Ego or Confidence

As it were, one would have an ego even if one were all alone on a world far away from any other. It is that story from the inside as compared the objective reality (of which we can know very little - even at our most attentive state). It is that aspect of our consciousness that makes of itself a universal centre for understanding and meaning - it is not a 'bad' thing in-and-of itself albeit that part which gives rise to absurdity, the discrepency between the comprehension and the 'is'.

Ego is not limited to selfishness or whatever that we may call "egotism". We should not see the ego as 'bad', just like we would be very careful about that anyway (cf. Tao Te Ching 2) It is something that it is not worth the effort to diminish or try to erase - for it doesn't really even exist. Hard to dimish or erase something that already isn't there ....

Confidence is also more neutral than we commonly think of it. Recognising and assessing the "Te" of things, events and people - their "as-suchness" - is confidence. We can have 'confidence' in our weaknesses as well as in our strengths. One may have confidence in ones skill at something the same way one may have confidence that a shortcoming can hinder us ...

If a particular husband may have a penchant for the ladies (other than his wife). His wife can still have a sort of 'confidence' in him - the confidence that he has a 'penchant for the ladies'. One can be fairly 'confident' that the scorpion and the serpent will sting, that keeping milk too long it will turn and that even with the best of hygiene, we'll get sick. These are confidences too, just harbouring a faith in the nature of 'things as they are'.

We can have 'confidence' in our weaknesses as well as in our strengths

We can acknoledge them for what they are but not make excusses for their limitations. Work with them, change them if we can or go around them. I think some folks use their weaknesses as an excuse not to do their best or just do nothing.

As I write this I'm thinking confidence is accepting responsibility for/to oneself?

BTW Good stuff everyone! Keep it coming...

I have to agree that ego is the awareness of self, be it inflated, deflated or balanced.
It is the ego, the sense of I, that says, I exist, I feel, I see.
:dry:

Although, in popular usage, ego is used for the over inflated ego; e.g. grandiose,confidence, better than attitude.
:silly:

A sense of certainty, i.e., confidence in one's self (overall or in a particular situation) does not automatically equal an inflated ego. Although, feeling threatened by someone's confidence may be a sign of a deflated ego.

ren wrote:

Jestor wrote: Not just caving into society.....

But, the steadfast belief that one is always right..

This too, would be ego, me thinks...

It's not though. That would be faith. Egotism is about making yourself feel more important, more appreciated, more "grand".

Everyone believes they are right, until that belief changes, in which case they hold the new belief as right. The only people who could genuinely not fall into this are people who are completely apathetic and have no opinion whatsoever about anything. (One of the reasons why some people believe that living wu-wei implies living as a hermit)

Anyway, if someone believes that it is right not to be grand, not to seek appreciation, etc (see Jedi creed), and that they wont bulge on the "rightness" of those beliefs, are they still egotistical to you Jestor?

Let me backtrack a bit....

Both what you and I were talking about, is 'being egotistical'...

The ego, is simply the "I"...

If, we are too proud, or craving the attention of others, our ego is craving attention...

However, if if our ego shys from the spotlight, then, it is a 'humble ego'...

My question is can a person be confident and not be egotistic? What would seperate the two characteristics if they can be seperated?

Yes, I think they can...

I am, by my own definition....

However, some would say Im conceited, full of myself, egotistical...

So, like many other things... It just depends on where you are standing... lol...

Like I said from the get go...eye of the beholder.

I see your point. I use "ego" as the constructed (inauthentic) self, not the actual (authentic) self.... therefore in my view the ego is necessarily egotistical.

My understanding of Freud's theory as well is that the ego (mental self?) exists to please the id (more animal self?) when the real world fails to please the id. In existentialist terms the ego would therefore be a sort of backup reward when the Absurd fails to deliver.

I think confidence and ego are both one thing. Although they are independent of themselves, they are both dependent of each other (derived from an idea in Zen - see video below). You use the emotion based on what is going on. You having confidence and ego walking into a bar is much different than you having confidence and ego going to work, or working out or going on a date, or presenting a new business or day trading.


http://youtu.be/XK_4Z5DZcNM

tzb wrote: people who lack confidence are too aware of themselves to act as they know they should.

This is very true...

Presupposition of one's own superiority and acceptance of one's own virtues aren't necessarily related. Neither is a definition for egotism or confidence respectively, but are related to those traits. Point being, they are not necessarily related. One can be one of the above, both, or neither to an entirely free degree. Now, of course intense confidence may be misunderstood as arrogance, although, to be fair, egotism more relates to selfishness and a disregard for other humans rather than over-confidence in oneself.

ren wrote: I see your point. I use "ego" as the constructed (inauthentic) self, not the actual (authentic) self.... therefore in my view the ego is necessarily egotistical.

My understanding of Freud's theory as well is that the ego (mental self?) exists to please the id (more animal self?) when the real world fails to please the id. In existentialist terms the ego would therefore be a sort of backup reward when the Absurd fails to deliver.

To expand on this, my understanding of Freud's theory is that the psyche has three parts: (id: instinctual, super-ego: ethical thought systems - formed early in life, ego: mediator between the two-aka analytical reasoning and decisionmaker).

In this way, the non-traditional religious and spiritual movements which see ego as simply the sense of self and the decision made by the self (with or without awareness) about the self and its response to the world, are pretty much the same interpretation without the differentian of ego and super-ego.