Is everyone just becoming more selfish these days?

Python Code:

Look, I honestly think we’re wired to love—but how can you actually show up for anyone else if you haven't figured out how to love yourself first? The problem is, people constantly trip over their own feet here; they mistake actual self-love for just feeding this massive, bloated ego until it hits the stratosphere... If you want to truly love who you are, you have to quiet that ego down—seriously, shut it up—because that's the only way real love actually gains any traction. And let's not forget, there isn't really a hierarchy to it... When people pour love into others, they're essentially expressing love for themselves, and vice versa. It's all connected. Love is love, period. No matter where you aim it, the intensity is the same because the source is always the same one.

I mean, you can't really love other people without loving yourself first,

but—and this is the tricky part—you definitely *can* love yourself while being totally indifferent to everyone else.

At the end of the day, I guess all selfishness just boils down to a basic, primal desire.

Paul Jones7 said:I mean, you can't really love other people without loving yourself first,

but—and this is the tricky part—you definitely *can* love yourself while being totally indifferent to everyone else.

At the end of the day, I guess all selfishness just boils down to a basic, primal desire.

See, "loving yourself" without caring for others is basically just coddling your own ego rather than connecting with your actual soul... and honestly, that kind of self-absorption has zero to do with that universal love we’re all supposedly chasing and trying to spread around...

Desire is what actually drives us, plain and simple...

Paul Richardson12 said:See, "loving yourself" without caring for others is basically just coddling your own ego rather than connecting with your actual soul... and honestly, that kind of self-absorption has zero to do with that universal love we’re all supposedly chasing and trying to spread around...

Desire is what actually drives us, plain and simple...

Forgive my intrusion here. 🙂

But what about loving both yourself AND others? How do you strike that balance? Is it about equilibrium, or should we prioritize others over ourselves?
When you're purely self-centered—it's obvious; that love blinds you and keeps you small. When you love others—are you loving everyone, or just specific people? It comes down to whether you're just seeing reflections of yourself in them or actually seeing them for who they are...
And if you love others more than yourself—is that a deficit of self-love, a failure to value yourself, or is it simply an open heart reaching for genuine connection?

Best, 🙂

Kenneth Barnes7 said:Forgive my intrusion here. 🙂

But what about loving both yourself AND others? How do you strike that balance? Is it about equilibrium, or should we prioritize others over ourselves?
When you're purely self-centered—it's obvious; that love blinds you and keeps you small. When you love others—are you loving everyone, or just specific people? It comes down to whether you're just seeing reflections of yourself in them or actually seeing them for who they are...
And if you love others more than yourself—is that a deficit of self-love, a failure to value yourself, or is it simply an open heart reaching for genuine connection?

Best, 🙂

Look, there’s no such thing as "balance" here—it’s actually impossible. Life isn't a level playing field, and honestly, it shouldn't be. You have to prioritize yourself at the top, with your inner circle sitting right just below you. Trying to find an equal split is a total fantasy, and if you let your own needs drop below someone else's, you're basically just sabotaging your own existence.

When you're purely selfish, sure, that love is blinding and it shrinks your world. But when you love others—are we talking about loving *everyone* out there, or just specific people?

You can't love everyone. That's just logically impossible if you look at what love actually is.
Love is this intense, heavy pull of affection. And affection comes from a place of being inclined toward someone—being friendly, well-disposed, or genuinely kind toward them.
That means real love can only happen within a tight, small circle. And you have to mention the time factor too, because you don't become friends on a first date or before you've even met; you build that connection through shared time and actual experience.

A massive example of this tiny circle of devotion is found in cult followers. They only care about their one specific God, not the thousands of other people standing right next to them.
I'll give you two more everyday examples to drive the point home.
If you have a close friend, you might let them crash on your couch for a few days because that bond of affection is real. But a guy begging on a street corner in NYC? You might feel a little bit of sympathy and toss him five bucks, that's it.
You might even adopt a baby, but you aren't going to go out and adopt a homeless man, especially not an older one. You're just gonna hand him a five-dollar bill once in a while.

