A few questions about the ego...

reply to post by TheMatrixusesYou

Those are not definitions. They are usages, as I said earlier. In a usage, the definition is already assumed.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by TheMatrixusesYou

 

Those are not definitions. They are usages, as I said earlier. In a usage, the definition is already assumed.

Time to drop the issue sir as your continued agitation with me is actually pulling this thread off subject. Go back and look at the original post and discover how he never asked for the definition of ego. He wanted a deeper understanding of ego and he expressed this by asking specific questions related to it. I answered those questions. We were able to help him somewhat as communication is not perfect and he responded positively. There's no more to say.

If Lichter daraus wants to add another post and tell me that what we said was not helpful for him to understand what ego was, I wouldn't love it, but the truth hurts and that's a good thing. It must be welcomed with open arms. I understand where you're coming from, but remember or know that you must first seek to understand, then be understood. Ego has more than one use apparently and we just have to accept that its definition depends on the context in which it is being used throughout the world.

reply to post by TheMatrixusesYou

None of that harangue disguises the fact that you have been proved wrong, along with all the other misusers of the term on this thread. As for your patronizing and foolish advice, it is of a piece with calling me an egotist, which you did in the first line of your first post in reply to me. If you wish to discontinue this exchange, that’s all right by me; I think my point has been made. Thank you for your help with that.

matrix and a few others answered me perfectly. if i needed a definition i could have easily searched that myself.

reply to post by Astyanax


There's no way with my uder ID i could miss responding.

In a Freudian nutshell:

You're born and the consciousness that is you, isnt particularly self aware. You have no sense of identity and function at a purely instinctive level. The id ( not eye-dee but the word id) is driven by the pleasure principle, which strives for immediate gratification of all desires, wants, and needs.(IWANT CAKE,GIVE ME CAKE, NOW NOW NOW NOW)

As you become self aware you start to see youself as a seperate individual, you quite literaly get a sense of me, mine, I and thus the Ego starts to form. The Ego attempts to satisfy the needs of the Id but tkes into account the reality of any given situation ( I want cake, but there is no cake shop, I will wait for a cake shop, and then I will have cake)

The final part of "you" to develop is the Super Ego. The Super Ego is the part of "you" that maintains your internal standards of morality, right and wrong. (I'd like some cake, but that will spoil my dinner)

The reason Freud discussed them as seperate entities was not necassarily because he believed they actualy were, but because he believed that many mental problems were results of conflict between Id, Ego, and Super Ego, and although much of Freuds work is not taken too seriously these days, I think in this case he was pretty much spot on. The battle between What you need, what you want, and what you know is right can cause a certain level of mental instability if the balance of these desires is not kept in check.

To recap:

Id = Instinctive
Ego = Selfish
Super Ego = Moral Guardian

EDIT - I answered the question from the OP before reading the "debate" that ensued after so not realy sure this is what you were after. i'll leave the obvious ramblings I've already typed and just add..

It's you, you are your ego and your ego is you...

nuff said !!