Reasonable egoism - what is the theory of reasonable egoism? Examples of selfishness in life. What is selfishness

When the theory begins to be touched upon in the dialogues of philosophers reasonable selfishness, the name of N. G. Chernyshevsky, a multifaceted and great writer, philosopher, historian, materialist, and critic, involuntarily pops up. Nikolai Gavrilovich absorbed all the best - a strong character, an irresistible zeal for freedom, a clear and rational mind. Chernyshevsky's theory of rational egoism is another step in the development of philosophy.

Definition

Reasonable egoism should be understood as a philosophical position that establishes for each individual the primacy of personal interests over the interests of other people and society as a whole.

The question arises: how does reasonable egoism differ from egoism in its direct understanding? Proponents of reasonable egoism argue that the egoist thinks only of himself. While it is unprofitable for reasonable egoism to neglect other personalities, it simply does not represent a selfish attitude towards everything, but only manifests itself as short-sightedness, and sometimes even as stupidity.

In other words, reasonable selfishness can be called the ability to live one's own interests or opinions, without contradicting the opinions of others.

A bit of history

Reasonable egoism begins to emerge in the ancient period, when Aristotle assigned him the role of one of the components of the problem of friendship.

Feuerbach L. received a more detailed study of this issue. In his opinion, the virtue of a person is based on a sense of self-satisfaction from the satisfaction of another person.

The theory of rational egoism was deeply studied by Chernyshevsky. It relied on the interpretation of the egoism of the individual as an expression of the usefulness of the person as a whole. Based on this, if corporate, private and universal interests collide, then the latter should prevail.

Chernyshevsky's views

The philosopher and writer began his journey with Hegel, telling everyone what belongs only to him. Adhering to the Hegelian philosophy and views, Chernyshevsky nevertheless rejects his conservatism. And having become acquainted with his writings in the original, he begins to reject his views and sees continuous shortcomings in Hegelian philosophy:

• The creator of reality for Hegel was the absolute spirit and
• Reason and idea were development.
• Hegel's conservatism and his commitment to the feudal-absolutist system of the country.

As a result, Chernyshevsky began to emphasize the duality of Hegel's theory and criticize him as a philosopher. Science continued to develop, and the Hegelian philosophy for the writer became outdated and lost its meaning.

From Hegel to Feuerbach

Not satisfied with Hegelian philosophy, Chernyshevsky turned to the works of L. Feuerbach, which subsequently made him call the philosopher his teacher.

In his work The Essence of Christianity, Feuerbach argues that nature and human thinking exist separately from each other, and the supreme being created by religion and human fantasy is a reflection of the individual's own essence. This theory greatly inspired Chernyshevsky, and he found in it what he was looking for.

The essence of the theory of rational egoism

The theory of rational egoism in the works of Chernyshevsky was directed against religion, theological morality and idealism. According to the writer, the individual loves only himself. And it is selfishness that motivates people to action.

Nikolai Gavrilovich in his works says that in the intentions of people there cannot be several different natures and the whole multitude of human desires to act comes from one nature, according to one law. The name of this law is rational egoism.

All human actions are based on the individual's thoughts about his personal benefit and good. For example, the sacrifice of a person's own life for the sake of love or friendship, for the sake of any interests, can be considered reasonable egoism. Even in such an action lies personal calculation and an outbreak of egoism.

What is the theory of rational egoism according to Chernyshevsky? In that the personal do not diverge from the public and do not contradict them, benefiting others. Only such principles accepted and tried to convey to others the writer.

The theory of reasonable egoism is briefly preached by Chernyshevsky as the theory of "new people".

Basic concept of the theory

The theory of reasonable selfishness evaluates the benefits of human relationships and the choice of the most profitable of them. From the point of view of theory, the manifestation of disinterestedness, mercy and charity is absolutely meaningless. Only those manifestations of these qualities that lead to PR, profit, etc. have meaning.

Reasonable selfishness is understood as the ability to find a golden mean between personal capabilities and the needs of others. At the same time, each individual proceeds solely from love for himself. But having a mind, a person understands that if he thinks only about himself, he will face a huge number of problems, wanting only to satisfy personal needs. As a result, individuals come to a personal limitation. But again, this is done not out of love for others, but out of love for oneself. Therefore, in this case it is expedient to speak of rational egoism.

The manifestation of the theory in the novel "What is to be done?"

Since the central idea of ​​Chernyshevsky's theory was life in the name of another person, it was precisely this that united the heroes of his novel What Is To Be Done?

The theory of rational egoism in the novel "What is to be done?" expressed in nothing other than the ethical expression of the need for mutual assistance and uniting people. This is what connects the characters of the novel. for them - serving the people and the success of the cause, which is the meaning of their lives.

The principles of the theory are also applicable to the personal lives of the characters. Chernyshevsky showed how the social face of the individual is fully manifested in love.

To an unenlightened person it may seem that the philistine egoism of the heroine of the novel Marya Alekseevna is very close to the egoism of the "new people". But its essence is only that it is aimed at the natural striving for goodness and happiness. The sole benefit of the individual must correspond to those identified with the interests of the working people.

Lonely happiness does not exist. The happiness of one individual depends on the happiness of all and the general well-being of society.

Chernyshevsky, as a philosopher, never defended egoism in its direct meaning. Reasonable egoism of the heroes of the novel identifies his own benefit with the benefit of other people. For example, having freed Vera from domestic oppression, saving her from the need to marry not for love, and making sure that she loves Kirsanov, Lopukhov goes into the shadows. This is one example of the manifestation of reasonable egoism in Chernyshevsky's novel.

The theory of rational egoism is the philosophical basis of the novel, where there is no place for selfishness, selfishness and individualism. The center of the novel is a person, his rights, his benefits. By this, the writer called for abandoning destructive hoarding in order to achieve true human happiness, no matter how adverse conditions did not burden his life.

Despite the fact that the novel was written in the 19th century, its basics are applicable in the modern world.

The concept of "reasonable selfishness" occurs very often. But at the same time, there is no specific definition anywhere - but what exactly is it? Alas, there is still no clarity on this topic, and it is necessary to explain and clarify this concept.

Moreover, not everything in terms of the concepts of "egoism and altruism" is as unambiguous as it is commonly believed. Usually, in this regard, two concepts are initially opposed - egoism (everything to oneself) and altruism (everything to others). But already at first glance, it is certainly clear that a person does not always exist in the mode of any of these extremes. In the same way, in the human society there is no such thing as "definitely white and unambiguously black", "definitely bad and unambiguously good", "unambiguously evil and unambiguously good".

And the term "reasonable egoism" is not at all deciphered by a phrase like "Love yourself, sneeze at everyone, and success awaits you in life." But what, in this case, is called rational egoism, and what, accordingly, is unreasonable, how does one differ from the other, etc.? And what about altruism, which is also useful in society, but the question is - to whom and in what cases?

