Is Selfishness and Egotism a Moral Necessity

[GeistFaust]

My belief is that selfishness and egotism are a moral necessity. This is to say that they are both necessities which arise from certain psychological conditions. We are conditioned instinctually to be selfish and egotistical in accordance with surviving. This does not mean we should exclude ourselves from the community of people or to isolate ourselves from serving a common good. It just means we should only consider belonging to this community of people or this common good in so far as it serves our egotism and selfishness to some extent or another.



My belief is that egotistic and selfish man is true master of morality, and all his thoughts and actions are determined in accordance with authentic and noble principles and rules. The man who believes in an altruistic reality where all those in the community serve each other as equals and in an equal manner is a mere communistic delusion. It is this fantasy which many a religious man falls into even though subconsciously the religious man does not believe this to be true.



This is to say that anything that is self-conscious of itself which determine itself to some extent or another in an egotistical and selfish manner is acting in contradiction with his nature. Alas the religious man in his foolish ponderings believes this contradiction to be an act of reason and to allow him to attain liberty and freedom. Instead all it does is takes from him what he truly desires and projects his true desires into a realm of hell and heaven.



This type of man who believes in this principle of life has already defeated his purpose of life and the purpose of life in its totality. This is not a man who can claim to have self-mastered himself or taken responsibility of that which is unique and original in him. There is no greater way to profane the sacred then to reject the reality of this world for some other reality which never might be.



This is the curse the pious and sublime man brings upon us and he does so through the cunning devies of dogma. They appear to be so sacredly devised to the ignorant and foolish man, when they are but extrapolations of the sensibility of the pious man. A sensibility which is full of all kinds of wickedness, but which tries to conceal this wickedness through dogma.



This is to say that this man is nothing short of a hypocrite for trying to conceal that which is natural within his being. This is a great crime and one which we should look lightly upon. Its only the man of egotism and selfishness that can abstract from all that is unique and original within him in order to determine his being to its fullest.



This is the man of philosophy and art and it is upon him that existence can reach a second birth. It is only the man of egotism and selfishness that can make that creative leap into the abyss of his person through the utilizations of his own uniqueness and originality.

[TheBorrebyViking]

I agree, if we don't think of ourselves as superiour in some way, we are admitting we are inferiour.

[GeistFaust]

I agree, if we don't think of ourselves as superiour in some way, we are admitting we are inferiour.


Its completely insane and ridiculous to not being selfish and egotistical to some extent. Most of our altruistic acts themselves are nothing but selfish and egotistical acts to some degree.

This is why I like to say all those people who believe in a communistic mindset where we are all equal and deserve things in equal are just hypocrites.


They are not being honest or straightforward about their egotism and selfishness, but instead they try to disguise and hide it. They do this through rational arguments and propositions all of which exploit their egotism and selfishness.

[Der Steinadler]

My belief is that selfishness and egotism are a moral necessity. This is to say that they are both necessities which arise from certain psychological conditions. We are conditioned instinctually to be selfish and egotistical in accordance with surviving. This does not mean we should exclude ourselves from the community of people or to isolate ourselves from serving a common good. It just means we should only consider belonging to this community of people or this common good in so far as it serves our egotism and selfishness to some extent or another.

if there's such a thing as a 'common good', then surely egotism is a contrary attitude.



My belief is that egotistic and selfish man is true master of morality, and all his thoughts and actions are determined in accordance with authentic and noble principles and rules. The man who believes in an altruistic reality where all those in the community serve each other as equals and in an equal manner is a mere communistic delusion. It is this fantasy which many a religious man falls into even though subconsciously the religious man does not believe this to be true.

who said communism is altruistic ?

[GeistFaust]

I don't believe there is a common good just a collection of egos that more or less are attempting to secure their own self-interests.

A common law should be constructed so as to preserve the safety of each individual as they pursue their self interest.


I think that usually the common good is just a guise for certain members to attain a lot of power and sway over the ignorance of the common man.



Its not that Communism is necessarily altruistic or that altruism is necessary a symptom of Communism, but that these both have a tendency to produce each other.

[Flintlocke]

Best piece you ever wrote Geist :thumb001:

[Der Steinadler]

I don't believe there is a common good just a collection of egos that more or less are attempting to secure their own self-interests.

Why do believe that ?



A common law should be constructed so as to preserve the safety of each individual as they pursue their self interest.

There is already a law constructed for that purpose.



I think that usually the common good is just a guise for certain members to attain a lot of power and sway over the ignorance of the common man.

Its not that Communism is necessarily altruistic or that altruism is necessary a symptom of Communism, but that these both have a tendency to produce each other.

There's nothing altruistic about communism.

Marx wrote about Dialectic Materialism. His view is economic.

