What is Freedom to You?
Definitions are important. It just so happens to be one of humanity's many curses that they are also ambiguous. I don't intend to find any official definition for "freedom" in this thread, more just find out where others lie. So, no dictionary definitions, if you will.
Really what I want is, as the title suggests, what you think freedom is. I suppose I do have to supply some kind of context.
Hypothetically, if you were to create or live in a new nation, what would you expect to be your basic freedoms? What would you expect to be obligated to do? What would you expect not to be able to do?
Essentially, I believe that "freedom" is more of a scale, in which one side is the ability to do anything at any time without consequences, and the other is not being able to do anything at all times. I don't think that there is any kind of right answer, I just wish to see where the happy medium is for most people.
Really what I want is, as the title suggests, what you think freedom is. I suppose I do have to supply some kind of context.
Hypothetically, if you were to create or live in a new nation, what would you expect to be your basic freedoms? What would you expect to be obligated to do? What would you expect not to be able to do?
Essentially, I believe that "freedom" is more of a scale, in which one side is the ability to do anything at any time without consequences, and the other is not being able to do anything at all times. I don't think that there is any kind of right answer, I just wish to see where the happy medium is for most people.
Comments (152)
The more I explore the more my ignorance is revealed. Ignorance is my primary pursuit.
Well, at least your goal is achievable, you definitely get points for that.
Quoting I like sushi
I know this very thread stresses that dictionary definitions aren't everything, but I think you might have ignorance and stupidity confused.
Ignorance
noun
lack of knowledge or information.
Stupidity
noun
behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment.
By exploring, you gain knowledge, so that is the opposite of ignorance. You may, however, see the truth and refuse to acknowledge it. Not paying your taxes despite knowing the consequences is stupid for sure, but probably more fun at least in the short term. If I understand you correctly, the more you see the complexity of the world, the more you wish to be simple, yes? I think it's almost undeniable that while you might live a shorter life, that life will be much more fun.
Any claim of ‘knowledge’ necessarily leads to a plethora of new problems that we cannot frame properly. Knowledge is ignorance in this sense.
When we find certain kinds of antonyms they show themselves to be something quite extraordinary. Freedom requires an understanding of limit, limitations are inhibitors on said freedom - or rather, forced (slave like) limits are necessary for any sense of freedom.
Furthermore we could regard the concept of ‘sight’ and ‘blindness’. A species of animals that are ‘blind’ are not ‘blind’ - they are blind only from our forcing our position on theirs. There are many tricky elements to such apparent antonyms as some negations are taken as antonyms (which in colloquial use they are accepted as antonyms yet under more close scrutiny they often dissolve; life and death is another antonym that is more or less negation rather than two opposing elements).
Quoting I like sushi
Perhaps the more information you have the more you realize how little information you have, but that doesn't make you any more ignorant than before. What you didn't know about before did exist before, didn't it? You may feel more ignorant, but in reality, you were always that ignorant, if not more so.
Quoting I like sushi
But would complete freedom not imply that you can both understand and ascend limitations? Perhaps it goes like this
Ignorance plus stupidity is the ultimate form of bondage. You don't know how to do anything and you don't wish to do anything.
Ignorance with intelligence implies that you may one day not be ignorant. Your intelligence makes you curious, makes you wish to perform actions, and your intelligence also allows you to work out how to perform said actions.
The ultimate form of freedom is knowledge plus intelligence. You know about everything and how to do everything. You aren't bound by any limitations, even though you know what they would be if you were bound. However, you are not bound because you know how to circumvent those limitations
Quoting I like sushi
And so we are all partially blind. Bats can use echolocation, and we cannot. A truly free being could see all.
Quoting I like sushi
Perhaps this isn't the same concept, but I think good and evil are comparable to life and death. Good is simply what others wish for you to do, and evil is what others wish for you not to do. They aren't "opposites" (antonyms) per se, but they are opposing. A strange middle ground, I suppose.
Quoting I like sushi
Truth comes from slavery, but once you know the truth you are less enslaved (or at least that is what I was getting at above). You can't become more enslaved unless you lose the ability to do something, and truth gives you the ability to know things. Through slavery comes truth and through truth comes freedom it appears. One step at a time, ascending out slavery through the fruit it bears.
I think you see what I’m getting at. You can argue the semantics with yourself if you wish. Ignorance can only expand once the illusion of ‘knowing’ is reestablished - call it ‘doubt’ if you want, but doubt is rather static my mind where ignorance grows and lives.
Note: It’s my view of things, you don’t have to agree with it. I believe it is clear enough what I’m saying. If not, don’t bother yourself with it if you don’t wish to.
Aka “Freedom”. You may prefer to view this as ‘ascension’ because it has a nicer ring to it though.
I believe you need to expand your ignorance a little more in this area ;)
To be more charitable ... yes, I agree. Therein lies my problem. If I agree I must doubt that which I agree with if I am to embrace ignorance. I must push further and unravel what seems MOST ‘true’ and ‘obvious’ to me when and where I can.
If you follow through the perpetual ascent you either reach an ultimate plane of slavery or remain a slave playing slave master ... I think it is perhaps better to accept we are necessarily enslaved by the truths we hold most dear.
All of this is framed in how I view “knowledge”. I prefer to say I ‘ken’. To say I ‘know’ is a bound truth not a ubiquitous ‘knowing’. I ken and that is satisfactory enough - in that it propels me toward some ultimate knowing only in negative terms. My biggest issue is with the cloying hold language - this here written stuff - on my thoughts, feelings and actions (Whatever they are!)
Life eh? Bizarre!
I think I see where you're coming from. To you, all that matters is that you feel more ignorant, not that you actually became more ignorant.
Quoting I like sushi
If I do understand, then I respect where you're coming from. If you wish to indulge in pleasure I see no reason to stop you. However, my pleasure comes from the process that frees us from this slavery. I simply enjoy knowing that I'm making some kind of progress toward that end goal, even if I don't know how much.
Quoting I like sushi
Are you implying that what you quoted was freedom?
Quoting I like sushi
I did a quick google search and found that some blind people can sort of echolocate. So you either meant that or something else. I honestly can't tell.
Quoting I like sushi
Don't push yourself then. If being completely free makes you uncomfortable, then you wouldn't be completely free because you wouldn't want to be there. If that makes any sense. You're better off where you're happy, at least I think.
Quoting I like sushi
But what if we could absolutely confirm the truths we hold dear? We will never do it in our lifetime, but it should be possible to cross confirm everything in existence and get at the very least an incredibly accurate model of the universe. Then we wouldn't have to fear that our beliefs are wrong.
Quoting I like sushi
If you're happy, I'm happy for you. I just hope that one day we can all have something even better.
Clearly ... or not apparently.
See above. As in to ‘see all’ is to know nothing. I was speaking metaphorically ... if you didn’t realise my bad :(
I mean in the sense that to “know” anything completely is to be unable to know anything new ... ergo “freedom” and “static” - I don’t find much appealing about a void (except when I grow weary of living)
People who wish for ‘freedom’ don’t really understand that such necessarily comes at a cost. In that sense people, more often than not, claim to pursue ‘freedom’ whilst putting themselves in shackles - in that sense I’m an anarchist so such reaching for freedom doesn’t concern me. I don’t seek ‘happiness’ either! Yuck!
