There are many cases, wherein a man speaks of himself as of another. As, for example, “I may thank myself for this; I am angry at myself; I hate myself for that.” And this way of speaking has raised a dispute among the Stoics, “whether or not a man may give or return a benefit to himself?” For, say they, if I may hurt myself, I may oblige myself; and that which were a benefit to another body, why is it not so to myself? And why am I not as criminal in being ungrateful to myself as if I were so to another body? And the case is the same in flattery and several other vices; as, on the other side, it is a point of great reputation for a man to command himself. Plato thanked Socrates for what he had learned of him; and why might not Socrates as well thank Plato for that which he had taught him? “That which you want,” says Plato, “borrow it of yourself.” And why may not I as well give to myself as lend? If I may be angry with myself, I may thank myself; and if I chide myself, I may as well commend myself, and do myself good as well as hurt; there is the same reason of contraries: it is a common thing to say, “Such a man hath done himself an injury.” If an injury, why not a benefit? But I say, that no man can be a debtor to himself; for the benefit must naturally precede the acknowledgment; and a debtor can no more be without a creditor than a husband without a wife. Somebody must give, that somebody may receive; and it is neither giving nor receiving, the passing of a thing from one hand to the other. What if a man should be ungrateful in the case? there is nothing lost; for he that gives it has it: and he that gives and he that receives are one and the same person. Now, properly speaking, no man can be said to bestow any thing upon himself, for he obeys his nature, that prompts every man to do himself all the good he can. Shall I call him liberal, that gives to himself; or good-natured, that pardons himself; or pitiful, that is affected with his own misfortunes? That which were bounty, clemency, compassion, to another, to myself is nature. A benefit is a voluntary thing; but to do good to myself is a thing necessary. Was ever any man commended for getting out of a ditch, or for helping himself against thieves? Or what if I should allow, that a man might confer a benefit upon himself; yet he cannot owe it, for he returns it in the same instant that he receives it. No man gives, owes, or makes a return, but to another. How can one man do that to which two parties are requisite in so many respects? Giving and receiving must go backward and forward betwixt two persons. If a man give to himself, he may sell to himself; but to sell is to alienate a thing, and to translate the right of it to another; now, to make a man both the giver and the receiver is to unite two contraries. That is a benefit, which, when it is given, may possibly not be requited; but he that gives to himself, must necessarily receive what he gives; beside, that all benefits are given for the receiver’s sake, but that which a man does for himself, is for the sake of the giver.
People often talk about themselves as if they were someone else. For example, "I can thank myself for this," or "I'm angry at myself," or "I hate myself for that." This way of speaking has created a debate among the Stoics: "Can a person give or return a favor to themselves?" They argue that if I can hurt myself, then I can also help myself. What counts as a benefit to another person should also count as a benefit to myself. Why wouldn't I be just as wrong for being ungrateful to myself as I would be to someone else? The same logic applies to flattery and other vices. On the flip side, it's considered admirable for someone to have self-control. Plato thanked Socrates for what he learned from him. Why couldn't Socrates thank Plato for what he taught him? "What you need," Plato said, "borrow it from yourself." Why can't I give to myself just as well as lend to myself? If I can be angry with myself, I can thank myself. If I can scold myself, I can praise myself too. I can do myself good just as easily as harm. The reasoning works both ways. People commonly say, "That person hurt themselves." If they can cause injury, why not benefit? But I say no one can owe a debt to themselves. A benefit must come before any acknowledgment of it. A debtor can't exist without a creditor, just like a husband can't exist without a wife. Someone must give so that someone can receive. It's not really giving or receiving when you're just moving something from one hand to the other. What if someone is ungrateful in this situation? Nothing is lost, because the giver still has what they gave. The giver and receiver are the same person. Strictly speaking, no one can truly give anything to themselves. They're just following their nature, which drives everyone to do themselves as much good as possible. Should I call someone generous for giving to themselves? Or kind-hearted for forgiving themselves? Or compassionate for feeling sorry about their own misfortunes? What would be generosity, mercy, or compassion toward another person is just nature when directed at yourself. A benefit is something voluntary, but doing good for yourself is necessary. Has anyone ever been praised for climbing out of a ditch or defending themselves against thieves? Even if I agreed that someone could give themselves a benefit, they still couldn't owe it to themselves. They would return it the instant they received it. No one gives, owes, or repays except to another person. How can one person do something that requires two parties in so many ways? Giving and receiving must go back and forth between two people. If someone can give to themselves, then they can sell to themselves. But selling means transferring something and giving the rights to it to someone else. Making one person both the giver and receiver combines two opposites. A benefit is something that might not be repaid when given. But someone who gives to themselves must necessarily receive what they give. Besides, all benefits are given for the receiver's sake, but what someone does for themselves is for the giver's sake.
This is one of those subtleties, which, though hardly worth a man’s while, yet it is not labor absolutely lost neither. There is more of trick and artifice in it than solidity; and yet there is matter of diversion too; enough perhaps to pass away a winter’s evening, and keep a man waking that is heavy-headed.
This is one of those clever tricks that's barely worth your time, but it's not completely useless either. It's more about cleverness and skill than real substance. Still, it's entertaining enough to help you pass a winter evening and keep you awake if you're feeling drowsy.