Ego: extra baggage or necessary element of the human psyche?

[GrandMasterK]

Some ideas to consider when postulating a response are.....

 

 

1. The ratio of atheist to theist charity workers and missionaries and why the path of atheism is so highly correlated with the path of egoism.

 

2. Many atheists (all the ones I know too) never even read a piece of literature from a religion or can recite a single verse from any of their texts nor have any sense of the practice what so ever. It's very common for individuals to abandon a faith they know absolutely nothing about and move to an ideology simply from a virtual feeling of doubt that is disconnected from any forms of premeditation that should of influenced that decision. A blind decision, yet deals with the thought of a person not needing the existence of a god in their life. What is it about the world today that teaches kids doubt about something they haven't even really considered to begin with?

 

3. The foundation of many theists faith is inspired by fear, which is why the promise of eternal life is the most popular topic in the major religions.

 

4. Every choice we make is inspired by a feeling of love or fear. There are positive and negative sides of fear just like there are positive and negative sides of love (example: grief is a negative feeling inspired by love). Anger, Hatred and Jealousy come from a feeling of fear and are widely accepted as useless. However, it is very rare to find a person who has truly discarded the potential of having those feelings.

 

5. Why is the most common response to a negative outlook on the world to become introverted, conceited, egotistical, aggressive. (Example: A girl who treats another girl like trash because she feels intimidated by the fact that she's better looking and has large breasts and all the qualities the world encourages that she despises because she feels insecure about herself)

 

6. Feelings. Teenagers are often very emotional and contemplative, trying to figure out who they are and what they agree with. The most common ideology and methodology I see from people around me is that they discovered through thought that the most important thing is to be happy and do whatever it is you want to do and how you feel about yourself is what's important and that how you feel about yourself shouldn't be inspired by how other people feel about you. Teenagers really feel those judging eyes on them, always reminding them in what ways they are disappointing their parents and elder figures. They turn that feeling into a burden and this is why they so often feel they need to inform everyone that they "don't care what people think". Teens really feel like they figured it out all out when they have the epiphany "trust your feelings, you have nothing else to go on and don't let other people make you feel bad about your pursuit of happiness because they don't agree with your lifestyle, your having a lot of fun and that's what matters".

 

Are listening to your feelings all you need? Listen to your heart and you'll know what's true for you? The Jedi believe to "be mindful of your feelings, they can betray you". People often mistake the imperfections of theists as examples of the flaws of a religion. The way humans behave, making mistakes, often contradicting the very morals they layed down, this isn't a religious condition it is a human condition. The greatest act of faith is to have faith. Trusting in your God even when you don't see all ends. Putting aside strong temptations when everything in you tells you to pursue your desires but your faith tells you to cast it aside.

 

Should going on how you feel about something really dictate your actions? There are people in this world who's greatest desire is to molest, rape, torture, murder and violate every part of an innocent being. Should such people be encourage to pursue what they are most passionate about? Does the lesson have to be universal for it to apply?

 

7. Should your philosophical mind overrule your logical mind? Is whether abortion is right or wrong a scientific question, an economical question, a spiritual question, a philosophical question? We struggle to define things but when you look closer the more you have to segregate until you can't define a species, light, life, space or the universe and truth. There's you, me and everything in between. Always a contradiction when under fire of analysis. In this way can man truly govern itself? Is it the last word of authority? Is whether God exists and the need for a God in humanity a worthy distinction? Does man decide what's right and what's wrong? Our laws change all the time, our idea of god changes through time. Does a person have a better reason for killing a rat in their house than killing a baby fetus because rats are classified as pests and a fetus is human or do you have a better reason for aborting a fetus?

 

8. "We're all equal but some of us are more equal". That quote is in reference to classes and how we esteem ourselves in the world. With competitive drive fueling us to improve and advance our technology and cultures, with the ability to achieve and step up and earn what you work for as a drive to a healthy and rewarding life, is the idea of everyone truly being equal worth all the cons?