Such is the delusion of the dogmatic. That one holds something dear should be warning enough for any sensible individual to cling to doubt no matter what! You never though you may get lucky AND I’m for commitment to some end or another as a means of exploration (exploration is the key feature of life for me; it’s a tough balance to regulate safety and exploration though - I’d say one must be pushing oneself in some manner, quite hard, some of the time in order to explore most efficiently)
I’m not ‘happy’. “Better” seems to be worth striving for :)
If you don’t push yourself at all you don’t know when you’ve pushed too hard - I’ve pushed myself VERY hard before now and it was incredibly painful ... I’m ‘better’ for it though. I guess this is what you would refer to as ‘freedom’. It comes with pain and loss, suffering and death and whole host of demons; such ‘freedom’ is not for the fainthearted and I know I recoiled after a little taster. Maybe next time I’ll do better?
"The Line" between too much interference and too little protection, or between our own and others' reasonable restraint in exercising our freedom TO is changeable over time and place. The Line has to be negotiated by the people at various levels.
It really is like that sometimes.
Quoting I like sushi
That is interesting. Maybe we could make new things to know? I suppose we do make up new things all the time, but where the limit is on our imagination is hard to say. I suppose it wouldn't be to the person who knows everything. Maybe we can make people who think in new ways, and those people make more that think in even newer ways? Either way, I don't think you're too interested in the answer anyway.
Quoting I like sushi
I suppose the key then is to use your freedoms to get back what you gave. I'll look into that.
Quoting I like sushi
To say such a thing without evidence is surely the delusion of the dogmatic, but I wish to actually prove that these things are absolutely true to the point they are ingrained into everyday life. I'm certainly willing to "pay" for such freedom because with such freedom I should be able to make back what I lost.
Quoting I like sushi
Ok then, if you're [s]happy[/s] better, I'm happy for you. I just hope that one day we can all have something even better.
Quoting I like sushi
I hope there is a next time. You seem to know at least something.
Yes, but where is it for you? I'm interested in finding out where others lie.
I have generally found the work place to be one where the employer claimed the right to control all sorts of speech (like about the defects of the employer). Employers regularly interfere with the right of workers to unionise.
Business interests often behave in ways that limit citizens. For instance, the local grocery market was changed negatively through monopolistic practices. A major food retailer has disappeared, reducing competition. With less competition, quality goes down, prices go up, and choice is limited.
In that sense I am an anarchist - I oppose authority both in myself and in day-to-day life. Meaning if I think “I should do X” I question the ‘should’ rather than blindly follow what is expressed in social circles and necessarily forms part of the choices I believe I have whilst covering up others.
As an extreme example I can murder and rape if I wish to. There is no “how I should behave” imposed by societal norms I have any serious inclination to take as an absolute; anymore than I’d live out my life according to ‘laws’ in some religious text. In more tangible terms this is to say that I care not for what is deemed ‘lawful’ I only care for I deem ‘right’ - I suffer the burden of the consequences fully if I’m wrong rather than submitting my error to some erroneous law and washing my hands clean of any responsibility.
This moral position plays into my whole life and hence my thoughts on ‘freedom’. The ‘freedom’ you seem to be outlining sounds more like hubris to me - in that you believe you know that there is a law and will of the universe (a placating thought, yet doubt is indestructible whether in direct eyesight or not).
Harmony as in multiple parts working to make the whole? A sort of "working for the whole in order to have nice things" kind of freedom?
If you did, I'm honestly glad you did. You definitely brought more to the table than I was expecting.
Quoting I like sushi
This is kind of like a "spoiler free life" in a way. Instead of someone telling you that fire is hot, you get to figure it out on your own. It's the fun of figuring things out on your own, well, if getting burned is your thing. Quoting I like sushi
This is an interesting and at the very least well-intentioned way to think about it. I don't know how practical though, at least in the modern world.
Quoting I like sushi
A law or will of the universe? I don't particularly think that. I think that the universe works a certain way and that certain way can be uncovered via inquiry, but I don't think there is a "will" or reason for any of it. It's just the game we happen to find ourselves in. A game we have to both learn and win the first time we play.
I grow corn, feed the sheep corn and fertilise the cornfield with the excrements.
To me it's an effortless unity and grants me peace - by that I would deem I'm free.
Whereas stressing on helping yourself or your neighbour puts up the cage bars.
Going with the flow is good for everybody and everybody who's ever looked at the sky knows this, though it may not be apparent - and that unstressed realisation is essentially freedom.
I tend to think of freedom as being free of something, just what that is I’ll have to think about a bit more.
Every time I’ve tried to define what freedom means, it seems like I must affix the definition to a series of points in spacetime - the universe (and my perspective of it) continues to change around it, and everyone else enjoys a vastly different perspective of the same arrangement of points.
Freedom, I think, is a continual process of negotiation, performed by each individual in their interactions with the universe. Absolute objective freedom is simply not achievable in life. Humans above all are highly interdependent, and therefore bound by their various and complex relationships with the universe. Even a hermit is bound by his relationships with the environment, and obliged to understand and tend to those relationships in order to acquire nutrition and protection at minimum. If he simply takes what he wants then his sense of freedom is a temporary illusion, and he will soon feel oppressed by his environment.
I think a sense of freedom is achieved in harmonious relationships with the universe, as much as we understand them. The more we interact with the universe, the more we understand, including what everything and everyone needs for harmonious achievement - and so the more we feel obliged to adjust our actions in order to achieve harmony, and consequently experience freedom. More freedom allows more interaction and more understanding, but more interaction plus more understanding demands what appears to then be less freedom, relatively speaking.
Of course, we ARE free to not adjust our actions or accommodate the needs of others. But in doing so, we undermine the harmony that gives us the sense of freedom in the first place. Ignorance often feels like freedom, and understanding feels obliging from an individual point of view.
It’s also possible to achieve a personal sense of freedom in life that someone with either more OR less understanding of the universe would see as less free. Likewise, an onlooker could view someone else’s life as having freedom, but that person may not feel free themselves owing to more OR less understanding of the universe.
It's a start, certainly. "Mind your own business" vs. busy bodies meddling in everyone else's affairs, sure. But "Everyone with their own little world", not quite. Society requires regular maintenance, and it is very desirable that the people who are minding their own business pay attention to the commons, the shared world, the community. Having the freedom to mind your own business, requires community maintenance.
Obvious examples: I like dogs so I get one. I live in a house, so it's my affair. When I take it out for a walk the dog will, of course, defecate when and where it feels the urge. It's my responsibility to maintain the commons by picking up the dog's faeces and disposing of it properly. The dog would like to prowl around the neighbourhood on its own, but it doesn't get to do that. For one, I want to keep the beloved Dog safe, and two, people don't want Dog digging holes in their garden or terrorising their beloved Cat.