As they say - people are people for that, that in addition to instincts they also have moral principles and logical thinking, but a “reasonable person”, with all their desire, cannot completely ignore their instinctive nature, including the influence of the instinct of self-preservation. And it is unlikely that he will voluntarily give his "neighbor" the last, without which he himself will not be able to survive. In other words, "to be selfish" is inherent in human nature from the very beginning. In addition, any human actions are performed because it is somehow pleasant for this person (another option is also possible, when a person is broken, forced, raped, but that's another story). And such motivation is also the usual position of any Homo sapiens. It is useless to condemn him for this, just as it is pointless to condemn people for wanting to breathe, eat, drink, go to the toilet, have sex, and so on. But the “pleasantness” that comes as a result of this or that act can be different: either short-term or long-term. And when a person does something from the position "I will do this, because it will be good for me NOW, and then at least the grass will not grow" - this is just an IRRIDENT egoist. After all, "grass will grow" all the same, one way or another, and if he continues to behave this way, then around him, so to speak, one nettle will grow. But when a person, performing this or that act, thinks about his LONG-TERM benefit, perhaps sacrificing something for the sake of others "here and now" - this is reasonable egoism. It turns out that one of the basic principles of reasonable egoism was mentioned in the film "Mimino": "If you want me to do you well, you do me well, then I will do you so well that it will be good for both of us!"

And if you want, let's say conditionally, to help others - reasonable egoism suggests taking care of yourself first, and then of others. Because only a person who has provided for his needs in an elementary way can give something to another, and most importantly, he can first find something in order to have something to give. You can sincerely strive to help the disadvantaged with money, but for this you need to earn this money. You may strive to feed the hungry, but in order to do so, you yourself must be able to obtain food. And if you give everything you have once, you are unlikely to be able to help anyone at all later.

Reasonable egoism has to be learned, because it is a complex and ambiguous concept. Perhaps somewhere you should frankly accept for yourself that not all your aspirations to "benefit the whole world" are aimed solely at the benefit of the rest of the world. As soon as you begin to recognize and analyze this from the position of reason, consider that you have already begun the basic training in rational egoism.

It turns out that reasonable egoism is:

The ability to act for one's own benefit, while taking into account the interests of others;

The ability to predict the development of events, living not only for today;

The ability to assess a situation or problem through the eyes of another person and make him also want to do something for your benefit;

The ability to take care of yourself first, in order to be able to help others, and to love yourself first, in order to be able to give love to another.

But not as primitive as one might think: they say, first grab everything for yourself, pushing others away, and then you will distribute it to others. Not at all! After all, the main skill of a reasonable egoist is the ability to solve their problems and take care of themselves in socially acceptable ways. Moreover, reasonable selfishness is the basis of a market economy: when you produce something for others, then receiving dividends "for yourself, your loved one."

The theory of rational egoism was formed in parallel with capitalist relations. The most important role in this was played by the Enlightenment (late 17th - early 19th centuries), which emphasized the value independent thinking. Let us recall Immanuel Kant with his postulate of freedom to use one's own intellect. Rationalism involves the search for Truth, whatever it may be. The discovery of the Truth, even bitter, should not entail repression. According to Kant, enlightenment is the courage to use one's own mind.

The greatest contribution to the theory of rational egoism was made by French thinkers of the 18th century. They argued that the basis of morality is properly understood self-interest - the so-called "reasonable selfishness." From their point of view, rational egoism was a "golden mean" between altruism and unreasonable egoism. The latter is the satisfaction of momentary desires without taking into account the consequences, the violation of the rights of the surrounding people for the sake of their own interests, therefore, it leads to major troubles in the long run. From the point of view of the theorists of rational egoism, people should learn this phenomenon, overcoming the inadequate prohibitions and restrictions introduced from childhood, and use their common sense more widely.

As a matter of fact, the theory of rational egoism forms the new kind morality (instead of the obsolete dualistic morality of absolute Good and Evil), in which the so-called "moral disinterestedness" and "altruism" are depreciated - they are just free cheese at the entrance to the mousetrap. The "altruist" doing the favor makes the other person feel indebted to him and thereby gains scope for future manipulation. Therefore, a reasonable egoist refuses such offerings in order not to become addicted, or does not consider it necessary for himself to pay in any way in return for a “disinterestedly” made gift or rendered service. By this, by the way, he can cure the manipulator - the altruist from his bad habit.

Undoubtedly, reasonable egoism is better than the hypocritical double morality that the citizens of the USSR who lived under socialism suffered from. This concept is close to individualism and allows a gifted person to better express themselves. After all, everyone has selfishness mine(as well as personality and mind), therefore, all kinds of "collective-patriotic" events remain unclaimed and attract only "lazy minds", expecting that a strong government will solve their problems.

The difference between gifted individualists (primary people) and irresponsible collectivists (secondary people) is beautifully illustrated in Ayn Rand's novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. A gifted person, from the point of view of the author, wins personal happiness in the process of creativity, and he creates, first of all , for your own sake! For own development! Another thing is that usually there is a benefit to others, but this, as they say, is a “side result”.

You may ask why I am writing this book. Guess three times ... That's right, first of all - for your own development, the desire to better understand this topic and increase self-esteem. When there are so many smart thoughts in your head, it would be a crime not to show the power of your hemispheres on paper ...

However, let us return to the brilliant emigrant from Russia, Ayn Rand, whose works are second only to the Bible in terms of their influence on American society. A reasonable egoist, from the point of view of the writer, finds a goal in himself. He lives with his own head, not allowing other people to make themselves a victim, but also not turning others into victims. The open proclamation and substantiation of such ideas in the works of Ayn Rand makes us consider them philosophical rather than artistic works.

As you can see, the emphasis is on one's own mind and common sense of a person who, making a conscious choice in everyday life, is responsible for it himself. This is another kind of morality, different from Christian, the importance of which, many years before our era, was emphasized by the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius. For him, as for Socrates, Virtue was merged with Knowledge and could not be realized outside of it. Unlike many modern "moral" hypocrites, Confucius always lived by his precepts. By the way, it was not difficult for him - after all, he had a mind! As the philosopher argued, “religion must be consistent with the human mind and subject to common sense. What cannot be verified by reason cannot be the subject of true and firm faith, and therefore cannot guide actions. I am ready to believe in such a “religion” with pleasure!

Here is what Charles Darwin wrote about this: “At times - the mind may suggest that a person should act contrary to the opinion of other people, whose approval he will not deserve in this case, but he will still experience complete satisfaction from the consciousness that he followed your deepest conviction or conscience."

We remember the novel “What is to be done?” from school. The reasonable egoism of the "new people" in this work of Chernyshevsky is expressed as follows: the thoughts of the main characters are directed at themselves, but at the same time they are subordinated to the ideals of goodness and happiness. Their personal interest coincides with the general human interest. Unreasonable the selfishness of other heroes of the novel leads to idleness and excesses.

For me personally, the pain point here is the extent to which the interest of a gifted and reasonably selfish person can coincide with the collective. After all, talented people are often forced to resist the lazy and inert mass. Ortega y Gasset, a modern writer and philosopher, described this phenomenon very vividly: “Mediocre minds, not being deceived about their own mediocrity, fearlessly assert their right to it ... The mass crushes the unlike, the remarkable and the best. The mass is those who go with the flow and are devoid of landmarks. Therefore, the mass man does not create ... "

For such people, “uniqueness” is not associated with their own unique personality, but at best with new sensations from owning another “toy”. Everything still comes from outside, not from within.

On festive spring days, when the “average” person with the crowd goes out into the street to “walk”, “watch the fireworks” and, chatting merrily, flies back and forth, I peer into these faces and try to understand: they “know” about the absence of any individual, unique qualities and therefore decided to be “like everyone else”, or do they not even try to look for these qualities? It is not surprising that they will come to my courses only when they “get very sick”.

