BOOK ONE – MONADOPHILIC TOPICS
CHAPTER ONE – FIRST FREEDOM
SECOND TOPIC – KNOW THYSELF
Hello, welcome back. Can anyone of you read to me the title of the next topic that we are going to study?
Gabriel (The Scholastic/Neo-Thomist): Yes, I can. The next topic we are going to study is: “Know thyself.” (gnôthi seautón / γνῶθι σεαυτόν)
Very good. First Freedom requires that whoever philosophizes has no inner impediments. As we saw just now, when I answered your last questions, the love for truth and wisdom must come from within and modify our lives. This interiority cannot have ruptures or internal conflicts. What does this mean? That we must know ourselves fully? This is impossible. We cannot fully know ourselves, because our powers are indefinitely achievable. That’s not what this is about. It’s about not lying to yourself, especially about two things: that you don’t know what you know, or that you know what you don’t know, and that you don’t want what you want, and that you want what you don’t want. Anyone who does not have inner peace, in this minimum knowledge of themselves, will not be able to reach the high degrees of subtlety that Philosophy demands. Any pendency in the inner life, in the form of a falsehood or lie, creates a point of obscurity that will prevent clarity of consciousness in understanding complex and profound things. The First Freedom, therefore, requires this minimum knowledge of oneself, this honesty with oneself, being free from one’s own lies, illusions, falsehoods, etc. It is a necessary moral duty to move forward on the philosophical journey. Ok, now you can ask your questions about this topic. Remember: in order, one at a time.
Nathan (The German Mystical Idealist): I have a question. You say that we must be free from self-deception in order to engage in true philosophy. But isn’t complete self-honesty an impossible ideal? Human beings are full of subconscious biases, desires they don’t understand, and hidden motivations. Even the greatest philosophers have been blind to certain truths about themselves. How can we ever be sure that we are not deceiving ourselves?
Sureness is not a human property, it can only be divine. We must get away from those gnostic vices. All you can do is your best, and that is enough. No one is asked to go beyond what is possible, or even reasonable. The thing is to challenge yourself with the support of the belief that getting closer to the truth makes you more free, so you have nothing to fear from learning more about yourself, specially regarding your own lies. Do you understand Nathan?
Nathan (The German Mystical Idealist): Yes, I understand. You’re saying that absolute certainty is beyond human reach and that we should avoid the arrogance of thinking we can achieve it. Instead, the focus should be on doing our best and being open to learning more about ourselves, trusting that truth brings greater freedom. I see how this mindset removes fear from self-examination. That makes sense. Thank you.
Andrew (The Atheist Existentialist): I have a question. You mentioned that one of the key dangers is lying to yourself about what you truly want. But aren’t human desires constantly changing? What I want today may not be what I want tomorrow. How do we distinguish between a genuine, lasting desire and a passing impulse?
True will have nothing to do with time lenght. Duration doesn’t matter. Just aknowledge what is true however that is more or less permanent in your life. This second topic on the First Freedom is a discipline to us so we can be more honest with ourselves. It doesn’t involve the persuit of some deep constant truth about ourselves, although that permanent thing does exist and will eventually be known, for now, at this step, all we need is to seek for the greater honesty with ourselves that we can have, and this means to learn about ourselves into the very flow of life, our changes, etc. Do you understand Andrew?
Andrew (The Atheist Existentialist): Yeah, I get it. You’re saying that honesty isn’t about finding some eternal, unchanging core within ourselves, but about recognizing whatever is true in the present moment—even if it changes later. The goal is self-awareness, not some ultimate discovery of a fixed self. That makes sense. Thanks.
Madeline (The Secular Analytic Philosopher): I have a question. You emphasize self-honesty as a moral duty in philosophy. But isn’t self-deception sometimes useful? For example, psychological studies suggest that some illusions—like optimism bias—help people function better in life. If someone benefits from a false belief, does your philosophy still require them to abandon it?