I don't believe in using pesticides and herbicides on my lawn. I don't much like mowing it either -- total waste of time. so I have a weedy yard which I none the less do mow every now and then (city law requires it of me). That's my affair. My next door neighbours are very fussy about their lawn. They apply all sorts of chemicals to their lawn and mow it a lot. That's their affair.
I think lawn fertilisers, herbicides, and pesticides should be banned. People customarily use way too much and the run off contributes to the serious pollution of rivers and, in the gulf of Mexico, the steadily growing dead zone. I won't throw rocks at their windows or spray graffiti on their house to make them stop using their chemicals, though. I'll contribute to political efforts to ban the chemicals in the urban environment.
From this paragraph in particular, I take it that you intend to start a thread looking at the problem from the perspective of political philosophy. In other words, not to address (arguably) more fundamental problems such as free will vs determinism.
You also ask for specific basic freedoms, obligations, and limits on freedom (what we're not allowed to do).
I'm not entirely sure to what extent philosophy (or "philosophizing") can provide comprehensive answers to the kind of question you want to ask. I'm not even sure to what extent anyone can provide comprehensive answers.
For example, we might begin by agreeing that we give up our freedom to harm others. But how much harm is too much? Okay, we don't get to run around murdering and raping. But do we get to smoke in public? If we accept that there is a limit on how much harm we can do (implicitly accepting a degree of utilitarianism), we might break the problem down into two separate questions:
1. How much harm is too much?
2. How much harm does second hand smoke do?
To answer the latter question, we have to stop doing philosophy, and start doing medicine.
"Okay," you might say, "but that's just a technical question. Surely philosophy can delegate those."
But suppose we think about the economic basis of our society. How well do unregulated markets work? To what extent do they lead to the wild swings of boom and bust that were so prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries? To what extent do they lead to monopolies -- like Standard Oil? Or, for that matter, like Facebook and Amazon?
My point here is threefold.
1. These are to some degree at least empirical questions. I don't think we're going to be able to answer them entirely a priori.
2. Not only are they empirical questions; they are questions to which the correct answers may change over time, as society and technology change over time. Thus, they cannot be answered once and for all. They call for an ongoing program of research.
3. These are questions that go to the fundamental structural basis to our entire society. Whatever our answers, they have profound implications for our freedoms. And those answers will change over time.
Just to be clear, I was only using markets as an example. I think the above would apply to any structural basis for an economy and a society where society and technology are not completely static.
The above argument does, of course, implicitly assume an acceptance of the notion that living in a society implies or compels some some willingness to make trade-offs between freedom and other things that we consider worth having. My point is, the range of trade-offs available to us is in a constant state of flux.
Sooo... I guess where I'm headed is that I have my doubts as to what extent these questions can ever be answered on anything other than a fairly short term, ad hoc basis.
In a newly emerged nation the largest freedom is the freedom from the old nation that had people under it's control and had lost the legitimacy to it's power among the people. Typically this has been another people who either had been or had evolved into being foreign entity. This usually creates a very different atmosphere in the nation than in other more established countries where their Independence struggle is just a course in history, not something that happened just year ago or so. Hence newly formed countries look as to be very patriotic/nationalistic (well, they have to be actually) as they are still pouring the foundations of a new nation. The legitimacy of the state has to be earned, you know. Hence just what about in freedom is important changes through time.
Perhaps you have to be a Kurd or a Palestinian to understand just what it means not to have one's own nation state today, because today we take it as granted as our credit card working when shopping online. Of course there are many various people's that don't even have any dreams of an own independent nation and these people are really just fade away to being the another people as the last members knowing the language die of old age.
One modern nation state and just how many languages/dialects were spoken before:
Quoting TogetherTurtle
The freedoms of an individual is a totally different issue than a freedom of a people. So when you ask above about "if you were to create or live in a new nation", that kind of freedom is actually bit different from the question 'how much the government intrudes into my personal life?' The latter question is especially close to the American heart.
Quoting ssu
...or perhaps a Finn?
Quoting ssu
I hadn't considered that. I guess your answer and mine to the OP deal with completely different issues.
PS...
...although perhaps the point I made regarding individuals in a society also applies to your point as well?
There's political freedom.
There's freedom from coercion.
There's freedom of speech.
There's freedom of ability (people who can walk have a freedom that people who can't don't, for example).
And then there's free will. Some people define free will as mere freedom of ability + freedom from coercion. Those people are called compatibilists (because such a conception of free will is compatible with determinism). To me, free will would have to be something deeper than that. Free will would have to be what most people believe it is. And what most people believe it is is something that isn't actually coherent in reality. Something logically impossible. The concept of free will that most people believe in is a delusion ... and compatibilists just confuse matters. Better to acknowledge that X doesn't exist than to redefine it. I have the same problem with naturalistic pantheists who wish to merely label the universe as God.
Or Tibetan, or Danish or Bulgarian, etc.
Well, we do have our own country.
Even if the majority of Finns know that they are or at least have been a totally expendable nation, meaning that nobody actually would have cared a rat's ass if about 4 million Finns had been killed or had been deported to Siberia, many Finns today can forget the past and take it as a given that they do have an own country and a government that has it's positions filled with their own people who speak their own language. A Kurd or a Palestinian simply cannot do that as it's evident that they aren't in charge of the land they live in. But they do have a possibility to have an independent country (especially the Palestinians). Yet for instance the Ainu people in Japan can only deam about having their own country.
Quoting Theologian
Yep. Freedom can be discussed from the viewpoint of the individual or from the viewpoint of the collective.
Quoting Theologian
In a democracy / justice state, yes.
Human Instrumentality then, every man working for every other man. Essentially then, freedom is a state of mind, and doing what you are "supposed to do" (something decided through eons of social evolution) isn't necessarily a limitation on that freedom because it's what you are supposed to want to do.
Ah, but what if you had freedom from the fact that you need limitations to feel free?
So you think more about what you don't have to do, as opposed to what you now can do. That's interesting. I'd like to hear what you have to say after you think about it more.
This kind of reminds me how, at least speaking in terms of physics, everything in the universe (besides energy) is just made up of atoms. Where a wood table starts and a wood floor begins is ultimately up to us. All things, sentient or not, interact. Even with our higher awareness of this world, we are still bound by that which all other life and non-life are bound. That being the chemical reactions and laws of nature that make up the active, ever-changing world we live in.
It really relates to our own instincts as a species. We are territorial, but we are also social. We desire a place for ourselves, but we also belong to groups, and so we designate our land into smaller areas for individuals. However, when there is a threat to the group, all of the individuals are expected to defend the group's land.
Of course, I wouldn't consider a dog relieving itself on a neighbors lawn a "threat" per se, maybe a threat to your neighbor's lawn.
I suppose I was trying to get both from people, their experience and their speculation. The reason I bring this up is that I think when one person says "freedom", an entirely different set of rules and values can be thought of by another. I also think that if we want to have a useful conversation about freedom, we should be able to address what kind we are discussing.
Quoting Theologian
Which is what I hope I can spark here. I think someone above said something along the lines of "freedom depends on your place in time and space". I think that holds up.