Remember, we have already said that "foolish man" tends to give priority to material consumption and empty pleasures? Ortega y Gasset also notes two main features of the "mass man": the constant growth of life's demands and innate ingratitude, which generally paints the image of a spoiled Child living in emotions and illusions. After all, no one even tries to point out to this Child that his life, and even himself, is “second-rate”! “The longer you exist,” the Spanish philosopher writes bitterly, “the more painful is the conviction that no effort is available to the majority except a forced reaction to external necessity.”

Television and other media have long treated the population as naughty children. “When will the heat finally come?” the news program host asks the representative of the Hydrometeorological Center offendedly, and in response, as if apologizing, he begins to calm the TV audience - only to hear again in a week: “When will this heat finally end? » One might think that the weather forecaster, like the almighty Parent (or God), is able to influence the weather. By the way, many keep the radio or TV on all the time in the apartment, so that in silence they suddenly start thinking and mourning the inner emptiness and wretchedness of their being. They drown out their inner voice with external noise.

One immediately recalls Heidegger's Man, who strives to make everything easy and uncomplicated for himself, to perceive everything from a purely external side and adhere to the "conventionally accepted appearance." Such a Man ("average man") "always lives already under the imperceptible power of others ... Everyone is others and no one is himself ... Man ... there is nobody." As we can see, the excessive expansion of the “external”, “the power of others” leads to the oblivion of the principle of moderation in contacts with the environment and the absence of reasonable egoism.

In my opinion, the main merit of the writings of the already mentioned Ortega y Gasset is that he showed the main dangers of the unreasonable selfishness of the crowd, or, if we look for a strictly opposite term, unreasonable collectivism. “The weak unite in order to compensate for their individual weaknesses with the “power of quantity,” writes Sigmund Bauman. Since the “mass” person has little reason, his egoism cannot be reasonable by definition! It is no coincidence that Ortega y Gasset notes that the crowd, left to its own devices, destroys the foundations of its own existence.

A reasonable egoist never behaves like this: he thinks about his long-term benefit, and not about satisfying momentary needs. While egocentrism - the extreme degree of selfishness - is literally life-threatening. After all, an egocentric is not able to feel other people, predict their actions, and therefore reasonably measure their actions with the actions of others. It is no coincidence that it is said: "Freedom is the ability of a person to live in the conditions of his own self-limitations." And where will they come from a person with a narrow-minded mind? Therefore, in order to keep such people in check, there is a religion with its morality and the state with its law enforcement agencies. Both of these institutions emphasize emotion (carrot and stick) rather than reason. I do not presume to judge to what extent the "mass man" could be re-educated if the emphasis shifted to the development of rational, logical thinking. Therefore, perhaps, according to Senka, there is also a hat, which, however, does not suit gifted reasonable egoists in any way. They have their own headdresses and, most importantly, other contents of the head.

Self-realization in the chosen activity is the most “reliable” way to get positive emotions and strengthen positive self-esteem (satisfaction with one’s unique achievements). Such a person will not have to pretend to others, portraying ostentatious optimism. The joy of the process of personal creativity makes envy and a sense of competition irrelevant: if my “site of work” is unique, then I am the first and only worker in it, and any comparisons with others will be inappropriate (as we know, envy often appears as a result of comparing yourself with more successful people). I should compete not with others, but with myself, to be more successful every day than myself yesterday.

An excellent confirmation of this is the life of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. According to experts, his first works had many weaknesses. However, over the years, Wittgenstein (despite his questionable mental health) increasingly burdened himself, as a result of which he became not only a brilliant specialist, but also much more the best person. By the way, he openly wrote that the (favorite) occupation of philosophy is the best "self-therapy".

Here is what the famous choreographer Balanchine said in this regard at the celebration of his 70th birthday: “I have much more energy now than in my youth, because I know exactly what I want.” So reasonable egoism allows a person to focus his efforts on the most important direction, and, like a focused beam sunlight, "burn through" any obstacles.

The idea of ​​self-realization with the help of Reasonable egoism in the works of Benedict Spinoza is presented beautifully and unusually: “All actions of the mind connected with it are the most excellent and should be valued above all others ... All actions performed by us outside ourselves are the more perfect, the more opportunities they have unite with us to form with us one and the same nature. For in this way they are most suitable for internal actions. In a word, act in a way that reflects your essence. Become famous and live a long life.

Slightly digressing from the main topic, I can propose a “school reform” based on my concept. Each child receives his own mentor, who, firstly, monitors the daily development of his ward, and, secondly, does everything so that the child with early years sought to discover and get in touch with his own individual inclinations. I mean "lessons of self-knowledge and self-development", and then "lessons of self-realization". This kind of training is still technically impossible: a large number of creative mentors are required. As in a good sanatorium: for one vacationer there are two or three representatives of the attendants. However, back to the main topic.

Selfishness allows capable person to resist the inert crowd, and the mind - not to bring things to a conflict with it, remaining a law-abiding citizen and realizing oneself in the field of individual creativity.

Being selfish is “natural” for a person. After all, this quality is innate and is most pronounced in young children. Only later does the child learn to help others - the so-called altruism. Psychological research has also shown that most people have a gap between what (“good”) they say and what they actually do (two types of attitudes). Note that the second type is most often dictated by egoism, and not always reasonable. In this case, an open recognition of one's egoistic properties will allow: a) to stop experiencing largely unnecessary guilt; b) be able to clearly explain (to other people) the motives of his actions; c) start conscious work on “comprehension” of one’s egoism and its passing switching from CU to LU (for more details, see the last chapter). Most people behave selfishly, but run away from the mere mention of the word "selfishness."

A reasonable egoist is more attentive to himself than to another, simply because he knows himself and his preferences better and cannot always determine exactly what his neighbor needs. By not giving money to a homeless person, you are most likely not encouraging his alcoholism. But if you don’t feel anything “in yourself”, then caring for others may be a better choice than chasing material goods. From the opposition "irrationalism, mysticism" - "animal egoism" it is necessary to leave in the direction of intellectual, Reasonable egoism.

Many envy such "completed" reasonable egoists (more precisely, their fame and money), but they are unlikely to want to apply even half of their efforts. I heard more than once from cadets that they would like to become psychologists like me. And the fact that a psychologist works every day, studies literature, thinks hard, keeps himself in a strict mode for the sake of maximum productivity, they do not take into account.

With ordinary animal egoism, everything is simple and clear. I “grabbed”, I got more, you have less. Reasonable egoism, connected with the realization of one's own unique features, has a large component of altruism "built in". A genius creates, first of all, for himself, but the fruits of his activity go to ordinary people, and without difficulty on their part, just like that. The average person receives new technical devices, books, pictures, music, etc. for his use. And at the same time, he also calls gifted people eccentrics, “not of this world,” instead of kneeling before them and thanking them for a long time. The creator has to deal with the "raw material", and the mass consumer receives the final product in a finished and beautifully packaged form.

The higher the level of giftedness the Creator is, the more "objective" altruism is in his activity - the benefit for other people. It turns out that the more “unique and reasonable” personal egoism is, the more “altruistic” it is, even if a genius creates “for himself”, for his own pleasure. “Human life “has nothing to look for” on Earth, except for itself,” notes P. Sloterdijk in this regard.