 

9. Is to love and be loved all a person needs?

 

10. Is anyone truly satisfied with being alone?

 

11. Why do the depressed so often attempt to continue down the path of pain and the morbid and push people away and self-destruct instead of making an effort to feel better and let in the things that may enhance your mood and bring you balance once again? Why don't they want to be saved?

 

12. When should a person feel guilty about their pursuit of material and self gain? Do you measure a man on what he gained or what he gave?

 

 

These thoughts are just to get clouds moving. Ego ties in with damn near everything so I felt I should try and broaden some of those ideas.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that without ego people would be so worthless the monkeys would laugh at them.

[GrandMasterK]

whys that?

[1veedo]

Didn't we get rid of the religion forum?

[Reaper]

Didn't we get rid of the religion forum?

 

 

Theoretically we did, but that doesn't mean that the subject won't pop up every now and again...

[Quartile]

An ego is necessary for someone who isnt ready to accept that they are one with the universe; an individuation of the indivisible.

[pioneer]

There are different definitions of the word ego. The best one is by Carl Jung. He defines the ego as the center of the conscious mind. On top of the ego, Jung placed the personna or the mask of the ego. The ego is who we are within our own heads with all our secrets, strengths, weakness and successes, memories and experiences. The personna or mask is what we show others. One may take off the mask with their family, but put on the mask with strangers.

 

Below the ego, connecting the ego to the personal unconscious mind, Jung used the term shadow. The shadow of the ego is sort of the bundle of unconscious motivations, that are often semi-conscious to the ego. The shadow projects into the world and can flavor how we see things. The ego can sense the shadow and can can prevent it from reaching the mask, so others can't see the shadow poke through. The poker face, freezes the mask, to hide the excitement of four aces. Someone who is not a good gambler may become filled with excitement that permeate their mask.

 

Besides preventing the shadow from being seen with a poker face, a mask can also be used to hide the shadow, but setting a personna different than the shadow should be outputing. One can be very sad, but put on a happy face, to not let it show. The ego feels the shadow, but prevents it from reaching the mask by forcing a smile. A good con artist can prevent you from seeing his shadowy scam. Inside the ego is laughing at the sheep ready to be plucked. But outside one sees the mask of a likeable person who seems nice enough to trust.

 

With that background, the difference between the two extremes of aetheist and religious is not the ego, but the nature of the shadow and the mask one wears. The religious person is more likely to not use a poker face or create a mask that differs from the output of the shadow. With religious people they will show the love, self righteous, etc. The aetheist is better fortifided by a mask. They may feel the same things, but know how to keep their chips closer to the table.

 

That makes aetheist less vulnerable to religious wolves (shadow) dressed in sheeps clothing (mask). The religious can be more vulnerable to religious con men. Religious people assume face value, what is on the surface, is what is welling up from inside. But a good con, can put on that mask, and suppress the schemes he has in his dark shadow.

 

From an objective point of view, since the mask is not exactly who the person is, but rather who they wish others think they are, it sort of creates a potential between objective and subjective reality. Although it may provide a type of advantage, it is not in touch with inner reality. This is what gives the potential to the shadow.

 

The mask is not objective and is very similar to subjective data. One is generating this data, but also absorbing it at the same time. When one adds subjective data to an objectice experiment, the results lose touch with objectivity. The shadow is a compensation to get rid of subjectivity. But awareness of this subjectivity, may require the mask, again. It is part of the human loop, that allows culture to live reality using a subjective fantasy.

 

The religious by trying to get rid of the mask, will lower the potential of the shadow. What this does is cause a deeper layer of the psyche to appear, which exists below the shadow, which is more collective. The shadow is sort of the liason to the collective unconscious, with the first envoy of the collective psyche connected to the the primal instincts.

