Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 12:09 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?
#1
Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?
With the increase of an objective world view-- specifically, of a scientific process for arriving at truths-- I'm curious what you guys think about the role of the ego in understanding the world we observe.

Traditionally, ego was tied in with religious ideas about the soul-- essentially, each of us is a soul looking out through the body, which we wear like a garment while engaged in the struggle between good and evil, or which we must subjugate in order to more clearly see and follow the will of a Deity.

These days, ego seems to be more of an instinctive tendency to write a myth of the self: though I know about brain function and its contribution to behaviors, I still see rapists (for example) as evil fucks.  I still see myself as engaged in a struggle between the angel and the devil sitting on my shoulder.
 

So should I see science as a tool of the self-- a way to get better stuff, to enjoy more health, to add interest to my life?  Or should I use science as a kind of razor, using it to identify and destroy those parts of my sense of self which are delusional, or counter-productive?  It seems to me the complete annihilation of the self should give one the most objective power of observation and analysis-- but is this paying too high a price?
Reply
#2
RE: Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?
I think evolution has done such a marvelous job at creating the illusions we live, that you can only cut through so much. It's given a bit of a safety net, in that our natural state is to ignore a lot of the things we find out, and just go back to autopilot.

You see it in the way people respond to what seem like large shifts in the foundations of what humanity believes and the understanding of who we are. Get rid of God? People say it doesn't really matter. Get rid of Free Will? Not a big deal. We're actually mindless robots programmed to delude ourselves into thinking we're conscious beings? No biggie, I'm going to watch the basketball game.

I'd say the real question on how to look at science, is probably just to get what you want out of it. The desire for knowledge on the matter is just another instinct on the pile of instincts running the ship, so ride that desire as far as you want, knowing that evolution has set up a nice safe delusion to retreat to should things get a bit uncomfortable.
Reply
#3
RE: Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?
I think it's a pragmatic necessity and only a harmful delusion when employed to the impediment of better alternatives in any given situation. The question of utility could be related to a number of discoveries that have deflated man's position as a demi-god but I'm sure many of these now seem trivial; take, for example, the overthrow of the Ptolemaic model of the Universe or the Mosaic cosmogeny of its origin. Does it matter that the soul cannot be located as a physical substratum anymore than the "the Good" or "the Beautiful" can? Does time cease to play an important role in our lives because we only have something of an experience of movement "in time," and lack any veritable evidence of its existence apart from intuition and events that appear to persist as records of a continuous past? Would it matter from the standpoint of our daily experiences if our common-sense perception of time was rendered nothing but a psychological construct? I kind of feel the same way about the ego, the Good, and other invisible objects of practical import to human life: they may be unsubstantiated by known modes of testability but it's impossible to do without them. It sort of brings to mind a quote of Epicurus in his letter to a certain Menoecus that I recently read:

"It were better, indeed, to accept the legends of the gods than to bow beneath that yoke of destiny which the natural philosophers have imposed. The one holds out some faint hope that we may escape if we honor the gods, while the necessity of the naturalists is deaf to all entreaties."
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#4
RE: Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?
(April 27, 2015 at 5:48 am)bennyboy Wrote: So should I see science as a tool of the self-- a way to get better stuff, to enjoy more health, to add interest to my life?  Or should I use science as a kind of razor, using it to identify and destroy those parts of my sense of self which are delusional, or counter-productive?  It seems to me the complete annihilation of the self should give one the most objective power of observation and analysis-- but is this paying too high a price?

Why do you have to choose between the two? Why can't you remove the delusions and enhance your life at the same time? That's what I would do.
Reply
#5
RE: Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?
(April 27, 2015 at 7:00 pm)Surgenator Wrote:
(April 27, 2015 at 5:48 am)bennyboy Wrote: So should I see science as a tool of the self-- a way to get better stuff, to enjoy more health, to add interest to my life?  Or should I use science as a kind of razor, using it to identify and destroy those parts of my sense of self which are delusional, or counter-productive?  It seems to me the complete annihilation of the self should give one the most objective power of observation and analysis-- but is this paying too high a price?

Why do you have to choose between the two? Why can't you remove the delusions and enhance your life at the same time? That's what I would do.
No "you."
Wink
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot

We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Reply
#6
RE: Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?
(April 27, 2015 at 7:00 pm)Surgenator Wrote:
(April 27, 2015 at 5:48 am)bennyboy Wrote: So should I see science as a tool of the self-- a way to get better stuff, to enjoy more health, to add interest to my life?  Or should I use science as a kind of razor, using it to identify and destroy those parts of my sense of self which are delusional, or counter-productive?  It seems to me the complete annihilation of the self should give one the most objective power of observation and analysis-- but is this paying too high a price?

Why do you have to choose between the two? Why can't you remove the delusions and enhance your life at the same time? That's what I would do.

