TAME THE EGO
Through a similar error men are induced to fancy that their own ignorance is wisdom. Wherefore let every man avoid excess of self-love, and condescend to follow a better man than himself, not allowing any false shame to stand in the way.
Plato’s Laws Book V
According to Plato, love of ego is a source of countless evils. It blinds us so that we always act on behalf of our own perceived interests rather than in accord with what the situation actually calls for. Further, as egotists are mistaken as to their real self interest, even when their ambitions are achieved their lives continue to be marked by anxieties, unfulfilled desires and the absence of real and substantial happiness.
Plato notes that this excessive self love is so pervasive that even those of us who are not completely egocentric are mightily influenced by this pull, much to our own detriment. Simply consider how many times we have made mistakes that could have been easily avoided if only we had accepted advice given or sought advice readily available.
Why so often? Because blinded by desire, we determinedly rush forth not interested in getting informed input, especially keen to avoid any counsel that would pour cold water on our plans. Whether the desire is to buy a business, tell someone off, start a relationship or avoid going to the doctor, we want to do it our way. We do and suffer accordingly.
Practice
Plato concludes by providing a cure for this self-centered condition---finding and following the words and examples of the wise.
And a very specific example to follow would be that of Socrates when he said that ‘he was happy to be proven wrong because it removed ignorance from his soul.’
For this to happen, one must be open to the input of others and--when that input shows our original ideas to be wrong--be willing to drop these ideas, grateful that some of our ignorance has been ‘cured’.
Take this practice on and let us know what you discover.
Echoes
“Egotism is the source and summary of all faults and miseries.”
Thomas Carlyle
"The pests of society are the egotists, they are dull and bright, sacred and profane, course and fine. It is a disease that like the flu falls on all constitutions."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People say, "I want peace." If you remove I {ego}, and your want {desire}, you are left with peace."
Satya Sai Baba
"A man’s pride shall bring him low: but honor shall uphold the humble in spirit."
Proverbs (Chapter 29, Verse 23)
New Topic
rbosworth:
Plato Forum members,
We just put up a new topic--tame the ego. Check it out.
tame the ego
awakened00:
tame the ego = discipline the mind?
ego is my saviour, my protector.
i am naked without ego.
i'm scared shitless to be naked!
i have sought, and i have found, i am to weak to enter.
even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, i fear no evil, for you(ego) are with me.
tame the ego; to die, to sleep, perhaps to dream(the Bard)
Taming Ego
rbosworth:
Awakened,
Plato and Socrates would have considered disciplining the mind through the use ofreasonto be an appropriate means of 'taming', not eliminating, the ego.
Also, per the the fear of 'being naked', they might well say that these fears, common to so many of us, are simply a means by which the unuseful voices of the ego, keep us chained in bondage at the bottom of the cave; and why --in the Cave Allegory-- the prisoners are so reluctant to leave their accustomed bondage. And, from this perspective, why we stay in the 'valley of the shadow of death'.
Nevertheless, in the allegory, the escaped prisoner (with real efforts and real help) makes it out to the bright day of the 'real world'--this is the real awakening and, it is this awakening and the knowledge associated therewith, which is the highest knowledge one can attain; leading to peace, happiness, and effectiveness.
Where do these voices of the false prophtescome from, what is the source of these binding sounds within us that need taming? This we all have to discover for ourselves. As Socrates so famously said: , 'the unexamined life is not worth living"and"knowing thyself" was the most important business for any human being to pursue.
tame the ego
lectri:
Interesting.....This has been something that I've been dealing with since my early youth ; successfully from early on and throughout most of my life ( much altruism and empathy)..but given a partial "back seat" due to negative elements experienced along the way and have become more protective of myself in the "winter "of my life....
