To serve one's ego

Remove all ads!

All our conscious actions are egoistical.

Meaning, it's required by your moral, it makes you feel good, and doing the "right" thing.

Comments please..

Edit:
added conscious.

Note, doing the "right" thing can be taken as the best way to solve the situation at one's own gain, and yes it also includes a compromis.

[ July 29, 2003, 20:58: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

I think I heard Joey from the sit-com Friends say that once in an episode (the one with the telathon etc.) and that right there may throw a wrench in the theory.

Given the way you state your theory, if even one act is possible that is not motivated by ego then your theory fails. Think lots and lots of acts probably fit the bill. Like, say, and excuse the grossness, taking a leak. I don't think you do that because it is an ego boost or part of your morals - think ya do it because you kind of have to. So, there is one act.

Now, I suspect you'll say, 'that's not what I meant, I meant.....' but I only bring up the above joking act because imo you overstate whatever you intended to say - and I'm not sure what that is.

 

Actually, taking a leak is quite egoistical. If you don't do it and hold it up for another day (so to speak) you will be in discomfort. So you pee, for your own comfort.

I'm constantly thinking up things to prove Morgoth's theory wrong, but I keep on finding things that make the action important for you. You'd have to do something that isn't motivated out of your personal desire. Perhaps something random, which you don't know you did.

I think I've got one. Signaling when you move your car from one lane to another. I mean, if I see there's enough room for me to manouver into so another won't hit me, why would I do it? Because it's protocol. But if there's no policeman around, you can't be reprimanded for not doing it... Or is there a flaw in my logic just now?

 

I have one word for you.... bollocks.

 

Simply because an action 'can' make you feel good doesn't mean that it always 'does.' What Pac Man said.

 

It's a habit

But I must admit there is a flaw in my theory, thanks Faragorn, the flaw will be removed now.

But just so you know, I posted the statement to be improved, it is no final statement, else I'll just make a fool out of myself.

And, yes, its prob full with flaws, im just counting on you to find them

[ July 29, 2003, 21:08: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

It's a point of view Morgoth. If you want to think actions as ego-boosting (in one way or another), then I'm sure you can always find a way to explain an action as such.

I'd say it's a theory that cannot be proved or denied.

 

Well, I'd say if you could fine just one person anywhere who has ever performed any act that didn't make him/her feel good or feed his/her ego in some way then you kinda do in an absolute theory.

So, what about a.... psychotic for lack of a better word type person who cuts himself up feeling miserable about it the entire time and without hoping to gain attention... someone who is so miserable he just cuts. If made for t.v. specials hold any truth these people actually exist (don't ask hwo I saw that).

 

Because Laches expects me to say whatever he claimed I would say. I will say it this way

Our interpretations of "serving one's ego" are different,

For me, ego is myself.
Both a part of my mind and my body, it is the person who I feel I am.

While Lokken interpreted "serving one's ego" as ego-boosting. "As in, I did that! I'm mighty and better than you!"

Is that a conscious act? If so why do these type of people belong in the asylum?

 

Morgoth, you're putting words in my mouth that I did not say. You interpreted my statement, to something I disagree with.
By ego-boosting I was just referring to your first post, as I didn't know what else to call it.

I don't think you serve your own ego out of actions consciously or unconsciously for that sole reason (some times, yes, but not always). What I am saying is, if you believe that you ARE making actions only to make yourself feel better, then all your ideas and theories will be prove themselves since you can always twist and turn actions in a million different ways, just like a reporter can bend the truth in many ways.

A theory that is self-explaining is a bad theory imo, it has no solid foundation since it cannot be subdued by any critique. It would be like saying everything is because a god created it, just look at it and there's your proof. It's a loaded way of proving a theory, and absolute out of bounds for any reason.

I'm sure it's possible to find as many reasons to say an action is not self-promoting in anyway, as it is to reason it is.

Morgoth, basicly I think your first statement is in truth saying
"You act the way you do because your mind tells you to."
Ok.. I think I sorta figured that out by now , but it sounds like you try to put it in under egoistical(sp?) acts, which I don't see the reason to be connected.

Put it like an equation:

Egoistical acts -> mind tells you to do the act
I can live with that.

All actions the mind tell you to do -> all actions are egoistical
Over my dead body, lol.

As for Laches example, I'd say those people feel a need to cut, for various reasons. Some gain satisfaction in one way or another, or else there'd be biological point in doing it (which is a strong barrier to pass since the human has a survival instinct saying don't hurt yourself).

 

Isn't the word "egotisical" or is that another word all together? That's what it sounds like Laches interpreted it as, anyhoy.

I think the point of all this is that every conscious action we take has the purpose of serving our own ends. Everything we do, no matter how apparently selfless or whatever, we do for our benefit. Am I right?

 

Now you're shoving words into my mouth

 

No I'm not. I said what I think you said. You said what I think as if you knew, it's all in the wording.
Though I would like to know then, what are you saying? because..

I would like to hear what action you do that do not fall into one of those three categories

 

That's the whole point

 

then how am I putting words in your mouth when my assumption was correct?

 

Are you issinuating that something outside me is controlling me?

 

I'm with Pac-man here: Bollocks

This point of view is cynical and narrowminded, as it has no place for idealists ... and frankly: I don't like a point of view that views Mother Theresa as an egoist - as she obviously only helps the poor to feel good and to empower herself ??!

 

I'm saying all acts are due to your mind, but not all acts of the mind are selfish in general. However you will always be able to see them as selfish if you want to see them as such.

Ragusa, you miss the point.

Mother Theresa would help the poor and feel better with herself in doing so since her morales/ethics tells her to. Following this theory that is.

 

The statement is a theory, this theory can be disproven, it will crumble to dust if the opposite is proven.

The opposite is a conscious action that will not benefit you in the least. You don't even like doing it. If you want to make me stop supporting it, give me the action.

And yes Lokken, if I was convinced of this theory I would see every action as selfish.
But I see conviction as the greatest enemy of the truth, therefor I only support the statement in this topic, to see if the statement will crumble of stand.

 

Lokken,

What I do not like about it is that it reduces an indivudual to a egoistic - or in your interpretation - pre-determined beeing. That's what I find cynical about it.

Compare both interpretations: You're evil, so you do evil - and also feel good further confirming your evil attitude? Or: You do evil because it makes you feel good, also pleasing your evil attitude?
That's just a difference between beeing fueled by motive (evil) or effect (feeling happy) - or beeing either pre-dertermined or egoistic ... both beeing just the mirror image of the other.

As I believe in a free will, despite all possibilities for manipulation and submerged instincts, pre-determination is out of question for me. Both variants do not match my picture of a human beeing.