Inner Conflict

[jackydragon]

Often inner conflict can come about when "what is naturally arising" is suppressed, unheeded, ignored, stifled etc. The mind is wholly responsible for this suppression etc as it may "think" that this is not the right thing to do or say because of its programming. We then develop filters of perception.

So the battle begins between the mind and what is naturally arising because of what "is" right and what one "thinks" is right. The "mind" thinks. What "naturally arises" does not, because it is indiscriminate. It makes no distinctions of this or that and is naturally beneficial if the bigger picture were to be revealed.

When the mind works with what naturally arises there is a natural synchronicity that occurs. The mind is not lord over thee, nor is what naturally arises. The peace within then arises because each is given the leeway to do what it does without interference from the other. (But they are not really separate)

This same leeway would manifest if enough of us found that inner peace within. Individuals would no longer interfere with another's choices. Countries will not either. Peace might then prevail. What do you think?

 

[Taylor V. Smith]

I suppose my question is this: does mankind have appetites that should be suppressed by reason? What if man feels a desire to acquire, dominate, or harm?

Socrates believed that the soul was divided into three parts: the appetitive, the spirited, and the rational. The appetitive part causes man to desire food, safety, sex, and all other innate urges. The spirited part allows man to be courageous, honorable, nationalistic, and other martial qualities. Lastly, the rational part allows man to experience happiness by teaching him justice and virtue.

Ultimately, Socrates argued that the rational part of the soul should govern the other parts, because the rational or contemplative life was the life best lived or the happiest life. What do you think?

 

[Sandra Piddock]

I have to agree with that, Janus. Rationality is reasoned choice, whereas appetites and spirits are driven by urges and desires which are predicated on the 'now,' in other words instant gratification. This is a 'quick fix,' which is not necessarily the best choice. When something is thought out and reasoned, it usually yields the best option.

 

[jackydragon]

I suppose my question is this: does mankind have appetites that should be suppressed by reason? What if man feels a desire to acquire, dominate, or harm?

Socrates believed that the soul was divided into three parts: the appetitive, the spirited, and the rational. The appetitive part causes man to desire food, safety, sex, and all other innate urges. The spirited part allows man to be courageous, honorable, nationalistic, and other martial qualities. Lastly, the rational part allows man to experience happiness by teaching him justice and virtue.

Ultimately, Socrates argued that the rational part of the soul should govern the other parts, because the rational or contemplative life was the life best lived or the happiest life. What do you think?

Perhaps not suppressed but explored. The appetites of man are usually learned to a greater or lesser degree and not naturally arising. Meaning they are tainted by illogical reasoning and or experiences. Historically man did not do anything in excess unless the situation demanded it. They never took more than they needed when it came to food and never over ate. Sex was not just for pleasure but to procreate too. The urges to dominate and harm are related to the illogical reasoning I referred to earlier. It is not naturally arising to dominate or harm unless we are tainted in some way.

The three parts of man that Socrates believed in, seem to be pointing to the physical the mental and the spiritual aspects of man. When all are in sync we are better for it. If one or the other is allowed to dominate it would be like driving a car in first gear.