Ego

I've been pursuing an interest in philosophy for the last year or so. For me, it's more about critical thinking and how to live the best life possible.

I became aware that in the ancient world, philosophy was a therapeutic exercise designed to help one live the best life possible. Each of the schools promised to have the answer to the question, "how do I truly flourish as a human?" I really like the Stoic ideals. For them, pursuing moral excellence resulted in living the best life possible. They made it a point not to make judgments about anything that happened that was not "up to them". Their goal was to only consider "what was up to them", and what was up to them was their own way of looking at the world. They acknowledged that they couldn't control external events, but rather only how they viewed those external events.



Anyone else come across this concept? This concept also comes up in humanistic psychology and in Maslov's hierarchy of needs.

Looking back, I can see that many, if not all of the major problems I have had in my life have been due to how I handled what was happening to me. So, in that sense, I am responsible for much of my own pain.

I'd like to get to the point where I literally don't care about what is happening outside my own judgments and actions, and where I can concentrate all my energy on being a virtuous person.

I liked this idea at first, then as I've tried to live it, it's not worth it. I don't buy the stoic idea that you're responsible for all your own pain, or of trying to control your reactions and kill off your emotions. It's not worth it, and I'm not sure why someone would subject themselves to that in the name of "virtue". What the hell do you even do in life with no ego? You have no motivation, you can't feel, you don't care abut anything...

"Ego" is life. So is attachment. Without it, you're basically walking dead with nothing inside. There's nothing false about it, and it has as much potential to be a wonderful thing as a painful thing; that undulating duality is what life is made of.

Actually, I just spent half an hour reading about stoicism again.

The good life is empty and painful ad the fulfilled life is evil. Everything is evil.

I recommend the novel "Stoneport" by Hill Anderson.

Massive ego is a blight on society. You can make as many excuses up for your bad behavior as you like but when it gets down to it.....if you're evil, your evil and there is NO excuse for that.

Mind sharing your source for these ideas about Stoicism???

I'm operating under the assumption that the basics of Stoicism are: The only good is moral good, and the only evil is moral evil. Living a life of moral good is a reward in and of itself. They also believed that man is capable of being rational, and of making objective judgments. It takes some practice, but the effort is worth it.

^^That's Stoicism for me. ^^

I do remind myself from time to time, that when people have a problem with me, it is sometimes their issue, not mine. If it's my issue, then I need to take care of it. If it's their issue, then I needn't worry about it. Unless I can help them see how they are harming themselves. But, not everyone is open to correction.

The first thing I think of when I think of Stoicism is emotional control. Extreme emotional control. Never allowing feelings to affect one's cognition. I see modern proponents of the philosophy talk about having "absolute control" over their minds, dismissing feelings as nothing but chemicals and therefore meaningless, or claiming that the inconstancy of emotions makes them worthless.

All of this is so contrary to my more romanticist nature I can hardly stand it. It's so empty, dull, and agonizingly painful to even think about. BUT, if it's the only way to be a good person, then I am a bad person simply for being me.

You describe stoicism as being about morality - what constitutes morality, though? What constitutes moral good (and, I'm not sure I can accept that that's the only good)? Nor is it a reward by itself - nothing could be further from the truth, as I see it. But, clearly, many people feel differently, and that doesn't really bother me, until I start to consider that it means I'm a bad person for not being just like them. Then I panic.

Yes, that is what a lot of people think of when Stoicism is brought up. In fact, the character Spock was based on Roddenberry's interpretation of Stoicism.

But, is that what Stoicism was really about? The research I've done suggests it's very different than the assumptions people make about it.

I got quite heavily into Stoicism after doing CBT and still enjoy reading about it. I do think it's quite misunderstood. It's a lot like Taoism or Buddhism in that it doesn't tell you not to have emotions or not to have an ego, just not to cling to those things, not to define yourself by them but instead to take a perspective of non attachment.

Moving towards less attachment and reduced ego inevitably eases suffering. But I think the Stoics accepted that nobody was perfect so it was very much about improvement rather than perfection. Only the sage is perfectly virtuous and he or she may not exist beyond a mythical ideal.

But you still get to have pleasurable emotions - you just enjoy them a lot more when they're happening. Instead of clinging on to them fearing they will end or trying to will them into being fearing they will never happen. Its about letting go of external events that we have no control over.

As I understand it, Stoicism isn't about emotional control, it's about living in harmony with nature. That can look like control to an outsider but the crucial thing is what's behind it.

A moralist is like a machine, they are conditioned by social norms and may not even understand what lies behind the morals they follow and get angry about.

A Stoic however is more focused on their own attitude to life and freely choosing it. In the end the only freedom we have is the attitude to what we do and think so we need to be aware of the decisions we make and why we make them to live a life in harmony with nature. Otherwise we are essentially living someone else's life. And that leads to profound unhappiness and unfulfillment.

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. ~ Marcus Aurelius

Well said. Thank you.

Here's why I reject this so hard: how can you exist without attachments? Without an identity? I mean, sure, you exist as a piece of matter, but you don't even need to be alive to do that. If you are nothing/no one, care about nothing and no one, why bother even being alive?

Adding onto my own comment here after a new, semi-related thought: I tried talking on Reddit to somepeople about Stoicism and how the hell it's even livable, and one person described the goal as removing emotions from cognition as much as possible, because emotions are terrible judges and will always lead you astray.

I can't entirely believe that. I have to concede that YES, emotional cognition can be distorted, can lead to some absurdly wrong conclusions, can do some really messed up stuff. But it can also lead to some very fulfilling conclusions and ways of life.

