A Remark Regarding Egoism and Selfishness

Some people, as it seems, think selfishness and egoism are just two words for the same thing. I have not questioned but it seems this is the situation. What is supposed to be scientific research of the relevant fields is quite a joke, I am quite happy I am getting a chance to mention, - so I wouldn’t assume any relevant understanding might dawn there. Whether I am right or wrong as for my estimation in the first sentence here, - these are not just mere synonyms describing the same phenomenon itself but are referring to different, even if close, - phenomena.

Selfishness could exist at the absence of egoism, egoism could not exist at the absence of selfishness. In animals, where due to inabilities compared to humans what we call an “ego” could not come to be or be formed, egoism could of course not be traced or appear in the same way we find it in humans. - More simply said, - animals do not have an ego. Referring to something Steiner somewhere said, an animal could not say “I” to itself. - It could not view itself in this way, - obviously it does not have this ability, which we might say is the main thing differing animals from us, - not other points quite reknownly referred to randomly and repeatedly, - and therefore the element in our mind (we aim at undermining the root of on the spiritual path) subsequently rising as what we might imagine ourselves to be, - does not and would not appear in the form we know it ordinarily in the mind and consciousness of almost us all, and as I said animals therefore do not have this “ego” construction in their mental field, of course it could not appear without self consciousness.

This is all of course while those being lower than man could not at all, as a matter of principle, (and it doesn’t matter what exceptions one might or might not think of) exceed beyond the sphere of fundamental selfishness within which they are locked for life. Here may be the place to also remark that there is a fundamental difference between natural tendencies inherited and merely representing a choice of uncontrollable inclinations induced through the body and between true spirituality or the result of actual development representing some real revelation (even if not necessarily clearly evident) regarding the nature of selfishness and consideration. Some might argue that it is all the same and we are nothing more than fundamentally-the-same more advanced animals and that the idea of spirituality is in the first place some primitive thought humanity is better to rid itself of - and the sooner the better. I will not answer this or refer to it here but I might mention this post here you might check. - Anyway no one will argue that animals are not unable - fundamentally at least, - to go beyond selfishness. This is evident to all. - And what this post was trying to refer to is just the difference between the words (and subsequently of course the concepts) “selfishness” and “egoism”. The missing of the differentiation is a mistake, and to this small point I wanted to refer here.


Only at the existence of selfishness could the inner sphere within our mind representing one’s own interests and preferences come to be in the way it subsequently creates the more focused phenomenon you call egoism. (assuming you do) These things have to be seen. There is doubtly much point in just presenting words one is to intellectually refer to in an abstract manner. You have to see it for your self, and it doesn’t seem particularly difficult. You have to see what one phenomenon is and what the other phenomenon is. Otherwise this is to a great deal worthless. But still if some will see and others will following accept it is not devoid of value.

Anyway, this is not any great point, - this distinction is important, but only to some degree. I thought this post would come out much shorter, - but when writing it is sometimes, not necessarily rarely, - different. So far.


December 3, 2017. Will be posted when it does.