 

That is why the religious can often be over senstive to basic vices. What should be a shadow-mask event, and easy to control, is something a little deeper and more raw/primal. If you look at a religious zealot, such a terrorist, that is not simple mask-shadow. The mask that appears is generated by this deeper layer. They may feel this is from god because it is stronger than will, with its rage and aggression a natural expression from the inside. It is not something one just creates with will. It is raw.

 

With the mask in place, one usually will not reach these layers. So there is no need for a system like religion to help one learn to deal with it. That is why aethests can see no rational reason for any of this. But people who lose the mask and have to deal with the primal layer need this system. What many systems offer is a way to get beyond it, to even deeper layers. These are lot easier to live with and are projected into nicer symbolism of many religions. The born again is often someone living like an primal animal in the gutters. But when they break through better layers appear. If one is afraid to give up the mask, this is a litmus test they might not be able to get beyond the layer below the shadow. It is a safety feature.

[foodchain]

I don’t really believe in the ego. I think the mind in itself is a biological organ which has more then one function and or also shows differentiation on a biological level to a good degree. I think the term of the ego may hint at some actual process or faculty of the mind, but I do think the term is a primitive term derived from primitive methods of observation/experimentation.

 

I mean do we try to probe the ego of a common fly? Its neural faculties have proven to be slightly more complex then we think, so I guess what I am getting at here is understanding the biology of the organism would probably need to be understood before we can try to fully define it in real time in relation to the environment.

[dichotomy]

I don’t really believe in the ego. I think the mind in itself is a biological organ which has more then one function and or also shows differentiation on a biological level to a good degree.

 

I think of the ego as what our parents and our society condition into us. We are born without ego and then it is conditioned by the environment.

 

If you think of a young child that comes from a harsh war torn environment, and whose family is actively at war, and whom is adopted by a peace loving family, for instance. I’m sure you will find a very different ego development for the child if you compare the environment of the ‘at war family’ and the ‘peace loving family’ that is in a friendly environment. The ego ‘mask’ will fit in with the environment.

[Paralith]

It doesn't seem to me that you are talking about the ego as in an individual's personal identity - it seems more like you're talking about egoism, as in thinking that which involves yourself more important than that which involves other people. Selfishness, in other words.

 

I wouldn't call that a necessary element of the human psyche, but a necessary element for a reproductively successful organism - yes. Whether conscious or not, behaviors which in the end best help yourself are those which get passed on the most. Most modern human cultures, however, frown upon selfishness, because a group of individuals cooperates and functions better when they are selfless towards each other - mostly in order to out compete a different group. Again, in the end, selfish.

 

I think that a certain degree of selfishness is inevitable in human nature, and we as humans have to learn to balance this instinct with our more logical and moral desires for a better society. How each individual chooses to do so will result in the broad spectrum of egoism that you covered in your many points.

[Realitycheck]

This was quite a thought-provoking response. Geez, I think I took a psychology class.

 

 

Some ideas to consider when postulating a response are.....

 

 

1. The ratio of atheist to theist charity workers and missionaries and why the path of atheism is so highly correlated with the path of egoism.

I wouldn't necessarily associate atheism with egoism. There are lots of believers who have big egos and lots of atheists with inferiority complexes.

2. Many atheists (all the ones I know too) never even read a piece of literature from a religion or can recite a single verse from any of their texts nor have any sense of the practice what so ever. It's very common for individuals to abandon a faith they know absolutely nothing about and move to an ideology simply from a virtual feeling of doubt that is disconnected from any forms of premeditation that should of influenced that decision. A blind decision, yet deals with the thought of a person not needing the existence of a god in their life. What is it about the world today that teaches kids doubt about something they haven't even really considered to begin with?

On one side you have God and on the other side you have reason. There is no scientific justification for God, yet you find plenty of support for the idea without any solid justification, something to be used as a support for you to rest on when times are hard. Somebody here possibly has some good reading under their belt about the quantitative values of faith, despite the scientific arguments abounding to the contrary.