Taming the Ego
Seeker717:
taming the ego is a tricky one. It is vital for enjoying a peaceful way of life, yet it seems the ego can help quite a bit with survival. So it doesn't appear to me that we should ever really try to subvert it, but rather keep it in a healthy balance with the other aspects of our being and remember that some of the best teachers in history had an incredible sense of humility: Lao Tze, Jesus, Buddha . . .
Taming Ego
rbosworth:
As you note, humility, as exhibited by those mentioned is a wonderful virtue and found in so many of the great teachers. And, further, as the second principle etched above the Temple of Apollo at Delphi noted--'measure is all' (or in short, keep all in balance.), so the ego--as a natural part of the human being-- has its place.
Plato's concern was that over attachment to the ego results in not seeing reality clearly and in not acting truthfully out ofsome mistaken view of what will really benefit oneself. Thus, his warning was to be alert to the fact thatso often the ego usurps the role of true intelligence within us, leading to unfortunate consequences for all.
And, finally, per your 'user name' he and Socrates implored us all to be ongoing seekers, continually examing our lives. Good luck with your search!
Suggestion for Another Topic
tonypro:
Mr. Bosworth,
I noticed that there has not been much participation in the Plato Forum lately and I thought I might suggest another topic from the Plato Group on Monday night. I was intrigued by the discussion we had on the "Royal Lie" at the end of Book III of the Republic. Whileone can ponder the meaning of the "Lie" writ large in the state, I wonder how many have given thought to the notion of the "Lie" writ small within the individual. If the Republic is truly an analogy of Soul and City, there needs to be a corresponding link back to the individual soul in the meaning of the "Lie." Conceptually, this is a challenging thought. A lie told among the various aspects of the tripartite soul with the intention of getting desire to agree to be ruled byreason? Granted this is absurd. So what can we as readers of Plato gather from this rather surprizing suggestion from Socrates as it relates to the individual? What practical lesson can this provide to us in everyday life? I have given this some thought, but I would like to hear what others have to say about it.
Tony
The Royal Lie -- its practical meaning -- in a man's soul
rkraus:
Tony, you've raised a spectacular question. A ready and full response is not immediately forthcoming but let me promise that I'll reflect on it, look at what Plato has said, and see what can be penetrated together on this wonderful inquiry.
A quick thought came to me that the answer might be related to the principle that it 'takes a thorn to remove a thorn' -- further expounded in the most sublime way in the Preamble to the Brahma Sutra. But I'm suspicious that my tendency to delight in the intellect may be taking over and the pragmatism and intimate significance and meaning that your question demands requires a better response than that. (Also a wise man once told me -- when I asked him to relate the small voice reported by Socrates to the faculty called buddhi in the vedic tradition -- that it is dangerous to mix systems (e.g., to answer questions out of the Platonic system with language out of the Eastern or Vedic systems). So better to see what Plato has said and then examine it in its immediate, practical import within one's experience.
I'd love to see the community that participates in this website engage and respond to your question, but I'm also tempted to post it on another Plato forum run by the school in England and see what they also come up with -- and I wanted to check with you if you wouldn't mind that before I did so. They tend to be a heady lot (and I say that with love and respect) -- but who knows, they may rise to the level of the argument. Would that be alright with you?
More to follow -- the inquiry has been joined.
Yours truly,
Randolph
Not a problem at all
tonypro:
Randolph,
Thanks for the timely and enthusiastic response. I would not at all mind if you posted it on the London School Forum. I am very familiar with that forum and share your assessment of its content. It is interesting that you mention the idea of a "mix" of traditional thoughts. I have often internally debated the merits of something similar but reached the same conclusion. The fact is I have become so enfatuated with Plato and Platonic thought that I have regrettably let the Eastern lie dormant fora while. My only consolation is that Plato basically has it all; that is, if one has the courage to pursue it.
Tony
You say Potato and I say Potato
rkraus:
Tony,
I've lobbed the question over to that forum as well
http://schooleconomicscience.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=876#876
This should be fun.