It depends though, whether you're seeing yourself reflected in others or if you're truly focused on them...

Since we're speaking in generalities here, and this part doesn't really follow the logic of what I just said, it's pretty much extra fluff that just leads to more confusion.

And when you love others more than yourself—is that a lack of self-love, a way of devaluing yourself, or is it just opening your heart to true love?

Well, that isn't actually love. It's really just a question of "how much do you actually care about this person." If you're constantly acting in someone else's interest at your own direct expense... then something is fundamentally broken with the person doing the sacrificing.

Speaking of love, I've got a photo in mind. It's an easy way to tell whether someone actually cares, feels love, or... well, something else entirely.
1994 Pulitzer Prize - Editorial Photography, Kevin Carter


Also, I’ve gotta say, this whole "self-love" thing just sounds incredibly tacky and awkward to me. It feels like some kind of circular logic loop, or maybe just a fractured personality trying to convince itself it's whole...

Why do people have this obsessive need to quantify love? Like, why can't we just... love? Real love isn't something you put on a scale—it’s an action, something you live out. People always ask, "Who do you love more?" It’s such a weird question. On the surface, sure, it looks like you love your kid way more than some random stranger you gave a polite smile to on the subway, but honestly? It’s the exact same thing. It’s all rooted in that same core feeling of respect and genuine understanding. If you actually carry love in your heart, you’re sharing that same essence with everyone on this planet. The only reason we don't see it that way is because we're trapped in these tiny, cramped little spaces—our own bodies and minds—so we try to force everything into neat little boxes just to make sense of it.

Paul Richardson12 said:Why do people have this obsessive need to quantify love? Like, why can't we just... love? Real love isn't something you put on a scale—it’s an action, something you live out. People always ask, "Who do you love more?" It’s such a weird question. On the surface, sure, it looks like you love your kid way more than some random stranger you gave a polite smile to on the subway, but honestly? It’s the exact same thing. It’s all rooted in that same core feeling of respect and genuine understanding. If you actually carry love in your heart, you’re sharing that same essence with everyone on this planet. The only reason we don't see it that way is because we're trapped in these tiny, cramped little spaces—our own bodies and minds—so we try to force everything into neat little boxes just to make sense of it.

Do you actually claim to love your own child—assuming you have one, or perhaps some other dear soul close to you—in the exact same way you would love some sadistic torturer or a cold-blooded killer? Is it truly the same thing?

Are you being entirely sincere here, or are you simply tossing out these lofty phrases because they sound appropriately altruistic and poetic?

"Quote:"

feralranger said:Do you actually claim to love your own child—assuming you have one, or perhaps some other dear soul close to you—in the exact same way you would love some sadistic torturer or a cold-blooded killer? Is it truly the same thing?

Are you being entirely sincere here, or are you simply tossing out these lofty phrases because they sound appropriately altruistic and poetic?

I honestly can’t bring myself to feel anything resembling "love" for some sadistic killer or a straight-up torturer... I mean, seriously, what even is that? For people like that, there just aren't any standard emotions left in the toolkit—you have to dig into some much darker, different territory to process what they are.

Look, I get it—I know some of my posts probably come off sounding like a bunch of canned clichés or rehearsed lines... But honestly? I'm just an average Joe trying to make sense of things here. I’m definitely not the smartest guy in the room—far from it—but what I'm doing is simply trying to wrap my head around all this madness...

Paul Richardson12 said:See, "loving yourself" without caring for others is basically just coddling your own ego rather than connecting with your actual soul... and honestly, that kind of self-absorption has zero to do with that universal love we’re all supposedly chasing and trying to spread around...

Desire is what actually drives us, plain and simple...

It seems to me it's mostly about the scale of that love—how much ground it covers. If you think of love as light, it could be a tiny spark, a lightbulb, or even the sun. A spark only lights itself up, a bulb illuminates whoever is standing nearby, but the sun... well, the sun shines on everyone. I suppose the intensity of the love just dictates its capacity.

