Ethical egoism

 My definition of ethical egoism is that the best way to take care of others and oneself is for each individual to self-realize, and seek his enlightened self-interest. His secondary aim and moral motive should be to self-realize while protecting and meeting the interests of others for the common good.

I suggest that if one loves oneself, one is comfortable in one's own skin, but lives in a close, veridical correspondence with what is true. He is proud of his accomplishments but does not brag. He thinks primarily about his own needs and problems, but in public need not bore or frustrate others with endless chatter about his concerns. He speaks of his pluses and minuses, his flaws and strengths. He loves himself and treats himself well, so, in that mood of calm generosity, he treats others well, as he himself wishes to be treated.

Good manners are his hallmark. He treats others with dignity and respect, and does not invade their privacy or seek to dominate them or steal their personal power or wealth from them. Nor will he allows others or any government entity to rob or mistreat him.

He is egocentric but does not overtly dwell on this in public places. He does not seek to seem like more than what he is, and he is relatively indifferent to seeming to be more or less than others of more wealth, higher class advantage, or being of higher social popularity. He is what he is, take it or leave it.

He does not seek cheap, rude egotistical, one-upsmanship over others by bragging that he is taller, handsomer, stronger, smarter, more righteous, more talented, richer, more popular. Even if some of these claims are true, it hurts the feelings of others to point them out ostensibly. He would not want to be disrespected in this way, so he will not treat others shabbily. So misbehaving makes them feel bad about themselves, and that emotional reaction makes them feel angry, embarrassed, hurt, resentful and revengeful. They may become his enemies, and what fool seeks to annoy and shame others? Who wants to gather enemies? It is in his best self-interest, and in their best interest to treat them with kindness and courtesy whenever possible.

He is self-absorbed but he is no narcissist. He wants to develop himself but does not waste his time believing that he is better than others. A narcissist seems immature, competing endlessly in toxic, shallow ways with others, ever seeking to climb the social pecking order. The narcissist is no individualist and no maverizer. His self-absorption is sick and can become pathological. If others have more or are more, then he needs to accept that and cease competing with others, or envying with them. He must do better and act better. then he may catch up to what is superior in others, perhaps surpassing them in some ways.

The egoist is self-centered but never in a selfish, mean, sordid way. The narcissist is selfish but likely is a non-indivudator, group-oriented, self-loathing and out of touch with reality. The egoist individuates, individual-lives and loves himself. He lives in the truth and loves the truth, no matter where its revelation takes him.

As a follower of the Good Spirits, that love and live in the truth, discovering what is true and living according to its implications is how I seek to comport myself. Moderation applies to truth in that one's view may be more or less correct, but reality is complicated, and the truth held by others, no matter how hostile and deviating from one's own take, are views, somewhat true, that should be brought into one's bag of solutions, whereever honorably and harmoniously may be accomplished.

In light of this moderate assessment of how truth is discovered and assigned to persons, statements and situations, I offer that the pursuit of self-interest embedded in a emotional framework of healthy, sane self-love can only be well expressed as consistent with love of others. In short, the genuine, good altruist works to see that people are allowed to follow their enlightened self-interest and that is for the common weal. The decent, authentic egoist conducts himself in such a manner that his efforts meet the needs of his needs and the needs of the public. They are opposite sides of the same coin.

Now let me apply my definition of ethical egoism to how the sane, loving, artistic artist will never conduct himself. Let me quote Eric Hoffer from a book on his newspaper columns, The Syndicate News Articles, Page 149: "I have been reading Henri Troyat's biography of Tolstoi. There is a sickroom atmosphere about the book. Tolstoi was enormously gifted, enormously perceptive, enormously fortunate, and quite an unpleasant person. Those who knew him well doubted whether he had ever in his life really loved anyone. There is a slimy quality about his ceaseless soul-searching, and his self-centeredness bordered on the insane."

Hoffer the genius philosopher, great loner and great soul, was generous and warm. He would likely now refer to Tolstoi as egotistical and narcissistc and he would be correct. Hoffer, like Eastern mystics, lived among ordinary people, worked, and lived a normal life in the world of work, business and commerce. That keeps the individuator centered and maverizing at room temperature.

I imagine that Tolstoi was worshiped and admired, put on a pedestal, and the elevated status of the wondrous, living genius sickened him. I wonder if Jordan Peterson's 2020 collapse was not a bit similar in that too many encounters with too many adoring persons that he "literally saved" sickened him and wore him out and he collapsed--drug addiction did not help, of course.

Hoffer regards intellectuals that are a pampered elite that historically have always been a core part of and chief justifiers of the oppressive status quo. They like running things, and missed their chance in America for the first 150 years to run things, so now as Progressives, under Biden, they may run things again.

When intellectuals, artists and individuators are not part of a universal, upper middle class of individuating anarchist supercitizens, their elevated condition, their elite management of the masses, and  their excessive share of societal money and power does sicken and corrupt them. They are nasty people, nasty to themselves, to each other and to those that they rule. They are sick, addicted to their sickness, and strive to spread it over the entire earth. They are mini-Tolstois without his great genius and his giant, glaring apparent defects and behavioral abnormalities. Their egotism, selfishness, ingratitude, bitterness, unhappiness, spite, malice, extremism, groupism and narcissism have little to do with egotism, and the white male patriarchy, but has everything to do with living as part of the political class at the top of tyrannical hierarchies all embedded in the society, the culture and the Leviathan itself.

Hoffer continues: "It occurred to me as I read that there is not a single great writer or artist I have read about that I would want as a friend, companion or neighbor. Envy, vanity, malice, and sheer rudeness seem to be characteristic elements of the creative personality."

I would add that these elements are characteristic of traditionally put-on-the-pedestal, pampered, adored, creative personalities that are part of the ruling and cultural elite, and believe it is their due to run things and be granted special reverence, deference, agreement, leeway, passes for rudeness and obedience from the masses. Elite existence corrupts almost all that are so elevated, almost as much as low class status corrupts most of the residents at the lower strata.

This is why the little people must run America. This is why they need to be 200 millions individuated supercitizens leading regular and exceptional lives at one time. They love themselves and others as a consequence, and the pathological, disturbing excesses of a Tolstoi would become a rare phenomenon.