This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Ego is not a philosophical but a psychological term. Most probably it has been created by Freud.
In my opinion, it is a useless term. It has so many facets and nuances that it can only produce confusion, except maybe among (old) psychologists who speak in the same terms and on the same level.

It is better to use the word "self", which is both a psychological and a philosophical term, because it much more simple as a concept and has a more restrictive meaning and use.
"The philosophy of self seeks to describe essential qualities that constitute a person's uniqueness or essential being." (Wikipedia)
But even this term should not get particular attention and importance in any philosophical discussion. Even simpler words/terms like "person", "individual", "human being", even just "you", me", "us", serve very well as references.

Now, I didn't quite get from your description what the "innate tendencies" of an "ego" are, or what could they serve to us. There's a multitude of --maybe innumerable-- tendencies a person can have. They may well be discussed on individual or group basis, without involving complex and confusing terms, such as "ego".

So, it would maybe good, if you agree, to just summarize what are the tendencies you have in mind and then create a discussion on them.

Ego is not a philosophical but a psychological term. Most probably it has been created by Freud.
In my opinion, it is a useless term. It has so many facets and nuances that it can only produce confusion, except maybe among (old) psychologists who speak in the same terms and on the same level.

It is better to use the word "self", which is both a psychological and a philosophical term, because it much more simple as a concept and has a more restrictive meaning and use — Alkis Piskas

Just a quick note to say that Freud himself used das Ich, which means “the I”. Not too far from “self”.

It was the translator James Strachey who chose “ego” (and “id” and “super-ego”).

The ego seems to be the selfs tendency to apply a degree of value on itself. — Benj96

But all is not what it seems. The person who appears to have the 'biggest' ego and the most assertive sense of self may well be a fragile individual, with low confidence and high vulnerability. The self being a role one adopts to project a preferred identify, a form of compensation.

Is selfishness/narcissism at the root of the more pejorative aspect of "ego"? The only time I ever use the term for ordinary purposes is for folks who appear to be somewhat self-absorbed, narcissistic in conversations/acts. A few figures spring to mind, celebrity rock front-men David Lee Roth, Steven Tyler, Gene Simmons. Simmons especially embodies a caricature of selfishness/narcissism, much like Donald Trump (an epitome of pathological narcissism made president). In the abject case it seems there is no commitment to a shared moral reality, honor, reciprocity, where the needs of the self supersede others in an abnormal way.

In a more rudimentary way, the self and its habits are the concrete aspects of a biological individual (body) as it works to survive and reproduce in nature. Self-awareness, if necessary for the presence of a "self", probably arises from social relationship with others as a way to further mediate behavior in complex social situations. We get to run a simulation of projected consequences.

Psychoanalytic theories use these terms in special ways however, such that the Ego is one feature of Self among many others.

The positive aspect of the ego or self (all the conceptual/cognitive projections of what one is) helps one to live. You have an image/concept of what you want to preserve, maintain or evolve based on memory, instincts, social conditioning and articulated desire and you work toward that given all kinds of worldly constraints.

Now here is a selfish dog. Why is he so selfish? Does he have a big ego?

Simmons especially embodies a caricature of selfishness/narcissism, much like Donald Trump (an epitome of pathological narcissism made president). — Nils Loc

And to me Simmons appears to be someone who has, what in common parlance might be called self-esteem problems. He is playing a role of swaggering confidence and success which to me seems unconvincing. The person with grandiose self-talk, who has to have the big mansions and the wanky cars and all the collectable baubles to 'prove' their success and merit is often involved in constructing a projection of perceived accomplishment in order to prop up a shaky sense of self. I remember a quote by Alain de Botton - The next time you see somebody driving a Ferrari, don't think, 'This is somebody who's greedy.' Think, 'This is somebody who is incredibly vulnerable and in need of love.'"

What’s interesting to me is what traits these two opposites enable the individual - what skills, capacities for understanding and knowledge, what perspective can one gain from either being highly egoistic or highly ego-death-ish. And which one is better if any? — Benj96

You are making the moral presumption that human social behaviour should divide neatly into the polar opposites of good and evil.

But dig deeper into the evolutionary biology and you will see that it is simply an expression of the dominance~submission dynamic which is necessary for the self-organisation of a social hierarchy.

This is how nature produces social order. It wires brains to make some definite choice - to lead or follow, to attack or embrace. And from those choices, it then becomes possible to have a stable structure of relations. All the parts of the system can lock together in a functional pattern.

So it is not about good and bad – one path to follow, the other to avoid. It is about the having two clear choices and then acting in one or other direction, based on what seems best at the time.

Are you in charge, or are others in charge? Are others your allies, or are they rivals? From the point of view of emergent social structure, it doesn't matter which option you pick (as your "wrong" choice will soon enough be found out). It just matters that you are quite binary or counterfactual about it.

The fact you can flick between opposed states of mind - supported by antagonistic neuromodulators like oxytocin vs vasopressin – is what makes the whole show work. It allows social structure to emerge because everyone sorts themselves into roles as leaders and followers, in-groups and out-groups, competitors and cooperators, etc.

Is it better to serve the self as an individual or see the self as all things and thus serve all things/others equally as your own body/personal needs. — Benj96

The problem here is that this buys into the romantic myth that we are all essentially solitary "self-actualising" agents in life. The truth is that humans are socially constructed. The idea that we are individual "egos" with the private drama of moral choice is itself a social script.