Yes, that's the essence of the question.  But let's say one takes seriously your advice, what then?

Let's say, by an interest in science and disciplined objectivity, I discover that I am not what I've always defined myself to be.  What if studies of the brain lead me to see free will, for example, as an illusion?  Should I not then look at acts of will as meaningless expressions of the myth of self, and conquer that myth through ascetic denial of pleasure or luxury in life?  Let's say that in the interest of the best kind of science, that requiring a pure objective perspective, I struggle to lift that pleasant veil, and find underneath it nothing at all?  Certainly, this would be the ego's equivalent of discovering that all the world is empty space, or mostly so.

It seems to me that Buddhists in particular, but ascetic mystics of many traditions, have arrived at this conclusion, and followed this path.  I mean, I've seen a Buddhist book directly entitled "Meditations on the Nature of Emptiness."  And yet they are almost universally mocked as agents of "woo" by those of us who haven't divested ourselves of the pleasant illusions and delusions of ego.  I wonder, which party is most capable of science, by which I mean the clear-minded observation of reality?

Is it possible to "use" science, and still do it properly? Or must one transform oneself, at a fundamental level, INTO a scientist, by which I mean not a profession but the embodiment of the ideal of pure objectivity?
Reply
#7
RE: Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?
(April 28, 2015 at 12:47 am)bennyboy Wrote:
(April 27, 2015 at 7:00 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Why do you have to choose between the two? Why can't you remove the delusions and enhance your life at the same time? That's what I would do.

Yes, that's the essence of the question.  But let's say one takes seriously your advice, what then?

Let's say, by an interest in science and disciplined objectivity, I discover that I am not what I've always defined myself to be.  What if studies of the brain lead me to see free will, for example, as an illusion?  Should I not then look at acts of will as meaningless expressions of the myth of self, and conquer that myth through ascetic denial of pleasure or luxury in life?  Let's say that in the interest of the best kind of science, that requiring a pure objective perspective, I struggle to lift that pleasant veil, and find underneath it nothing at all?  Certainly, this would be the ego's equivalent of discovering that all the world is empty space, or mostly so.

It seems to me that Buddhists in particular, but ascetic mystics of many traditions, have arrived at this conclusion, and followed this path.  I mean, I've seen a Buddhist book directly entitled "Meditations on the Nature of Emptiness."  And yet they are almost universally mocked as agents of "woo" by those of us who haven't divested ourselves of the pleasant illusions and delusions of ego.  I wonder, which party is most capable of science, by which I mean the clear-minded observation of reality?

Is it possible to "use" science, and still do it properly?  Or must one transform oneself, at a fundamental level, INTO a scientist, by which I mean not a profession but the embodiment of the ideal of pure objectivity?

I'm going to ignore the freewill part because it is another discussion in itself.

Lets work from an example, the enjoyment of swimming. If the neurologist/physiologist tells you that your enjoyment of swimming is nothing more than the endorphins released from the exercise swimming provides. I would not suggest that you should stop swimming because you found a mechanistic reason you do it. That mechanistic reason is what helps define you.

The reasons on why you act and think the way you do do not take away who you are. They define who you are. If you know who you are, you can try to make yourself into who you want to be. This is what I mean by removing and enchancing at the same time. You can remove something you don't like about yourself and replace it with something you do like.

Unlike the buddhist, I don't believe that you can remove, you can only replace.
Reply
#8
RE: Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?
If you find out there is no freewill, then you're kind of done. There is no "deciding" what to do after that Big Grin

The easiest way to prove freewill, as demonstrated by one of my friends, is to drop a pencil. Then you say, "See?"
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#9
RE: Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?
We use science all the time without -being- scientists or transforming ourselves into objective whatsits.  Toddlers do it, hell, infants do it.  I think you'll be able to manage to continue using science properly without making any changes.  
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#10
RE: Ego-- harmful delusion or pragmatic necessity?
(April 28, 2015 at 10:54 am)Rhythm Wrote: We use science all the time without -being- scientists or transforming ourselves into objective whatsits.  Toddlers do it, hell, infants do it.  I think you'll be able to manage to continue using science properly without making any changes.  

If you aren't going to change how you live based on the scientific conclusions, what's the point of pursuing the issue?  Makes more sense just to live in ignorance and not worry about it.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake Angrboda 78 8441 July 27, 2018 at 1:47 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Should we ever foster delusion? shadow 36 6765 July 30, 2017 at 8:02 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Fruit trees and necessity Ignorant 46 4006 May 28, 2016 at 5:22 am
Last Post: Ignorant
  Ego ShaMan 16 3047 February 6, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Last Post: dscross
  My perspective - truth or delusion? Mystic 22 11134 June 10, 2012 at 9:10 am
Last Post: genkaus
  Ego vs Awareness/consciousness simplexity 34 14901 May 18, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Last Post: Angrboda



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)