By the way, in previous books I assumed that each person should have unique abilities, since he was “not accidental” born. And he called on those around him (including cadets and clients) to seek and realize their uniqueness, finding the meaning of life in this. Now, more often, I tend to the point of view of one of the philosophers that "the people are a detour of nature to obtain six or seven brilliant personalities." At the same time, I treat every representative of the “people” with respect, since all people have the same rights, although they are completely different level abilities. Equality is a social concept, not a biological one. And psychology is generally interested in individual properties and characteristics. So, if one develops individuality, one should develop the brain at the same time, because “where there is not enough intelligence, everything is lacking”. But, as the reader understands, achieving one's own happiness without a bit of selfishness, individualism is impossible. In the meantime, most people represent, in the words of the psychiatrist G.S. Sullivan, "a caricature of what they might have become." Divide life between survival-essential but unpleasant work and enjoyable but useless (or even harmful) “waste of life”. At the same time, a talented individualist who knows and realizes himself combines the necessary with the pleasant - in contrast to the empty idleness of the crowd, which only reduces the self-esteem of each of its members in the future. A smart loner continuously expands the boundaries of his consciousness, and a narrow-minded "member of the team" voluntarily narrows them, burying the remnants of his personal virtues in the "mass grave". Too tired at work to work on himself in free time, chasing instead for easy and affordable pleasures. Unoccupied leisure for such a "member of society" can be an even greater challenge than a hateful job.

It is no coincidence that the German philosopher Benno Huebner considers boredom to be a key aspect of the existence of not only modern man, but of all modern culture. And the current fuss is caused by nothing more than a desire to get rid (at least for a while) of the meaninglessness of one's own existence. Indeed, it is absurd when, due to faster modes of transport, a person gains time, and then does not know how to “kill” him. And nothing can tear such an individual out of the existential " black hole", which he fell into. If you don't develop the best that you have, you will get mortal boredom.

The “reasonable egoist” is guided not by traditional morality with its frozen concepts of Good and Evil, but by situational ethics, in which each case is considered in an individual, unique way. And this is natural for a smart person: he will not stand at night on a deserted street, waiting for the red traffic light to change to green! A reasonable egoist understands the relativity of any rules - after all, even parallel lines do not intersect only as long as they go along a flat surface. It goes without saying that any symbolism, including state symbols, is just symbols nothing more. This does not mean that such a subject feels contempt for all sorts of official symbols - he simply does not think about them. At the same time, he understands that a certain ordering of life thanks to the state is still more favorable for him than wild chaos. perfect social structure for him there would be meritocracy - the power of the most worthy and capable people. Smart and trained people should manage society, not arrogant and vociferous. To do this, you need to vote for smart people with your “head”, and not with your “heart”. Then the consumer society will be replaced by a knowledge society, in which intelligent and gifted egoists will be the norm, not the exception. Meritocrats will take the place of bureaucrats. Until this happens, people will witness the periodic intrusion into the power of "barbarians" from a people who, in the words Russian minister I. Kudrin, "it is silent, then arranges a riot, senseless and merciless."

By the way, the modern “mass man” already got the fruits of progress into his hands, many of which were “grown” for him by brilliant loners. And the only thing that a representative of the crowd will never be able to adopt from a genius is the work of his brain, his mind. Now it is clear why gifted people are not loved, and gifted egoists are not doubly loved. They have a treasure in their head, and they know how to use it - but, first of all, for themselves . While the bulk are lazy, go with the flow, get angry, rejoice and fantasize.

The theory of social laziness developed by scientists perfectly explains the above phenomenon: in groups, people tend to work less intensively than alone; This is due to a decrease in personal responsibility for the final result. Therefore, all kinds of loafers tend to join all sorts of groups where you can take advantage of the success of a more gifted member of the team, or simply “get lost” and “figure out for three”. Two workers are digging a trench, five are standing and watching. At the same time they pretend that they are "involved". Such irresponsible idlers can only be brought to their senses by the whistle of the overseer's whip. They lack their own motivation, as well as the idea of ​​personal uniqueness. As R. Emerson put it in this regard, "A crowd is a collection of bodies that have voluntarily deprived themselves of reason."

The motto “One for all, all for one” learned in pioneer childhood is a typical example of collective irresponsibility. The first part (one for all) brings to mind the suffering of Jesus Christ: "if you are smarter than others, you will be raped and / or destroyed." The second part (all for one) paints a picture of a party meeting, where the guilty loafer is taken on bail, and then "seated on the back" of the advanced (most capable) members of the team.

Recent years have brought more and more evidence of the benefits of highly individualized work. It turns out that people who work alone (or, in extreme cases, in pairs) will express more good ideas than they are, collected in large groups. This fact calls into question another "sacred cow" called the brainstorming method. The further progress goes, the more they fight with skill, and not with numbers, the greater the need for gifted individuals. Here is what his father, a senator from Minnesota, said to Charles Lindbergh as a child: “One boy is just a boy. Two boys is half a boy. Three boys is not a boy at all.” When the boy Charles grew up, he crossed the Atlantic Ocean for the first time in history in a small plane. That's the "boy"!

Unfortunately, many individuals do not want to make efforts to find and realize their unique sides, since any expenditure of energy has a negative aftertaste for them, being associated with an unloved job for the "uncle". Therefore, they prefer to relax "in contrast" - thoughtlessly lying under the sun against the backdrop of a palm tree.

A question of questions: do all people from birth have unique qualities (or their inclinations), the discovery and use of which will allow them to live a happy and fulfilling life? It is impossible to give an exact answer until there is a "device" or a technique for revealing these properties. In life, we see that only a small percentage of citizens successfully manifest themselves (according to A. Maslow, self-actualizing people make up less than 1% in the total mass, and the need for self-actualization itself is realized by about 10%). But this does not mean that all the rest should be put an end to and considered as non-initiative performers - a person is able to develop. It is more useful to assume that an individual from birth has a certain potential (each one has its own quantitatively and qualitatively), which can be “brought to the surface”, developed and realized. Its use will allow each person to become a Creator in their own business, create a unique “primary product”, and not borrow from others. To give the fruits of your creation to other people, without giving them yourself (a unique personality and brain).

But what about a person who, after reading this book and being inspired, begins to look for unique properties in himself and does not find them? Will he spit on the book and on the author in annoyance over wasted time? I try to be as clear and honest as possible in this field of knowledge, and I cannot guarantee you, dear readers, "constantly excellent results", as false advertising does. I do not want to arouse fanaticism in you or recruit supporters (since I myself adhere to the principle of moderation in contacts with outside world). I'm just suggesting that you consider this possibility. And realize: if something works out for you easily, elegantly, if it develops you and you like it, then this is what you should do, this is your happiness, your personal life mission, the cure for all problems. In my opinion, it’s better to live like this than, not knowing yourself, to do “abstract-correct” things all your life (home, work, sanatorium; home, work, crematorium), which in fact does not have a soul (especially the last one) .

Since a reasonable egoist is his own adviser, he has an inner freedom of choice, the need for which psychologists talk so much about. Recent studies have found longer life expectancy for those who can choose when they come to and leave work, when they go to bed, and so on. People with more developed self-awareness are less likely to cheat; their words do not match their deeds. The things you do, in turn, lead to an increase in self-esteem and develop many useful attitudes for life. Conversely, the researchers say, a subordinate position reduces a person's self-efficacy. On the other hand, it is difficult for a slave who has received freedom to use it - he has not learned to force himself.

Another example in favor of rational egoism comes from the field of psychiatry. Some mental disorders are characterized not only by a distorted perception of the external world, but also by an internal feeling of emptiness. So, rational egoism, with the help of which a person discovers his unique features, just fills it with high-quality internal content, and thus can be considered as a reliable means of prevention. Plus, the development of one's own brain, which provides additional compensatory opportunities in the event of a “black streak” in life. An individual who successfully realizes himself, while not forgetting the principle of moderation in contacts with the outside world, will not become an alcoholic or drug addict and will never commit suicide.

