The ego is just a placeholder we use to describe the primary "machinic" processes that produce consciousness in the brain. What the "ego" constituted by these processes wants or “ cares" about is no more inherently significant than e.g. the arrangement of carbon atoms in a rock.
-
-
It's axiomatic.
-
(I could make a joke here about leaving it as an "exercise to the reader" to show that Care is axiomatically important)
-
You can't just assert this. "care" is useful as a tool for making humans do things. It's certainly not the crown jewel of the universe.
-
We *pick* our axioms. I cannot "just assert this" -- but I can show that picking Care as an axiom is good because any argument against it seems very self-refuting. Why are we having this conversation even? Because we Care about something.
-
We do what we do because of brain processes that we simplify and call "care." It's a convenient simplification that accounts for an incomprehensibly narrow range of what happens in the universe. Pigs care about eating garbage and rutting in the mud. So what?
-
This is a galaxy brain take. JFC. You cannot care about things you cannot care about. Trying to care about something you cannot care about is like pig trying to care about the battle of Tours. It's immaterial to the pig.
-
You said something like: "Care cares about separation of concerns." What I'm saying is, even if that's true (though I think my own "cares" provide a counterexample), something isn't desirable from the universe's point of view just because humans care about it.
-
e.g. very human can't help but care about their own animal pleasure. But anyone but a degenerate hedonist will admit that pleasure isn't the point of life. It may be necessary to fight against our own cares if we want to be anything more noble than a gluttonous sex pervert.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.