Id versus Ego

What distinguishes the truths of logic and emotion? A few months ago, I realized that logic and emotion are two types of truths that are irreconcilable. Because I did not know why they were so much at odds, I took into account the possibility of other types of truth existing. While this might still be the case, I’ve concluded that the vast majority of truth falls under these two. In either case, I have gotten my answer, and it begins with Sigmund Freud’s Id and Ego.

Id >> emotion; is the source of “faith”, “passion, “fear”, “happiness”, etc.

Ego >> logic; is the source of “reasoning”, “habits”, “planning”, etc.

What is key here is the connection to happiness: Hapiness is an emotion- thus, if one tries to validate or measure it, it will immediately be corrupted, because such actions would fall under reasoning. Happiness, after all, cannot be reasoned- it is in fact unreasonable, and thus illogical. (I have wondered about the difference between logic and reasoning, and I do not actually know [haven't researched it yet], but since logic is a much older concept, I’m assuming that logic is the parent of reasoning. Thus, all reasoning is logic, but not all logic is reasoning. Compare to bug-insect relationship). Thus, the Ego is corrupting the Id, by treading this forbidden ground.

As I said in my Forgotten post, there is a Bible verse, attributed to Jesus- Matthew 6:3 “But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” I’ve thought of a good variation of this verse that makes for a good summary of the above: “do not let your Ego know what your Id is doing.”

Question: would pride fall under “Ego” or “Id” ? My first “instinct” (lol you’ll get the pun as you read on) is that pride is Id, because- at least apparently, pride is not logical. Well, I’m pretty confident with that answer, so I’ll go with that. so, FTR: “pride is Id, because pride is not logical.”

After coming to these conclusions (independently of pre-existing thought) It dawned on me that a very famous man (who lived a long time ago) would agree with me- Aristotle. To quote from my philosophy book, “Discursive reasoning is the basis of the natural sciences but also provides a way of understanding ourselves and our everyday lives. But Aristotle believed that there is an entirely different kind of thinking that is at times necessary, namely, intuition. Intuition is an immediate, direct seeing of a certain truth. God’s existence and nature can be roughly intimated as the cause of the natural world. But a deeper, more compelling comprehension of god requires intuition”

Right now I realized another important facet- explaining the relationship between Ego and logic, and between Id and intuition: Ego and Id are (obviously not knowledge themselves.

Ego is the source of logically-derived knowledge

Id is the source of intuitively-derived knowledge.

Thus, intuition is using instinct to derive knowledge, and the knowledge acquired using this method falls under intuition. This also explains Aristotle’s reasoning regarding the three souls. Aristotle believed that humans have three souls: the vegetative (plant) soul, the animal soul, and the nous, or rational soul. I was confused by this, because it would imply that intuition does not derive from instinct, since animals also have instincts but lack intuition (not being rational). Intuition, as Aristotle saw it, was necessary to experience God (as explained in the quote above). But Aristotle contended only the rational soul can experience God. While at first these premises appear to contradict, I now understand:

The third soul refers to knowledge, and derivation thereof. While the animal has instincts, they cannot derive knowledge from those instincts, lacking a third soul and thus intuition. This definitely accords with the Id, which being pure desire, knows that it “wants“, and “wants now“, but does not know what it wants. This also recognizes the relationship between instinct and Id- which again, is “all Id is instinct”, but not all instinct is Id”. Animals, after all, could not survive if they were pure Id. When intuition (knowledge derived from Id, which in turn is derived from instinct) is applied, the Id gains access to the transcendental aspects of the nous. But the Ego, being derived directly from the nous, has a more intimate connection with trancendental aspects.

Perhaps this offers insight into why emotions and intuition are unstable, inconsistent, and even contradictory. While logic and reasoning can sometimes be so also, to a far less extent. Also important is that intuition, despite having a less direct connection to the nous, is essential to have a mystical experience (experiencing God). I think the reason for this is that intuition effectively unifies the two otherwise different souls, allowing us the nexus necessary for such an experience.

Question: Why is happiness corrupted but emotions, such as fear, are forgotten? This question is due to a misconception. Happiness is corrupted because it is challenged, as Ego attempts to measure it and validate it through reasoning. When I “forgot” fear by deeming it as illogical, it was not challenged, but ignored. A good analogy of this is the results of different psychological approaches when dealing with people. If a person were to try to tell me how “happy” was was, I’d likely be angry, defensive, and have all sorts of mixed feelings. If someone told me I was happy, even then I would have mixed feelings, both positive and negative. But, if I were to ask that same person a question, they “pretended I didn’t exist” (regardless of what their “reason” was), eventually it would be as if I didn’t, because I would find that my efforts in asserting my existence were a waste of time and effort. The same applies to the interaction between the Id and Ego.