Someone wrote:
“The man who has no inner life is a slave to his surroundings.” ~Henri Frédéric Amiel
Then it follows that the man who has no outer life is a slave to himself. Is slavery to everything outside of an imaginary boundary less preferable to slavery within that same boundary?
I responded:
Yes.
It is more preferable to be a slave to yourself, the inner life that constitutes the imagination and passion and reason, then to be a slave to your surroundings, which is characterized by foreign expectations and demands.
*****
I thought about this for awhile. I need to think about this for a while longer. Not sure if I fully agree with my response. I don’t like the inferences the question makes on the quote.
I should have mentioned that this boundary isn’t imaginary, but very real. Among other things.
William Dare 
I don’t know that I agree either.
Merriam-Webster has the following definitions for slave:
“1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another”
All definitions seem to require a separateness between the “slave” and the domineering force. Can one truly be separate from oneself? If, like me, you think the answer is no, then it would be impossible for a man to be a slave to himself.
Thats what I meant by not liking the inferences the question made.
I thought about that, but wasn’t able to fully convince myself that that was the case.
Consider this: Many people are slaves to themselves. You can be a slave to your habits, be it habits of thought or feeling. Some people compulsorily
dwell on certain thoughts or feelings. These thoughts and feelings can be coercive forces in ones life, coercively overriding what a person really desires or wants or intuitively knows to be correct.
Many philosophers believe that we have our higher faculties and lower faculties. The higher contain cognitions and reason, the lower instincts and inclinations. They believe moral living is using reason to tame the lower ‘animal’ instincts. Hume said that the “Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions”. I mean, I suppose that we are a slave to the passions whether or not we use reason, since they are so compulsory. If one did not use reason to tame to instincts and feelings, wouldn’t we be a slave to ourselves, unable to react accordingly to the world around us? Is that constitute insanity, or neurosis? perhaps this leads to psychosis?
Do people faced with mental illness think they can seek escape outside themselves? Are they not a slave to themselves? to their dysfunctional or fantastical thoughts or feelings?
And what of the deranged? If someone is mentally ill, and wishes his mind to produce different thoughts and feelings, is he not a slave to himself?
Let me know if this makes sense/ you find flaws in this thinking.
I suppose it all depends on what we consider the “self” to be. Are we the same as our thoughts, our feelings, our habits, our (in some cases) chemical imbalances, or are these things separate from who we truly are at our most fundamental levels? Many people believe in a soul, a higher self, etc. that is separate from many of the “dysfunctions” (for lack of a better term) that we develop and adhere to throughout our lives. That’s getting into rather spiritual ground so I guess it’s up to the individual to decide what they think about that. 🙂
Descartes said: “I think, therefore I am.”
If you didn’t think, would you be?