3. The foundation of many theists faith is inspired by fear, which is why the promise of eternal life is the most popular topic in the major religions.

Way back when, it was very easy to make anybody believe in anything. It was such a good idea, it isn't going away anytime soon

4. Every choice we make is inspired by a feeling of love or fear. There are positive and negative sides of fear just like there are positive and negative sides of love (example: grief is a negative feeling inspired by love). Anger, Hatred and Jealousy come from a feeling of fear and are widely accepted as useless. However, it is very rare to find a person who has truly discarded the potential of having those feelings.

Gotta watch out when setting up your own labels. I know that as much as anyone.

5. Why is the most common response to a negative outlook on the world to become introverted, conceited, egotistical, aggressive. (Example: A girl who treats another girl like trash because she feels intimidated by the fact that she's better looking and has large breasts and all the qualities the world encourages that she despises because she feels insecure about herself)

Negativity typically spawns negativity.

6. Feelings. Teenagers are often very emotional and contemplative, trying to figure out who they are and what they agree with. The most common ideology and methodology I see from people around me is that they discovered through thought that the most important thing is to be happy and do whatever it is you want to do and how you feel about yourself is what's important and that how you feel about yourself shouldn't be inspired by how other people feel about you. Teenagers really feel those judging eyes on them, always reminding them in what ways they are disappointing their parents and elder figures. They turn that feeling into a burden and this is why they so often feel they need to inform everyone that they "don't care what people think". Teens really feel like they figured it out all out when they have the epiphany "trust your feelings, you have nothing else to go on and don't let other people make you feel bad about your pursuit of happiness because they don't agree with your lifestyle, your having a lot of fun and that's what matters".

 

Are listening to your feelings all you need? Listen to your heart and you'll know what's true for you? The Jedi believe to "be mindful of your feelings, they can betray you". People often mistake the imperfections of theists as examples of the flaws of a religion. The way humans behave, making mistakes, often contradicting the very morals they layed down, this isn't a religious condition it is a human condition. The greatest act of faith is to have faith. Trusting in your God even when you don't see all ends. Putting aside strong temptations when everything in you tells you to pursue your desires but your faith tells you to cast it aside.

 

Should going on how you feel about something really dictate your actions? There are people in this world who's greatest desire is to molest, rape, torture, murder and violate every part of an innocent being. Should such people be encourage to pursue what they are most passionate about? Does the lesson have to be universal for it to apply?

Society has set up rules, big ones and little ones like political correctness. Taming the animal is the biggest success story of law, but surely there are valid disorders to chalk much of this behavior up to, as well.

7. Should your philosophical mind overrule your logical mind? Is whether abortion is right or wrong a scientific question, an economical question, a spiritual question, a philosophical question? We struggle to define things but when you look closer the more you have to segregate until you can't define a species, light, life, space or the universe and truth. There's you, me and everything in between. Always a contradiction when under fire of analysis. In this way can man truly govern itself? Is it the last word of authority? Is whether God exists and the need for a God in humanity a worthy distinction? Does man decide what's right and what's wrong? Our laws change all the time, our idea of god changes through time. Does a person have a better reason for killing a rat in their house than killing a baby fetus because rats are classified as pests and a fetus is human or do you have a better reason for aborting a fetus? It's all factored into evolution. Anarchy would never progress, just flounder in nonsense.

This, in itself, is, in my opinion, one of the biggest selling points of God, but when you really get down to it, there is still not any evidence whatsoever, just history and rationalization, lots of miracle/coincidence.

 

8. "We're all equal but some of us are more equal". That quote is in reference to classes and how we esteem ourselves in the world. With competitive drive fueling us to improve and advance our technology and cultures, with the ability to achieve and step up and earn what you work for as a drive to a healthy and rewarding life, is the idea of everyone truly being equal worth all the cons?