Quoting Theologian
I suppose that means that some answers are desirable because they give us desirable freedoms. Let's hope we can answer those questions in a way that benefits us.
I'll be honest with you, I'm notoriously bad at keeping anything in focus. My original intentions, my past intentions, my current intentions, and my future intentions rarely match up, I'm afraid. If you wish to discuss free will vs determinism, go ahead. I like to discuss that too. However, I don't think I intended to exclusively discuss political philosophy. It is certainly part of the question, but ultimately I think this question touches on much of what we know as a species, as opposed to just politics.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Well then! I'm just going to take the lazy way out and post something I wrote for an assessment task a little while back. It's on point...
***
Power to The Puppets
Whether free will is compatible with determinism, and whether we can have either, both, or neither, is entirely dependent on our definitions.
Determinism has traditionally been defined as the theory that every event is uniquely prescribed by antecedent events. Thus, anyone with perfect knowledge of the universe at one point in time, of its causal laws, and sufficient computational power, can infer with perfect accuracy the state of the universe at all other points in time. The problem with this claim is that it is incompatible with quantum mechanics, which holds that at a quantum level, the universe is random.
Free will may be defined in such a way that it is easy or impossible to reconcile with determinism. The psychologist Skinner argued that since all behaviour is controlled by our biology and environment, what we are actually talking about when we talk about freedom is freedom from aversive forms of control. Hume defined as free all actions motivated by desires originating from within the person. There does not seem to be any problem reconciling either kind of freedom with determinism.
Kant, however, derided Hume’s idea of freedom as “the freedom of the turnspit,” and claimed that in order to be truly free, the will must be an “uncaused cause.” This is clearly incompatible with determinism. Similarly so Descartes’ definition of freedom as the “ability to do or not to do something,” and his claim that “the will is by its nature so free that it can never be constrained.”
But the kind of freedom philosophers like Descartes and Kant demand is not only incompatible with determinism: it is incompatible with any naturalistic theory of the mind.
From Beyond
Suppose a mind is a physical process. Whether that process is deterministic or random makes no difference: the mind is whatever that process makes it. Hence so too are all its choices. Replacing the freedom of the turnspit with the freedom of the quantum random number generator renders it neither more nor less the puppets of physics.
Not surprisingly, the theories of both Kant and Descartes are heavily reliant on things beyond science’s ken. Descartes saw the mind as comprised of an entirely non-physical kind of substance, while Kant posited a “noumenal” realm in which the mind could be free. But such approaches are unparsimonious to say the least, and create many problems.
One is that we have not so much reconciled free will with an orderly (be that order deterministic or probabilistic) universe as posited an entirely new universe or substance with no order at all, save perhaps for that which the will self-imposes. Another is that we are now faced with the problem of explaining how the different types of substances or realms interact; and of producing the evidence of this interaction, or else explaining its absence. Finally, we must somehow sidestep neuroscience, leaving us with what we might call “the free will of the gaps.” These are serious problems, so the arguments of the likes of Descartes and Kant need to be compelling.
Descartes first argued as follows:
1. Descartes could conceive of having no body, but could not conceive of having no mind
2. Therefore body and mind have different properties
3. Therefore the two must be different things.
But our conceptions of a thing cannot be properties of the thing itself, because if they are, then Donald Trump (very stable genius) cannot be Donald Trump (mania sufferer/malignant narcissist).
Closely related is Descartes’ second argument:
1. If you can clearly and distinctly conceive of something it is possible
2. You can clearly and distinctly conceive of your mind being distinct from your body
3. It is therefore possible your mind is distinct from your body
4. If two things are possibly distinct they are distinct
5. Therefore the mind is distinct from the body.
It is again possible to show by example that this argument form leads to false conclusions:
1. I can clearly and distinctly conceive of the morning star as distinct from the evening star
2. It is therefore possible the morning star is distinct from the evening star
3. If two things are possibly distinct they are distinct
4. Therefore the morning star is distinct from the evening star.
Yet both are the planet Venus.
Kant saw the existence of free will as implied by and inseparable from our rationality. But consider an artificial intelligence (AI) capable of simple reasoning. Now consider the chip on which that AI runs. We do not say that the AI is able to reason because it causes the chip to transcend the laws of physics. Rather, we know that the AI functions precisely because the chip obeys the laws of physics.
But if reason implies not other realms, but working hardware, it is no less reason for the fact. If it enables us to apprehend our environment, consider alternative courses of action, and implement those choices that appeal to us, this surely represents at least a kind of freedom.
We may decide what we decide because we are what we are, but this does not mean our own cognitive processes are not making decisions. It only means that there are also other things deciding us. As with the AI and the chip, our rationality exists not despite their determinations, but rather, because of them.
Conclusions
Determinism, as traditionally defined, prescribes a perfectly predictable universe that is clearly at odds with contemporary physics. Whether we consider the probabilistic order of quantum mechanics an alternate form of determinism, or an alternative to determinism, is a matter of definitions. Whether or not we get to keep determinism depends on which definition we pick.
In any kind of orderly universe, without recourse to something above and beyond that universe, we are all physics-puppets. But the “above and beyond” comes with fundamental problems with no clear solutions, and the arguments in support of its existence are less than compelling. It does not seem to carry its weight.
Whether it is possible to reconcile free will with our status as physics-puppets depends on our definition of free will. If we insist on a mind that has the potential to be an uncaused cause, which is to say an ultimate cause, then no such reconciliation is possible. If, on the other hand, we can settle for proximal causation, in which free will means only that the physical world has been arranged in such a way as to create a being with the potential for rational decision-making, then yes:
There is such a thing as a free puppet.
A strangely vicious cycle this is. Eventually, the new nation becomes one of the old nations, and a new nation comes up to replace them. I think this might be a symptom of a people too anxious to settle down. I can't blame them for wanting something new.
Quoting ssu
A survival of the fittest scenario then. It sucks, but sometimes you lose.
However, I do wonder about how outsiders feel. What if you are a citizen of a nation but don't consider yourself to be a part of its affairs. For example, a natural born American citizen who doesn't vote because the affairs of the nation don't concern them. It is strange to be a member of a nation that doesn't really care too much about the nation.
Quoting ssu
Whenever I make a post, I usually end up asking many more questions than I originally intended. So in a way, I asked about both the freedoms of an individual and the freedoms of a people. However, I do think these two are connected somewhat. A people is made of many people, is it not? On various levels also, apparently, as that map seems to show.
If I had to be concise, freedom is right-being. You have everything, but don't need anything; akin to a dream.
Which is why, just like how a dream can turn sour if you don't roll with it, man is largely free but tends to deny being wholly free.
To go off on a tangent, that has to do with attachments, as attachments produce setbacks. Freedom is merely playing the game with nothing in mind; no win or lose, hence harmonious. It's ultimately a still joy.
And that's what's discussed in Genesis; the con with the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil robs man of freedom and provides the artificial prison bars' barrier I mentioned.
I suppose it's also worth noting that we don't know if free will does or does not exist. If you think that X doesn't exist, that seems fine, but people who do think X exist should ideally look for why they think X exists.
