Reconcile Of Egoism Essay

431 Words2 Pages
It is difficult task to argue with the philosopher, but possible to construct a technical analysis of the topic in discussion. First of all, let me repeat philosopher’s argument. “What we really want in every case is our own pleasure and that we pursue other things only as a means” (p.429). Let’s tear above referenced sentence in to separate parts and analyze. Every human wants pleasure in his/her life. It is a fact that without such feeling a person can not survive; he/she will live in misery. It is a necessity to have pleasure and most of all it is common for all of us to have it. Therefore, we are egoists. It is a very questionable statement and has to be viewed on case by case basis. Before a person can have what he/she wants, he/she must have a desire to want it. Such desire comes from different sources. We all have dreams, and see others having things that we may or may not have. The second part of the citation talks about other things as means. I must agree that we as humans have things as means of life. These things include the necessities that every one of us need. We can not survive without them. But technically we may be able to receive pleasure from all of these things, even though these are only as a means. We pursue such things because we have to. If we won’t receive them we try to find other ways to get them. By finding these new ways to receive these “means” we bring pleasure to ourselves. In my understanding egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own action. The positive variant conceives egoism as a factual description of human affairs. That is, people are motivated by their own interests and desires, and they cannot be described otherwise. Such human quality as egoism proposes that people should be highly motivated, regardless of what presently motivates their behavior. It is
Open Document