Quite a distinction from Socialism.

[GeistFaust]

It is affirmed in that there is a law to protect us from people using the guise of the common good for their own self-interests.

Yes I know this I was just reaffirming the need for it regardless of how frivolous or petty it might seem.


Yes, I know there is a distinction between Socialism, but I should have specified that the Communism I am speaking about regards Christianity. Its not the Communism that is found in Marx or any others of his disciples. It simply applies to the communistic mentality Christianity espouses at times.

[Der Steinadler]

It is affirmed in that there is a law to protect us from people using the guise of the common good for their own self-interests.

Yes I know this I was just reaffirming the need for it regardless of how frivolous or petty it might seem.


Yes, I know there is a distinction between Socialism, but I should have specified that the Communism I am speaking about regards Christianity. Its not the Communism that is found in Marx or any others of his disciples. It simply applies to the communistic mentality Christianity espouses at times.

ok I won't question you too much on this.

but I still want you to question yourself on why you believe this.......



I don't believe there is a common good just a collection of egos that more or less are attempting to secure their own self-interests.

[GeistFaust]

ok I won't question you too much on this.

but I still want you to question yourself on why you believe this.......


My belief is that humanity naturally inclines to its own egotism and selfishness and fulfilling the wants and needs as conditioned by society and the environment.

A state is just a fabrication to repress the egotism and selfishness of people through certain laws and codes of conduct.

If we did not have these in place then mankind would be the worse off, and these laws and codes of conduct are often manipulated by those in power for egotistical and selfish concerns.

[Der Steinadler]

My belief is that humanity naturally inclines to its own egotism and selfishness and fulfilling the wants and needs as conditioned by society and the environment.


A state is just a fabrication to repress the egotism and selfishness of people through certain laws and codes of conduct.

If we did not have these in place then mankind would be the worse off, and these laws and codes of conduct are often manipulated by those in power for egotistical and selfish concerns.

so a parent-child relationship is egocentric ?

[GeistFaust]

so a parent-child relationship is egocentric ?

Yes it is very much so to some extent or another. The act of the child being produced is one of egotism, because it arises from two people attempting to satisfy their instinctual desires.


Now some parents might be more self-serving and sacrificial to their children then others, and a certain degree of servitude is necessary for the survival of the child. But in retrospect there is also something that is gained from the parent in the production and maintenance of the child.


This is not always evident to most, and I think a lot of parents try to conceal it quite well, but it does exist to some extent or another regardless of whether the parents or children recognize it.

[Phil75231]

I think you’re defining selfishness too broadly. In common everyday terms, “selfishness” means doing whatever the hell you want to just because you can, regardless of how many and to what extent or degree it non-trivially hurts or offends someone. One can probably get away with this in the short run (whether in personal terms or in terms of species evolution), but in the long run, unbridled selfishness of all is counterproductive, to say the least.

As you said in your first paragraph, we are all part of some community (I happen to think the whole world is one community, although I know that’s not a popular view on here). Being part of a community means that you have mutual ties and obligations to other people. While that doesn’t prevent the selfishness of groups of people, it does show that selfishness and egotism – taken in their purest forms, do contradict the notion of community.

Another problem is that promoting selfishness and egotism leads to unhealthy self-indulgence – may benefit us in the short term, but in the long term, it’ll come back and bite us in the ass. This is because different people have different interests, needs, desires, mentalities, and so forth. So we have to compromise insofar as interests are concerned. Perhaps that’s how we evolved empathy, sympathy, and compassion – because it’s a long-term survival good. J. Wesley Ulm discusses this in At any rate, J Wesley Ulm addresses the point of selfishness pretty thoroughly here What Darwin Did Not Mean: How Social Darwinism Fails Us (www.utne.com/Politics/​How-Social-Darwinism-Fails-Us.aspx). This one is very long, but if you want a short overview, try Survival of the Nicest: Social Darwinism is Bio-mimicry Gone Wrong (www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/survival-of-the-nicest-social-darwinism-is-biomimicry-gone-wrong.html ) and Mathematical Mysteries: Survival of the Nicest (plus.maths.org/content/os/issue19/xfile/index)

Communistic =/= Immoral. At worst, it means unrealistic on a societal level. I admit it’s not possible for a person to be a pure “communist” even in one-on-one relations, but it does not follow that there are people who can act more “communistically” than the societal average – especially with regard to family members and friends.

Also, it does not follow that the other extreme – selfishness and egotism – is morally legitimate. To advocate such a thing would seem to permit, if not mandate, moral nihilism. If I’m missing something in this rebuttal, I’d like to know what it is.

