>>12143I see. That's an interesting point. Are there not different types of rules? I can think of some. In regard to oneself, we can stand outside ourself and impose what we think best on ourselves, and this might be called self-discipline. Someone who wants to improve themselves might use this kind of rule.
On the other hand, there are rules which we may choose to commit ourselves to following, as it is freely chosen and tends to be based on a decision made by the heart, rather than standing outside oneself and imposing the rule one oneself. For example, someone freely and voluntarily taking religious vows to live a just and holy life might fall into this category. (Or, alternatively, perhaps a scientist who wishes to devote themselves to helping humanity through their research.)
Another type of rule might be one that arises in a moment of reflection or meditation, although this might be more appropriately called "inisght." This would be like a decision or realization you have in the present, and so there is no enforcer or commitment necessary. This is probbaly the purest form of a rule.
Then there are recommendations or suggestions that other people we respect give to us and which we try to follow because we respect or perhaps even just admire the other person. For example, a teacher we respect might give us some rules to follow, which we do because we see them as a good or virtuous person.
Lastly, there may be rules imposed on us by others, through the use of threat or force. But what do you think... given the other types of rules, do you think this last category of rules more or less illusory than the other kinds of rules? According to the Stoics, for example, this last kind of rule, especially, ought to have no power over us. I think that if one follows some of the other kinds of rules for a while that they must necessarily follow (or eventually follow) the rules in the last category, if the rules in the last category are just.
