are manipulating the masses and trying to keep things the way they are. Reducing the motivation to personal self-interest is indeed the method Ron Hubbard, but he is promoting individualists. Whatever kind of elitist methods you adhere to, it will not bring us collectively further. It is much like those people who claim the market will regulate everything and people will be cared for.
We are unfortunately as most Religions say we are - short-sighted, hungry, egocentrical, alienated from our natural destiny, lost in a huge universe that seems to us to be silent. Blind and deaf, lame and leprous, we need a vision to bring us further.
Shalom
Bob
Bob - it wasn’t my intention to direct it at you, it was meant more in the sense of us, so perhaps my language is a bit slipshod.
Motivation to change can come from a variety of sources, through fear, through love, through reasoned argument and through the need for self-actualisation. Each of these motivations could bring people towards a middle ground. Fear of the other options, such as rising terrorism, or increasing anti-terrorist methods etc. Love is itself an attractive force which will draw people towards you, if that is what you are expressing. Reasoned argument will work up to a point, where it goes against the persons self interest, or runs into their uet’s. Increasing violence tends to interfere with peoples ability to be self actualising, since they have to deal with outside threats more. These forces are already at work in people, without necessarily needing to find something which will ignite people, beyond creating the middle ground.
Personally I don’t feel myself to be alienated from my natural destiny, nor lost, nor blind, nor deaf, nor lame, nor leprous, nor in need of vision, nor short-sighted, nor hungry. I am egocentric, and I see this as being healthy, since the only thing that I know with total certainty is that I exist, so to me it makes sense to put myself at the centre of things.
In my opinion, after doing what you need to do to stay alive, the most effective thing to do is to focus on self-healing, and then supporting others in their healing.
Anarchistangel - thanks for the suggestion about Dianetics, I’ll give it a quick look. I’ve never found it appealed much since I heard a quote attributed to Hubbard that ‘If you want to make money you should start a religion’, and I wasn’t inspired by those that I believe are involved such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta.
Yes, if it was all it claimed to be, it should’ve swept psychology out of science.
It did however map out a really logical explanation of what happens in the functioning of the brain.
I got my copy at a used book store for a dollar.
If religions weren’t perpetuated to benefit the preacher, there wouldn’t be any religions at all.
I finally got fed up with the deficiencies of current religious theories and started my own.
Free Born Anarchism. It’s in the FAQ on my site.
I’m still building it, so check back for updates to the list, I’ve got 40 or 50 of them, I just don’t have them typed in yet.
As for Scientology, their survival as a cash cow for the controllers is legendary, and that is why they started it in the first place.
Though that doesn’t negate the validity of Dianetics.
I think it will provide you with terms and concepts you already use.
Real Egoism surmounts the natural instinct of self preservation and actually endangers the individuals life in an uncontrolled environment. Alone the need for safety after satisfying physiological needs is met by cooperation with others. The human baby is dependent upon others to survive and the learning process for adolescence relies much upon example to help learn to survive in a violent surrounding. The need to belong and be loved isn’t just a need of infants, but goes through peaks and troughs throughout life. Esteem can only be given by other people and isn’t to be confused with the praise of subservients.
Assuming that Maslow is right about the hierarchy of needs, egoism assumes that primary needs will be satisfied – usually an assumption of people in a secure position – and refuses to cooperate like everybody else. Such security is either given by belonging to a society (and having appropriate duties) or taken by those who violate common agreements to their own advantage. However you look at it, the Egoist is cashing in on something that belongs to the majority and is in danger as long as he doesn’t have a means of protecting himself.
Shalom
Bob
I don’t know much about Maslow, but if he thinks my being alive obligates me to him, or anyone else, he’s got another thing comin’.
Is Egoism the disease, or Altruism, or both?
Are you confusing Egoism with greed and selfishness?
Do I have the wrong definition of Egoism?
Bob - first I’d ask what you mean by ‘Real Egoism’, since I think much may depend on what you mean.
I quite like Maslow’s heirarchy of needs, and I often use part of it to make choices, and justify positions in debate, but I’m not sure that it is all accurate.
I agree with placing physiological needs at the base, and safety next. I’m not so sure that the need for safety is met by cooperation with others, in some circumstances it may be, but in others it isn’t e.g. would I benefit by cooperating with my fellow Davidians at Waco, or my fellow Germans if I’m a Jew in Nazi Germany. To me it makes more sense to cooperate if, and only if, I think it is in my self-interest to do so, otherwise it may work better if I go it alone and follow my own path. For me being egocentric doesn’t mean I won’t cooperate with others, but that I will check that my needs are being met by cooperating first.
I’d agree that a baby is to a very large degree dependent on others for survival, and that as the child gets older they may still benefit from being in relationship to others (though again, not in all situations, as I’m sure you would agree given you started a thread about domestic violence), though some do survive outside of any normal kind of support system e.g. street children in third world, or even second world countries.