Well ScientiaOmnisEst, I admit people have all kinds of opinions about Stoicism. I've given you my perspective, Harmacy has given you his.... It's up to you to look into it for yourself, if you're so inclined. It's definitely not for everyone.

I had the opportunity to listen to Ryan Holiday speak recently. I previously dismissed him as just someone riding the wave of popularity, but I have to admit I was impressed by his story, his presence, and the way he fielded difficult questions.

So, I ordered his book, Ego is the Enemy.

shakespeare47, that quote you posted is exactly my point. If that's how one is going to go through life, why bother living at all? If everything is pointless and doomed to failure, if everyone and everything is going to hurt you and fcuk you over all the time no matter what you do, why waste the effort?

If wanting to do or be anything is so evil, how is living even possible? If it's so wrong to want things, to aspire to anything because everyone hates you, you're so worthless you don't deserve anything, how is a person supposed to live?

From what I see, ego is the greatest gift people have. It's the core of selfness, the thing that pushes life and the world forward. Damn if I'm not allowed to have a piece of that, even if I innately lack it.

Yeah, this is what my spiritual teacher tried to force on me "let go of your ego and emotions." I tried, I did everything he said, I had a complete breakdown. I shook uncontrollably for a month and a half. I stopped everything, eating, everything. And worse. I am still recovering.

Luckily, I continued my studies without him, and despite him. I have found the truth, as I can see it. He is now a shining example of who not to be and what not to do.

I have discovered that emotions are not something to get rid of, but that they are information about what is really going on in a situation. You don't have to do anything, just because you feel. As my T says "you can feel a great deal without doing anything." Feeling them is the important part, because that lets you know what IS going on. Sometimes it's painful, but the more you tolerate, the more you learn how to tolerate. It's just a feeling and it will pass.

That spiritual teacher wanted me to "let go of my ego." He tried to convince me in so many ways how valueless I was. I realize now, that was a way to control me. A way to attack the very essence of me and fill it with his own ego.

I'm not sure how you got this from the quoted book review of Ryan Holiday's book Ego is the Enemy. Can you elaborate?

I agree that to be forced to "let go of emotions" sounds odd. I wonder what he meant by that.

And how are you defining ego? The way I think about ego, it has only ever caused me problems. Confidence is desirable, but my ego keeps getting me into trouble.

From the book review above:
The way I see it, a person with confidence can acknowledge his own flaws and imperfections and will compensate and change when necessary. A person with an ego problem will deny that he has any flaws or imperfections. Ego denies reality. Confidence is more like self-respect, and accepts reality. I respect and value myself even though I'm aware of the reality of my own imperfections.

Ego isn't 100% negative, though. Nor are emotions. Yes, both can cause pain, lead a person astray, and blind them to reality. Both, however, are core parts of conscious human life and I don't really know how to not view them as meaningful (possibly the most meaningful) parts of life experience. The stuff that makes it worth it.

I think that's the whole reason I find myself pushing back so hard against any kind of neo-Stoic philosophy pushed as self-improvement. That kind of emotional moderation, as a lifestyle rather than a useful mental tool for trying circumstances, or even just to keep oneself in check. I can't see how it isn't empty, sterile, ambitionless, and just painfully detached.

How would you describe ego? I see ego as a quality that's always damaging. How can ego be positive?

Ego is important on some levels, without an Ego (defined as a separate "I" from the world, with intrinsic value in existence) the enmeshment with the rest of reality within the mind would be a destructive force. This is the condition of a baby, for a baby does not realize it is separate from Mother or anything else for that matter. If baby hurts, the whole world must be hurting according to baby's mind. Once baby realizes that "other than baby" exists the Ego has begun to form. This development is important, as without an "I" and "other than I" the world can not be influenced and changed by the person. Choices in life can not be made. Therefore, at some level Ego is necessary. Without an Ego is the land of complete psychosis, where there is no differentiation between self and the world.

This of course leads to spiritual teachings (such as my former advisor who messed me up so badly) for they believe that to return to that "oneness" (lack of Ego) is the height of spiritual progression, and they teach this. Yet, people like my former advisor are so full of themselves "I am so great" they have a Big Ego, for they think they are better than everyone else. When someone like me questions what they are saying they attack, emotionally and psychologically, to destroy anyone who does not agree that they are the greatest person ever. Their mind can not handle the thought of being wrong in any way. They can not tolerate their own emotions, so they control everyone around them.

I can say that Ryan Holiday is not attacking the idea that we are separate from the world. That sounds like "ego" from a psychological perspective, as opposed to the destructive idea that any person can be without flaw.

I think you and Ryan Holiday are on "the same page", in that you both are aware that there are certain attitudes (I am so great... I can't be wrong) that are destructive both to the self, and to others around people with that attitude.

I would say in theory you could exist very easily without attachments. And be much happier too. All the things you believe you need to be attached to would still either be there or not be there, regardless of whether you were attached to them or not

Not being attached to something doesn't mean rejecting it or shunning it. It means taking an indifferent attitude to it.

Extreme attachment leads us to define ourselves by possessions or key relationships with others. So you immediately start to consider what would happen if it/they went away - how would I survive? how could I live? and now you're not thinking about that other thing or person - you're thinking of yourself.

I'm not suggesting Stoics are completely non-attached or without ego. Its just helpful to think about those aspects of our lives for some of us.

This is an interesting post.. I don't agree that those who have chosen this have "nothing inside" although they may feel this, or even appear this way to others..

With "no ego" yes, it could be hard to find motivation

Attachment too, a normal part of being human..