A conversation

Someone:
Regarding your quote: "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?

Me:
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.

Someone:
Would you not say that much of the "inner life" is the result of the external? After all, the way we think and much of what we think (and much of what we think about what we think) are products of the external world. And would you not say that a foreign expectation might be more preferable than a seemingly native expectation?

I’m obviously not arguing that we should blindly submit to our surroundings at the expense of ourselves, but sometimes my own advice has been terrible and I would have done better to be a "slave" to an external source rather than myself in some situations. of course, sometimes the situation is reversed, and sometimes it’s neither here nor there–but the point is that an expectation/demand is what it is regardless of whether it came from "outside" or "inside" (and I am not convinced that there is indeed such a separation in reality).

Me:
You are correct in saying that the inner life is a result or product of the external life. The question is, which external life, or whose external life? I strongly disagree that "a foreign expectation might be more preferable than a seemingly native expectation". When you say foreign expectation, you are referring to the expectations created by others. Objective reality does not expect, it simply demands.

The inner life is characterized by reflection and action. When we confront those demands ourselves, we exercise our freedom as humans and develop a critical consciousness that allows us garner knowledge to better solve dilemmas.

An external life is characterized by passive acceptance of other’s pre-cognized pre-objectified knowledge. If reality is not static, then neither is knowledge. To treat knowledge as absolute, static, and lifeless is to remain oppressed, a slave.

Again, by being a slave to the outer life, we passively accept the external demands of others. This passivity submerges our critical consciousness so that we are no longer adequately equipped for confronting reality and garnering knowledge independently. Instead we become oppressed, or slaves, to the will or expectations of others.

These ‘native expectations’ you refer to are simply a product of our limited real consciousness. By exercising reflection and action, we raise our critical consciousness which develops a potential consciousness that allows us to see beyond relative limitations.

However, I do not believe that objective knowledge can every truly be known. Likewise, I do not believe one person can ever have a more perfect understanding. Every humans individual confrontation with reality using a critical consciousness contributes to a greater understanding, a more holistic perception, of reality.

Knowledge is a generative theme, a product of our culture and history and limited experience. The most effective method for attaining knowledge is when we use our critical consciousness to explore reality alongside our fellow man and synthesize our understandings through dialogue. For this to happen a common dilemma must be realized.

In conclusion, I still believe that it is better to have an internal life characterized by a critical consciousness then to be a slave to the external life characterized by foreign expectations and demands prescribed by others.