Inflated ego, does it make sense?

Re: Inflated ego, does it make sense?


The line between an inflated ego and a normal sense of self is a line that falls midway between new-age-speak, and psychology with its odd metaphysics. The question is not worth answering if it means having to prop up these preposterous pretenders to plain speaking.

Your question should be put simply like this: 'when does pride become injurious?'

The "line" is where there is an equilibrium between your own well being and that of others. You aren't helping yourself or others if you are so altruistic that you starve yourself to death. You starve, and the world is deprived of any good that you might have done. There's a balance that lies outside of simple self interest or altruism because you are both a particular individual while at the same time a component of a larger society. Both most be taken into account and the "maximum" of the function of the relation between parts to the whole (I believe that this is almost mathematical - Nash Equilibrium?) is your line.

What's Nash equilibrium? Who's Nash?



That does seem like a more fitting question. I think my original question, is asking some metaphysical notion as well though.

John Nash - The mathematician from A Beautiful Mind. He won a Nobel Prize for his work in economics -- his paper on Non-Cooperative Games. I can't pretend to know enough math to actually read it and my understanding of it in english isn't extensive, but it seems similar. Could be wrong though.

Oh, I need to see that movie!

I think in Freudian terms that an 'inflated Ego' as we term it is merely an overdeveloped superego.

Meaning, a person who thinks so much of himself often thinks too lowly of himself and combats it with the childish Id.

Ego, is the minds ability to see reality - I don't think reality can be overdeveloped.

TTF

I wonder exactly how much of the personal pride is thinking highly of oneself, and how much is looking down upon others for not being as perfect as you?

I also have to agree with TTF, I don't see how perception of reality could be any more than developed.

Ironically, when any man reaches the point when he is justifiably in the position to critique others for their faults without hypocrisy, he has reached the point where their faults do not matter to him. Comfortable with his own quality, he ceases to compare himself to others and others to himself; to compare himself to those below him would limit himself if he is in fact more highly developed. And anyone not at this stage is a hypocrit if they criticize others for their faults. They make statements about how poorly everyone else acts while their own behavior or qualities are just as, if not more, depraved. Hence, no true statements about someone's poor qualities can be made... Men either desire to not say so, or their statements are hypocritical and made without authority. This is not to say that everyone has acheived perfection. It means only that depravity is only a lack of those qualities of perfection. Criticism by a legitimate authority (one who isn't being a hypocrit) is a Negative: he states how what about a person is inperfect -- he makes statements about how another can improve rather than stating how bad they are. Bad is only a deprivation of good. To be scornful about how others aren't as perfect as you are is indicative of a hypocrisy. You yourself are not as perfect as you believe.

Nice post brother (or sister)... nice...

TF

I am.

But what is perfect?

And a person who insults another person who is not as developed as he is obviously would have some flaws. "pity the unenlightened", not insult the unenlightened.