Randolph
p.s. On your consolation that Plato has it all -- the same wise man referred to earlier, a man who chose his words very carefully and also founded these schools, said "Plato is always right." RK
...not a hog, but some great and wonderful sacrifice.
rkraus:
Tony, Russell, et al.,
Tim Addey of Dilton Marsh, Wiltshire, U.K. has posted a great response on the UK forum:
http://schooleconomicscience.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=885#885
Let me post it here for those without frequent flyer miles:
Is the ‘lie’ here a lie? Time and again we must take the passages of Plato within their context: the ‘royal lie’ is discussed at the conclusion of the third book, soon after Socrates has talked about the effects of myths (at the conclusion of the second and the opening of the third books). Here he has claimed that poetic myths are dangerous to the uneducated who may take them literally, but does, however, affirm that they are of value to the properly educated and initiated: “For though these things were true, yet I should not imagine they ought to be so plainly told to the unwise and young, but ought much rather to be concealed. But if there were a necessity to tell them, they should be heard in secrecy, by a few as possible; after they had sacrificed not a hog, but some great and wonderful sacrifice, and thus the fewest possible might chance to hear them.” The hog was the sacrifice made by those seeking admission to the first stage of the Eleusinian mysteries – those by definition who had not yet beheld the deepest aspects of truth: the “great and wonderful sacrifice”, I would suggest, is the dedication of one’s life the pursuit of Truth.
Plato uses myth throughout his writings – there is hardly a single dialogue which does not use myth, and more often than not at the moment when the resolution of the various problems explored by the dialogue are grasped. For Plato a myth is the best way to describe the truth when it has been inspected in its parts and must be made a living whole again – the point at which the reality which substands the appearance of anything is revealed.
Now all myths are lies, if they are taken superficially: they are absurd and cannot stand scientific scrutiny. To tell the population that their experience of growth and development from separate parents, and of particular labours to produce various goods, is just a dream and that in reality everyone has sprung from a single mother earth “fully armed” cannot be taken literally, nor would even the most credulous individual take it as such. But, of course, behind the material and efficient causes of the world and its parts stands the more universal causes – ideas and purposes – which are indeed held in common by all men and women, and which do supply the means by which we truly live. So the ‘royal lie’ is the truth expressed from the inside out, rather than out normal way of looking at things from the outside in.
Part of the ‘lie’ concerns the mixing of metal in the formation of humankind –some with gold, some with silver and some bronze – and this is a clear reference to the myth of Hesiod of the races of man (by the way, where does this leave Socrates apparent dismissal of Hesiod and Homer from his Republic?). Again the myth or lie has something very profound to say concerning our connection with reason (gold), anger or ‘the spirited part’ (silver) and desire (bronze) and where each leads us.
To bring this posting to the pragmatic response requested by Randolph, it would seem that since the whole population of the ideal republic are told this ‘lie’ we must somehow feed the whole self – reason, anger, desire – with thoughts and images of the inner causes of things, and that even the outermost aspects of the soul are to be drawn into a comprehension of the beautiful truths which underlie reality. Plato expects, therefore, the human being to be a whole and not in a dualistic state of conflict where body and its associated desire nature are at war with intellect and reason. It is, after all, the whole three-fold chariot – charioteer, and both horses – which pursue the Beautiful in the Phaedo, and the three classes in the Republic that make a healthy ideal state.
The state which is being described in the Republic is, as Randolph says, primarily that of the soul – and what is the ‘invasion’ of which Socrates speaks when he says that the citizens told this ‘lie’ will spring to the defence of the country more readily? In terms of soul it must be the intrusion into the self of such things as injustice, intemperance, folly and so on – all of which are resisted so much more easily if the self is at one with itself.
The drawing together of the inner and the outer is a noticeable effect when Platonic philosophy inspires societies: it should also be the mark of the true philosopher.