Such a person may not receive special recognition of his activities from others. Strangely enough, a small “external” interest or even its complete absence is useful, because, firstly, they do not distract the Creator from work, and, secondly, they can stimulate his desire to prove his abilities and potential to others. If you aggressively seek recognition, you can lose the "fine settings" of your activities and become "fruitless". The other extreme - unanimous enthusiasm and recognition - lead to increased satisfaction, "rest on our laurels" and also extinguish the inner spark. As the poet rightly said, "you yourself should not distinguish defeat from victory."

Activity "by vocation" is good in itself - after all, it serves as an inexhaustible source of pleasure (in contrast to the lower "disposable" pleasures). As long as a person with his talents is alive, until then he is granted the joy of creativity. Interesting activities usually have many nuances, “shades”, therefore, the pleasure from them is different every time. Yes, and the activity itself allows the consciousness of the creator to maintain the correct "points of reference" of reality (not to float away on the scale of pleasures), since it is associated with overcoming specific "difficulties of the material."

Knowing his strengths a person thereby takes them under control - learns to use the energy that the manifestation of these qualities gives. How can one not recall Freud with his formula for the personal growth of a person: "Where the Id (dark unconscious) was, the Ego (consciousness, personality) should become." An increase in “conscious”, healthy vital energy, in turn, allows you to get more pleasure from your own activities, to enjoy life.

While most people are driven by external stimuli that control them, rational egoists have a predominantly internal locus of control. This type of control, studies show, is positively associated with stress resistance and human endurance. Such a person is focused, first of all, on personal achievements, and not on the superficial popularity of the Carnegie spill.

A certain degree of egoism and its implementation in activities leads to the formation of self-efficacy - the ability to achieve goals without succumbing to difficulties. The emerging sense of competence in "one's own" activity makes one solve problems with actions, instead of reflecting on one's own inadequacy.

The experiments of psychologists show that a person is "born an egoist" and only as he grows up he learns to measure his interests with the public. A person who has discovered his uniqueness automatically becomes a reasonable egoist, since in “his” field of activity he has no competitors, but there is a huge space for the mind to work. A gifted person on the path of self-realization is simply forced to moderate relations with the outside world - in order to direct his main forces into the field of creativity, where he has no equal.

Psychologists once discovered two main types of human motivation: the desire to achieve success and the desire to avoid failure. Most people have one tendency. Why limit yourself? Through our own moderation, we will avoid (major) failure, and through intelligent selfishness, we will achieve a unique personal success. At the same time, slightly inflated self-esteem will be the best shock absorber for anxiety. Two in one!

A reasonable egoist opposes any mystic with his irrational reliance on feelings as a tool for understanding the world around him and belittling the intellect. Hence the direct road to the superstitions and delusions of the schizophrenic, who believes in the ability to control external events with the help of his desires. A reasonable egoist will not allow himself to be confused by all sorts of verbiage. In such cases, he easily turns on his skepticism, and, if necessary, healthy cynicism, because he understands the axiom: “if you don’t write your priorities in your diary, then strangers will appear in it.” One way or another, in realism there is always a vital sophistication, which can be interpreted by others as cynicism. "I'm not cynical at all, I just have experience - it's about the same thing," Oscar Wilde once said.

Let me emphasize again: developed person must be selfish to some extent in order to fully show their abilities. At the same time, his mind contributes to the “neat” manifestation of his individuality, so as not to accidentally harm others who live by completely different values. In this regard, one cannot fail to recall the wonderful statement of the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville: “Individualists owe nothing to anyone and hardly expect anything from others. They are used to thinking about themselves in isolation from others, and believe that their fate depends solely on themselves. If I don’t expect someone to help me “just like that”, then I am internally ready for possible difficulties and misfortunes. In principle, I am ready for even the worst that can happen. Ready to accept it, survive, and move on. Note that the "worst case" technique is a powerful technique in Albert Ellis's REBT system. If, for example, a woman is jealous of her husband's (possible) infidelity, it may be helpful for her to mentally plunge into the worst-case scenario (divorce and singleness) to make sure that under these conditions she will be relatively happy. Such “vaccinations”, if used correctly, can significantly weaken problematic experiences, and regardless of whether her husband is actually cheating on her. The "center of gravity" is gradually transferred to inner space personality. Both fear and false hopes go away.

A reasonable egoist, of course, is more optimistic than vice versa. About yourself and your abilities - a little better than about others (predisposition in favor of your own self); about the world - a little better than it actually is, and their chances in it - a little higher than real (moderate optimism). A wonderful bunch of qualities, isn't it? It is no coincidence that Ayn Rand, already mentioned, considered selfishness an unconditional virtue, and she despised hedonism and altruism. After all, with reasonable egoism there is always a fair exchange, and not grabbing or covert manipulation.

Some psychologists (as well as representatives of Eastern religions) prefer to see people as interdependent members of the community, connected to each other by many invisible threads, “strings”. An interesting metaphor for a doll on strings - let's look at it in more detail. First of all, we note that the basis of many created "garters" is the fear of helplessness. If one of the “dolls” stops moving, then the ropes will not let it fall. And even if it falls, other dolls will slowly and patiently drag it forward (like barge haulers a ship). Before death, the doll will be served a ritual glass of water.

If one of the dolls breaks most of the strings, it will be rewarded with the freedom to move in any direction. True, for this the doll must be smart, strong and self-confident: no one will come to her aid in case of a fall. The comrades "tied" to each other secretly envy her freedom and wait for her to "slip". Most people sacrifice the possibility of individual achievement for the sake of support and security. Some sports, especially solo climbing, to which I breathe so unevenly, represent the “breaking of the ropes” to the maximum and therefore meet with such an ambiguous attitude. Complete freedom, including the freedom to die.

A reasonable egoist understands his personal uniqueness and does not try to build his life in accordance with unattainable ideals, suppressing natural human reactions in himself. He feels himself to be an integral subject and therefore does not oppose the “good” and “bad” (from the point of view of traditional church morality) parts of his personality. The desire for pleasure, humor and spontaneity coexist peacefully in it with responsibility and diligence. His mind correctly determines the context in which this or that quality will be used in a timely manner. At the same time, he is able to notice the mistakes made, correct them and learn from them. Such a person avoids not only external, but also internal shackles (for example, addiction to drugs) and strives, wherever possible, to make life easier in order to devote more time to self-realization. A psychologically mature subject does not need external authorities, because he lives my life, not someone else's. A reasonable egoist understands the need for some isolation from others - in order to achieve greater freedom. As the world-famous Austrian climber Reinhold Messner put it in this regard, “I do not intend to raise any flags on the peaks. My handkerchief is my flag."

Therefore, sometimes such a person builds, and sometimes destroys barriers. After all, adulthood includes the understanding that only you yourself know better the most suitable way of life for you. Only you and no one else. For such a person there are no "good" and "bad" qualities, "pure" and "impure", but there are timely and untimely. Moreover, in a holistic and balanced personality, one pole cannot exist without the other: it stands out only in contrast with its opposite. If there were no humility, there would be no authoritarianism, and so on. So different poles in the human psyche must be "friends" and interact. Declaring one of the poles “good” and the other “bad” immediately forces a person to admit his inferiority and, moving towards the supposedly “better” pole, fall under the influence of various kinds of charlatans and manipulators (see the chapter on sects). If, for example, I consider selflessness a higher value than selfishness, then for the purpose of "spiritual improvement" and (vain) struggle with my egoism, I go to "surrender" to the church, after which my personal uniqueness can be put an end to - in every sense of this the words. After all, now my life will be subordinated not only to an unattainable ideal, but also to those specific people who declare themselves to be the “link” between earth and heaven. By the way, subjects striving to master the “higher” spiritual values ​​offered by religion are also selfish in their own way: after all, they want to earn eternal pleasures after death. Isn't that selfish? An unbeliever who behaves morally in accordance with inner values ​​deserves much more praise.