In addition, lot of community volunteers would disagree that they serve no purpose in life. Maybe you can say it’s “selfish” in the highly abstract sense – helping others in order to assuage their guilt feelings or feelings of urgency toward helping those less fortunate than themselves. However, this is not considered “selfishness’ in the common everyday sense of the word. Maybe you mean selfishness in the broader sense I described. If so, I’d like to get a firm word on what your definition and criteria of the term are, given that it plays the central part in your essay.

The post also downplays selflessness and consideration of others' well being even if you have to pay a huge price for it. Given that the housing bubble collapse was due in large part to repealing laws that were supposed to prevent selfish and destructive forms of wealth pursuit, I simply cannot grasp how any such society can remain prosperous and stable in the long run (unless you’re talking about selfishness outside the common everyday sense of the term). If you ask me, I'd rather not live in such a w

As for the altruistic man being a hypocrite, the hypocrisy charge holds ONLY if he is claiming to be a great and wonderful person, yet doing the exact opposite. Likely he never claimed to be even close to morally perfect in the first place. Besides, just because a person doesn’t practice what he preaches does not mean others should refuse to follow his words. Admittedly, for all we know, we shouldn’t follow his words anyway. If that’s the case, it’s certainly not because that person is a hypocrite. The hypocrite’s claims have to be evaluated on their own merits – not on the basis of whether they practice what they preach.

In the end, the OP seems to imply we should follow an “if it feels good, do it” pseudo-philosophy scarcely different from the law of the jungle (or savanna). That may be appropriate for wild animal but not for an animal creative, self-reflective, self-conscious human being. Yes, we are animals, but our mental abilities and ability to create and transmit culture lets us overrule our animal instincts to a considerable degree. I address this in my Social Darwinism (www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26299) post. For now, it’s enough to say that to say selfishness and egotism are A-OK is to imply that humans have no more capacity for moral and ethical self-reflection than do wild animals.

[Der Steinadler]

Yes it is very much so to some extent or another. The act of the child being produced is one of egotism, because it arises from two people attempting to satisfy their instinctual desires.


Now some parents might be more self-serving and sacrificial to their children then others, and a certain degree of servitude is necessary for the survival of the child. But in retrospect there is also something that is gained from the parent in the production and maintenance of the child.


This is not always evident to most, and I think a lot of parents try to conceal it quite well, but it does exist to some extent or another regardless of whether the parents or children recognize it.

Point for consideration.

If the premise (Egotism is Natural) is true, and it is justified on the basis of instinctual desires, then any motivation by a parent to sacrifice their life for their children has also to be Egocentric.

[GeistFaust]

Point for consideration.

If the premise (Egotism is Natural) is true, and it is justified on the basis of instinctual desires, then any motivation by a parent to sacrifice their life for their children has also to be Egocentric.


This exactly right.

[GeistFaust]

The only way to make up for the illegitimacy of things in their totality, civilization and culture has constructed certain codes of conduct. Also there are social venues which allow us to remain productive, and it is within these confines that our egotism and selfishness remains valid and justified. This is to say that the congregating of individuals to fulfill a specific need of a community is merely based on a proportional level of pleasure or happiness an individual will derive from this act.


I don't agree with that perspective, so I will respectively disagree with it. The world is being increasingly globalized, but this does not mean our individuality or the networks of selfishness and egotism are diminishing. In actuality they are expanding because they have the means to reach more people and affect them like so. The reason for this selfishness and egotism usually has more to do with certain individuals gaining for themselves certain unnecessary luxuries.


At the same time in theory selfishness and egotism in a sense is practical to gaining the most basic needs for survival. Thus selfishness and egotism are just base and primal instincts which react out of the need for self-preservation. I think individuals today have been socially engineered to the point where they are no longer capable of seeing their egotism and selfishness.




This though is impossible since subconsciously each individual is inclined towards egotism and selfishness in order to supply for needs. A need leads to a false need which evolves along with the organism. This false need presents itself in the accumulation of luxuries, which is as much as a necessity to a certain extent as the basic means to survive. The egotistical need to acquire the means to survival predicates the egotistical needs for certain commodities that only satisfy us for the sake of luxury.


.

[GeistFaust]

@Phil

Instead its all masked in those elites which program them within the confines of social activity and to a lesser extent in the private sphere of each social unit. Instead humans have become like unconscious monsters reckless in respect to confining their selfishness and egotism in so far as they don't violate a certain set of social principles and rules.


But I don't think selfishness and egotism suppress or repress community instead without selfishness and egotism community would not be a possibility. This is because community is the direct production of selfishness and egotism. People conform to a community to some extent or another subconsciously to fulfill a selfish or egotistical want or need. This is a consquence of the previous sentence which I wrote before this last one.



