What is freedom? I dont know I'm not american, I have no freedoms, just like the rest of the non free world (which is everywhere but america, because their free and we'r not , boo hoo)
nameless, I think the catfight broke out because CoolSkill did not wish his definition to be challenged. I certainly don't have a fixed definition. I would echo your thoughts on the matter to a degree: there are many individual interpretations on what freedom is. It therefore seems logical, before embarking on a discussion of freedom, that some definition be arrived at. Personally, I can't see what would be wrong with defining freedom in a number of different ways, clearly identified as such. Then poster A can say, I want to talk about Freedom Type X, Y or Z, but not M, N or P. Complex? Of course it is, but so is the concept of freedom. And Odin, remember, if you are not with them you are against them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the question's what is freedom? well we aren't free to eat with our nose so that's out, etc. or to walk oh the ceiling less we-en got sucker shoes so. whatis free will? tis mans on paper i COULD right this mo walk out of my space and commit mass murder if i was of a mind to. why dont i? cause i am not in the mood. if the thought dos cross my mind, i allow it to also reflect about the reasons and outcome of such a move.....how would i live? what about guilt? a change of mind? etc etc the power-elite DO do tis shit. imagine being Blair or Bush and hve the friggin blood THEY have got on their hands???......we are talking little children torn apart by all kinds of evil bombs...'daisycutter'.....cancers caused by their DU bombs, genetic damage of babies which cause monstrous deformations, and disease, thewpoisoning of the very biosphee for millionsnof years.......and othe shit which many of you might not be fmiliar with like staged terrorism to furthe their 'new world order' so how do they sleep at night?.....maybe pharma drugs plus their lusiferian myth which deifies frrel will to commit evil for the 'good'! s, what is freedom? thehealth and wholess of Nature has got tp be Freedom. if Nature is free and healthy, then that is real freedom not just for us but for generations and generatins to come, and for all other species.......freedom to know the Way of things....to swim WITH the current rather than against it
True, you are free to go out and kill anyone you want. You are free to go and break any law, you just have to deal with the consequences of your actions. Its not like we're all locked in little cages and cant get out of them
Could it be meaningful to explore the concept of "degrees of freedom" In physics, a degree of freedom relates to a 1 dimentional movement within restrictions, for example a point has 3 degrees of freedom in 3D space, a point on a surface as 2 degrees of freedom, a pendulum has 1 degree of freedom. Degree of freedom relates to freedom but within defined constraints. Realistically, is this not true for the general concept of freedom. We are free to act withing the constraints; the constriants currently being laws of nature (force of gravity, force of electromagnitism etc) AND the society's laws, for example criminal law AND the resources one as (for example how much money one earns) AND the presense of others inviding your privacy (for example if you walk on a crowded street, you cannot walk in a straiht line, you have to adjust not to bump into others) AND all sorts of constraints I have not mensioned. Now the concept of freedom is still useful, for example, one could say that before the Berlin wall fell, East Germans were less free than West Germans, in the respect that they had more economic resources and could choose job and education more freely than behind the iron curtain. Naturally the laws of society are important to how much freedom the inhabitants have. Prohibitive laws can work both ways, too much and freedom is inhibited, to little and freedom is inhibited. For example, a law that would put people to prison for dressing in bikinis at beach restricts freedom, because the law is to harch. A law that is too soft in murder cases (too little punishment for murder) restricts freedom of its citizens since they cannot be safe on the streets if murder rates go up. Often someone's freedom is at the expense of some other's freedom. For example the relative incomes that we have, a lawyer earning 10X what a fruit picking worker does, gives more freedom to the lawyer at the cost of the fruitpicker. If fruit pickers had higher wage, then the relative wage difference would be less, and the lawyer would have less freedom since is relaitive buying power would be less (he would have to pay more for fruit, for example). Many poor people in the US have to have 2 jobs to make ends meet. They forced into working 16 hours a day. That restrics their relative freedom from poor people who live in Europe, who have it better here. So freedom is different for different people. Relative freedoms vary. Generally I think most would agree with the saying that if you are well off, then freedom in republican USA is great, while in Europe, less (because of taxes). If you are poor then you have more freedom in Europe, compared to USA. Anyone agree?