Where I disagree with you is more where you talk about a need to belong, and need to be loved. It is my experience and understanding that a need to belong and to be loved, as opposed to a desire to belong and be loved, arises from unhealed emotional trauma, and that this is only healable by prioritising yourself. Thus, if you are not egocentric you can’t move beyond this level in the heirarchy in any permanent way and reach the levels of self-actualisation. I would agree that I have needed others to show me love in order for me to heal, but that it is not a place to remain in, and that having healed I no longer need to be loved by others, though I desire to be.
As for the need for esteem, what is important, in my opinion, is self-esteem, and that is not dependent on others, but comes from the degree to which I live up to my own values. I believe this is true for most people however healthy they are. I’m not saying that esteem from others isn’t helpful and pleasing, but that if it is dependent on others then the person will be unable to be themselves if it goes against the commonly held views and behaviours in society (to me you come across as a man of principle, who would hold to his beliefs even if most, or even all the others disagreed with you - so surely your esteem is coming from yourself, and that you feel better for being principled.)
I can see how you get to the statement that egoism assumes that primary needs will be satisfied, but for me being egocentric is an essential part of meeting those needs - ensuring that I have eaten and drunk, that I am safe, and that I can self-actualise (in my view a very egocentric activity). Further, I would add that healing oneself leads to a healthier love for oneself and others, so that in prioritising myself, I actually become more loving of others, and that my cooperation with others is based on my self-interest and a greater caring for others (bodhisattva). In my view this is a far more stable place to act from than from feelings of duty.
OK
Self interest is admittedly a normal part of self preservation, but the kind of egoism that is spreading throughout society - as usual for such developments - overinterprets what is regarded normal and dogmatises that exaggeration. This kind of egoism, which is ‘really’ what people are talking about on the street, is negative and destructive in a manner that society doesn’t recognise at first.
Such Egoism hollows out society and leads to the masses resigning to the fact that egoism is normal. The fact is that our civilisation would not have come to be, if people had been egocentrical all the time. It is the selfless struggle for Freedom, Liberty and Rights that has given later generations the opportunity to be egocentrical, but it is hardly to be regarded as ‘healthy.’
The Davidians had fellow Davidians and the Jews fellow Jews - your argument is flawed.
I think I know what you are talking about, but “Self-actualisation is a term coined by psychologist Abraham Maslow to describe the ongoing process of fully developing your personal potential. The first thing to note about self-actualisation is that it is a process not a goal. In other words, self-actualisation is not something that you aim for: it is something that you do. The second thing to note is that self-actualisation is not restricted to high-profile, high-achieving individuals; you don’t have to be famous to self-actualise.” willpower.4mg.com/whatisselfactualisation.html
Being autonomous doesn’t have it’s synonym in egoism. Nor do experienced moments of high excitement, ecstasy, harmony and deep meaning. These kind of experiences have been made by many Mystics who were very active socially. If I have a mission in life and attempt to solve problems and pursue goals that are outside of myself, then I am self-actualising, but not egocentrical. Self-actualisers take an interest in others. They care about the well being of others and the community in which they live. Additionally, their relationships with loved ones are deep and committed - which is not egocentrical.
At the same time, self actualiser are just as comfortable with being alone as with enjoying close relationships with others, even though self-actualisers enjoy their own company. But that isn’t Egoism either.
Shalom
Bob
Bob, I think that we use the word egocentric to mean different things. I mean that, on a mental level that I see myself as being at the centre of my universe, as I believe everyone has to. Further, on an emotional level that I will always prioritise myself. All of this I believe to be healthy. I was surprised when checking definitions of egocentric to see how value laden the word is, how it has acquired meanings far beyond its literal meaning.
To be egocentric, for me, does not mean that I don’t care about others, and that I won’t perform acts of social value.
I see self-actualisers as being very self-confident individuals, who will hold to their aims and beliefs in the face of difficulties. For me this means that they are prioritising their beliefs and values over others, and so displaying egocentricity.
Egoism, as you see it, has grown greatly in our world as society has given greater value to individuals, which I see to be a movement in a healthier direction. I think that you see this egoism in a negative way, but for me it is a very potent force which can be used for healing. In my experience it is not possible to heal unhealed emotional trauma without valuing your own feelings (which I think that most people have trouble doing), and egoism is capable of doing that. As an individual heals, the aspects of egoism that are less desirable will tend to lessen, and the individual will become more able to fulfill their potential.
I understand, but that is only the perspective we have on the outer world. As children we cannot understand abstract ideas, we fail to see the connection between different aspects of life and see everything in a simplistic way. As we grow older, we should begin to understand the complexities - among them, the fact that we are not the centre of the universe and that alone is reason enough to give up any kind of egocentricity.
Prioritising oneself is necessary in many situations - the dead hero can’t fight another day. But there are other situations when it is necessary to see oneself as a part of the collective and the need to uphold collective values. That can mean the loss of the individual. To keep your own health whilst your child hungers is clearly immoral - which shows that there is a limit to everything.
I think we could agree if you said that it ‘can’ be healthy and it ‘can’ heal - unfortunately, looking at the whole of mankind, it is very rare.
Shalom
Bob