No one can serve two masters

[ppp]

Ultimately no. If you serve no one but yourself, you are still serving a master who happens to be yourself.

Thinking only in terms of relationships to master is odd.

 

[lukethethird]

But you were when you said, "You are only serving yourself if you serve God because it is ultimately you that decides what God is or isn't." It should have made sense to you based on what you just said.

I'll ask you this though, do you believe you have a higher self and a lower self?

No, I don't believe I have a higher self and a lower self.

 

[shunyadragon]

View attachment 80544​

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [money, possessions, fame, status, or whatever is valued more than the Lord]

Is it possible to serve no master?

Two questions: (1) If God, which God or Gods? (2) If there are no Gods, what do you do?

One way or another Mammon is at the back door.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Only if you learn to master yourself.

But there is an old Platonic problem with the concept of "mastering oneself" that is presented in the Republic.

If you "master" yourself. You are also a "slave" to yourself. It is said that a person who can't stop eating sweets is a "slave to themselves."

But those who advocate "mastery over themselves" clearly mean something different. What do they mean?

Plato's answer: People have a rational, an emotional, and a desirous (appetitive) aspect to their characters. When we say one has "mastered himself" what we really mean is that the logical part of his mind is in control of the emotional and appetitive parts of his mind.

What's your take on that? Do you think self-mastery amounts to something different?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

But there is an old Platonic problem with the concept of "mastering oneself" that is presented in the Republic.

If you "master" yourself. You are also a "slave" to yourself. It is said that a person who can't stop eating sweets is a "slave to themselves."

But those who advocate "mastery over themselves" clearly mean something different. What do they mean?

Plato's answer: People have a rational, an emotional, and a desirous (appetitive) aspect to their characters. When we say one has "mastered himself" what we really mean is that the logical part of his mind is in control of the emotional and appetitive parts of his mind.

What's your take on that? Do you think self-mastery amounts to something different?

From an existentialist perspective, I'd say that mastering one's self involves confronting the absurdity of life, and kind of going through the shadows and the void, and coming out the other side. One key point is that you actually have to recognize the mortality, the darkness, the anxiety, to actually master yourself. Failing to realize it, I suspect you'd just be prone to repeat the cycle.

 

[vulcanlogician]

From an existentialist perspective, I'd say that mastering one's self involves confronting the absurdity of life, and kind of going through the shadows and the void, and coming out the other side. One key point is that you actually have to recognize the mortality, the darkness, the anxiety, to actually master yourself. Failing to realize it, I suspect you'd just be prone to repeat the cycle.

Hey Camus. Didn't recognize you. Would you mind passing me a cigarette?

But assuming for a minute life isn't complete absurdity. Supposing that part of it was rational and predictable... (using your faculty of imagination)... what would your response be to Plato's conundrum?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Hey Camus. Didn't recognize you. Would you mind passing me a cigarette?

But assuming for a minute life isn't complete absurdity. Supposing that part of it was rational and predictable... (using your faculty of imagination)... what would your response be to Plato's conundrum?

I'm talking more from an existentialism perspective where we are born without meaning, but make meaning through our consciousness. I see it as kind of like being born a blank canvas, but painting meaning.

So yeah, some people think that the best way to master one’s self is to use logic over emotion and carnal desires. They believe that logic is superior to passion, and that by suppressing or ignoring their feelings and impulses, they can achieve self-control and rationality. However, I disagree with this view. I think that logic alone is not enough to master one’s self, and that emotion and appetite are essential parts of human nature. By denying or rejecting them, one is not mastering one’s self, but rather alienating or fragmenting one’s self.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That might make some sort of sense to you but I don't think in terms of God.

Obviously you do. Like so many atheists, you talk about God far more frequently than many religious folk do.

 

[lukethethird]

Obviously you do. Like so many atheists, you talk about God far more frequently than many religious folk do.

I don't talk about God, ever, but I do talk about the nonsense that believers believe, I mean, how can I not notice?

 

[vulcanlogician]

I'm talking more from an existentialism perspective where we are born without meaning, but make meaning through our consciousness.

I get that. I'm just asking you to put on your thinking cap and solve Plato's conundrum.

Think of it like a thought experiment. Not some doctrinal effort that is asking you to surrender your absurdism for a rational view of the world.

So, then, how would you solve Plato's puzzle about self-mastery?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Obviously you do. Like so many atheists, you talk about God far more frequently than many religious folk do.

And what's so wrong with that?

 

[Windwalker]

No, I don't believe I have a higher self and a lower self.

Perhaps one day you will become aware of this.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Hey Camus. Didn't recognize you. Would you mind passing me a cigarette?

But assuming for a minute life isn't complete absurdity. Supposing that part of it was rational and predictable... (using your faculty of imagination)... what would your response be to Plato's conundrum?

(Post continued)...

I actually think Taoists had some better ideas than Plato when it comes to self-mastery, too. Plato's idea was more rational and idealistic, while less practical and naturalistic. Many belief systems have beliefs regarding self-mastery, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and I'd even dare say Christianity (achieving self-mastery of sorts and perfection through following the teachings of Christ).

I think that self-mastery doesn't have to be a narrow concept, either.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I get that. I'm just asking you to put on your thinking cap and solve Plato's conundrum.

Think of it like a thought experiment. Not some doctrinal effort that is asking you to surrender your absurdism for a rational view of the world.

So, then, how would you solve Plato's puzzle about self-mastery?

It has admittedly been awhile since I studied Plato, so what's the challenge? I hope it's not just finding a better view than his as I feel that's pretty easy (though there may be some debate of what's considered better).

 

[vulcanlogician]

I actually think Taoists had some better ideas than Plato when it comes to self-mastery, too. Plato's idea was more rational and idealistic, while less practical and naturalistic. Many belief systems have beliefs regarding self-mastery, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and I'd even dare say Christianity (achieving self-mastery of sorts and perfection through following the teachings of Christ).

Nice. I agree with much of that.

I think that self-mastery doesn't have to be a narrow concept, either.

True, but it can't be to broad either, can it. Otherwise we mean nothing when we use the term "self-mastery."

 

[vulcanlogician]

It has admittedly been awhile since I studied Plato, so what's the challenge? I hope it's not just finding a better view than his as I feel that's pretty easy (though there may be some debate of what's considered better).

I'm not trying to take cheap shots at you or others who disagree with me.

I disagree with Plato plenty. But I think that every once in a while, he asked some pretty damn good questions. I was simply wondering what your answer was to one of those questions.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

True, but it can't be to broad either, can it. Otherwise we mean nothing when we use the term "self-mastery."

I think I can come to grips with that and accept that we can't make the term too broad.

 

[sun rise]

How bout serve god and appreciate your possessions?

That sounds like the "middle way" which is fine if your possessions don't "own" you. There are people who are "owned" and go to pieces of a possession disappears.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm not trying to take cheap shots at you or others who disagree with me.

I disagree with Plato plenty. But I think that every once in a while, he asked some pretty damn good questions. I was simply wondering what your answer was to one of those questions.

I understand that. And I'm not trying to be rude or overly challenging, I just feel that I may need a source where he mentions the quote, before I can provide a full answer. I need a memory jot, or something to wrap my mind around. I don't want to create a Straw Man. I do have a book on Philosophy which covers Plato, but it's in the basement.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I understand that. And I'm not trying to be rude or overly challenging, I just feel that I may need a source where he mentions the quote, before I can provide a full answer. I need a memory jot, or something to wrap my mind around. I don't want to create a Straw Man. I do have a book on Philosophy which covers Plato, but it's in the basement.

Give me some time I will quote the source.