first question: is there really anything negative about the ego if the ego is well-tamed? second question: in the event that you think there's nothing negative about it, what sort of balance do you think is necessary to avoid negativity? third question: in the event that you do interpret it with negativity, what's the most effective method of diminishing its influence on your personality? i think that the ego is a beneficial trait when used elegantly. it can easily become negative, and IS for the great majority of people. but i might argue that accepting and understanding the dominance of your own ego is the practice of controlling it in a certain respect, i think the ego is your personality on the most instinctual basis that still exists to us as members of a modern society
I think the ego can be good but most negative situations in my life stem directly from my ego so I say fuck it. Just in my situation though. I feel like my whole purpose in life is to destroy my ego.
Your ego keeps you alive. Period. It is arguably more important to your survival than some of your internal organs.
Yes, there is something negative about ego, even if the ego is well tamed. In the event that I think ego is positive, I think of the negatives of ego to balance it. In the event that I think ego is negative, I think of the positive of ego to balance it.
exactly. the ego can be balanced. losing it entirely is counterintuitive imo. i think that those who say theyve detached from their ego only claim theyve done so because theyre in a position where they can survive without fending for themselves.
Ego... balance it... lose it... tame it... Grill it.. fry it... bbq it... Talk about it... cry about it... write a poem about it... You can do whatever you want with it man... afterall, it's yours... As for me, I have nothing to do with my ego... Coz it's so fucking boring...
fuck definitions right? lol jk. ego encompasses a variety of things in this situation. survival instinct, defensive nature, conviction, and more.
The thing is, people define ego in a way in which it is CLEARLY necessary. I don't think this is the proper definition for ego, and it creates a lot of problems in understanding. Of course by certain definitions the ego is necessary, as the meaning of a word is equivelent to how it is defined. However, I think with a proper understanding of what ego, the false self, is, it is clearly seen that it is not necessary.
I don't think you're qualified to say that those with doctorates in psychology have gotten the definition of 'ego' wrong. And in any case, that definition of ego is the one that is being discussed. So if you can't participate in said discussion without trying to derail it on another one of your vague "What is being?" tirades, maybe you shouldn't try at all? I'm not sure you understand what half the words you use constantly mean.
not that i disagree but lets try to keep shit more civilized than it ever has been in S&P in this thread lol maybe people will actually open their ears if the people who actually have intelligent things to say remind themselves not to sink to other peoples levels (myself included.. i forget all the time)
I just tire of people who's idea of adding to a discussion is trying to debunk something like basic, well understood psychology with little to no education or experience on the matter. It's a little trying.