I disagree with you on this in part. I do think that over indulging in our self-interests and egotism can lead us to become maligned individualities. That is isolating ourselves does not serve in aiding us to satisfy our subconscious selfishness and egotism. Instead is through the fabrication of the community that the individual can at times find ways to achieve a egotistical or selfish ends. That is in so far as it conforms to certain norms and standards which the community sets upon its member.



I don't think niceness or kindness work in a functional or operative society. These are just veils to keep us from seeing the malicious egotism and selfishness which could underly the chain of command in a certain social network. The different mentalities, personalities, and types in society can only be satisfied in proportion to their productivity. This rule that I set forth unfortunately is not adhered to in society, and I believe it might just be a mere fancy which I have concoted up for myself.



That said the degree of niceness or kindness which an individual or group can show is only in proportion to their the gain or profit they have made on the basis of their own egotistical or selfish desires. This is to say that if niceness or kindness are to exist at all its stimulated by some egotistical and selfish desire. The average person might have the illusion that it is or not, and the person who is supplying the charity might try to appear to be freely giving.

[GeistFaust]

@Phil

Communistic thought generally is immoral for the very reason that it promotes unrealistic attitudes and behaviors on the societal level. Communism is the elimination of egotism through the most vulgar and crass expressions of egotism and selfishness. It is when we try to eliminate egotism, which is a subconscious reality of mankind, that the most vulgar, animalistic, and uncontrolled forms of egotism and selfishness arise.



This is why a realistic and egotistic society is a necessity in order to repress the inclination towards anarchy, which man's ego is prediposed since birth. It is in certain forms of Socialism and Communism where we see the narcissism of the individual unleashed on itself and the other. That is through the negation of commodities to the interests of certain powerful individuals in power.


It is then that the selfishness and egotism of society in total is repressed in order to inordinately satisfy the anarchial selfishness of its leaders. This is only one form of the all versus all conflict which we find in society when egotism and selfishness are left unchecked by certain norms and standards in society. Look at some religious people or hippies for example, they are perfect examples of what I mean by egotism gone dysfunctional.



The causes for the dysfunctional ego in these specific social groups are different and arise from differing ideologies. In some religious groups egotism reaches it most destructive and narcisstic limits when there is a necessity to submit to a code of dogma, which is written up by selfish and egotistical men. It can be found that we are supposed to submit our self interest, egotism, and selfishness, which are all natural necessities, to a divine authority.



A divine authority which only is an abstraction and invention of those who authorize dogma. This is so they can justify their egotistical and selfish desires under the whims of divinity and sacredness. This is why I say at times that religion and its dogmatic structure runs contrary to the nature of man. It makes man do things which run into contradiction with both his own subconscious reality It also runs in contradiction fantasy world which the religious man wishes to construct for himself and others.



I think you are right in this regard. My mentality tends to that of the hippies in regards to the two different forms of destructive egotism. But my belief is selfishness and egotism are natural necessities which require us to attain luxuries and needs in proportion to how much we want or need of them.


The over indulging in egotism and selfishness is just as bad as the narcisstic negation of egotism and selfishness which is found in the piety and sublimity of religion. The latter keeps us from maintaing a stable and consistent channeling of our wants and desires in a productive manner.


The over indulgement in certain substances generally leads to the destruction of the instincts. The former causes us to negate our necessary wants and desires, which arise subconsciously from our being, in order to serve an illegitimate authority which has little to no bearing on the reality of our life

[GeistFaust]

@Phil

Selfishness and Egotism are not things which are bad or good for the individual engaging in such activities. The brain does not have discretion of what is right or wrong except in accordance with the principles and rules of their parents and society. I might have not defined selfishness in a specific manner, but I think it is inadequate to fix a specific definition to selfishness. In large part the egotism or selfishness of a thought or action should in large part depend on it affects someone to interpret the egotism or selfishness of that thought or act.


I think that certain charities and non-profit organizations are egotistical and selfish on the basis that they could be supplying those same means and products to those who are more viable and vital to society as a whole. This is to say that its narcisstic to give to those who are illegitimate or irrelevant to making any noticable impact on society as a whole.


This is to say that they people have no merit unless they are egotistical or selfish regarding producing a certain end which has merit for that individual or group in accordance with the wants and needs of society. This though she be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner, because that which people see as satisfying their wants and needs differs from each other. This especially is true when we deal with people's selfishness and egotism regarding the acquirement of certain unnecessary commodities, which they deem necessary to consume.



You need a balance between selfishness and not selfishness. That is between the selfishness of one individual or group in relation to the selfishness of other individuals and groups. These oppositions are necessary in life, because they produce friction and resistance.