The quality that I am writing about has its “balances” - in the form of reason and in the form of moderation. As they say, three in one! Thanks to this balance, a person grows not "in breadth", touching the interests of others, but "upwards", realizing himself as a unique personality. After all, thanks to selfishness, we can better preserve our own identity and creativity. By the way, he does not cancel his opposite - altruism, when there is really a need for it. For example, this applies to love, empathy for close people, in a word, everything that forms reliable relationships. After all, we want the people around us to be happy too! But we will not sacrifice ourselves for this.

By the way, a few words about altruism - the ability to selflessly help people. Psychological research shows that we are not born with this quality, but learn it as we grow up. Alas, not a single outwardly altruistic act can be considered completely free from selfish motives: obvious egoism (the desire to receive encouragement or avoid punishment) and hidden egoism (the desire to maintain or improve one's own state of mind with the help of an altruistic act). In short, we give alms or donate blood to increase our self-esteem, to consider ourselves more “worthy” and “good” people. So the external act of a person and his internal motives are far from always the same thing.

If the person is unreasonable an egoist-egocentric who does not have internal brakes and counterbalances, then “external” structures in the form of psychiatrists, police, etc. are needed to curb him. Since it is precisely such an individual who puts pressure on others in order to get their help and approval of “beloved”. While a reasonable egoist is engaged in self-development and simply enjoys life without disturbing others and not expecting “pink elephants” from them.

Of course, altruism, like selfishness, can be unreasonable. An example is a person with schizophrenia who bought tea from a warehouse at a low (wholesale) price, and then sold it to other people for the same price.

In the modern system of psychotherapy called REBT (rational-emotional-behavioral therapy), moderate selfishness is put in the first place among other aspects of mental health. The founder of REBT, Albert Ellis, characterizes this concept as follows: “Emotionally healthy man First of all, he is honest with himself and does not masochistically sacrifice himself for the sake of others. His kindness and consideration for others largely comes from the idea that he himself wants to enjoy freedom from unnecessary pain and limitations. Therefore, most likely, he is ready to give his strength and time if this will help create a world in which the rights of others, like his own, are not limited without sufficient grounds. REBT strongly welcomes the long-term, i.e. moderate hedonism, which does not lead to devastating consequences for the physical health and psyche of a person. "Moderate hedonists" understand that they will live for a long time, so you can not put everything at stake for the sake of obtaining momentary benefits and tempting temptations. And here, as we see, intelligence allows you to find a balance between the present and the future.

If we take such spheres of human activity as religion and business, we will see that religion limits the material needs of a person, encouraging moderation, but condemning any kind of selfishness. While business encourages selfishness (and not always reasonable), it often lacks moderation. One of the critical points in this issue is the correlation of personal interest and the public good - the so-called problem of communal pastures, as formulated by social psychologists. If there is a common meadow on which the cows of all the inhabitants of the village graze, then I am faced with a dilemma: to have one cow or several. If there are several, then my cows will only be fed as long as other residents do not follow my (selfish) example. In this case, the herd will grow too much, the grass in the meadow will quickly disappear, and the loss of livestock from hunger will begin. If, however, each inhabitant has one cow (he takes upon himself the burden of voluntary moderation, which, alas, is not easy for many), then all the cows will be able to feed themselves.

From my point of view, the solution of problems of this kind lies on the path of the development of reasonable egoism by each specific person. For example, if I find in myself unique personality traits, thanks to the implementation of which I can live a happy life, benefit people who do not have these traits, and thereby earn good money, then I hardly want to have a cow. It will be easier for me to go and buy milk in the store than to do an unloved thing, watching my cow. The same goes for other residents, with the exception of one or two who have a "unique aptitude" for working with cows. Well, they themselves will figure out what kind of herd to have in a village meadow.

In addition, if I focus on my individual inclinations, I automatically begin to behave “humblely” and moderately in other areas that simply do not interest me now. Here it is, Possible Solution problems of communal pastures. Moreover, the solution is modern: it takes into account the high technical level of production and its efficiency, as well as the satisfaction of “lower”, physiological needs in an era of commodity abundance. People who want to show their own LU (personal uniqueness) do not need to keep a cow at hand for this.

The theorem can also be proven from the opposite: individuals who have not discovered their talents are just prone to "burning life" associated with the immoderate consumption of resources. environment. Again, as we see, the lack of internal quality is replaced by external quantity.

In a word, reasonable egoism is simply necessary for a person who wants to find happiness through creativity and self-realization. In this, he will be helped by the “predisposition in favor of one’s own Self”, revealed in the studies, which is characteristic of any normal optimist. Well, if it is excessive, it will be useful to “turn on” moderation, again regaining external and internal balance.

In our society, the remnants of Soviet morality are still heard, in which there was no place for any egoism - neither reasonable nor all-consuming. At the same time, developed countries, in particular the United States, have built their entire economy and society on the principles of selfishness. If we turn to religion, egoism is not welcome in it, and behavioral psychology claims that any action performed by a person has selfish motives, since it is based on the survival instinct. People around often scold a person who does what is best for him, calling him an egoist, but this is not a curse, and the world is not divided into black and white, just as there are no absolute egoists and altruists.

Reasonable egoism: the concept

First of all, let's define what distinguishes reasonable egoism from unreasonable. The latter manifests itself in ignoring the needs and comfort of other people, focusing all the actions and aspirations of a person on satisfying his, often, momentary needs. Reasonable egoism also comes from the emotional and physiological needs of a person (“I want to leave work right now and go to bed”), but is balanced by reason, which distinguishes Homo sapiens from creatures that act purely instinctively (“I will finish the project, and tomorrow I will take the day off”) . As you can see, the need for rest will be satisfied, without prejudice to work.

The world is built on selfishness

There are hardly a dozen real altruists in the history of man. No, we do not in any way diminish the merits and merits of the numerous benefactors and heroes of our kind, but, to be completely honest, altruistic actions also come from the desire to satisfy one's ego. For example, a volunteer enjoys work, increases his self-esteem (“I am doing a good deed”). By helping a relative with money, you relieve your own anxiety for him, which is also partly a selfish motive. This does not need to be denied or tried to change, because this is not bad. Healthy egoism is inherent in every reasonable and developed person; it is the engine of progress. If you do not become a hostage to your desires and do not ignore the needs of others, this selfishness can be considered reasonable.

Lack of selfishness and self-improvement

People who give up their desires and live for the sake of others (children, spouses, friends) are the other extreme, in which their own needs are relegated to the background, and this is unhealthy. You definitely won’t achieve happiness in this way, it’s for this that you need to understand where golden mean in the subtle question of selfishness.
In the process of self-improvement, a person inevitably shows reasonable egoism, which is combined with concern for others. For example, you are trying to become a better person, increase your self-esteem and get away from the control of your parents or partner. At first, others may be offended by your newfound independence in decision-making, but, in the long run, they will understand that you are becoming a better person, and improving the quality of your life will definitely have a positive impact on loved ones and loved ones.