It still keeps coming to me that somehow the lie is also connected with 'the thorn to remove a thorn'. Being all born from the same mother earth -- the way reason gets a grip on the passions and appetites first as a matter of good behavior (the social compact theory of society) but ultimately it goes beyond ethics and good manners to its ultimate foundation in the unity of all things. Then it sustains itself without the need for a grand or royal lie -- because who would do oneself injury? But until it is known as a matter of direct experience, some of the temperance along the way is a Royal Lie. More to come.
Best regards,
Randolph
A Joy To Read
rbosworth:
Randoph,
Yes, this post from Tim has numerous excellent points. And, the essence is that the royal lie is only a lie in terms of the surface. Also, as he goes further, I am reminded once again of the ultimate defintion of just ice in the soul which comes up just a bit later in the Republic and which you posted somewhere in this forum, much eariler on.
Lies, Royal Lies, and Soap Operas.
Peter Blumsom:
Pete Blumsom
Continuing our hands across the sea venture I would like to congratulate you on such a fine looking forum. I'm from the London forum but for a few days I've been enjoying your 'going concern'.
'Nuff said; now to work. I really feel I must agree with Tim here. There are times when we must take Plato, the subtlest of philosophers, and Socrates, the master of irony, with just a little pinch of salt. Note that, just a few minutes before, Socrates has been extolling the virtues of his Guardians for having withstood testing against enchantments and witchcraft. One would hardly expect these doughty 'watchers of the state' to fall for what on the surface seems such a half-baked story. Socrates himself is 'sceptical' that they would believe it, even though others might be persuade by it. And Tim's point regarding Hesiod is well taken. It's interesting that the Hindus also treat their own equivalent of the four ages with the same sort of whimsy likening them to 'throws of the dice', the kaleyuga being the bum throw and the krita the winning hand. (According to them we, in our unfortunate times, are all sitting on one-legged chairs!)
By the way, neither is the similar myth in Statesman to be taken literally. This is even more outlandish. If you haven't read it, I won't spoil it for you by relating it here.
On a practical level, about lying in general, have you noticed in modern mythology, that is, such psychodramas as are constantly enacted in song lyrics and soaps, the guy is unfaithful to his wife, and immediate wants to achieve 'catharsis' by telling the poor woman all about it and ruining her life - thus committing two 'crimes' for the price of one. Like many other things in life we seem completely at sea about such things as lies, let alone Royal Lies. I hope I might get some feedback on this, because it's a real issue and something touches all our lives. For instance, I remember Gurdjieff remarking that one of the truest of emotions was genuine remorse. This seems to play very little part in soaps or songs. Once he/she have 'rained tears of sorrow' down upon their 'loved ones' they're off doing it again. This might even occasionally happen in real life. (For an example of genuine remorse in a pop song, listen to Eleanor Rigby - no self pity here.)
Pete
More from 'over the pond'.
Peter Blumsom:
Pete Blumsom
Thought you might like to know that there has been a bit more reaction to the present topic;
Kevin Burns writes;
I should think that this question exposes one of the central issues around Plato. Can anyone expound further on the words used by Plato for "lie" and "myth"?
Pete Blumsom wries;
Well asked, Kevin. I think this section does bear more investigation. The wonderful word at the centre of it all is 'pseudos'. 'Pseudo' is translated "I cheat by lying" (or perhaps "by seeming" would be more Platonic). It also can be "I beguile". Tim was right to link this back to Plato's statements about the fiction of literature where pseudos is again used. This is followed by 'peiso' (from 'peitho') meaning “to persuade”, which remember, in Socratic terms, is a tool of propaganda. I have no idea where the 'noble' or 'royal' bit comes in. The more modern Robin Waterfield translation simply says 'one of those lies' It possibly comes from 'gennaion' which means 'well bred'. I wonder if 'Royal' came in with Jowett. It would be interesting if Tim could let us know how Thomas Taylor translated it. He was one of the few before Jowett. Otherwise I might pop into Mandeville tomorrow where they have a Taylor translation. It seems to me that Plato is having philosophical fun. I wonder what's behind it all?