Then again, it's pretty hard to separate the concept of "self-love" from the ego, isn't it? Since the ego is basically just how a person perceives themselves, once you bring "the self" into the conversation, the ego is sort of invisibly tangled in there. Maybe it's unnecessary to draw a line between them at all, because true love encompasses everything—including the self—in one big glow.

I tend to think that when people talk about "loving oneself," they're really just trying to distinguish a healthy ego from an unhealthy one. A healthy ego loves itself, whereas failing to love yourself might just mean your ego is a bit out of whack.

And let's face it, the ego is our engine—it defines our earthly goals and ambitions. But I wonder, why do we always treat desire like it's some kind of problem?

- Wishful thinking... basically closing ourselves off to actual knowledge because we're too busy pretending we already know it all.
- That constant push to get what we want... I wonder if we end up shortchanging others by insisting on our own desires? There’s always an "I" lurking behind every wish.

People who are genuinely full of love aren't primarily driven by desire; they're moved by love and awareness—being aware of needs and letting love act as a guide. Maybe that sounds a bit idealistic, but it feels like a path worth following. If we let desire be our only motor, we'll end up living entirely for ourselves, which just feeds the ego. Is that really the point of it all?

Paul Richardson12 said:"Quote:"

I honestly can’t bring myself to feel anything resembling "love" for some sadistic killer or a straight-up torturer... I mean, seriously, what even is that? For people like that, there just aren't any standard emotions left in the toolkit—you have to dig into some much darker, different territory to process what they are.

Look, I get it—I know some of my posts probably come off sounding like a bunch of canned clichés or rehearsed lines... But honestly? I'm just an average Joe trying to make sense of things here. I’m definitely not the smartest guy in the room—far from it—but what I'm doing is simply trying to wrap my head around all this madness...

And which ones might those be? Hatred?
Where exactly does one draw the line between those we hold dear (with that same capacity for love you mentioned earlier) and those we find utterly irredeemable?

What if that murderer spent their entire childhood being abused and tormented themselves?

Kenneth Barnes7 said:Forgive my intrusion here. 🙂

But what about loving both yourself AND others? How do you strike that balance? Is it about equilibrium, or should we prioritize others over ourselves?
When you're purely self-centered—it's obvious; that love blinds you and keeps you small. When you love others—are you loving everyone, or just specific people? It comes down to whether you're just seeing reflections of yourself in them or actually seeing them for who they are...
And if you love others more than yourself—is that a deficit of self-love, a failure to value yourself, or is it simply an open heart reaching for genuine connection?

Best, 🙂

It feels like this whole definition of love is getting a bit too caught up in head games and overthinking everything.

feralranger said:And which ones might those be? Hatred?
Where exactly does one draw the line between those we hold dear (with that same capacity for love you mentioned earlier) and those we find utterly irredeemable?

What if that murderer spent their entire childhood being abused and tormented themselves?

Honestly, hatred is an emotion that just doesn't have a seat at my table... People who are capable of committing all sorts of atrocities... they've earned our sympathy... our pity and our prayers... because, like you pointed out, the real question is what kind of lives they actually led. Who are we to sit up there and play judge and jury? What's missing in the world today—really, truly missing—is empathy and basic understanding. If we all just made that our starting point whenever we entered a new relationship or interaction, I honestly think the world would be a much more harmonious place to live in.

Paul Richardson12 said:Honestly, hatred is an emotion that just doesn't have a seat at my table... People who are capable of committing all sorts of atrocities... they've earned our sympathy... our pity and our prayers... because, like you pointed out, the real question is what kind of lives they actually led. Who are we to sit up there and play judge and jury? What's missing in the world today—really, truly missing—is empathy and basic understanding. If we all just made that our starting point whenever we entered a new relationship or interaction, I honestly think the world would be a much more harmonious place to live in.

I’m afraid you’ve completely missed the core of what I was actually asking you... based on your earlier comments, it is patently obvious that you do indeed categorize people, and that your "love" isn't distributed equally among everyone—even if you prefer to claim otherwise, presumably because it sounds much more virtuous when stated aloud...