Here is a rough list of what I think should be done solely for yourself, resolutely and ruthlessly discarding any other incentives:

- Choose a job, your main activity – create (if creativity is your activity, you should still like it first of all).

- Change your appearance, image, first name and surname and other attributes of earthly life. Doing this for someone else besides yourself is most of the time stupid and leads to frustration (as well as minimizing the importance of your own opinion). The exception is if you treat your appearance very easily and with experimental enthusiasm, then why not? - Engage in self-improvement. Strictly speaking, in general, you need to change something in yourself only with motivation “for yourself”, otherwise you can get carried away and reshape your subtle soul in someone’s image and likeness or desire. A line can be drawn here: if I have relationship problems with a person, it is in my best interest to adjust my perception and behavior (remembering that the responsibility is shared between two and not trying to become better for both). It’s another matter when a partner demands (hints, puts an ultimatum, presses, bargains) that you change this and that in yourself, and no matter how much you comprehend, you come to the conclusion that you just don’t want to change it, but you still do it to keep the person.

If you decide to become more educated, more sociable, more attractive, more interesting, richer - that's great. If at the same time you are driven by the desire to “please Mikhail”, “prove to colleagues that I am not a fool”, “amaze everyone at the reunion of graduates”, “poke your mother with her nose into a pile of money so that she understands that I am not a loser” - this is what what I call rotten motivation. It not only smells, but at any moment it can collapse like a rotten floor of the second floor - for example, as soon as you realize that Mikhail, colleagues and classmates do not care about your achievements, and your mother will still find a reason to consider you a loser if she wants to .

- Rest. Even if the rest is couples or family, it is necessary that you enjoy it - to act to the detriment of your desires and interests means to take away your own strength, mental health and future productivity.

Nobody needs your sacrifices

Surprisingly, people value only those sacrifices that they made themselves, and not those that were made by others for their sake. Do not confuse “appreciate” and “feel guilty” - if, for example, a spouse stays with his wife only out of guilt (“she did so much for me, went out, fashioned, now I will repay her debt”), this is not happy, productive relationship. Sacrifice is generally a terrible thing that has the form of a deal: one puts his desires, dreams and half his life, or even his entire life, on a fictional sacrificial altar, and the second is obliged to be grateful for the rest of his life and remember this “debt”.

“Give yourself all”, “live for the sake of children”, “dedicate yourself to humanity” are false desires. Why? Because they are dictated either by the fear of losing love, respect and the very presence of this person (people) in your life, or by the desire to get away from your life and your own pressing issues in science, social activities, etc. True desires can be unselfish - for example, I want this person to be happy, whether he is with me or not. And if I want him to be happy, but always next to me, and for this I try to bind him with my sacrifices and bestowals - this is unhealthy egoism and a destructive model of relationships.

Everything that you did not do for yourself while you were busy doing for others will not return, will not be rewarded to you and will not be offered in the form of a reciprocal sacrifice, this must be clearly understood. A life lived for others is always kind of lost for you - and what's the point?

Is it possible to live both for yourself and for others?

My opinion about the need to do something only for yourself concerns global, significant issues and events in a person’s life. At the same time, I understand and recognize the importance of both the ability to compromise, to learn to understand other people, and to help close and random people when you can provide it and really need it. (with)

Chapter 31

Whom to love? Whom to believe? Who will not change us one?
Who measures all deeds, all speeches Helpfully by our arshin?
Who does not sow slander about us? Who cares for us?
Who does not care about our vice? Who never gets bored?
The ghost of a vain seeker, Works in vain without ruining,
Love thyself, my venerable reader!
(c) A.S. Pushkin

What is selfishness?

Let's take the first dictionary of definitions that comes across, for example, Wikipedia, and see what does selfishness mean:

selfishness(from the Latin "ego" - "I") - behavior entirely determined by the thought of one's own benefit, benefit, when an individual puts his own interests above the interests of others.

People don't like selfishness. The shameful diagnosis "Egoist!" issued to anyone who allows himself to have desires, knows how to say "no" or puts his own interests above those of others.

The question arises: why is it customary to believe that selfishness is bad?
Why does the public say that selfishness is the worst thing in a person. Why are we taught to feel guilty about manifestations of selfishness to be ashamed of our own nature and play the part of who we are not?

There is an opinion that selfishness destroys society and relationships between people. But is it really so?

The goal of innate natural selfishness is survival. And if the social order is an objectively more effective way of survival, our egoism will only be happy with such a society and will always support it.
Animals live in packs. And they don't have any morality. Nobody teaches them that they should be kind to their neighbor. Their selfish instinct for self-preservation tells them that the pack is the best way to survive, and therefore it is necessary to support the interests of the pack as if it were their own. But human egoism is not more stupid than animal ...

It turns out that society simply influences us with the help of this “cliche”, and teaches us to be a simple cog in its mechanism, without our own views and concepts. It is more beneficial for society for a person to sit in his "mink" and dutifully do what "public opinion" commands.

We are all selfish, "from" and "to". But under the pressure of public morality, we really want to see ourselves as some other. And this self-deception never goes unnoticed, because selfish behavior driven by primal instincts. And attempts to eradicate one's own egoism sometimes lead to sad consequences.

Take a look around - most of your acquaintances are probably suffering from a deep internal conflict based on unsatisfied egoism. People around are not satisfied with their lives due to the fact that they do not take into account the desires of their soul. From early childhood, they were instilled with the idea of ​​the sinfulness of selfish desires, and all their lives they are only engaged in the fact that they are at war with themselves, with their nature.

Because a person has no other desires, except for selfish ones. In every act of a person behind the screen of his kindness, nobility and selflessness, it is easy to detect selfish motivation. And this motivation is not secondary - you can’t hide behind this excuse - selfish motivation is always primary! And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing to be ashamed of - such is human nature itself, and to fight against it means to rebel against the instinct of self-preservation.

Reasonable selfishness

Reasonable selfishness- a philosophical and ethical position in which the priority of personal interest is higher than any other interest, be it public or any other.

The need for a separate term appeared, apparently, in connection with the negative semantic connotation traditionally associated with the term "egoism". If an egoist (without the qualifying word “reasonable”) is often understood as a person who thinks only of himself and / or neglects the interests of other people, then supporters of “reasonable egoism” usually argue that such neglect, for a number of reasons, is simply unprofitable for the neglectful. And, therefore, it is not selfishness (in the form of the priority of personal interests over any others), but only a manifestation of short-sightedness or even stupidity. In other words, egocentrism:

Egocentrism- the inability or inability of the individual to stand on someone else's point of view. Perception of one's point of view as the only one that exists. And consequently - unwillingness and inability to take into account the interests of others.

Reasonable egoism in the everyday sense is the ability to live in one's own interests without contradicting the interests of others.

Reasonable egoism is nothing but the call of our soul. The problem is that a "normal" adult no longer hears the voice of a natural healthy selfishness. What, under the guise of egoism, reaches his consciousness is a pathological narcissism, which has become the result of a long suppression of the impulses of rational egoism.

A reasonable egoist is much closer to holiness than any convinced righteous person, because he deceives himself less. How stronger man believes in the disinterestedness of his thoughts and actions, the more unhappy he is. He can perform the greatest feats of mercy, but at the same time his own life will remain empty and tasteless. Such self-deception kills, because the desires of a person remain unfulfilled.

There is another case when it seems that a person spits on everyone and lives only for himself. But it's still the same problem, only turned inside out. Obedience to morality or rebellion against it is one and the same thing.