Yes it does, because this nonsense violates the principle of identity. What is good must be good absolutelly, or at least it must be the greater good. What means, using your exemple, that “people funcion better in life”? This “better” means what, and is based in what? Utility principle? But usefulness requires an object, so what is that? Sucess in material terms, health terms, social functionality, what? What is good must be identified as the final cause, and that good will be the truth, and not an illusion. Otherwise, this very stupid kind of psychological study would never even make sense. If they identified what is better, that good isn’t the truth that must be persued and, therefore, not an illuson in its own funcionality?
Madeline (The Secular Analytic Philosopher): I see your argument. You’re saying that if something is truly good, it must be grounded in reality, not in illusion. If a false belief seems beneficial, it only means we haven’t properly defined what “better” actually means. Instead of relying on illusion, we should seek the real good as the final cause. That’s a strong position. I still think there are cases where self-deception might serve a temporary psychological function, but I understand why, within your philosophy, truth must take priority. That clarifies things. Thank you.
Emma (The Liberal Christian Pragmatist): I have a question. You said that honesty with ourselves is a moral duty. But isn’t there a tension between self-honesty and self-acceptance? Sometimes, being completely honest about ourselves can lead to self-rejection, guilt, or even despair. Shouldn’t there be a balance between truth and kindness toward ourselves?
No, because kindness must be truly good, and you can’t be good with yourself through lying and deception. The answer to this problem is to perceive the meaning of this guilt, and the spiritual source of it. It is not something good. So, falsifying this will only empower bad spirits. Truth gets us close to the Holy Spirit, and Repentance brings peace and joy. Use Discernment to check if the experience of facing the truth makes you suffer, because if that is the case there is a spirit of Pride lodging inside of you, and that needs to be expelled. Remorse and guilt are signs of bad spirits. Do you understand Emma?
Emma (The Liberal Christian Pragmatist): Yes, I understand. You’re saying that true kindness toward ourselves cannot be based on lies, and that guilt and self-rejection are not signs of genuine self-honesty but rather spiritual disturbances, particularly Pride. Instead of avoiding truth to protect ourselves from guilt, we should confront the truth fully and allow repentance to bring peace. That’s a very different way of looking at self-acceptance—I’ll need to reflect on it more, but I follow your reasoning. Thank you.
Gabriel (The Scholastic/Neo-Thomist): I have a question. You mentioned that truth brings us closer to the Holy Spirit. In Catholic theology, there is a distinction between natural knowledge, which we gain through reason, and supernatural knowledge, which is granted by divine revelation. Where does self-knowledge fit into this? Is it something we can fully achieve through reason alone, or do we need divine assistance to truly know ourselves?
This is a Catholic problem. I don’t follow this theology, nor do recommend people to follow it, because it generates more problems instead of focusing on solutions. This comes from the gnostic tradition of the duality of the substances, body/matter and soul/spirit, but I totally reject this duality. So, to be clear, to me there is only divine inspired knowledge, so in what we call our “natural” experiences we are enlightened by the Holy Spirit as well as when we receive any other spiritual gifts from the Lord. Do you understand Gabriel?
Gabriel (The Scholastic/Neo-Thomist): Yes, I understand. You reject the dualistic distinction between natural and supernatural knowledge and see all true knowledge as divinely inspired. That means even what we perceive as “natural” reasoning is still illuminated by the Holy Spirit. That’s a significant departure from traditional Catholic thought, but I see the coherence in your view. I’ll reflect on this more. Thank you.
Mary (The Communitarian Political Philosopher): I have a question. You say that honesty with ourselves is essential for philosophy. But isn’t self-knowledge also shaped by society? The way we see ourselves is deeply influenced by culture, language, and history. If that’s the case, how can we ever separate what we truly are from what society has made us?