I think I've sucked as much juice out of this as I can manage, so now its over to you, Kev.
Pete
Tim Addey writes;
Taylor merely translates the line as ". . . those lies, which are made on occasion . . ." This is at 414b, but Socrates does then point back to earlier moment when the subject was discussed (at 389b) where he had said "it belongs then to the governors of the city, if to any others, to make a lie, with reference to enemies of citizens, for the good of the city . . ." So this may be the reason why Jowett feels free to add the word 'royal' to an otherwise unadorned phrase.
Well Done
rbosworth:
All from over the pond,
Thanks for the good insights in general, and the helpful look at the meanings and alternative translations of the original Greek.
'Royal Lie' Considerations---Perhaps Much Ado About Nothing
rbosworth:
Tony,
As Randolph noted, this is a great question. And, what follows is not an answer but the result of some reflectionon the topic.
The first point to make would be a cop out of sorts.There are certainly aspects of the Republic where Plato is speaking about society that would seem to have no parallels in the individual soul--the size of the State, rules governing marriage and children.It may be safe to say that there is not a one to one correspondence in all that he has to say about society with what he intends to point to in the soul.
However, given that we are dealing with Plato and at the outset he does say the whole creation of Republic is to illuminate the nature of justice within the soul; one needs tread cautiously here--just because we may not see the corresponding relationship between an aspect of the state and an aspect of the soul, does not mean that Plato did not. What is writ large for him, may be in very small print for us.
So what might be relevant here (and per earlier posts between you and Randolph, I will try to rely only on Plato and my own experience here)? This is what arises:
1) Firstly, the 'royal lie' is a lie in terms of facts within the creation (the guardians were born from wombs not formed in 'mother earth') yet points to an utlimate truth--the ultimate unity of all 'we are all from the same stock";--an ultimate truth so often missed thatsome form of wake up call is required. Here it is royal lie and in cave allegory some unidentified 'liberator' unleashes prisoner and brings him out of cave.
2) This doescorrespond to the individual condition--generally we think of ourselves as separate beings living in a 'world of our own' and suffer accordingly. We too need a wake up call.
3)My life experience has shownthat the wake up calls come from various influences. One type is outside influences--discovering the School, reading a good book, a deep connection with nature; something truthful said by someone close to you that really hits home, etc. And then,of course ,there is the inner work. Tto use Plato's terms, the internal dialectic that allows for increase in understanding both of what is true and what is not true andin the light of these revelations to move more towards the truth andgain the strength to more frequently let the untruth pass away.Note that Socrates himselfsays in Republicthat the ultimate use of dialectic is to come to appreciate the unityand along the way he certainly makes clear that this process is a means of identifying what cannot be true, leaving it behind, and moving towards what is true. Again, that the unity is the ultimate truth for Plato is further indicated by the discussion of theGood as presented in divided line andCave Allegory andultimate description of Beauty by Diotima inSymposium.
4)However, this still begs the question of, where within oneself, would the royal lie arise. Actually, perhaps a small point, but it is the founders of the state--Socrates and Glaucon and Adeimantus who are telling the lie to the Guardians; so literally, presuming the guardians to represent reason, they are being deceived by the Creator. However, following this line of thought is a bit too muchfor thismind to delve into at the moment, so I will presume Socrates, G and A to be the 'first generation of Guardians' so that reason is in fact creating the royal lie.
5) So what sort of liewould reason createto deceive both itself (it is the guardians being deceived) as well as the other parts of the soul (spirit and appetite) that would beliterallyuntrue, but in fact lead towardsa greater appreciation of the truth ofthe ultimate unity? Can reason deceive itself? Not really, because Socrates is identifying this as a lie, heand the brothersare not deceived.I reallydon't know. But to end this for now, twopoints come to mind, in facttwo practices that have been received at different points in my School career:
By definition these practices are asking the individual to become something he/she is certain they are not (how can I do that!) and to give things they do not have (how can I do that!). The practices themselves seem to be audacious fictions from the outset.
