What do you mean by ‘ego’? If you
are referring to the Freudian ‘Ego’, you are employing a simple and probably
outdated psychological model by virtue of which no progress can be made in
understanding human motivation and behaviour. Incidentally, this is the model
that most people use, and it is failing. If you are referring to a particular
perspective toward which you attribute the characteristics of ‘untruth’ and
ignorance, then history has shown that a deviant opinion held by one individual
is not nearly as dangerous as one held by many, irrespective of the originator.
If you mean
to disregard my point of view but cannot see outside of the confines of the one
in which you are entrenched, who is the egotist in this scenario? After all,
the ‘ego’ represents myopiea. It may not be, in itself, (whatever its actual
nature) a menace, so for you to attribute such importance to it as to call my
life ‘dominated by the ego’ (as though Ego were an Ontological Entity, which is
open to debate) is as absurd as to say that a person does not have a Soul
because he/she has freckles, without any discussion as to the existence or
Nature of a Soul. For all I know, the ‘ego’, by many definitions, is a useful
tool if not abused and, by many other and a few of the same definitions, is
inevitable as a characteristic experience in a sane psyche.
But if, by
‘ego’, you seek to pigeonhole an entire spectrum of ignorance, greed, malice,
myopia, and violence by virtue of which one defends a superficial image of
oneself and feels justified in blindly disregarding the viewpoints of Others
(be they general or specific), is it really the person you are targeting who
has an ego problem?
No comments:
Post a Comment