I can't help but think about how we could use the fruit to remove our artificial prison bars. Of course, that train of thought might just be a continuation of the prison bars. Well, if I never try, I'll never find out.
I'll have to set aside some time later to read all that. It looks good from what I skimmed through.
Thank you! :grin:
Possessing the knowledge of the fruit innately, will remove the bars.
The con lies in that the knowledge gained from the fruit is second hand, so it is easily manipulated - which is how illusionists con the public.
You're essentially reading someone else's notes, rather than reading from the source.
Maybe you've heard the saying "Like the Devil reading scriputre"? This is the reference.
As if man is truly free, how can he be tempted to sin? I find it impossible; so the con with the fruit was a necessary impediment to man's natural freedom. Just like the fruit called money, for instance.
The tons of dog dung produced every day in every urban centre add up to a real public health and disgust threat when the feces are left on lawns and sidewalks. Fifty years ago, dog dung everywhere was pretty much the SOP. NOBODY picked up their dog's production. By the 1990s the social norm was shifting strongly in the direction of people cleaning up after their dog. Now one almost never comes across dog dung.
I suppose it's easy to be wrong about what is a threat when you've never had to deal with said threat. Good info though, it was interesting.
And where did the source get their information from? I suppose even the source is just notes. Even if you were to study the inner workings of a plant, you're just learning from what the plant does with the laws of nature, not the actual laws of nature.
Quoting Shamshir
There are things we like to do that aren't sinful, yes?
In his book, "On Not Leaving It to the Snake" theologian Harvey Cox interprets the temptation story this at least somewhat heretical way: Adam and Eve were meant to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. However, for the fruit to be beneficial, they needed to proceed in a forthright manner, on their own recognisance, so to speak.
They didn't.
They bought into the serpent's seduction, and let the snake talk them into eating the fruit. Their failure to act on their own volition is what spoiled the apple.
...and atoms are made up, ultimately, of relationships between interacting energy...and so into the quantum realm, where interaction collapses potentiality and determines probability....
I think the more we understand the role that interaction and relationships play in determining the universe at every level, the more freedom we feel to act.
Would you feel more free blindfolded or not blindfolded?
The source, more or less, is a self-written law.
When you study the plants, you're learning how nature has manifested itself as the plant, but there's plenty of other things; and the understanding of those things compiled with the understanding of the plant would be the understanding of nature.
To paraphrase your last sentence - you wouldn't be learning the recipe for the cake, but taking a slice and examining that; which would still be learning of the cake.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Aye.
Quoting Shamshir
Man can sin, but not necessarily so.
Think of it as one leg already in the pitfall.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That's an interesting interpretation.
I'd put it thus - they were supposed to grow the fruit as opposed to eating it.
And this very mistake is seen repeating itself in history, over and over.
The story of The Tower of Babel is just another version of this same con.
You may have misunderstood my intention. Studying the plant for sure gives you understanding of nature, but it's impossible to confirm that the plant works the way you think it does without knowing everything else (or at least having some kind of theory to compare it to).
Quoting Shamshir
To clarify my point a bit more, sure you would be learning of the cake, but how do you know its ingredients until you have studied every other cake and all of the ingredients you believe to be in those cakes?
What if you were free from the need for desire to create meaning in life?
You know, on another thread I was just saying Quoting Theologian
I don't think that is necessarily so.
You can always confirm that the plant works the way you think it does, and broaden your view thereafter.
It's a step by step process, and with the lower steps acting as a base for the higher ones - they can't be negated.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Well, you don't need to study every other cake - merely enough similar cakes.
You derive matches from comparison, and study the ingredients that match.
Soon enough you should be figuring out the cake in question.
But in practice "broadening your view" tends to involve completely throwing out everything that was believed before. We know that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, but we came to that almost completely different conclusion through completely new methods. I don't think its 100% safe to say we know how plants work until we know at least think we know about everything else too. Of course, I don't advocate telling botanists that they're morons, in fact, I think they are probably on the right track, but I also don't think that we should consider everything they say the absolute truth just because the small amount of understanding we have now matches up with what they say.
Quoting Shamshir
But what if the cakes you don't know about give you a completely new perspective? Don't get me wrong, what we know about cakes and how we think they work is probably good enough to make them now, but I don't think it's safe to say we know everything about cakes, not until we know every cake and everything related to them.
And what if you were free from the desire for meaning?
Sure, in a way. It's not completely throwing it away, but of course going up a step requires that you remove yourself from the current step.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
I get what you're saying - that you'd need to know all the relative factors, to understand the object.
Something akin to puzzle pieces and where they fit?
But you don't really need to know everything else, all that does is add more depth and hence more parts.
You can always know the plant and how it works, with less than all parts - merely enough parts.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Sure they will. Comparing a sweet cake to a salty cake, will give insights in to cake creation.
But it won't really influence a Garash recipe, will it? Merely give you a renewed appreciation, for what was already obvious.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
That has more to do with cuisine than cakes, though.
It’s not so much about things I don’t have to do.
It’s the freedom of being left alone, of living my life unimpeded, free from interference, which can come from so many quarters: government, schools, employers, people in general.
I’ve reached a stage where I don’t answer to employers, the government generally leaves me alone, the law has no interest in me, no one comes knocking at the door.
I live in a reasonably civilised democratic country. Except for taxes, voting, the census, jury service and local government charges they pretty much leave me alone.
The things I want to do, or like to do, have very little impact on others. I don’t ask anything from others. I know my life is a compromise between what I want and the world at large.
Freedom is choosing to grow unimpeded by others, that does not mean not being influenced by others.
Yes, but the question was what does it mean to ‘you’?
Freedom is the ability to exercise any activity that doesn't impede upon anyone else's freedom.
Why is that? Is it because you are then aware of where you can and cannot go as you set off? When you’re blindfolded, you can initially feel free - perhaps even more free than in the same position not blindfolded - but only until you wish to move or do anything.
So someone in a particular position in their life can feel free if they’re unaware of what lies in any direction beyond their current circumstances. As long as they have no desire to move from that position, they can retain that sense of freedom in ignorance. But the moment they desire to move in any direction, any unforeseen obstacle will undermine their freedom because they’re essentially blind to a way around it. Likewise if something changes their circumstances, then their sense of freedom is lost as they fumble around in unfamiliar territory.
A sense of freedom, then, is not so much dependent on what obstacles there are as what we understand about our ever-changing relationship to the environment and participants in general, including how we can navigate a path of least resistance in the general direction we want to go, as well as any help we can get along the way.
Like parcour, it helps to interact with everything not as an obstacle to avoid or overcome, but rather as a potential partner in achievement. This often means adjusting our plans to accommodate, even in the midst of executing them. We lose our sense of freedom when we fail to understand how a relationship has the potential for achievement from multiple perspectives.
But what if what we learn about a sweet or salty cake helps us make a better Garash?
Quoting Shamshir
The big picture I suppose. If we maintain our metaphor, what we know about cooking effects cakes, and what we learn about cakes influences what we know about cooking. Nothing is free from outside influence, especially arbitrary categories that we invent for ourselves.
But what of the subconscious? Even subtle gestures can influence how you live your life without you even knowing.