Yet, these paracticescan be transformative because beneath the apparent fiction/paradox is thetruth that our true nature is far greater than we believe. In fact, if we take on and buy into theapparent fictions that these practices represent, our limited view does expand and not necessarily in incremetnal steps.In truth, we need not stay bound at the bottom of the cave. Ournatural birthright is to experience the freedom and grandeur of our true nature in the bright light above, a light in fact that is not different than that light within each of us.
...or maybe a jump start
tonypro:
Russel,
Thanks so much for your insight. In fact much of what you alluded to I have been considering myself in both my thoughts and writings. I have begun to construct an essay -- just for clarification of the point in my own mind, I never do anything with these essays -- on the Royal Lie and its implications for the individual soul. I reached a similar conclusion though couched it in different terms than you have so eloquently done.
For me, the Royal Lie is equivalent to an awakening within us. That something, whether developed through thought over time or in some cataclysmic event, which pushes usto ask the question and begin the pursuit of the answer. In many ways, the Lie presented by Socrates is an admission that the society needs a jump-start on the road toward a truly just state. How so much like us that need that extra push to begin, and then to continue, to practice what we uncover. I have often thought of Plato's Royal Lie as an introductionto the concept of religion in society, and some published scholars have had similar comments on this. I am not sure if I would go quite that far, but it does have a distinct similarity to what has been descibed as "religious experience."
I too am not sure where this initial motivation emanates from; perhaps it isfrom the creation itself (mother earth?). Perhaps it is just an inbred curiosity which never gets satisfied. Either way, it's there and cannot be denied. Certainly knowledge does play a role here too. For it is within the faculty of reason that the "lie" takes hold and drives the intellectual pursuit of knowledge and truth. If the motivation is strong enough it powers one through the tough challenges posed by the world of desires which is all to eager to pull us back. Having people like yourself and the School as guides and real-world examples of the benefits helps immeasurably.
I do realize and agree that not everything in Plato's description of the state has a direct link back to the individual soul; certainly some of thngs you mention point that out.It is no wonder that so many academic discussions seem to forget the City-Soul analogy completely and see the Republic as primarily if not exclusively a treatise on politics. But I had already developed some deep thoughts about the Royal Lie and its connection back to the soul before I presented the question. I have so often asked myself what has motivated me to pursue this direction that it struck a special chord within me when we discussed it Monday night. I have read the Republic several times and was never struck by this particular section as I was this time around. I guess that's one of the most amazing things about Plato, you can read and re-read his works and always find something completely new and fresh to consider.
Thanks for taking the time to respond and I look forward to other pursuits and the results of the dialog started on the London School Forum.
Tony
taming the ego ,food for thought
lectri:
It is sad that Jesus, that poor man, who tried everything to help and enlighten others, allowed his "humility to shine forth" and was tortured and killed at the hands of his own people...was this wise?.... did he "tame his ego" too much???....
He claims it was his destiny... perhaps..but was this enough justification for allowing himself to be crucified??
I'm sure the slow death of extended pain and suffering he was subjected to was not something he bargained for regardless of what the scriptures say...
Point of View
rbosworth:
Lectri,
The ego that Plato suggests needs taming, as I understand it, is an instrument of mind, that when 'untamed' leads not to strength but to weakness. Thus, from his viewpoint neither the death of Socrates nor of Jesus came from any weakess at all. Rather, with egos appropriately tamed, both these menhad the strength to face the situation in waysthey believednecessary for fidelity to truth and the welfare of all. By his own words, Jesus was following 'the Will his Father' and that was a path he consciously chose to follow and did so willingly; as the New Testament shows.