It is quite a functional script in that it was the basis for a shift in the scale of human hierarchical organisation - the step from small tribal bands to "limitlessly" large civilisations. But a script nonetheless.

What’s the common denominator of childhood bullying, branding, classism, war and slavery? The ego seems to be the selfs tendency to apply a degree of value on itself. Either more or less than the environment around it, other selves and other egos. — Benj96

And sure there are problems or pathologies that result from becoming "civilised". We are fine-tuned by a million years of neurobiological evolution to be very well adapted to a tribal scale life. We are very good at self-organising stable social structure just going with our "feels" about our fellow tribe mates.

But now we are trying to live in some version of a "civilisation" – an application of some moral philosophy ... that may or may not be well thought out and functional.

As is obvious, self-interested neoliberalism or status-seeking consumerism may seem quite functional philosophies for social self-organisation in the short-term - 10 to 20 years - yet after that, a self-dooming approach to living.

So it is very important to get this right.

Again, the issue is not that we seem torn between two paths in life. That kind of counterfactuality of choices is the basis of any order at all. We need the thesis and antithesis of two well matched options.

The worst thing for the emergence of structure is to act vaguely. To dilly dally. Just decide. Either lead or follow. Either compete or cooperate. Either decide friend or foe. From the definite choice comes some hierarchy of organisation – some definite pattern of action. And then - to the degree something gets learnt from the direction chosen - the whole system is better equipped to make smarter choices the next time around.

The brain forces you into black and white states of mind so that - collectively - we then click together in some emergent social state that can last for at least a while.

The "ego" is then just a higher level of this game – a linguistic extension to the basic neurobiological trick. We get it grafted on from infancy. We get taught the socially approved definitions of what is nice and nasty behaviour.

And it is all terribly confusing as we are somehow suppose to be both strong and vulnerable, pushy and tolerant, self-advancing and self-effacing, assertive and gracious, etc, etc, apparently "at the same time". Which as an "ego" – an inherently singular framing of the notion of self – doesn't really compute.

The problem here is that this buys into the romantic myth that we are all essentially solitary "self-actualising" agents in life. The truth is that humans are socially constructed. The idea that we are individual "egos" with the private drama of moral choice is itself a social script. — apokrisis

:up:

Is it better to serve the self as an individual or see the self as all things and thus serve all things/others equally as your own body/personal needs.

It is certainly worse to see the self as all things and thus serve all things/others equally as your own body/personal needs for the simple reason that it isn’t true. As soon as you are unable to see yourself as an individual you cannot see others as individuals as well, and you risk sacrificing their individuality on the alter of your own ego. A good rule of thumb is “don’t live for others any more than you expect them to live for you”.

A good rule of thumb is “don’t live for others any more than you expect them to live for you”. — NOS4A2

Or any less?

Just a quick note to say that Freud himself used das Ich, which means “the I”. Not too far from “self”.
It was the translator James Strachey who chose “ego” (and “id” and “super-ego”). — Jamal

Thanks. It's good to know.

What about the summarizing that I mentioned --or just the disclosing-- of the tendencies you had in mind in creating this topic? It's much more important than Freudian terminology!

The ego seems to be the self's tendency to apply a degree of value on itself.

I think psychoanalysis focuses on childhood for good reason. This is the point in life where our outer reality and inner being are most undifferentiated with a priori determinations. I heard that when very young children play the game, 'peekaboo' they find it stimulating partly due to their having not fully found the belief that when something is out of sight that it still exists. It is here that the differentiation between anxiety and fear with excitement and desire find their most free play of equality and contrast. I think as we grow older we grow to develop more complexity in what fear and anxiety mean to us, but they still contain the traces of this equality and contrast. When we most need to explain and defend our fears, the mind returns to this undefined place in an attempt to free itself from external stimuli that no longer meet its structural demands.

But all is not what it seems. The person who appears to have the 'biggest' ego and the most assertive sense of self may well be a fragile individual, with low confidence and high vulnerability. The self being a role one adopts to project a preferred identify, a form of compensation — Tom Storm

Hmm yes. I see what you mean here. Naturally one would imagine this assertion and domineering ego of theirs is a compensatory or coping mechanism for their lack of self esteem. Perhaps then there are two facets to ego - that which we project onto others (the social façade) and the internal ego that we really believe (which may be contrarily one of low value and worthlessness). In that way we are playing an act of value in front of others in hopes they may approve or believe in it and bolster our self perceived ego.

When we most need to explain and defend our fears, the mind returns to this undefined place in an attempt to free itself from external stimuli that no longer meet its structural demands. — kudos

Would that mean that ok a fundamental level all of our fears and anxieties come from the concept of “impermanence” or the fact that things may be “lost” or “disappear”?

The problem here is that this buys into the romantic myth that we are all essentially solitary "self-actualising" agents in life. The truth is that humans are socially constructed. The idea that we are individual "egos" with the private drama of moral choice is itself a social script. — apokrisis

That is an interesting take. I hadn’t considered it from this point of view. If we then take a person out of the construct of society, are you saying self- actualising is never a goal of their agency ie. they would hold no beliefs further than eat, sleep, mate and defecate? Just as any other animal would be preoccupied with?

Yep, basically.