If this friction and resistance is controlled and grounded under certain principles and rules then much good and creativity can arise from it. This is in order to spark the competition of people into producing in accordance with their own egotism and self interest society must attempt to repress or suppress his egotism or self interest.


That is there must be a repression of egotism and selfishness by egotism and selfishnenss in order the egotism of individuals and groups to take on any meaningful direction. That is a direction which subconsciously tries to coerce the anarchial desire to consume all with a communal effort to supply the wants and needs of all individuals and groups in society under certain rules and principles.

We have no grounds to test the hypocrisy of the hypocritical man as he expresses himself to us. This is because we will not always have the luxury to hear everything he says and see everything he does.


Also a lot of narcissism is something which is concealed with the internal activity of the individual. That is a person can appear to be generous, but either due to a lack of understanding how to properly distribute or through careful manipulation, but in actuality this man is not generous.

Instead he only deceives himself in his own generousity and strokes his ego without even him being conscious of it to the full extent.


I am actually saying that Egotism and Selfishness are necessary attitudes to take in order to retain order and discipline of individuals in society. At the same time I wish that people will recognize the subconscious role selfishness and egotism play in our relations and social reactions. In a sense both conscious and unconscious selfishness and egotism are moral necessities to some extent or another.


The latter as long as it accords with certain social principles and rules which society forces all egos to accord with to some extent or another. This is necessary for self-preservation of the egotism and self-interests of individuals and the protection of some egos from other egos. At the same time I wanted to outline that this need to build a code of conduct or ethical system, which represses a narcisstic expression of selfishness, arises from selfish or egotistical considerations and actions.


I already explained this by giving the analogy of the structure of the family, which arises from the instinctual selfishness and egotism which arises from both partners desiring sex. This desire fuels even the orientation of the parents to serve the common good of their children. That is in serving their children they are subconsciously just serving their subconscious desire to fulfill their selfish and egotistical desire for sex.

[Der Steinadler]

Point for consideration.

If the premise (Egotism is Natural) is true, and it is justified on the basis of instinctual desires, then any motivation by a parent to sacrifice their life for their children has also to be Egocentric.



This exactly right.

why is that ...true (right is the incorrect word) ?

Explain within the confines of the parent-child relationship context.

[Chronos]

My belief is that humanity naturally inclines to its own egotism and selfishness and fulfilling the wants and needs as conditioned by society and the environment.

An interesting thing to ponder upon in this regard is the hunter gatherer societies of the past, where collaboration was necessary (supposedly they had a 20 hour "work week"). Greek and Italian city states are also interesting.

A state is just a fabrication to repress the egotism and selfishness of people through certain laws and codes of conduct.

I hope you are kidding with this. Let me ask you a very simple question: who is more selfish and egoistical, the farmer out on the pastures, or the megapolis secular godless man? Its so blatantly obvious dude. It is completely the opposite way.

If we did not have these in place then mankind would be the worse off, and these laws and codes of conduct are often manipulated by those in power for egotistical and selfish concerns.

[GeistFaust]

why is that ...true (right is the incorrect word) ?

Explain within the confines of the parent-child relationship context.


Parents make children dependent on their own want/demand, which in large part is driven and stimulated by unconscious forces. At the same time some of it, although a marginal part, is shaped and formed by their consciousness and free will. The thing is the parent-child relationship works in that the child receives, but on the basis they are dependent on the want/demand of the parents, which is an instinctual process.


This instinctual process will unconsciously include some form of egotism, even if its only marginal, but its not always easy to quantify the egotism in this specific situation. The want/demand of the child is dependent and driven by the want/demand of the parents, which in large part is driven by a dichotomy of forces. One of which is the reality principle, which makes it possible for the other factor, the pleasure principle to be a reality at all.


The reality principle derives itself out of a certain want/demand which is stimulated by the pleasure principle, but makes use of conscious material and information to keep the pleasure principle at bay. If the reality principle was not the central and primal factor and mode in determining cultural and social affairs then societies intellectual and moral fabric would disintegrate.


The reality principle allows the pleasure principle to breathe and exist whatsoever, and whatever does not conform to reality in some sense, can not be applied to it or within it. In a sense that which psychologically necessitates egotism, ends up suppressing or oppressing itself within the context of this reciprocral union. The same applies to the whole parent-child relationship.



It is the child in a sense which drives the parents to supply for the want/demand of that child, but on the basis of their own want/demand. The child has no reality for the parent, unless to some extent or another subconsciously the want/demand of that child is suppressed and made to conform with the realistic desires of the parents.


These desires, wants, and needs are necessary in a sense, but in a way necessary in an egotistical fashion. The desire for certain primal wants and needs, which are purely egotistical, are instead driven and directed from the parent to the child. This transition occurs once a primal want or need has been met, and has resulted in the production of a child.


