ANTHROPIC AND EGO-RELATED
From the superspecific (or superanthropic), to the specific
(anthropic), to the subspecific (subanthropic), the circle
enclosing the collection of things which are the object of
exclusion or exclusivity becomes narrower and narrower. It is
narrowest when object and subject coincide, that is, when the person
'er body, is the center of
exclusion or exclusivity.
Because, in this case, it is one particular person we are talking about
that is contrasted with other persons and (the rest of) the world, we
shall label it "the self" or "ego".
All manifestations of exclusivism related to this ego are, then,
forms of 'ego-related exclusivism' (X.8).
Together with superanthropic (X.11), anthropic (X.10) and subanthropic
exism, human ego-related exism (X.8) is
part of a tetratomic subdivision of
nonsophistic exclusivisms (X.2).
When ego-related exism is
unitary (X.8.0), it is 'ego-centered',
for the ego then functions as one whole on which the
irrelevantism is centered; when it is
compositional (X.8.1), it is 'ego-based',
for the exism then only centers on a part or aspect of one's own person.
Egoism and egocentrism
aggrandizemental component of ego-centered
(or -based) exism.
But ego-centered exism, as the name of an
refers to the object which is the ego, or a factor which
distinguishes between what belongs to the ego and what does not
belong to it. Ego-centered exism may therefore not only denote
an over- but also an undervaluation of the self. The latter,
abnegational, form of ego-centered exism
involves altruism as an exclusive regard for, or dedication to,
the interests of others (X.8.03).
It is not that a person takes the interests of
others into account which is altruistic, since this is simply a
form of self-transcending inclusivity (N.8.0); it is that
'e totally neglects
'er own personal interests in order to serve
the purely personal interests of others (especially when looked
on over a longer period of time).
operational manifestation of egocentrism (the
aggrandizemental component) is
normative egocentrism (X.8.02.22)
or what philosophers have called "ethical egoism".
The sole, ultimate norm of this doctrine is that a person should do what
promotes 'er own greatest good. Even in making second- and
third-person moral judgments, a normative egocentrist goes by
what is to 'er own advantage.
'E may be unselfish, friendly and social-minded in
if so, then either because 'e does not act on 'er own principle, or
because 'e believes that such behavior will be to 'er own advantage in
the long run.
By describing normative egocentrism in this way, the
ego-distinction is made in the content of the norm, but it can
also be made in the application of a norm or rule. This may,
for example, be the case in normative abnegational ego-centered
exism when a norm or rule which is not ego-related in itself is
exclusively applied, or believed to apply, to others.
Both ego-based and anthropic exclusivism can be subdivided
into a physical and a nonphysical variant, while the nonphysical
(or 'mental') variants of both of them have cognitive, affective
and conative manifestations. Physical ego-based exclusivism
(X.16) may be further subdivided into bodily ego-based exclusivism
(X.32), when it concerns a person's own body in the
strict sense, and nonbodily ego-based exclusivism (X.33), when
it concerns 'er personal, material possessions other than 'er
component of bodily egoism is narcissism: the preoccupation with,
or exclusive love of, one's own body (X.32.05).
A similar component of nonbodily physical egoism is the
preoccupation with, or exclusive attention for, one's own external,
Both these components are forms of, what might be called,
'possessive egoism'. (However, in everyday usage, possession
often refers to external possessions, and is not meant to apply
to one's body or its parts.)
If aggrandizemental, physical anthropic exclusivism (X.20)
divine operational manifestation of this
form of speciesism is anthropomorphic homotheism (X.20.05.10).
As a cognition this is the belief that the supreme being
(if monotheistic) or the gods (if polytheistic)
necessarily and exclusively have human physical characteristics,
such as corresponding to the parts of the human body and such as
determining its/their power, possibly only gradually exceeding
what is normal for earthly human beings. This divine belief is
an anthropic extension of narcissism: human homotheists who thus
create the supreme being or gods in their own image have the
divinity of mere being. (It is a piteous sight indeed to see
homotheist man pine away for love of the god upon whom he so
piously reflects while looking at him in the water.)
Homotheism need not only be anthropomorphic
tho; usually it
is nonphysical as well, for example, anthropopathic.