Well, I can imagine some grey areas, but it is for sure a definition.
Quoting Possibility
So there are two approaches to freedom then, one where you eliminate anything that can hurt you and then put on the blindfold, and another where you use your obstacles to get where you want to go?
The first approach assumes a controlled environment: that you CAN eliminate anything that might hurt you, and that the environment will remain free of obstacles or active oppression. This is an illusion. There is no way in real life to maintain this situation, so any sense of freedom is only temporary.
The second approach, rather than ‘use your obstacles to get where you want to go’, is about negotiating a path - understanding that you’re in a relationship with everything in the universe, and that there is always more than one way to get from here to there. Where you want to go isn’t more important than where everyone (and everything) else wants to go, and you’re capable of adjusting your own plans more efficiently than you can change someone else’s.
Assuming a static world, the first approach to freedom seems the most attractive option - but is it even possible? It requires us to have achieved independence and autonomy, as well as have our path to success already cleared. In a changing world, however, the second approach is more effective long term, and certainly more realistic, but it requires us to always be aware, interconnected and prepared to help others. And it doesn’t really look like ‘freedom’ from the outside - it just looks like life.
I have determined that this is the appropriate definition, although I agree that sometimes it's extremely difficult to determine when an action infringes on someone's freedom.
Perhaps something like this could be possible near or after the heat death of the universe (if we’re right in predicting it would happen anyway). I recall some speculation that we might be able to siphon Hawking radiation from black holes and live off of that for a while or even forever, so maybe a path to this kind of freedom would be to hold out until we can do that. Or collect all of the energy and matter in the universe and keep it in a controlled system, but assuming that the universe expands infinitely and faster than we can catch up, that might just be impossible.
When I am finally free
And all the clocks are broken
Because the first choice is a large upfront investment but by nature requires no upkeep. The second choice requires constant upkeep because you must constantly negotiate with your environment until you die or reach the first option. The second approach definitely seems more practical right now but I think it's natural to want to work towards the first one. And if the second method makes the first impossible (via restricting our actions so that extinction would result from making our way toward the first approach). then I suppose we just have to settle with negotiating with the universe.
Just as the word "jackass" can mean both a donkey and a fool... and I don't have to insist that it only has one meaning.
To put it frankly, I don't know. We've pulled off some pretty ridiculous things in the past that just seem normal now, so I definitely think it's possible. I wouldn't put all of my money in it ever happening though. I think it's probably ideal, but if it isn't possible, I wouldn't be too disappointed.
None of us can see the whole picture. A good rule of thumb is to go with what seems to make sense at the time, but be willing to change if the evidence says otherwise. I just can't help but think that completely ignoring a possibility is detrimental.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
I understand your reluctance to dismiss possibilities - I’ve been there. But all of science points to process as the underlying reality of our universe. This means that, despite thousands of years of denial and wishful thinking, we do NOT live in a static world. And the sooner we accept this reality and find a way to ‘roll with it’ rather than try to ‘control’ everything, the sooner we will achieve this sense of freedom we long for. To continue to believe we can put the brakes on the universe and make it first conform to our desires and then remain in that state is precisely what prevents freedom, not what contributes to it.
Which is why I support "rolling with it". The only place that our views differ is in the possibility the future holds. I think that if we find ourselves in a time and place in the future where creating a static world habitable to us is possible, we should surely do it. If anyone in the present says that they know we for sure can or cannot do this, they must surely be lying. No one knows enough about the universe to say that for sure. All we can do is live with the present and use all we know to make the future better than the present.
So where you would say-
Quoting Possibility
I would say-
we do NOT live in a static world (presently)
Logically impossible things that you think you believe in don't actually seem the way you think they seem. Somebody may live their life thinking 2+2=5 and act on behalf of that ... but that doesn't mean that that's actually a concept that they can make sense of or really believe in.
Incompatibilist will isn't only logically impossible it's not even logically coherent. It's not even possible to give a coherent definition of it. It would require you to be able to determine yourself but it would also require determinism to be false. And it would require you to be able to cause yourself to infinity despite the fact that you would never be able to end that regress and actually gain control.
That being said, if people believe that the Earth is flat, I think they should be able to believe that, but they shouldn’t be considered right unless they can effectively convince a majority of the population. After all, if the situation was flipped, wouldn’t you want the benefit of the doubt? If you don’t have it, the truth may never come out. Or both sides are wrong. At the end of the day, the only reason we pursue science at all is that we wish to know. If people really believe something insane, I welcome them to prove it, and if they make a convincing argument while also disproving the current working theory, I don’t think jumping ship is shameful.
I’m joking of course. Freedom for me is a word related with economics. It is the state of being free from poverty and other cares of life that having money solves.
Oo
I wasn’t actually asking you to come up with one meaning. My post might have been a bit clumsy. What I was thinking of was how so many of us, when asked such a question, suddenly address it as some sort of application to mankind as a whole, some idea that will make the world a better place, instead of turning inward and addressing their own very small and very personal life and what freedom means to them right now, on a daily basis, as something real and not theoretical, which we’re all very good at, and seems to me a like hiding from ourselves a little.
I’m not sure if my post was clear to you. I meant I accept the idea of the influence of the world at large upon me.
In this way freedoms may be considered, debated confirmed and denied, all whilst at the same time being subordinate to something and never true freedoms.
Social freedoms in this sense then are artificial, invented by humans, and valued by humans alone.
Physical freedoms apply to anything that can experience its existence.
I live in a 'free' and democratic society, but I am not free to do as I wish with recompense, there are laws and consequences in place to try and prevent me from just this.
There are some things I am ' free' to do, but the since the line between your private and public life is blurred, and to some degree, with the invasive nature of social media, nonexistent. This means that if what I do in my private life enters the public sphere it is scrutinised and deemed 'allowable', 'tolerable', 'criminal' or other social qualia, whereby limits and consequences are imposed on your actions. In this way then your private life is also being scrutinised in case it strays into public life, and how any behaviors may be perceived.
This is not truly freedom.
Another degree of freedom denied to us is the way in which we experience the external world: I am free to experience the sensual world, however I am a slave to my senses. In considering that I am free to see, but only via the physical processes I possess, Bees can experience the ultraviolet for instance.
Whilst we can now make machines that allow us the see the ultra violet spectrum, we still only see what we think it would look like using a visible light spectrum representation, built through scientific methodology that is designed to create a way to find what you set out to find. We can never truly know what the ultraviolet looks like, only what we tell ourselves we think it looks like.
We can have societal freedoms extended to us, but these can be rescinded if we break certain rules, not necessarily of our choosing, therefore in social consideration one is only as free as your neighbors allow you to be.
In a physical sense one is only as free as reality allows, we cannot comprehend non-reality, and are therefore bound by reality.
This means that to me the only true freedom we can have is of the mind. Our deliberate thoughts. The monkey mind can be quietened and you can cultivate a peace in which your mind is free, endless and yours.
