Philosophy Now Forum

Mannie,

Not seein' how your christianity and self-possession are at odds.

Look at it this way: you belong to God, but He's entrusted you with yourself, so mebbe 'self-controlled' (which, in context, is the same as self-owned and -possessed [and free-willed]) fits better.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:08 pm Mannie,

Not seein' how your christianity and self-possession are at odds.

In a sense, they are. As the Bible says, "You are bought with a price; you are not your own..." When we believe God, we are obliged to give up our ideas of entire self-rule. We are going to have to change our attitudes and relocate our goals.

Yet in another sense, Henry, they aren't at odds at all.

Ironically, there is no slavery greater than being alone. You get to thinking that everything depends on you...and yet there are no rules, no directions, and not even a hint of how to proceed. You feel enslaved to uncertainty. And worse still, you have that inner self, that demanding little tyrant inside, who continually squalls for satisfaction, even though you have no idea in which direction that lies.

So to find that life has purpose, direction and compass points all along is tremendously freeing -- if nothing else, from that! And not only that: like a well-organized sport, you find that the rules enhance the game tremendously. You can start to define the direction of a win, you can judge the cleverness of your 'play,' and exalt in the exercise of your muscles in a purposeful direction. You feel more creativity, more opportunity, more satisfaction, and far more freedom than you ever knew when you thought there were no rules. You begin to see the beauty of the game, and watch the 'goals' tally up. You see others, and you admire their 'play' too, and come to appreciate what is being done through them...and you want to say to those on the sidelines, "Hey, this is great: come and play."

He who belongs to himself is a slave to a tyrant.

He who belongs to God knows what it means to say, "The one the Son shall make free shall be free indeed."

Christianity is at odds with self-ownership, at least some forms of it are. John Locke, a Christian, for example, advocated for inalienable rights. These so-called rights were inalienable, because even the person having them could not give them up and was stuck with them. This included the right to life, which is why Locke was against assisted suicide for the terminally ill. In the name of Christianity, let the dying suffer, was his belief. In any event, the concept of inalienable rights is inconsistent with self-ownership. If one believes a supernatural being owns them, then one cannot own oneself. If one believes a supernatural being owns everything, then one cannot even own ten bucks.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:31 pm John Locke, a Christian, for example, advocated for inalienable rights. These so-called rights were inalienable, because even the person having them could not give them up and was stuck with them.

True. He says that.

And if you read Locke's toleration essay, you find out that the chief "right" was freedom of conscience. The reason for this, said Locke, was that God would judge all things on what Locke called, "The Great Day," a generally-recognized synonym for "The Great Judgment." If God would judge, reasoned Locke, then it must be the case that man has been given an unalienable right to freedom of conscience -- to the point, Locke said, that anyone who tried to force someone act to against his conscience was "working against God," and in any case, this freedom was "impossible to part with," since God would hold each of us responsible for what we did anyway. (You couldn't excuse anything on grounds that somebody else made you do it, in other words.)

So Locke's big on free choice and free conscience. In fact, his is, to date, the ONLY logical rationale for a primary right of human freedom I have been able to locate (though if you find another, I'd love to see it).

But you're right he's not into suicide. After all, the life is not property of him who lives it, but of Him who gave it and takes account of that life.

Interestingly, a new case has just emerged with a young man killing himself for no other reason than that he felt emotional pain, and was egged on by a rather spiteful young woman who has been charged therewith. But why, if he had a right to kill himself? What has she done wrong, if it was his choice? She didn't make him; she just inspired him to do it verbally...so it's a tricky case.

Clearly, the socially-approved "right" to kill yourself isn't going to stop with those in terminal pain. The alleged "right to die" is turning out to be very dangerous for everyone.

Self was here before the sense of self arrived.

The sense of self is the erroneous belief that the organism is the ORIGINATOR and DOER of actions.

It is not.

Language created ''other'' (relative)
There is a material reality and a conceptual overlay that emerges in the naming of things.
The self is privy only to it's own mind map.
The mind of man blends these two worlds into a personal dream. For the self -There is nothing beyond the dream.

In other words.

You have nothing to do with yourself.

Yeah, okay, so christianity and self-ownership aren't compatible.

By the way, Mannie: did you ever track down that novel I suggested?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:59 pm Yeah, okay, so christianity and self-ownership aren't compatible.

Well, as I say...it depends on what you mean by "self-ownership." If we mean, "serving the tyrant self until one is completely miserable," then yes. But if it means being a happy human being who is liberated to have purpose and direction in life, and to have some way of knowing what it means to be the best possible self," then no.

By the way, Mannie: did you ever track down that novel I suggested?

To my everlasting shame, I have not. Remind me?

Porquoi?
¿Por qué?
Quare?
Kwa nini?
What's up, chum?

meh

I is ME which = identity...being so licensed when I was born...or put another way, subject = object...or object = subject (take your pick), it's all relative! or...based on the clearest fact of all, if I don't "own" me then who the hell does unless you paid for my existence by becoming your slave in which case I would feel existentially deprived making suicide an option since if I don't own me what right has anyone else.

I bet when I die, they'll take my organs whether I agreed to it or not. And since I can't legally end my life, or sell my organs or any number of things, I doubt I really own myself. Actually, the concept of ownership is ultimately a bad idea where humans are concerned, because the ownership can then be transferred. If no one can own a human, then transference is impossible.

Ugh. It's all a bloody mess, really. But better that ownership exists not at all, then the pretense that it does, because it's bullshit anyway.

deleted 470

I don't think we actually own anything, even though we can claim that we do.
There are so many fluctuating influences that affect and direct us, without our awareness.
There are so many things in play.
How can we own, if we lack awareness?
We can try to be responsible for ourselves.
We can be mindful and purposeful about what we choose and do.
But everything shifts and flows. Ownership implies that it doesn't.
Ownership is a fantasy about control and/or ego.

Soylent Green: yum!