The Reality principle makes the child's existence a concrete possibility, but the fantasy world or pleasure principle which is suppressed, yet projected by the reality principle, in actuality produces the child. This means a child is produced in a sense by what Schoepenhauer calls the will to live, which manifests itself in all egos, in an unconscious manner, but which "separates" the ego from the id.


That said our own egotistical consciousness, which is necessary for objectivity in reality and life, affects to a great extent the unconscious forces of that process of reproduction. This is the unfortunate part, that is that one can not know just how egotistical they are.



Not just because their conscious actions, behaviors, and thoughts are distilled and trapped in the subconscious or fantasy world, but because unconscious forces in the culture and environment drive our conscious egos subconsciously to act in insidious ways to "survive" at times. The supposedly and perceived subconscious fulfillment of the child's want/demand depends to a great extent on the reality principle which is governed and authorized by the egotistical whims of the parents.


This egotism has the potential to be both good or bad, productive or destructive. It can allow for objectivity though, which is something the pleasure principle and a weak ego can not. The issue is that the want/demand of the child and the ego which constitutes the child is shaped in large part by the fantasy world of the parents, which is constructed of the primal wants and needs of that parent.


It is impossible to gauge and quantify the affects the conscious egotism of the parent has distilled in this fantasy world, and how much it influences their supposedly selfless and non-ego driven care of the child. In reality the relationship centers around the reality principle which is governed and authorized by the parent, and which is subconscious shaped by the pressures of the culture, environment, and the child.



In a sense its only the egotism and reality principle which does not self-alienate the child from the parent in theory, although in actuality there is a certain self-alienation between the child and parent, which can never be bridged. In essence though the luxuries, wants, and demands of the parent in a sense shape the dependent nature of the child's wants and demands as it pertains to the reality principle.


At the same time this makes the child an unconscious perceiver and receptor of the primal wants/demands of the parent's fantasy world, which is the origin of that child's existence. It is this force in my opinion which is self-alienating, and necessitates that selfishness and egotism on the parent's part is the only way a balance or stability can be made in a relationship.



Now it is probable that perhaps in an immediate crisis or desperate situation the parent would sacrifice themselves for the child, because in a sense it would be seen as a move of self-preservation stimulated by the fantasy world and pleasure principle.



At the same time, and to some degree unknown to that parent, this act of sacrifice is driven by their own egotism and submission to the reality principle. This is something which affects and is affected by the unconscious forces of the culture and environment, which can never be fully evaluated or quantified, only felt and sensed in an intuitive fashion in relation to the child's want/demands.

[Grumpy Cat]

No. It's bad for the community as a whole. It is selfishness and narcissism promoted in the last 50 years or so (promoted by the Baby Boomers, the most selfish and narcissistic generation in history) that caused the degeneration of Western society.

[GeistFaust]

You do not know what I mean when I said egotistical and selfishness in that context. I meant egotism and selfishness as understood from a more primal and basic standpoint. Just because man is brutish, shortish, and nasty does not mean he has no ego, quite the opposite. His egotism is still there in a latent and underdeveloped form, but it tends more towards a destructive mentality then a productive which is brought about through certain social codes, laws, and mores.


It is these codes, laws, and mores which establish an order, which suppress and repress the base and primal egotism and selfishness of humans, which has a tendency to be destructive. It basically turns a destructive drive into a more constructive drive, and it does so for not just the individual's own good, but society as a whole.



In a sense by suppressing and oppressing this form of latent and neutral form of egotism and selfishness you are creating opportunities and possibilities to enrich its qualitative state and expand its internal boundaries in a positivistic manner. I would say that both the farmer and secular city man are egotistical in their own way, and since both function and operate on a quasi similar basis in today's structured and ordered social world they both can be beneficial and productive to society in their own way.



I think that the psychological need for a positive form of egotism and selfishness is a morally good thing for the individual and civilization as a whole, since it got him out of his own destructive and self-absorbed world of egotism and selfishness. That is a world where he could not drive or project his primal wants, needs, and emotions in a positive way which could aid others, but in a way which was reckless and uncontrolled(Look at some primitive societies today).



Now subconsciously all humans have this desire to reach a balance and stability between reality and pleasure, but this only be achieved through reason and a rational course of action, which in large part centers around the self-interest of individuals. A self-interest though which attempts in some manner, although in a self-interested manner, whether it be conscious or subconsciously, to procure its wants/demands by aiding the wants/demands of others.

[GeistFaust]

No. It's bad for the community as a whole. It is selfishness and narcissism promoted in the last 50 years or so (promoted by the Baby Boomers, the most selfish and narcissistic generation in history) that caused the degeneration of Western society.