It's all about how you approach it. If you set yourself up, your destiny if limited. It's better to be positive all of the time and roll with the punches. You can't have everything go your way. Murphy's law is in effect for everybody, best just to make do with what you have and do the best you can. If you have a silver spoon in your mouth, your life is still dictated by how you respond to stimuli.

9. Is to love and be loved all a person needs?

Love is a good thing, but it isn't the only thing. You still have Maslowe's hierarchy of needs.

10. Is anyone truly satisfied with being alone?

I would venture to say no, but there are happy monks, nuns, and plenty of other people. Being alone is not the end of the world. Life itself can be fulfilling while alone. It's simply a choice.

11. Why do the depressed so often attempt to continue down the path of pain and the morbid and push people away and self-destruct instead of making an effort to feel better and let in the things that may enhance your mood and bring you balance once again? Why don't they want to be saved?

[There is a light that they have to see. Again, it's about acceptance and doing the best with what they have been given.

12. When should a person feel guilty about their pursuit of material and self gain? Do you measure a man on what he gained or what he gave?

Material attributes are not the best way to judge someone by. There are so many other factors to be weighed. Everybody else has infinite experiences that go into the making of their psyche. Material attributes really don't apply to anything, except maybe for how these attributes were attained.

 

These thoughts are just to get clouds moving. Ego ties in with damn near everything so I felt I should try and broaden some of those ideas.

In this case, I believe ego is just a barometer of your faith in yourself and everything that you are, especially the "mask" associated with that. It's nothing to be alarmed at unless it's out of control. Of course, that ties in with political correctness, as your ego should match your abilities. Humility is generally considered a good thing, unless you're trying to win a popularity contest.

[Glider]

I think of the ego as what our parents and our society condition into us. We are born without ego and then it is conditioned by the environment.

That's the super-ego. In classic Freudian terms, the ego moderates between the ID and the Super-ego, trying to find the balance that most satisfies the ID, whilst conforming as much as possible with the social constrictions laid down by the socially acquired super-ego.

[YT2095]

so what happens when someone is mostly ID (using that deffinition)?

 

and please don`t say Psycho/Socio-Path!

[pioneer]

Jung was Freud's star pupil, but they had a parting of the ways. Jung sort of added a little more detail to the Freudian model. In Freud, the ego is between the ID and the superego. Between the ID and ego, Jung added the shadow. Between the ego and the superego, Jung added the personna. His final result goes ID, shadow, ego, personnna, superego. The model, shadow, ego, personna, sort of assumed a person neither ruled by primal impulse or collective pressures. That is not quite realistic. The ID and superego play a role in defining the shadow and the mask of the ego.

 

The ID is more natural and may be part of our genetics connected to instincts, i.e., fear, desire, hunger, etc. The shadow is more personal but has some elements from the ID. For example, an addiction is not primal but may a modification of desire, but was brought about by the ego. The shadow is sort of a blend of instincts, repressions and sublimations.

 

On the other side, the superego, is the cultural voice for both objective and subjective knowledge and behavior. Based on that, people put on their mask, sort of like a work hat, to ihelp dentify who they are. That too is by choice of the ego, working within the setting of the superego. The personna of influential people help define the superego. Say a celebrity wears his shirt backwards, the prestige of that position, can cause others to follow this personna.

 

When the tough street thug, with his mask of attitude, language and posture, goes home to see his mom, she pulls off that mask and he become a kid; "Oh Mom!". In this environment, the mom is sort of micro-version of the superego. He may require a new mask out of respect. He may have to hide the shadow of violence he is known for in the streets. In the streets, he may have to hide the shadow of tenderness for his mother.

 

The shadow sounds sinister. But this name was used so it could be viewed like the shadow that follows one when they walk around on a sunny day. Our shadow follows us constantly, sort of being a compensation. When the sun or the light of day is directly overhead, i.e., objectivity, the shadow is small. We the sun is lower,, i.e., objectivity and subjectivy, the shadow gets longer, as the subjectivity fuzzes out the objectivity.