Also, an interesting point is made by A.E. Taylor who is my favorite commentator on the works of Plato. In his commentary on the Apology, Plato's dialogue about Socrates' defense at his trial, he says this (whilehe is referring to Socrates, I believe it applies to Jesus as well):
It is a picture of the life of "tendance of the soul' adopted with full consciousness and led at all costs to its appropriate and glorious end. What is depicted is the life of a'martyr' of the best type as seen from within by the martyr himself; the object of the picture is to make us undersatnd why the martyr chooses such a life and why this completion of his career by death is a corona and not a 'disaster'. In our more commonplace moods we are accustomed to think of martyrdom as a highly disagreeable duty; perhaps not to be shirked, but we feel that, to be made tolerable to our imagnation, it must be 'made up' to the martyr by an 'exaltation' to follow it. Plato means us rather to feel that the martyrdom itself is the 'exaltation'.
At any rate, good points for consideration. And perhaps, for all of us, it is not just the experiences of'martyrs' that we misinterpret. It may be that we are all prone toarrogantly presume to know much more about others motivations than we actually do. Food for thought perhaps?
two way street??
lectri:
Yes, Rbosworth ..I grasp your meaning ...but who really knows what a martyr or Jesus is thinking in the suffering and throes of death??
We would like to believe that they were strong and of "hero" character..whether this is so no one really knows..do you not shun pain when pricked by a needle or place your hand too near a flame??
By Their Deeds You Shall Know Them
rbosworth:
Absolutely true, that we can not know really what anyone is thinking; that would be presumpuous. And, I do indeed shun pain when hand nears a flame, etc. And yet, the number of cases when individuals embrace pain which comes there way, when they are in pursuit of some higher cause is endless. And, both you and I might do the same in situations where the needs of the moment called for 'courageous' action.
However, in case of both Socrates and Jesus we have record of how they lived their lives; and, importantly, how they confronted death; Jesus asking forgiveness for his killers, and Socrates preaching to the very end and serenely taking the hemlock (read end of Phaedo for the details).
And, one may consider, that by taming the ego and its false concerns and ideas (for example, the idea that 'I am this body' vs. the Platonic Academy's first principle that 'a human being is a soul using a body as an instrument'); the door is open for reason to inform not only the intellect, but to lead to a way of life that shines down through history as an inspiration to so many. Certainly, this is the case with Socrates and Jesus.
I see what you are saying, but...........
lectri:
...I agree that in the heat of the moment of the "courageous act" ......let's take for example stepping in front of a car and getting hit to save a child, the adrenalin is released with other "fight or flight" chemicals(endorphins) in essence making one numb to pain..at least until the crisis is over........I can deal with that..but to be intentionally tortured over a lengthy period of time???
It might have been wise for Jesus, as soon as he saw "the writing on the wall"as he did see it coming, to simply leave and start fresh in another community ....sort of "live to fight another day"(or is it "fight to live another day"?)..and simply go on to spreading the teachings to hopefully a better group of people of less hideous capabilities....
John
Freedom
Rogue_Scholar:
"Freedom means choosing your burden." -Hephzibah Menuhin
Sacrificing one's life for someone elses or agreater good, to me, is the ultimate conquest of the ego.
Freedom
Herman_kzn:
"Sacrificing one's life for someone elses or greater good, to me, is theultimate conquest of the ego"
True ... iti
Thank you
Ego, self, alter ego, collective
Paul Lowe:
Plato is both right and wrong...since knowing self, is to know all that self is significanct too...if all follow those who inspire, no one will lead and all will follow...therefore in knowing the inner self, you become aware of your outer self and alter egos challenging the self for change...the self akin to a star cluster, where the inner self is purity...simpicity...giving and recieving the need to be loved and the outer egos are the defence mechanism with which we protect the inner self...knowing all parts of self is symptomatic of knowing all selves and all selves are collective potential, to defend self you must defend the collective self...all selves are significant to self...one and the same energy...love harmony, where change manifest the conditions that stimulate growth...not just humans but beings of unknown capacity from within to without, balance war and peace into thesymetryof time, space and the love of just being...