Well that is selfishness and egotism taken to the extreme. If its all put in the right context it can be fine. I find that some of the more prosperous societies centered around a more secular and individualistic principles. Look at the Renaissance for example. In my opinion what I am advocating for is a mentality that is more driven on capitalistic and competitive economic measures.


In a sense this a good thing for improving and advancing ourselves as well as others, opposed to the stagnancy and neutrality of some socialistic/hunter gatherer mentality which backfires on its own wants/demands in retrospect.


There is no doubt that these principles, and a more self-interested emphasis on self can be taken in the wrong way, but I think the most good can come from these forms of egotism and selfishness. Everything has the potential to become one sided or is one sided to some extent, but a disciplined, structured, and orderly form of egotism and selfishness allows for the most capacity for production for self and other by maintaining a certain check and balance system between the ego and id.

[Phil75231]

The major weakness of glorifying selfishness is that it inevitably degenerates into equating freedom with doing whatever the hell you want, regardless of how bad the consequences are for others. That isn't a society that will sustain itself in the long run (for a good example of selfishness run amok, take a tour of the state penitentiary grounds when the inmates are out for their exercise and fresh air).

[LastManOnEarth]

Regarding selfishness and egotism:

When I read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche in my early twenties I could have written something similar to your exposé.

The view of existence which these streams of thought perpetuate however, is hopelessness.

Personally I think most philosophies and religious ideas can be distilled into two tight defining directions:

I: A philosophy of coincidence;

where all things in the universe are random forces orchestrated only by the laws of physics and chemistry.
In this view we humans are basically an evolutionary mishap and a sort of freak of nature which already has gone out of bounds but still wants more and more.
To adhere to this idea, one has to believe that god is absent (atheism etc) or that we humans are supposed to take over his place in revolt (Luciferianism satanism).

It is this world view which the previously mentioned intellectuals hold. "Relativism".

Your inquiry about selfishness and egotism is relevant in this context, and the answer is yes, we humans must by nature be selfish because in the end we are only just animals (Nietzschean will to power / growth etc etc.)

It must actually be seen as the main drive and motivation behind all forms of human activities (all the way from clerk to "fascist dictator") if one subscribes to this "philosophy of coincidence"

Like you touch upon when you write, in this case rebirth is the coming of the "übermensch", who uses the common, pitiful, pathetic and replaceble man on the street as a "bridge" to reach a "higher state".

The other form of looking upon reality is a

II: Philosophy of purpose;

which needless to say, is regulated by a supreme deity, many times more powerful than we are.
This deity can be, according to different opinions, be either malevolent or benevolent.
"Negative" gnostics for example, view this force as very incomplete and somewhat incompetent in its ways (compare Luciferianism), while real spiritual Christians see a good father, capable of saving humans into the kingdom of heaven. A totally different form of rebirth.

Personally I see a good force, capable of binding people together and give us riches, as long as we are willing to "do our part", that is to abstain from certain acts or behaviours which are malevolent, hurt others or create bad energies in general.

And here is my point for you:

- when looked upon with purpose behind it, existence does not have to answer your question. It is simply irrelevant.
Because when you give yourself up to somebody else you might gain much more than you would if simply caring for your own interests (selfishness, egotism) in an animalistic, primitive and brutish manner.
It is not a matter of dialectics or intellect, which is why everybody may get a shot at it.
It´s a matter of feeling, of interconnectedness. The divine can guide you if you want it to.

Most famous philosophers (almost all except Kierkegaard) were foreign to the idea of a benevolent superior deity capable of divine intervention.

I think that´s why they went to such lengths in the context of intellectual activity and logics etc, always searching for meaning outside their own lives.


Sorry I wrote this quite fast, hope it´s coherent enough.

[Phil75231]

Regarding selfishness and egotism:

When I read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche in my early twenties I could have written something similar to your exposé.

The view of existence which these streams of thought perpetuate however, is hopelessness.

Personally I think most philosophies and religious ideas can be distilled into two tight defining directions:

I: A philosophy of coincidence;

where all things in the universe are random forces orchestrated only by the laws of physics and chemistry.
In this view we humans are basically an evolutionary mishap and a sort of freak of nature which already has gone out of bounds but still wants more and more.
To adhere to this idea, one has to believe that god is absent (atheism etc) or that we humans are supposed to take over his place in revolt (Luciferianism satanism).

It is this world view which the previously mentioned intellectuals hold. "Relativism".

Your inquiry about selfishness and egotism is relevant in this context, and the answer is yes, we humans must by nature be selfish because in the end we are only just animals (Nietzschean will to power / growth etc etc.)

