The etymology of the word ego is simply “I” in Latin. It was
used by Latin speakers in the very same way that we use the first person
singular nominative case personal pronoun in modern English, which is “I”.
In
present day, we use the word “ego” to make a specific distinction; for example
when we wish to address an inflated sense of self-worth, but also to refer to
our identity that we have built around ourselves. But what, actually is the
“ego”, and what is its relationship with that which we call “self”?
We can say that the ego is fundamentally a construct. It is
made of parts just like a building is made up of concrete and, our ego is made
up of our dreams and fears, aspirations, memories and so on. Let’s take a quick
look into what the traditions of the West and East say on the subject.
For Sigmund Freud, the Ego is a part of a psyche’s apparatus
that functions as a mediator between our basic human instincts (ID) and the
moral that is socially upheld as desirable (Super Ego). (Super ego is the
aspect of personality that holds all of our internalized moral standards and
ideals that we acquire from both parents and society–our sense of right and
wrong.)
The latter two elements of our psyche are in mutual
contradiction and it is the job of the Ego to ‘unify’ these contradictory
aspects. The result of this synthesis is something that is –apparently– stable
and coherent, even though it is under a lot of pressure and always under
construction. The metaphor of the Iceberg is usually employed to exemplify the
mechanics and visibility of these forces: the Ego is the tip, the visible part,
is only there because it’s supported by another deeper and less accessible mass
of ice.
As for the Buddhist, they claim that nothing possess an
underlying reality. One of the most common (and normal) aberrations of our mind
is to think in terms of identities. The concept of Anatta or no-self is very
clear on this: there is no thing that has a substance, they are all aggregates.
The same happens with our ego: it is illusory to think that it exists. The
Story of Nagasena and the Chariot is often told to exemplify: There is no such
thing as a Chariot, they are parts just put together.
The same is valid for the ego: there is no such thing. What
we are is a constant flow of sensations and thoughts and to identify ourselves
with any of this is to create attachment to an illusion with ultimately leads
to suffering. There are equivalent thoughts in Western philosophy by thinkers
such as John Locke, Heraclitus and David Hume who appeal to the ‘bundle theory
of the self’ and to the Theseus Ship Paradox which is just different ways of
putting what the Buddhists are saying.
For Hinduism on the other hand, there is such thing as a
Self and it is called Atman. It is what we find when we peel away all the
illusory layers of the mind (where the Ego lies). It is equal to that of the
impersonal Absolute (Brahman)-like a spark to the sun (they are both fire)-.
Again, there is emphasis in self-knowledge, for it is through it that we can
pierce the veil of illusion and see our true nature.
Lao Tzu wrote “knowing others is wisdom. Knowing the self is
enlightenment”. It seems that many traditions highly value this kind of
knowledge and see it as a means to happiness. We should be vigilant of our Ego
and keep in mind that is something that has been constructed, and therefore
something that can be reconstructed and reshaped in whichever way we want. If
it is inevitable to have an ego we should resort to shape it to our
convenience. To see it as a tool and not as a master.
Post a Comment