We’re all selfish, and we’ll stay that way as long as we believe our lives actually belong to "us."
But since we didn't breathe life into ourselves, it isn't ours to own.

It's the same with property. We don't really own anything. We arrived here with nothing, and we'll leave with nothing.

Once you realize that, that constant, tight grip of selfishness starts to loosen up just a little...

Paul Jones7 said:It seems to me it's mostly about the scale of that love—how much ground it covers. If you think of love as light, it could be a tiny spark, a lightbulb, or even the sun. A spark only lights itself up, a bulb illuminates whoever is standing nearby, but the sun... well, the sun shines on everyone. I suppose the intensity of the love just dictates its capacity.

Then again, it's pretty hard to separate the concept of "self-love" from the ego, isn't it? Since the ego is basically just how a person perceives themselves, once you bring "the self" into the conversation, the ego is sort of invisibly tangled in there. Maybe it's unnecessary to draw a line between them at all, because true love encompasses everything—including the self—in one big glow.

I tend to think that when people talk about "loving oneself," they're really just trying to distinguish a healthy ego from an unhealthy one. A healthy ego loves itself, whereas failing to love yourself might just mean your ego is a bit out of whack.

And let's face it, the ego is our engine—it defines our earthly goals and ambitions. But I wonder, why do we always treat desire like it's some kind of problem?

- Wishful thinking... basically closing ourselves off to actual knowledge because we're too busy pretending we already know it all.
- That constant push to get what we want... I wonder if we end up shortchanging others by insisting on our own desires? There’s always an "I" lurking behind every wish.

People who are genuinely full of love aren't primarily driven by desire; they're moved by love and awareness—being aware of needs and letting love act as a guide. Maybe that sounds a bit idealistic, but it feels like a path worth following. If we let desire be our only motor, we'll end up living entirely for ourselves, which just feeds the ego. Is that really the point of it all?

I totally get where you're coming from regarding that thin line between standing your ground and just feeding your ego,,,But listen, once you realize that's happening, you actually have the power to quiet that internal ego down,,And desires don't automatically have to be selfish,,,There are plenty of motivations that push us toward helping others,,,Like wanting peace in your family, wanting to help someone in need, or wanting to spread a little more kindness and understanding,,,Not every single desire is about material stuff or centered solely on us,,,Even if fulfilling those wants ends up benefiting us personally, why should that be considered wrong from the jump?

Benjamin Torres52 said:We’re all selfish, and we’ll stay that way as long as we believe our lives actually belong to "us."
But since we didn't breathe life into ourselves, it isn't ours to own.

It's the same with property. We don't really own anything. We arrived here with nothing, and we'll leave with nothing.

Once you realize that, that constant, tight grip of selfishness starts to loosen up just a little...

I kind of see where you're coming from, but I'm not totally sold... Yeah, we arrived with nothing, sure, but we didn't arrive with *nothing*. We were handed this body, this whole environment we're navigating, the ability to make calls, and a shot at it all,,, It's on us to figure out how to play the hand we were dealt,,, And when the time comes to finally check out, what we take with us won't be physical—it'll be the spiritual weight of everything we did while we were HERE.

"Quote:"

feralranger said:I’m afraid you’ve completely missed the core of what I was actually asking you... based on your earlier comments, it is patently obvious that you do indeed categorize people, and that your "love" isn't distributed equally among everyone—even if you prefer to claim otherwise, presumably because it sounds much more virtuous when stated aloud...

Look, the whole point isn't about me sounding "better" than anyone else—it’s not like I’m hanging out here just to collect gold stars or get some kind of validation from the crowd. And let's be real, I don't have all the answers. Nobody does. In my own little corner of the world, I'm just trying to navigate this life the best way I know how. I try to be a decent human being—you know, not dragging people down, trying to approach everyone with a bit of actual empathy instead of just judgment... those are just my principles, I guess. But yeah, I slip up. It happens. There are days when I definitely fall short of the person I actually want to be. But honestly? I think that's where the real stuff is—the fact that I can look at my own messes, own my mistakes, and still wake up the next day trying to do better. That’s what actually matters.