When you say 'make ends meet', are they just paying for basic neccesities, or do they have lots of extras, such as cable, multiple cars, internet, etc?
As this concept of freedom is so emotionally charged within the individual who harbors that particular concept, as the individual 'knows' what freedom is, comming to some sort of 'consensus' among people will be an 'emotionally' argued and defended business. We are egoically 'invested' inour thoughts and concepts.To discard that which we 'know' is 'right' in favor of 'consensus' if tantamount to relinquishing one's autonomy as a person. The same holds true of all 'beliefs', as far as I have seen. Go ahead and argue someone into altering or deleting a 'belief'. Freedom, is an abstract belief that we attempt to apply to concrete situations for the 'fallacious' act of judgement of quality. Again, how can you argue with someone who 'believes' himself 'free'? Or not? I don't think that individual concepts of 'freedom' are necessarilly complex. The 'complexity' arrises when this individual philosophical concept is put on a table and everyone is adding their own spices so it tastes good for them and must taste good, equally, for everyone. Impossible? Personally, I LOVE habaneros! That 'dish' won't fly far if someone else has to eat from it also. Hence the emotional arguments. Not logical, emotional. That is the nature of 'beliefs'! We defend ours with our lives! Would my life have apparent observable difference whether I had a 'concept' of freedom or not? I go about my life despite 'philosophical concepts'. The only discussion about 'freedom' that will not involve heated emotional argument might be the question, "Do you feel free? Why? Why not?" Who can argue with your 'feelings'? Woah!! Can 'freedom' simply be a 'feeling'? Not I AM free, but I 'feel' free as a more accurate 'description?
Objectively, I fail to see why this should be so. All that is required that each person participating in the discussion accept that: 1) There is more than one definition of freedom. 2) We are going to layout those various definitions. 3) We are going then to discuss them. Nobody's individual view of freedom is threatened. Emotion does not need to enter into it.
First, there is no 'objectively'. What you see or fail to see is purely subjective. We are already at the end of page two in this discussion and I have not seen evidence of your 'We are going to's'. We 'haven't yet'. How do we 'discuss' people's 'feelings'? The best that I see that we can do is 'understand', we can't debate a person's feelings. And, so far, I am still leaning in the direction that 'freedom' is just a feeling that we mistakenly attribute to the 'out there' world. Especially when folks (like Gustav) actually define how subjective and 'personal' the concept of 'freedom' is when he says, "freedom is when i get to say who where how what when"! "Emotion does not need to enter into it" Perhaps, but it seems to creep in nonetheless.
I was thinking about it at work today, and this thread isnt really about freedom. You have freedom to do whatever you want. "Whatever you want" covers what is within your means. You can stab someone to death, if you want. You can go around burning people's house down. You have that freedom of choice. What this thread is about, is the consequences of abusing your freedom. Sure, you have the ability to go stab someone todeath, you have the oppurtunity to, but you will have to face the consequences of your actions. Its all about responsibility.
alright alright...dot go all philosophical on me.......in ancient Greece it was the aritocrats who philosophized as usual...having mo 'freedom' than yer average slave...? take the freedom to beable to grow a natrual plant, the cannabis plant to rlieve oneselv of a disease, whch no legal medical curativ will ease.........?