I'm considered an elder amongst some of my people, and one generation away from people that were free and still straddled two areas continents before they were became countries. A time before so many imaginary lines were drawn to mark territory. I like your question about Freedom. Yet how can one ponder it without revealing their feelings about contemporary nations that exist today, for comparison of a New Nation?
Forgive me but all peoples since the dawn of what is considered human society have drawn 'lines' to mark territories.
This isn't an issue of freedom, as an individual is free to occupy a point in space and call it ' their space' this extends to a living space to sustain and support.
*edit: han to human...fat thumbs*
I just read this. Yes that’s true.
Maybe you’re right, in that to start a discussion you need to first state where you stand. However, I wanted to avoid influencing the answers of others as much as possible. It probably didn’t work.
Does this mean you are an antinatalist?
Quoting 420mindfulness
But then again, you can only imagine what you can imagine. Reality seems to limit the broadness of imagination.
This seems to imply that freedom cannot be permanent, that eventually, we will hit a wall and not be able to expand our autonomy.
Freedom's always going to be particularised, if we're always in a state of freedom, that sense of freedom becomes politically irrelevant regardless of its ontological richness. Freedom should always be thought of as a political/social/cultural direction of development rather than equated with any existing state of affairs. Freedom which is gained needs to be defended.
We're always on the precipice of greater freedom, or losing it.
I am not, I suppose you could say nobody chooses to exist is more appropriate? I mean you personally do not make a free choice. The same with your physical looks (body mods aside).
My point was more that choice is denied, taking freedom with it.
But you are still completely free to imagine only what you can imagine. That cannot be controlled by any other person.
I guess then we're left with the original question then, "What is freedom to you". There are so many different directions we can develop in and I'd be hard pressed to say that only one is correct.
Then we're in agreement then. Freedom is lost, but it isn't inherently wrong to remove freedom.
Quoting 420mindfulness
I think that what you can imagine can be influenced somewhat. In George Orwell's 1984, the government is actively seeking to change the very being of language to make imagining any form of freedom impossible. Now there is, of course, some unclearness as to if something like that is even possible, but I would say that depending on where you grew up, your culture (created by others) definitely influences what stories you enjoy or can even conceive of on your own.
Speaking of 1984, if you haven't read it I recommend it. It seems to be so important to the discussion that the first person to respond referenced it.
Everything else is a negotiation; an intricate and ever-changing set of relationships through which we convert that potential of our minds into ‘reality’ in the context of our interaction with an unfolding universe. Without interaction, our mind has only potential freedom.
Ownership is a sort of freedom, yes, but the less you own the less freedom you have via ownership.
However thoughts are part of you. They change with you as does your physical self.
When you share a thought, you share a part of yourself, and your self.
You are truly free in the choice to share or not share this part of you with anything outside of yourself.
Is your body not considered your property? Isn't a major theme of slavery the fact that you don't own your body?
Quoting 420mindfulness
I don't see how that means you don't own the thoughts you have in your head. Thoughts are unique in that you can share them without losing them. I think that's really the only distinction.
That's a bit off topic, but, I do think that it could be relevant to the discussion.
I see freedom as something that everyone already has. Everyone already has a limitless potential for agency. Subjugation relies on pathology. That there are people who are not free is resultant of some form of cult or another. In short, the problem is largely psychological.
Freedom proliferates by its expression alone. There is an indelible movement towards the liberation of all humanity that is just simply stifled by that people are willing to become subject to cult pathology in what more or less amount to schemes designed to limit the freedom of others. The liberation of all humanity may not necessarily prevail, but, it is a project that is always already being carried out.
I haven't quite hashed this all out, but, those are some of my preliminary thoughts on freedom. Take from them what you will.
Freedom is stifled by our awareness of that potential for agency. You can try to convince someone that they have limitless potential or that they can or can’t do certain things - but in the end it’s how we see our own potential in relation to space, time, value and meaning structures of the universe that determines what we can’t or won’t do.
In order to spontaneously jump into a song and dance routine, for instance, we need to believe that the sum effect of spontaneously jumping into a song and dance routine on our subjective experience of the universe will be positive. For some people, this may take a lot of education or new experiences that alter the structures in their subjective experience of the universe for them to even see this potential, let alone recognise its overall effect as positive.
But IMHO it is often a fear of this limitless potential in others that motivates us to willingly subjugate ourselves (and those with whom we interact) to value and meaning structures designed to limit freedom.
By ‘education’, I just mean second or third-hand (abstract) experiences that point to information, rather than first-hand experiences in which we process the information directly.
How do you decide what is a positive liberty and what is a negative one?
Freedom, as I understand it, is the absence of coercion. So it’s more a duty each of us have to refrain from coercing others.
What conditions would have to be met?
Ultimately, I think it means that I would have to have an indubitably certain consciousness that I am my own creation. For only if I know and directly experience that I am my own creation can I legitimately be held to be responsible for all my actions and all my omissions.
But, instead, as far as I can tell I had no say with respect to the fact that I exist and I had no say about who I would be. I have no consciousness and no experience of having participated in such matters.
Thus, the fact that I exist and the fact that I am who I am (i.e., my personality, my character) are simply experienced as brute facts over which I had no control.
Thus, it could be argued that there is no cogent basis for my feeling responsible for (i.e., either feeling guilty about or taking pride in) any of my actions or omissions, because both the former actions and the latter omissions are behaviors which must follow necessarily from and be pre-determined by the personality/character I have been given and the motives to which it must respond.
In short, a completely free will does not exist.
How do you do that? I understand that realistically it's impossible to never coerce anyone, but what do you think is the best way to coerce people the least?
Hm. What if you completely transformed yourself into something else? Something more desirable and completely unrecognizable? Would that count as "being your own creation"?
Quoting Emma33
I got another response pretty similar to yours but a lot more complex in wording.
Quoting Possibility
Is this kind of what you're getting at?
I get the feeling that we don’t want completely free will. Most of us cannot bear to take responsibility for the comparatively little freedom that we do have.
Within the confines of my existence and who I have become to this point (i.e. the personality/character I have ended up with), I have more freedom than I am aware of, and more freedom than I could want. Insomuch as I am conscious of my capacity to participate in this existence, I am more free.
Insomuch as I focus on the boundaries of my own existence, however - on the impact of the universe upon me - I have less freedom to speak of.
I agree that completely free will does not exist. For me to know and to experience that I have completely free will, I would have to BE the infinitely unfolding universe in its entirety. This is the desired experience of limited consciousness. Let me illustrate at a simpler level.
A stimulus-response existence initially perceives the physical organism as the infinite universe. Any external stimulus is then interpreted as either a boundary to that ‘universal’ existence (an indication of less freedom), or as evidence that there is more to the universe than first perceived: a freedom to explore and interact with a universe beyond that existence.
Once aware of the stimulus, there is a desire to go back to that initial perception of being the infinite universe, rather than to step forward into an unfamiliar universe and accept a broader experience of freedom. Regardless, the interaction cannot be undone, and so the choice with each interaction is to process the information as either more freedom or less.
I do not think the central issue is whether, or not, we want to have completely free will, or even our emotional reaction to having it. The question is whether, or not, we have it and what it consists of.