When it comes to the whole love thing... yeah, I actually like people. I try my best to find the good in everyone—even those folks we label as "villains." Deep down, they’ve got a spark of something decent in them; it’s just that life happens, circumstances pile up, and suddenly they're stuck on this dark, twisted path. Honestly? Looking at them just makes me feel this heavy sort of pity. They’re just tragic, really. And let’s be real—in the middle of all that misery, you probably can't do a damn thing to help them anyway. Is that even what love looks like? I don't know. Maybe we'll figure it out one day. But until then, I honestly think it's a complete waste of energy to sit around obsessing over who's "more right" or "more wrong." It's all pretty much the same in the end.

Look, at the end of the day, it’s all about living life on your own terms—you know? Just trying to be a decent human being... that’s the only thing that actually matters to me.

And everyone else? Honestly, let them do their own thing. If someone actually feels like they’ve finally found "the one"—whatever that means—then fine, that's their truth. Let them live.

Paul Richardson12 said:I totally get where you're coming from regarding that thin line between standing your ground and just feeding your ego,,,But listen, once you realize that's happening, you actually have the power to quiet that internal ego down,,And desires don't automatically have to be selfish,,,There are plenty of motivations that push us toward helping others,,,Like wanting peace in your family, wanting to help someone in need, or wanting to spread a little more kindness and understanding,,,Not every single desire is about material stuff or centered solely on us,,,Even if fulfilling those wants ends up benefiting us personally, why should that be considered wrong from the jump?

I feel like you might be splitting hairs a bit between what we actually want and where our ego comes from—though, I guess that’s kind of the point, isn't it? If most of our desires are born directly out of the ego, then we really need to get on the same page about what "ego" even means here. When I talk about the ego, I'm not just pointing fingers at the negative traits or the vanity side of things—not exclusively, anyway. I mean the whole package: that entire constructed identity we carry around, the image we've built of ourselves, and those deep-seated patterns in how we think and act. It's more than just being self-centered; it's the whole operating system.

Paul Richardson12 said:I totally get where you're coming from regarding that thin line between standing your ground and just feeding your ego,,,But listen, once you realize that's happening, you actually have the power to quiet that internal ego down,,And desires don't automatically have to be selfish,,,There are plenty of motivations that push us toward helping others,,,Like wanting peace in your family, wanting to help someone in need, or wanting to spread a little more kindness and understanding,,,Not every single desire is about material stuff or centered solely on us,,,Even if fulfilling those wants ends up benefiting us personally, why should that be considered wrong from the jump?

Once you finally manage to quiet that ego of yours—which, let’s be honest, is probably a full-time job in itself—what starts to happen is... well, it's hard to put a finger on it, I guess. It's this slow, gradual shift in how everything feels. Maybe it's more like a settling, or a thinning out of all that mental noise we carry around every day. You start to notice things differently, without that constant internal commentary trying to take credit for everything. It's subtle, really. Very subtle. Loss of desire... I don't know, maybe it’s just one of those things that happens when you've been staring at the same four walls for too long—or maybe it's deeper than that. It feels like the spark just sort of... flickers out, leaving you feeling a bit hollowed out. I guess it's hard to explain without sounding like a cliché, but there's this strange, heavy stillness that settles in, where nothing really seems to pull you in anymore. Not even the stuff you used to love. It’s a weird, quiet kind of emptiness, I suppose.It doesn't mean everything is just going to vanish into thin air—not quite—but things are definitely going to get a whole lot thinner. There’s also this other layer to it, I suppose... that whole thing about desire being driven by the reward of pleasure. It kind of doesn't matter how you actually go about getting that feeling, does it? It's just about the payoff itself.

Paul Richardson12 said:I totally get where you're coming from regarding that thin line between standing your ground and just feeding your ego,,,But listen, once you realize that's happening, you actually have the power to quiet that internal ego down,,And desires don't automatically have to be selfish,,,There are plenty of motivations that push us toward helping others,,,Like wanting peace in your family, wanting to help someone in need, or wanting to spread a little more kindness and understanding,,,Not every single desire is about material stuff or centered solely on us,,,Even if fulfilling those wants ends up benefiting us personally, why should that be considered wrong from the jump?