That difference between people, which is easy to notice when it comes to selfishness, is due not to the level of selfishness, but to the level of their self-deception in this regard. The most unhealthy selfishness is among the righteous and rebels. Both those and others are equally at war with their own nature, proving to others their kindness or malice. They try to resolve the internal conflict outside, but they never succeed. And from the outside, they look the most flawed - painfully narcissistic or just as painfully meek.

Reasonable egoists, on the other hand, look at the world more soberly and from the outside look not so egoists. Pay attention to this trick - the more honest a person is about his own motivation, the less selfish his actions look. Or, at least, his selfishness looks justified, reasonable, sober, and therefore does not cause rejection.

Let's take an example: Two people: reasonable and unconscious egoists. Both are doing the same thing close person present. A reasonable egoist is aware that he is making a gift for himself. Because he himself likes to give gifts and likes to receive something in return. His game of "gifts" is obvious and transparent - he does not hide his self-interest either from himself or from another person, which means that there is no stone left in his bosom. A reasonable egoist is mercenary, but honest.

But an unreasonable, unconscious egoist acts differently - he does not realize that he is driven only by personal interest. He believes that he does not have any ulterior motives. But at a deeper level, he is driven by the same personal selfish interest - he also wants to get something in return, but he wants to get it secretly, irresponsibly.
If he gets it, then all is well. But if for some reason the reaction to the gift does not suit him, all his self-interest immediately comes out - he begins to take offense, freak out, demand justice or accuse the other of selfishness. So he forces the other person to pay the bills for all the "selfless gifts" received.

An unconscious egoist is just as mercenary as a reasonable one, but at the same time pretends that there is no personal benefit in his act, and is very proud of his ostentatious self-denial. Although in reality there is nothing but hypocrisy in his “disinterestedness”:

Hypocrisy- a negative moral quality, consisting in the fact that actions deliberately committed for the sake of selfish interests are attributed pseudo-moral meaning and lofty motives. Hypocrisy is the opposite of honesty, sincerity - qualities in which a person's awareness and open expression of the true meaning of his actions is manifested.

Reasonable selfishness is one of the qualities of a successful person

Reasonable egoist:

Honest, first of all to himself, and holistic in his attitude.
Less prone to MANIPULATION, as he critically evaluates the motivation of other people.
Will not fall into , because adequately evaluates its "investment".
It has its own goals, which means personality. What goals can you talk about if you are not an egoist, and your interests are not in the first place for you? (a rhetorical question).
Inclined to cooperate, tk. understands that in cooperation it is more profitable to achieve their own goals. This means that it takes into account the interests of other people, including in relationships.
He will not allow himself, because. it contradicts his self-identification.
For men, selfishness is an indispensable condition for being in a relationship.

And the main advantage of a person with healthy egoism is the ability to solve their own problems, taking into account the interests of others, and competently build a system.

Your selfishness is perfectly healthy and reasonable if you:

Stand up for your right to refuse something if you think it will harm you;
understand that your goals will be implemented in the first place, but others are entitled to their interest;
you know how to do things in your favor, trying not to harm others, and are able to compromise;
have your own opinion and are not afraid to speak out, even when it differs from someone else's;
do not obey anyone, but do not seek to control others;
respect the wishes of the partner, but do not step over yourself;
do not suffer from guilt, having made a choice in your favor;
love and respect yourself without demanding blind adoration from others.

Summary:

There is nothing in a person except his own selfish “I want!”. And the more clearly he sees this, the simpler and more natural his life, the simpler and more natural his relationship with people. Selfishness is a completely healthy feeling, if you stop being ashamed of it. The more you hide from him, the more he breaks out in the form of unreasonable insults and attempts to manipulate people for his own good. And the more you recognize it, the more clearly you understand that this very egoism makes us honor the freedom and interests of another person. Conscious reasonable egoism is the only way to healthy and constructive relationships between people.

ethical concept put forward by the enlighteners of the 17th-8th centuries. which is based on the principle that the rightly understood interest must coincide with the public interest. Although a person is by nature an egoist and acts only out of his own interest, out of his innate aspirations for pleasure, happiness, fame, etc., he must obey the requirements of morality, public interests, first of all, because it will ultimately be beneficial him. Hence, being a reasonable egoist, a person acts morally in his actions - he does not hypocrite and does not deceive other people, satisfying his own interest. This theory was developed by Helvetius, Holbach, Diderot, Feuerbach.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

EGOISM IS REASONABLE

ethical doctrine, suggesting that: a) all human actions are based on an egoistic motive (desire for good for oneself); b) reason allows us to single out from the total volume of motives those that constitute a correctly understood personal interest, that is, it allows us to discover the core of those egoistic motivations that correspond to the rational nature of a person and the social nature of his life. The result of this is an ethical and normative program, which, while maintaining a single (egoistic) basis of behavior, assumes that it is ethically obligatory not only to take into account the interests of other individuals, but also to commit acts aimed at the common good (for example, good deeds). At the same time, reasonable egoism can be limited to stating that the desire for one's own benefit contributes to the benefit of others, and thus sanction a narrowly pragmatic moral position.

In Antiquity, during the period of the birth of this model of ethical reasoning, it retains its peripheral character. Even Aristotle, who developed it most fully, assigns it the role of just one of the components of friendship. He believes that "the virtuous must be selfish", and explains self-sacrifice in terms of the maximum pleasure associated with virtue. The reception in the Renaissance of ancient ethical ideas (first of all, Epicureanism, with an emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure) is accompanied, for example, by L. Balla with the demand to “learn to enjoy the benefits of other people.”

The theory of rational egoism is being developed both in the French and in the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment - most clearly in A. Smith and Helvetius. Smith combines in a single concept of human nature the idea of ​​an economic man and a moral man. According to Helvetius, a rational balance between the egoistic passion of the individual and the public good cannot develop naturally. Only a dispassionate legislator, with the help of state power, using rewards and punishments, can ensure the benefit of "the largest possible number of people" and make the basis of virtue "the benefit of an individual."

The doctrine of rational egoism received a detailed development in the later works of L. Feuerbach. Morality, according to Feuerbach, is based on a sense of self-satisfaction from the satisfaction of the Other - the main model of his concept is the relationship of the sexes. Feuerbach tries to reduce even seemingly anti-Eudemonistic moral actions (primarily self-sacrifice) to the action of a rational-egoistic principle: if the happiness of the I necessarily presupposes the satisfaction of You, then the desire for happiness, as the most powerful motive, is able to resist even self-preservation.

The reasonable-egoistic concept of N. G. Chernyshevsky is based on such an anthropological interpretation of the subject, according to which the true expression of utility, identical to good, consists in “the benefit of a person in general”. Due to this, when private, corporate and universal interests collide, the latter should prevail. However, due to the rigid dependence of the human will on external circumstances and the impossibility of satisfying the highest needs before satisfying the simplest ones, a reasonable correction of egoism, in his opinion, will be effective only if the structure of society is completely altered.

In 19th century philosophy ideas related to the concept of rational egoism were expressed by I. Bentham, J. S. Mill, G. Spencer, G. Sidgwick. From the 50s. 20th century reasonable egoism began to be considered in the context of the concept of "ethical egoism". Consonant provisions are contained in the prescriptivism of R. Hear. A detailed criticism of the theories of rational egoism is presented in the works of F. Hutcheson, I. Kant, G. F. W. Hegel, J. E. Moore.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