According to different sources and authors, ego is referred to as one's self-perception by one's self concept. It is sometimes considered as selfishism. But what can a person do that will not refer to self-X?
I don't know if I am clear enough, but I don't understand why helping other people with the aim of making others happy should be considered as self-satisfaction and thought to the ego.
Welcome, gartien asimbahwe.
'Ego' is the Latin word for 'I' but its sense in modern philosophy depends very much on its context. In Descartes' 'cogito, ergo sum' (not his own phrase but a Latin translation of his French phrase, 'je pense, donc je suis', 'I think therefore I am/ exist'), the ego is merely the thinking self independent of the body. There is no association with selfishness nor in the sequel to his being a sole self, no hint of solipsism - that hus self is the only thing that exists.
The American philosopher, R.B. Perry, referred to the 'egoistic predicament' which merely signified that one has no access to the world, to external reality, independently of our mental representations of it. I leave aside problems here, the point is simply that a purely epistemological claim is being made, a claim about what we can know. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_predicament.)
In Freud the ego's meaning takes a different turn. The way in is through the 'id':
The id is conceived by Freud as the source of instinctive impulses; and the impression con- veyed by his description is that it consists, not of organised instinctive tendencies, but of inchoate impulses seeking discharge. It is the human psyche, of course, that Freud is considering. But it is difficult to believe that man differs fundamentally from the animal world where the more primitive aspects of his mentality are concerned; and Freud's description of the id as the source of instinctive impulses seems singularly out of keeping with the instinctive endowment of animals, which, as we have seen, is highly specific and highly orientated towards outer reality. According to Freud, the id is indifferent to outer reality, and the adaptation of impulses to outer reality only becomes possible through the differentiation of the ego from the surface of the id. The ego is, of course, conceived by Freud as a structure ; but the id is described in a manner which implies that it is essentially structureless and is merely a reservoir of instinctive energy. The function ascribed to the ego is that of selecting and regulating id-impulses in such a manner as to render behaviour adapted to our outer conditions. (W. Ronald D. Fairbairn, 'A Critical Evaluation of Certain Basic Psycho-Analytical Conceptions', The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 7, No. 25, Sigmund Freud Centenary (May, 1956), pp. 49-60 : 52.)
When we turn to ethics that 'ego' gains yet other associations.
'Egoism' in ethics is widely taken to be a view of life on which human conduct either necessarily is or (if not that, then) should be based exclusively on self-interest.
'Egotism' is more of a personal attitude than a philosophical position. An egoistic person is conceited, selfish, continually concerned with her own business and just not interested in what happens to or interests others.
This is not a complete overview but I hope it helps provide a perspective on the 'ego'.
Greetings to Everyone,
“To my mind, "Ego", conveys the idea of the "person" as the one responsible for subjectively making judgments about that which is external.
In non-philosophical terms, "Ego", is mainly considered as the exaggeration of one's importance and disregarding the importance of others.
If someone helps others, considering "helping others" as a "virtue", that would NOT be through the "ego" and the "helper" would get the reward, whether or not the reward of satisfaction manifests itself externally.
Yet, if someone helps others just because of the fact that helping others would make him or her satisfied, that would be an act of "ego". In this case, the one who receives the help, would most probably get the satisfaction but still, the one who helps may get the reward or may not. For instance, if the helper does not get recognized, or even gets insulted, they might not get the reward of satisfaction, get discouraged and even stop the act of "helping others".”-Me
This is just my opinion. I hope that will be beneficial. P.S. Any corrections would be appreciated.
