Can a man be free if he is not yet a master of himself?

[Lumish]

Man cannot truly be free because we are not masters of ourself and our destiny. The idea now is that we are truly free when we our very own master. Now the question is, how can man be a master of himself, for man don't know how he came to be and where he is going.

[Amelia-Lily]

You can definitely get along quite alright without being your own master. However, to be truly and completely free, one has to be their own master. There is really no way to be completely free without being your own master.

[Jen Nghishitende]

Someone said ‘ME’ is not the only determining factor. This is absolute true. There are various structural factors that determine our trajectories. Thinking that all people need to do is be better and do better to be successful is a neoliberal way of thinking. We exist in relation to the world around us and we can’t be truly free if the environment around us is not conducive.

[Chinaka94]

I believe that a man can ever be completely free. The degree of freedom enjoyed increased with increasing self-awareness which gives a sense of control over certain aspects of our lives.

[James Ndumia]

I think Epictetus said it well, if you are not in connection with 'your maestro'(the real you) you cannot be free. For your reactions will be dependent on the outer influences and which will only frustrate you. But being in control of your inner being by having discovered yourself, then you become the master of your own happiness and joy. You respond accordingly to every situation and without being a slave of the outer circumstances.

[José Cortez]

I beg to differ. A man can only become truly a master once he deal with the intruder. In these circumstances, the intruder has to be dealt with. This means totally gone. I do not agree that a lot of things needs to play a role. I think once the intruder is gone, you become a master.

[Tory Munyandi]

Man can never be free unless he is the master of his own self—the Maestro.

[KafeliKe]

In my case, the saying " No man is free who is not a master of himself" is both meaningful and meaningless. In the sense that the world is changing and people want to be their own bosses, it's meaningful. They'd like to create their own working habits. They're trying to get away from the pressures of their bosses. However, the saying is meaningless because becoming your own master implies that you are not reliant on anyone else in your life, which is impossible.

[Adisapelumi5]

Truly no man is free who is not a master of himself. Someone who hasn't been able to master himself will be kept in a continuous loop filled with self-doubt, self-hatred and low self-esteem.

[Moneybag]

A man who is not a master of himself is at the mercy of the intruder. He is in bondage and can never be free.

[Maris Charles M]

Its simple if you are not a master, you are a slave. If you are not a master of yourself, you are a slave to the intruder. Slaves dont have freedom.

[Gabija Ticho]

It is a realy interesting psylosophical question. In my opinion, it depends on what does freedom mean to you. Because in my opinion, I will never be absolutely free. There will always be something or someone that I am obliged to. But it doesn’t bother me either.

[Rob White]

I am intrigued with the number of first rate philosophers that are found in the onlinebookclub membership. All of you speak your philosophy so wonderfully sincerely. That is a gift to anyone who is willing to listen beyond what they are "always already saying." Ah, the open-mindedness of you folks truly stirs me. Thank you Rob author: The Maestro Monologue

[Emmanuela Amasiobi]

In my perspective of this book, I believe one has to hold tight to his beliefs and have an understanding of himself, possessing and controlling himself and then becoming a master of himself.

[Brett Linette]

I agree with the aforementioned quote; if we don't have control over ourselves, something else is bound to have control over us.