Can you actually say—with any real certainty—that we don't just want things to go well for other people because it feels good? I mean, maybe it’s all just about that little hit of dopamine, or building up this carefully curated ego image where we get to tell ourselves, "Yeah, I'm one of those genuinely good people who cares about others." It’s a bit of a rabbit hole, I guess... wondering if true altruism even exists, or if we're all just chasing that quiet sense of self-satisfaction.

That’s exactly why it’s such a headache to pin down what actual altruism looks like—it’s hard to draw a line when the internal motive is what really carries all the weight, while the outward action itself doesn't necessarily tell you much about what that gesture actually means to us. I guess we might just be wired that way—sort of conditioned to perform these acts just to buy ourselves that little sense of satisfaction, you know? Like we're trying to prove we're "good people" or whatever. Or maybe there's this subconscious belief that we're somehow earning a reward down the road. It's possible that the internal motivation is basically just our number one source of instant gratification—that quick hit of dopamine we get from knowing we did something decent.

And honestly, none of that actually has to be the way it is. It’s not set in stone—it really isn't.

Paul Richardson12 said:I totally get where you're coming from regarding that thin line between standing your ground and just feeding your ego,,,But listen, once you realize that's happening, you actually have the power to quiet that internal ego down,,And desires don't automatically have to be selfish,,,There are plenty of motivations that push us toward helping others,,,Like wanting peace in your family, wanting to help someone in need, or wanting to spread a little more kindness and understanding,,,Not every single desire is about material stuff or centered solely on us,,,Even if fulfilling those wants ends up benefiting us personally, why should that be considered wrong from the jump?

I don't think physical stuff is really the best way to tell the difference between a genuine need and just wanting something to feed the ego—or, you know, just chasing a quick hit of dopamine
.
If you’re actually aware that something needs to get done—like, truly conscious of it—then you can step up because you realize you're the one available to handle it. It doesn't even have to feel like a "desire." It might just be a clear-eyed recognition of a necessity. I mean, there are so many chores or tasks we tackle that we don't necessarily *want* to do, but we’re fully aware they simply have to happen—sometimes because if we don't do them, nobody else will. If we approach things through the lens of desire, it gets blurry; you never quite know if you're acting out of necessity or just doing it for your own sake. But when there's that underlying awareness of what's required, then you actually know
.
There’s nothing wrong with getting something in return for your efforts—that’s just how the world works, it's part of the social contract we all live by. The real issue arises if that transactional mechanism becomes our primary driver without us even... well, being aware of it
.
We like to tell ourselves we're being selfless and good, when in reality, we might just be chasing that little hit of gratification
.

Paul Jones7 said:I feel like you might be splitting hairs a bit between what we actually want and where our ego comes from—though, I guess that’s kind of the point, isn't it? If most of our desires are born directly out of the ego, then we really need to get on the same page about what "ego" even means here. When I talk about the ego, I'm not just pointing fingers at the negative traits or the vanity side of things—not exclusively, anyway. I mean the whole package: that entire constructed identity we carry around, the image we've built of ourselves, and those deep-seated patterns in how we think and act. It's more than just being self-centered; it's the whole operating system.

Once you finally manage to quiet that ego of yours—which, let’s be honest, is probably a full-time job in itself—what starts to happen is... well, it's hard to put a finger on it, I guess. It's this slow, gradual shift in how everything feels. Maybe it's more like a settling, or a thinning out of all that mental noise we carry around every day. You start to notice things differently, without that constant internal commentary trying to take credit for everything. It's subtle, really. Very subtle. Loss of desire... I don't know, maybe it’s just one of those things that happens when you've been staring at the same four walls for too long—or maybe it's deeper than that. It feels like the spark just sort of... flickers out, leaving you feeling a bit hollowed out. I guess it's hard to explain without sounding like a cliché, but there's this strange, heavy stillness that settles in, where nothing really seems to pull you in anymore. Not even the stuff you used to love. It’s a weird, quiet kind of emptiness, I suppose.It doesn't mean everything is just going to vanish into thin air—not quite—but things are definitely going to get a whole lot thinner. There’s also this other layer to it, I suppose... that whole thing about desire being driven by the reward of pleasure. It kind of doesn't matter how you actually go about getting that feeling, does it? It's just about the payoff itself.