The substance that have agency in knowledge and in volition is always individual, so your question doesn’t make sense. What I am saying is that you should assume what you know and don’t know, and what you want and don’t want. Society is just the scenario where knowledge and volition takes place, but society have no power to know or to will, because society have no true substance.
Mary (The Communitarian Political Philosopher): I see your point. You’re saying that knowledge and will always belong to individuals, not to society as a collective entity, because only individuals have true agency. Society might influence the conditions in which we think and choose, but it doesn’t have its own power to know or will. That challenges a lot of political and sociological assumptions about collective identity, but I understand your reasoning. I’ll think more about this perspective. Thank you.
Rebecca (The Orthodox Christian Stoic): I have a question. You said that knowing ourselves requires acknowledging what we know and what we don’t, what we truly want and what we don’t. But sometimes, our emotions can mislead us. How can we be sure that what we think we want is our true will and not just a fleeting passion or a temptation?
Check my answer to Nathan, I already answered this, didn’t I? See if something is still missing to you.
Rebecca (The Orthodox Christian Stoic): Yes, I see now. Your answer to Nathan already addressed this—true will isn’t about permanence but about recognizing what is genuinely present in us at any given moment. We don’t need to search for an absolute, unchanging core of ourselves right now; we just need to be as honest as possible in each moment. That also applies to emotions and desires—we must acknowledge them for what they are, without deception, rather than worrying if they are permanent or fleeting. That makes sense. I have no further questions.
Laura (The Eastern Spiritualist Philosopher): I have a question. You emphasize the need to be free from self-deception, but in some spiritual traditions, the self itself is seen as an illusion. If the self is not ultimately real, doesn’t that make the pursuit of self-knowledge somewhat contradictory?
It would, if you ever accepted that premise, but why would you do that? By the way, to assume this for real, you could not even start saying “I have a question”. No, you don’t. You think you have a question, but you don’t even exist, according to your own hypothesis. If you want me to seriously assume your premise, it is just fair that you also assume it all the same before me, but you can’t do that and start saying “I have a question”. You can’t do anything for real. Why would you do assume this kind of premise? I want to talk about the First Freedom, and what that requires from us, and you want to destroy freedom and say that I have a contradiction? No, you are the one who needs to make a choice here or to be in peril of falling into a contradiction. No, you are the one who needs to make a choice here.
Laura (The Eastern Spiritualist Philosopher): I see what you’re doing—you’re turning the premise back on itself. If I truly accepted the idea that the self is an illusion, I wouldn’t even be able to ask a question meaningfully, because asking assumes a subject, a will, and a purpose. That’s a strong challenge. I suppose my question isn’t really about proving a contradiction in your system, but about understanding why one should assume the self as real in the first place. And I see your response: to deny the self would also be to deny freedom, and without freedom, we can’t even engage in philosophy in the first place. I understand now. Thank you.
Ethan (The Skeptical Empiricist): I have a question. You argue that we must acknowledge what we know and don’t know, what we want and don’t want. But isn’t human perception unreliable? Science shows that our brains often misinterpret reality. If our own senses and thoughts can deceive us, how can we ever be sure we’re being honest with ourselves?
You can’t, that is the whole point of questioning yourself. Again I see the presence of that gnostic concept of sureness. I never demanded something of that level, and if I ever do that, you can correct me, because humans can’t achieve this much certainty about anything. Honesty is an effort that gives you rest, not because you are sure about you, but because you did your best. Of course that deep levels of self-deception could be challenging, but there is no other resource to appeal to but to try our best. Maybe some of the problems that some of you are bringing here comes only from this anxiety about the control of things, a gnostic trait that in time we will be able to attack with more detail.
Ethan (The Skeptical Empiricist): I see what you’re saying. You’re not asking for absolute certainty, just for an honest effort. The goal isn’t to achieve perfect self-knowledge, but to challenge ourselves with sincerity. And if we worry too much about being absolutely sure, that itself can become a form of deception or control-seeking. That makes sense. I understand now.
JESUS É BOM 