A fair point. Upon further consideration, I think that both of us are partly right on this. I'm not saying there aren't limits to freedom -- there are. However, the thread title simply asks "is freedom possible"; it didn't ask about unlimited freedom. In your example of a lone person on an island not being able to masturbate due to embarrassment after a second person comes along, there is certainly a sense in which the person is not free. That embarrassment may have a biological source, or it may be the result of socialization, or both. People cannot be totally free from their biology, and perhaps not ever totally free from their socialization as children (that one's more debatable, I think). But on the other hand, the person still may overcome those factors and make the choice to masturbate in the presence of the other person, embarrassment be damned. In that sense, he IS free, as long as the other person doesn't physically stop him. He may not be free from his mental reservations, but he is free to ACT nevertheless if he so chooses.
Perhaps we are free as much as our conception of freedom, and of course the ability to act in that freedom. It can also be a freedom to decide not to play with deeper thought, as it may be good as it is. Perhaps the real freedom is when you can think and do things without bad consequences.
If you wish to use that definition, shouldn't we use a different word other than "free" and/or "freedom"? When we say "free", no one that I know, who has any intelligence at all, would say that "free" means "somewhat limited by our concept of freedom". Is that how you wish to define "freedom"? Then that's not "freedom" as it's normally used and defined. We shouldn't just go around re-defining words that are already well established and in common usage. Baron Max
But as we progress we acquire—not new or better—but altered positions. A word such as "freedom" too will be redefined to suit an altered perspective. Also, certain "intrusive" and "base" emotions, such as embarrassment, jealousy, self-pity, etc, don't necessarily refute a sense of freedom—on the contrary, they may assist for a greater freedom, that is, if you have the comings for a greater self.
Well, certainly I can't or won't disagree. But then we have to figure out just who this "we" is who redefines all these perfectly good words ...and are they some special authority or what? Agreed ...I think? But then you'll notice that you also have included the term "greater freedom" in lieu of "freedom" ....which indicates a quantifiableness to the term "freedom". And thus you're practically agreeing with me that freedom must, almost necessarily, be qualified. Baron Max
The "we" who has drifted away from the larger and dictatorial "them". The "them" who, as orchestral bonanza, will assume total significance onto itself—as well, presume it for me as one of them. Ha. A special authority to one's heart, perhaps, but I'd rather think of it as a special head space attained—one can't but understand one's varied consistencies. Qualified but not predetermined, hence not assumed; nor predefined—definitions follow in one's tread.
Not somewhat limited, it has no limits that we are aware of. That is freedom, when a person is restrained by the boundaries of his own fear. Freedom is of course a subjective experiance, and is determined by many factors, there are times you feel less free, and there are times you feel more free than normal. Perhaps you make the mistake of looking at the definition instead of your own experiance, which very well may call for re-definition.
Freedom "exists" only because it clearly doesn't, i.e., one becomes aware of not being "free". But as I said earlier, if the idea of freedom is predefined—an ideal—one will continually be chasing after it. Also, "fear", in my opinion, does not "restrain", nor, as the earlier example, does "embarrassment" to illustrate the feeling of non-freedom. Rather, the question should be, where and why does fear (or embarrassment) erupt? Obviously to protect the freedom of something else. I think it's a misuse to think of freedom as one overall lump sum in a person's psyche—there are degrees and fluctuations and varied consistencies in one's being, with each aspect demanding its fair share of freedom to be—otherwise nothing much would manifest.
I can agree on that, the fear that I spoke about was the fear of the consequences of breaking the law. If you break the law (and don't get caught) then naturally this fear is going to last and limit your freedom even though you are not in a situation in which fear is helpful, however if you don't break the law and follow it, then fear can be a guidance when you are about to break the law and thus not something that limits us, since we shouldn't break the law anyway.
Well, you are true in a way, the reason for laws is that people break them, otherwise there would be no reason for laws. An interesting question: "would people do certain things if it wasn't against the law?".
Clarification of: "Well, you are true in a way, the reason for laws is that people break them, otherwise there would be no reason for laws." I think it might be the second paragraph that you wanted me to clarify but just for the sake of it: Laws are there for a reason, people need to have a limit to their freedom or chaos would break out, if people naturally was ordered then there would be no need for laws since they wouldn't break them anyway. Hence, the reason for laws is that people break them. Clarification of: "An interesting question: "would people do certain things if it wasn't against the law?"." Like Baron Max said, this is probably a gross generalisation, but I feel that people do bad things just because it is against the law, I think that it gives them a extra kick, perhaps it's like a addiction to the fear they have...
Sorry, I meant a clarification for your interesting question. What certain things do you have in mind?
Total freedom is impossible, a "state of rest" is what we all subconciously mislabel as freedom. Everybody wants to rest, you, me, your father, your bus driver, your dog, your uncle, e.t.c. But nobody necessarily wants total freedom, which is in fact impossible. Just my thought. Putin: You scoundrel barbarian, I am going to disript your process on the defense system Bush: Be free and chill out
Something that comes to mind would be drugs and theft, shoplifting etc., I think there is a excitment in not getting caught that is one of the reasons that they do it in the first place, at least in the beginning it might have been so. Of course there are also other reasons, which I take for granted that you know about.
Freedom, in my view, is the right to do anything so long as you're not impinging on the rights of others (thereby reducing their freedom of action). The problem is that we're all so acculturated to take notice of the opinions of others, and also to feelings of guilt or shame if we do something that we think that someone else might disapprove of, (even slightly) that we restrict our own freedom--which (as has been pointed out already) is another way of saying that we are allowing that social conditioning to impose self-censoring limits on our freedom of action.