It must actually be seen as the main drive and motivation behind all forms of human activities (all the way from clerk to "fascist dictator") if one subscribes to this "philosophy of coincidence"

Like you touch upon when you write, in this case rebirth is the coming of the "übermensch", who uses the common, pitiful, pathetic and replaceble man on the street as a "bridge" to reach a "higher state".

There's also another view that rejects the übermensch, of which Schopenhauer is regarded as the father of Antinatalism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism). The belief is that humans would be better off extinct because either (a)life has no objective provable purpose or (b) suffering exists and the best way to end it is to not expose people to it in the first place. Therefore, we have no realistic hope of achieving any "better" state (technological innovations notwithstanding).

Transhumanism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism), probably (consciously or unconsciously) well-aligned with the Nietzschean view, not surprisingly is opposed to antinatalism. They believe that reaching the highest state possible for a conscious entity is a worthy goal for its own sake.

Ironic that Schopenhauer inspired two diametrically opposed movements - at least where their end-goal is concerned.

[LastManOnEarth]

For me both of these view points are essentially atheistic and part of the same side of the coin because they have their origin in lack of belief in any kind of meaning of existence.

Antinatalism is nihilistic and totally hopeless.

Transhumanism I find creepy and repulsive.

As promoted by people like Max More, it is clearly Luciferian.
What I mean by Luciferian is when it is admitted that we have to do with a supreme deity, but that it would be our purpose to take over and rebel against the established order.

I think as a stream of thought it has existed since the ancient ages (the serpent etc.), but as I understand it the modern form it was first propagated in an occult fashion by the Borgias (the real founders and producers of the Jesuit order), which is why Dante Aligheri assigned them to a pretty low circle in hell in his "Inferno".
All forms of Luciferian thought always comes out raping the earth in the end, even though it might seem like a good idea for us humans in some momentary state.
The "god" decisions are simply not for us I think, that´s why "Transhumanism" is a bad idea.

Perhaps it would be a better solution if people learned to appreciate their own lives and find mental/spiritual health before starting to draw up blueprints for how others should live and try to come with "solutions".

[GeistFaust]

The major weakness of glorifying selfishness is that it inevitably degenerates into equating freedom with doing whatever the hell you want, regardless of how bad the consequences are for others. That isn't a society that will sustain itself in the long run (for a good example of selfishness run amok, take a tour of the state penitentiary grounds when the inmates are out for their exercise and fresh air).

There is no reason to not glorify selfishness, because glorifying self in light of all the hatred and resentment in the world of self or other selves is a good and positive thing. Selfishness and egotism allows for objectivity, and it does not stunt it just as long as it is balanced with a sense of morality. I think you are looking at egotism and selfishness from an evolutionary and present day societal necessity in a negative way.


Egotism and Selfishness are to some extent or another natural facts, which are an integrable part of ourselves. To deny it is to deny ourselves our self-consciousness, and our own uniqueness and originality in the world. Society can run amok in a more individualistic, egotistical, and selfish society, but that is dependent on many factors.


I don't think a purely egotistical, individualistic, or selfish society is a good thing at all. Actually it can be quite destructive to the individual and self-defeating in a sense. There should be a central rule of authority, but I don't the visions of a centralized force of authority should dominate the individuals life.


I believe a truly good and dynamic society should be able to incorporate the instincts and individuality of every citizen that meets the requirements to be considered sane and normal. I think too many people forget and do not acknowledge how much egotism and selfishness has been in getting us to this point in history.


In a sense we are dictated by egotism and selfishness as a first principle to some extent, but under the mask of checks and balances or a common law. There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion, because transcending egotism and selfishness subconsciously is a mere impossibility and futile.

[Phil75231]

You are right Geist. I was (sort of) "looking at it from an evolutionary and present day societal necessity in a negative way". That's the usual use of the word "selfishness". For what you are talking about, there is already a term - "Enlightened Self-Interest".

Still, I think it is possible to do more to shove aside selfishness than common opinion has it - namely by cultivating a sense of empathy and sympathy (especially in children, when their minds are most malleable). With this will come a new generation that will be more concerned about how others would feel about their actions (important, given that narcissism seems to be rising in recent generations. (Sources: here (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/feb/27/narcissism_rising_college_students/) and here (http://news.discovery.com/human/narcissism-epidemic-college-students.html) ). We can't come even close to Utopia, of course, but at least later generations wouldn't be as self-centered (including my own).

In the end, though, I find it difficult to excuse use of selfishness when there is another meme-term just as catchy - and more inspiring besides - Enlightened self-interest (that by recognizing others basic rights, you are ultimately defending your own rights). This isn't a slam at you, but it is a slam at the people who consciously promoted it. I can't be sure it was her, but this sounds like something Ayn Rand would have written admiringly about.