 

The shadow goes away, when the sun sets. If one loses all objectivity, i.e., light of day, there is no shadow. The shadow and mask take some level of objective focus, even if both are subjective. In other words, even an actor playing a fictitious character, requires objective skills. If they lose all objectivity and continue to play the character; funny farm time. Where the shadow ends is where the ID begins. The ID is not rational.

 

The rising moon, of the collective unconscious, creates it own light that casts a shadow for the ID. This is a little different, in that the ID is dark and its shadow is light. This is not phyicially possible, but it describes it. For example, a compulsive male's ID can create primal lust that is very generic. It might focus on anything with a skirt. The light of the collective unconscious, can cause him to fall in love and focus on one person. This would be the shadow of the ID, which creates a conflict between roaming and settling. The mask of the ID is connected its shadow of light. This mask creates the mask output for the love game. Falling in love is a collective human drama easily spotted, due to being very generic.

 

The ego has its own mask and shadow that are more under its control. The guy in question may walk around letting everyone see he is a lady's man. This could be due to a shadow that follows him, due to say a fear of intimacy. The shadow of the ID and its love mask may also play at the same time. He finds himself participating in the rituals of falling love. The two masks and the two shadows are pulling him to and fro. The superego may also kick in, with its saying he can not marry this person. If he does, his mask will be tarnished within the realm of that superego. But the inner self may see the value in this union. The inners elf is the superego of the collective unconscious, so it may not allow him to rationalize, yet.

[1veedo]

An ego is necessary for someone who isnt ready to accept that they are one with the universe; an individuation of the indivisible.

Lol. An ego is what you have while you're not tripping shrooms. I guess if you're one of those "one with the universe" people shrooms and other psychedelics would be the only way to get there.

 

 

 

Btw as a distinction to anyone in this thread (because I've seen Freud and Jung mentioned), the ego in Freudian fantasy land and the ego in modern psychology are two different things. Ego really isn't used in psychology except when talking more or less specifically about ego death, or a feeling of being one with the universe, which is an altered state of consciousness induced by certain drugs (the idea that you can induce this state of consciousness through meditation, without the help of psychedelics, is highly unlikely).

 

Eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_Death

[Realitycheck]

What value is there to building ideological constructs to define the mind? It seems really limiting.

[dichotomy]

That's the super-ego. In classic Freudian terms, the ego moderates between the ID and the Super-ego, trying to find the balance that most satisfies the ID, whilst conforming as much as possible with the social constrictions laid down by the socially acquired super-ego.

 

Well, I can’t agree with this Freudian model then. I can’t see why the ID and Ego (or call it super-ego if you will) can’t push and pull between them without the need of a third party in order to find the desired middle ground. Possibly the middle ground (that is constantly shifting) could be identified as the Ego, but I’m not convinced. Freud and Jung’s models seem a little too complex (Freud by only one degree) to explain what is pretty evident, IMO. That is, that we are ruled by unconscious (ID) and conscious (ego) thought, and within both consciousnesses are emotional and logical thought processes that need to constantly work between themselves to find the desired balance for the environment they exist in.

[Glider]

so what happens when someone is mostly ID (using that deffinition)?

 

and please don`t say Psycho/Socio-Path!

I won't According to the Freudian model, babies and infants are mostly ID (which is said to be based on the pleasure priciple). Their immediate wants and desires are the most important and must be satisfied first. This is obviously necessary in babies, but infants and toddlers do it too. They'll quite happily override anybody else's needs or wants to achieve their goals, e.g. they're quite content to disrupt an adult conversation or activity with loud demands, or scream in shops "But muuuuum!! I WANT IT!!!"

 

As they grow (the model states) they develop their super-ego, which is the socially acquired conventions. The ID and ego are internal, whereas the super-ego is externally acquired, The ego moderates between the ID and the super-ego, as I say, balancing between the demands of the ID whilst conforming to social convention.

