Sort:  

I think you mean, "according to my ego", they are not the problem. And I beg to differ. Egotism and egoism are one and the same. Egocentrism on the other hand is just part of the ego. Without including all aspects of ones ego you cannot begin to understand said ego. For example, when someone believes they know a person only to be shocked by something they do next. That demonstrates that although you may know just as much about that person as they know about themselves, you will never know the depth of the experiences they've perceived. It's same with those who experience egocentric bias and exclude parts of their experiences in order to satisfy the egotism.

I disagree completely with your definitions. But yes, that is according to my ego; The only distinct "me" there is.

I just wanted to say that there are many different theories of what egoism is and how it should or should not be applied. I'm likely to write about it in the future, but right now is not the time to discuss it.

I respect your difference in opinion and the fact you're willing to admit such.

I barely touched on egoism in this article, if anything I could've written it better. My goal here was to try tackle the complexity of egotism at its core, rather than disassembling it with theology, instead representing more of a personal view.

Peace.