Can you actually say—with any real certainty—that we don't just want things to go well for other people because it feels good? I mean, maybe it’s all just about that little hit of dopamine, or building up this carefully curated ego image where we get to tell ourselves, "Yeah, I'm one of those genuinely good people who cares about others." It’s a bit of a rabbit hole, I guess... wondering if true altruism even exists, or if we're all just chasing that quiet sense of self-satisfaction.

That’s exactly why it’s such a headache to pin down what actual altruism looks like—it’s hard to draw a line when the internal motive is what really carries all the weight, while the outward action itself doesn't necessarily tell you much about what that gesture actually means to us. I guess we might just be wired that way—sort of conditioned to perform these acts just to buy ourselves that little sense of satisfaction, you know? Like we're trying to prove we're "good people" or whatever. Or maybe there's this subconscious belief that we're somehow earning a reward down the road. It's possible that the internal motivation is basically just our number one source of instant gratification—that quick hit of dopamine we get from knowing we did something decent.

And honestly, none of that actually has to be the way it is. It’s not set in stone—it really isn't.

I don't think physical stuff is really the best way to tell the difference between a genuine need and just wanting something to feed the ego—or, you know, just chasing a quick hit of dopamine
.
If you’re actually aware that something needs to get done—like, truly conscious of it—then you can step up because you realize you're the one available to handle it. It doesn't even have to feel like a "desire." It might just be a clear-eyed recognition of a necessity. I mean, there are so many chores or tasks we tackle that we don't necessarily *want* to do, but we’re fully aware they simply have to happen—sometimes because if we don't do them, nobody else will. If we approach things through the lens of desire, it gets blurry; you never quite know if you're acting out of necessity or just doing it for your own sake. But when there's that underlying awareness of what's required, then you actually know
.
There’s nothing wrong with getting something in return for your efforts—that’s just how the world works, it's part of the social contract we all live by. The real issue arises if that transactional mechanism becomes our primary driver without us even... well, being aware of it
.
We like to tell ourselves we're being selfless and good, when in reality, we might just be chasing that little hit of gratification
.

Like I said, the line is thin. But honestly, as long as the goal serves a good purpose—and as long as we aren't manipulating our own desires for selfish ends—I don't think we need to overthink this to death. Just being aware that your ego exists, watching it grow, and seeing how it messes with your life... I think that's half the battle right there. If we could actually find the sweet spot, we'd be living in total harmony. Instead, most people are either just coasting on autopilot or trying to balance things the best way they know how.

Paul Richardson12 said:Like I said, the line is thin. But honestly, as long as the goal serves a good purpose—and as long as we aren't manipulating our own desires for selfish ends—I don't think we need to overthink this to death. Just being aware that your ego exists, watching it grow, and seeing how it messes with your life... I think that's half the battle right there. If we could actually find the sweet spot, we'd be living in total harmony. Instead, most people are either just coasting on autopilot or trying to balance things the best way they know how.

The goal itself is fine, provided it serves the greater good, like you mentioned. But I guess there's a nuance in what that goal actually represents to us personally. It's something worth figuring out during the whole self-awareness journey. You might see "questioning" as a form of self-torture, but I think the key here isn't about harsh analysis—it's more about pure observation. Self-awareness is really just seeing your various layers for what they truly are.

Then, you might run into a conflict between what you actually observe and the idealized version of yourself you've been carrying around. Honestly, that friction might be exactly what helps us dismantle those negative ego traits.

I mean, cucumbers probably live in total, blissful harmony with one another 🙂 but we're humans, right? Our goals are supposedly a bit bigger than just being a cucumber. 🙂