To claim that I am free because I can participate in this existence is like a prisoner contending that he/she is free because he/she can participate in prison life.
All your actions "operari" follow necessarily from who you are, your character, your "esse."
And you are absolutely free only if you chose your character, your "esse,"
A prisoner is still as free as they choose to be - just not in exactly the same way that you and I exercise our freedom. You can focus on the bars, or you can focus on the opportunities provided. That was my point.
And your ‘esse’ is only as rigidly defined as you decide. I think this idea that our character is entirely decided for us and then we are either allowed or not allowed by circumstances to ‘choose’ our pre-determined character is a failure to make effective use of our creative capacity as human beings.
I haven't been following what you guys are discussing exactly, but feel free to discuss whatever you like. I assure you I don't mind.
Persuade by means that do not involve force or threats.
All stemming from the overall freedom to violate the nation, as radical as that may get, though I would expect to not be able to go ahead and do purges but, instead, to be obligated to oppose malice and incompetence. In my view, a nation-state is a perversion of the potential of a polity, that insists on defining itself through its exceptions and thus disallows any kind of personal freedoms.
Of course, those are maybe a bit too obvious as examples, but similar things do happen every day between people who experience the same culture. I remember plenty of edgelords in my school days that made "threats" they never intended to follow up on but got in trouble anyway. Not that I don't think they deserved trouble, but I also know that they were too cowardly to actually fight anyone.
Does debt just mean being in the black, or does it entail social debts to people that have helped you and debt to a society that assists you in maintaining your standard of life?
Just the lenders. Those are the ones that feel like shackels. I don't think I owe society anything that prevents or holds me back. The same way it helps me I hlep it. What do you consider a debt to society?
seconds ago
The support your parents give you (monetary or otherwise), the positive influences others have on you, and anything else along those lines. You could also acquire debt by breaking laws that protect against actions that are generally detrimental to society.
Generally, I think this is the debt that keeps us all together. If someone loves and appreciates you, you're compelled to give back.
Not everyone agrees with that, which is why people throughout history who have tried to undo some of the opression of self centered thinking have said things like: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Jesus also said, "you have heard it said to love your neighbor, but I say love your enemy. For if you only love those who do good to you, you are no different than those who opress you."(+/-) Why would Jesus say that? Because our debt is not to society, but to God. Loving God requires that you love your fellow man, even those whom you hate.
If Jesus was real and did say that, I honestly think that he was right. It is beneficial for us to be nice to everyone. That isn’t what happens though.
I'm sorry, what? Capitalism is business in your hands, with you at the helm. The only other option is to put it in the governments hands. How has that faired for anyone? There is a reason why people fled their countries to come to a capitalist nation. I'm pretty sire the people of Taiwan are happy with it. I'm pretty sure the people of South Korea are happy with it. They stand in stark contrast to their non capitalist neighbors. What do you mean capitalism is the only power system that still exists? Capitalism is not the only power system. The government still exists and it is a power system. If capitalism is a power system, it is at least one (maybe the only one) that you or anyone are free to be a part of, not as a consumer, but as a businessman or woman. It is there and it can set you free if you go at it with hard work, intelligence and a little luck. It is the American dream; that you can reap the rewards of your own labor. It is your right to succede or fail at you own hands. Capitalism is you succeeding because you did it, not because the government made you successful. Capitalism is you failing because you did it, not because the government caused you to fail. You are the power in the capitalist system.
What people are you speaking of? Faith in God does free you from acting a certain way. You no longer are indebted to anyone but Him, which frees you. Maybe I can explain it a little better. Societies are always changing and they all have different values. A debt to one society may be turning in your Jewish neighbor to the Nazis or pointing to where the Tutsi woman is hiding so tyour fellow Hutu can kill them. On top of that people are self-centered, and they will congregate with those like them, forming a society of like minded people. Even a good society has great potential of becoming ugly. If your debt is to society then it can very well be a debt of division and death. Christ said our debt is to God, and from that debt to Him flows a payment of love for everyone, even your enemies. That is the only thing that can hold us together. Of course people are going to be people, and act wrongly. You owe them nothing. But because you owe God, you love them anyway. You cannot worry about them. A profession does not make someone a Christian. Jesus said "they give me lip service but their hearts are far from Me," and, "you will know them by their fruits." As to did He exist, I would love to have that conversation, but not here, I think. If you would as well, let me know.
1, Freedom to eliminate waste.
2. Freedom to inhale air at any given time (provided it's necessary.)
3. Freedom to pursue the blue bird of happiness (restrictions apply: you may not catch it. You are only allowed to pursue it.)
4. Freedom to wear five pairs of shoes at the same time on either of your feet.
5. Freedom to assemble little electric cars that come in a kit.
6. Freedom from religion.
7. Freedom to attend school
8. Freedom from needing to learn Calculus and French Irregular verbs.
9. Freedom to establish personal boundaries, personal restrictions, and place control on others.
10.Freedom to sew up buttons when one falls off.
Listen, while I'd love to discuss religion and capitalism with you guys, I know for sure that doing it publicly on this thread will blow us too far off of topic. I know you're very adamant about your respective positions, and I know they definitely overlap with the topic, but it would be irresponsible of me to let this devolve into pointless bickering. If you would like to start a group discussion via PMs, that would probably be ideal.
Sounds like you have most of those already depending on where you live.
By the way, you can catch the bird, you just can't keep it as a pet.
Well... as far as I'm concerned, a blue bird of happiness in the hand is worth more than two blue birds of happiness in the bush.
Freedom doesn't really mean anything to me besides freedom *from* certain things. I don't believe in my freedom *to* do anything. I do everything unfreely, as does everybody else, whether they realize it or not.
I mean, here's my argument against free will:
(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.
(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.
(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Freedom is having the ability to do 'good' anytime, anywhere without limit. Therefore any place that restricts and limits the application of goodness cannot be called 'free'.
I'm just gonna add a totally unrelated quote here:
We are only free in our reason.
The issue of freedom arose only because oppression, the absence of freedom, existed and provided the backdrop against which all freedom struggles began. We exist in a time in history where the oppression of the past still persists albeit in a weaker state. Thus, even now, we find freedom relevant and wish to free ourselves and others from the remaining vestiges of totalitarianism.
Had it been, and it was, the opposite we would've been fighting for control of some kind and not freedom. Look at religion, an important organizational structure for humans. To use Christianity, aren't the 10 commandments a method of control rather than freedom? All other forms of control can be so understood. It appears that in the past, way back in time, the problem wasn't oppression but freedom, too much of it. So, religion was invented to rein in excessive freedom.
So, we could say that the history of the world can be framed around the back and forth between chaos (too much freedom) and oppression (too less freedom). The first stage was the chaos of excessive freedom, then religion and other social structures were invented or discovered as control mechanisms. Then the pendulum swung the other way and oppression through slavery, tyranny became prevalent. As a reaction the so many freedom struggles began and now we're almost done with it - most people are now free at the desired level to calm things down. However, if the pattern I described is real we're moving towards chaos - unbridled freedom - and will usher in a new era of oppression. The pendulum it seems has no intention of stopping at the right place and time.