That is, homotheists also tend to believe in a supreme being or gods
that necessarily and exclusively have human feelings, such as a
personal will, cultural feelings of love and hatred, and a
susceptibility to honor and dishonor, possibly —again— only
gradually exceeding an intensity which is normal for earthly
humans. Anthropopathism in general is affective (nonphysical)
anthropic exclusivism (X.336), but homotheism is often of the
cognitive nonphysical sort too. As a cognition, supreme cognitive
homotheism, for instance, is the belief that the supreme
being or other gods necessarily and exclusively have human and
possibly superhuman knowledge and cognitions.
In an extreme fashion it is the belief that the supreme being would be,
and must be, an omniscient being, as or with a (super)human sort of mind.
This 'immaculate' ideological conception does definitely not allow for a
supreme being that would not know more than the average human being, let
alone a supreme being that would not 'even' have a
(super)human sort of mind.
principal and nonprincipal, physical and
nonphysical, types of aggrandizemental anthropic exclusivism may be
called "anthropocentrism" (X.10.02).
There is no special name for abnegational anthropic exism in general,
but there is one for sentimental abnegational anthropic exism, namely
Its opposite is speciesist philanthropy (X.10.05),
when the subject is not interested in, or shows no concern for,
the well-being of nonhuman, mental or sentient beings as well.
Also humanism is speciesistic, and another form of anthropocentrism, if,
and to the extent that, it asserts the dignity and capacities of human
beings in contrast to
(But historically it is rather to be contrasted with homotheist
comprehensive ideology is
anthropocentristic in a normative sense —perhaps not in an ethical
sense— if , and to the extent that, its norms or ideals are
exclusively applicable to humans or humankind.
In general, normative anthropocentrism is expressed in the confinement
nontheodemonist ideological norms or ideal states of being to the
human and/or anthropopathic condition; that is, to the situation in
which human beings and/or personified beings with human thoughts, feelings
and tendencies happen to find themselves.
When nonphysical anthropic exism is regarded as a unitary
manifestation, it may be called "mind-centered anthropic
exclusivism" (X.21.0), or "mind-centered anthropocentrism",
if aggrandizemental (X.21.02).
An interesting operational manifestation of the latter exism is the
existential one (X.21.02.13), which
involves, or is nothing else than, anthropocentric (epistemological)
idealism or personalism.
As a cognition it is the belief that only humans (and possibly one or
more anthropocentrically conceived personified beings) have a mind
(or mental predicates), and that these human (or anthropocentrist)
minds or personalities constitute the only reality.
Its antithesis, existential mind-transcending supranthropic inclusivity
(N.21.0013), involves perceptual or epistemological 'realism' or
As suggested above, there are not only superanthropic and
anthropic strains of idealism; there is also an egoistic strain.
It is the existential manifestation of aggrandizemental
mind-centered ego-based exclusivism. As a cognition this is the
belief that one's own mind would constitute the sole reality.
Another name for it is solipsism.
The only consistent form of ideal(
exclusiv)ism might be nontemporal
namely the belief that one's own 'mind' in its present (but not in its
past or future) modification would be the sole reality.
Perhaps, this belief is not exclusivistic in itself; it would only drain
the word reality of all meaning.
And not only that: reality could never have acquired a meaning to
There are several ego-related terms in the present language
which sometimes are employed as synonyms, sometimes not, namely
egocentrism, egoism and egotism. Of these three terms
it is egotism which is also used in the special sense of
talking about oneself too much, or of excessively using the
singular first person pronoun.
This 'egotism' is a
lingual operation of sentimental
It does not only involve an exceedingly frequent use of the
singular first person pronoun, but also the capitalized use of
only this pronoun in the traditional written variant of the
present language (with I instead of i ).
'Egotism', 'egocentrism' and 'egoism' are all frowned upon by most people.
That is to say, many people may not frown upon what is egotism,
egocentrism or egoism, but they frown upon what they call
"egotism", "egocentrism" or "egoism". The employment of any of
these terms presupposes that the distinction a person draws
between 'imself and others, or everything else, is not relevant.
When it is relevant, or rather believed to be relevant, in
regard of a goal believed to be legitimate, no-one will be
blamed for being an egoist. This shows but too clearly that
egoism is nothing else than one of the innumerable manifestations