 

Well, I can’t agree with this Freudian model then. I can’t see why the ID and Ego (or call it super-ego if you will) can’t push and pull between them without the need of a third party in order to find the desired middle ground. Possibly the middle ground (that is constantly shifting) could be identified as the Ego, but I’m not convinced. Freud and Jung’s models seem a little too complex (Freud by only one degree) to explain what is pretty evident, IMO. That is, that we are ruled by unconscious (ID) and conscious (ego) thought, and within both consciousnesses are emotional and logical thought processes that need to constantly work between themselves to find the desired balance for the environment they exist in.

Well, the answer is really in your post. As you say, the ID and ego represent the unconscious and conscious and are thus both internal. The super-ego is external and has to be socially acquired and so is different between individuals according to culture (whereas the ID and ego are the same between individuals).

 

Having said that, I don't believe any of it either. I'm not arguing for the existance of the ID, ego and super-ego, I'm just clarifying the Freudian model (in the same way that clarifying the Arthurian legend might make people's understanding of the legend more accurate, but doesn't make the legend more true). The ID, ego and super-ego 'legend' was proposed as one 'model' of how things work, but it's not testable nor observable, i.e. the purported stages can be observed, but the ID, ego or super-ego per se can't be, nor can their alleged effects.

 

As far as they go, I think they're really just arbitrary labels naming stages of development and you might just as well call them 'Colin' 'Julie' and 'Steve'. There are better explanations for the relationship between basic internal drives and the development and learning of social rules and behaviour. I don't think readjusting the Freudian model by eliminating the super-ego or shuffling the elements around makes it any more useful or true.

[Fred56]

Humans like to think they are single, complete, and in and of themselves (a contained physical presence). This view we have has already been discussed by plenty of people with bigger brains, but we have a multilayer brain, for starters. Our brain is the product of a lot of evolution and previous evolutionary "structure" is present in our "version". We've got like version 7.1, or something (not sure how many). If you think about different structures, the cerebellum, the pons, the hippocampus,.... We are a composite organism.

Then there's the external world, without which existence is kind of meaningless. We're in the world, and we observe it, but that's about as far as you can get without starting to approach metaphysics.

[gcol]

Ego, of course simply means "I am" in Latin. I vehemently object to original words with simple uncomplicated meanings being highjacked for purposes they were never intended for by people who are unimaginative enough to coin their own. When used by Freud and Jung, the word was lengthily qualified. When taken out of their context, it only means "I am".

 

So without "ego" none of us would be the person we are. It is an essential part of being a human. Nothing complicated there, surely. you can all complicate it if you want to play word games, but be honest enough to state your own prejudices when doing so.

[iNow]

Ego, of course simply means "I am" in Latin. I vehemently object to original words with simple uncomplicated meanings being highjacked for purposes they were never intended for by people who are unimaginative enough to coin their own. When used by Freud and Jung, the word was lengthily qualified. When taken out of their context, it only means "I am".

 

You seem to be thinking of "ergo." The term "ego" translates as "I" or "Self."

[gcol]

You seem to be thinking of "ergo." The term "ego" translates as "I" or "Self."

 

I think you are right. It was a long long time ago. "I am" I think I remember is "sum", as in sum, es, est, sumus, estis, and sunt. But again from long ago memory, "ergo" means therefore.

 

Is there a latin scholar in the house? Otherwise I claim a draw.

[insane_alien]

ego is necessary for the human psyche to have the characteristics it does. if we had no ego it would be close to human but not quite.

[Glider]

I think you are right. It was a long long time ago. "I am" I think I remember is "sum", as in sum, es, est, sumus, estis, and sunt. But again from long ago memory, "ergo" means therefore.

 

Is there a latin scholar in the house? Otherwise I claim a draw.

 

Yes, ergo = therefore and sum = I am, as in 'Cogito ergo sum'.

[gcol]

Drat, I knew that but was keeping it in reserve as a last-ditch clincher!