Back to the possibility that 'freedom' is 'just' a feeling. So we might be able to ask, what makes you feel free? Unfree? Perhaps there can be similarities observed. For instance, I have had an extremely 'free' feeling when; I had transcended the 'law' of karma. I was able to consciously 'be in the moment' without 'diversionary baggage'. I realized the 'dream nature' of my uviverse and that I am the dreamer! I feel much more free being 'lucid'. An interesting perspective came from Here; NONSENSE AS SALVATION The human race will begin solving it's problems on the day that it ceases taking itself so seriously. To that end, POEE proposes the countergame of NONSENSE AS SALVATION. Salvation from an ugly and barbarous existence that is the result of taking order so seriously and so seriously fearing contrary orders and disorder, that GAMES are taken as more important than LIFE; rather than taking LIFE AS THE ART OF PLAYING GAMES. To this end, we propose that man develop his innate love for disorder, and play with The Goddess Eris. And know that it is a joyful play, and that thereby CAN BE REVOKED THE CURSE OF GREYFACE. If you can master nonsense as well as you have already learned to master sense, then each will expose the other for what it is: absurdity. From that moment of illumination, a man begins to be free regardless of his surroundings. He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play disorder games just for the hell of it. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therefore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being. And when men become free then mankind will be free. May you be free of The Curse of Greyface. May the Goddess put twinkles in your eyes. May you have the knowledge of a sage, and the wisdom of a child. Hail Eris.
nameless 09-11-05, 03:43 PM I think you make a good point which illustrates what I would say. I think it is way to broad of a term to try to define in specifics as "cool skill" has attempted to do. Look at it from another way, if there is freedom, what is the opposite of freedom? I think freedom is not being molested and controlled, which is why people get so emotional about it. Everyone thinks others should be controlled in some way, but mostly everyone also does not want themselves controlled. This is the issue of politics. When I am simply walking down the street or stop to look at something on "public" land or attempt to sleep on the side of the road somewhere and a police man shines a light in my face, starts asking me questions about what I am doing and tells me to move along, my freedom has clearly been curtailed. I know I'm not doing anything bad, but no one else does, thus sometimes a person's freedom must be violated. The point is that the discussion of freedom really only comes up when a person's freedom has clearly been violated (from their point of view). Of course, freedom can also be violated by one's self. I really wish to be able to fly or not be so lazy, but some condition of my biology prevents it. I am thwarted. I lack freedom. In that definition is it ultimately unattainable. In the words of Agent Smith, "we are not here because we are free. We are here because we are not free." For use politically, we all want freedom, probably more than we have, so let's always keep that in mind when making decisions. For definitions, we should define what is and is not permissable by giving good reasons for that, not by stating whether it does or not go against "the" definition of "freedom". For example, I am sometimes distracted by women hanging their breasts in my face at work and annoyed by being forced to remember that though I may want to f*** her, I can not. Therefore, because it causes me mental stress and decreases productivity, I would say that it is reasonable to have a company dress code prohibiting clearly promiscuous clothing. Policy makers would undoubtedly think that is a good argument, but they must decide if curtailing women's "freedom" in that manner would be worthwhile. I think it is reasonable to consider the very fact of curtailing one's freedom as the first objection to any such policy. Ophiolite 09-10-05, 02:17 PM I tend to agree with your post. SativaDiva 09-10-05, 10:44 PM is right that it's a shame the masses can't handle anarchy in the sense of no government. That would be possible if everyone was decent. No, I'm not going to start defining decent. duendy - Perhaps your post was meant to be poetry, but it is difficult to read in any case. Streamline - the problem I see with your suggestion is that I see clearly defining freedom to be very dangerous when used with political (read - setting of policy) intentions. I think we should be very careful to not take a word that is used so generally and try to pidgeon hole it (confine it to a narrow area) in a legal document. But, for simple discussion, whatever. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There would be such a boost in the sales of razor blades if people applied even a bit of critical thought to cute 'bumper-stickers'! Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that your body is a 'prisoner' (concept and construct) of mind! I'd be happy to send you a hacksaw baked into a thought. Oh, wait, there are many forms of 'mental hacksaws' already available.. meditation, spiritual paths, entheogens, pure science, etc... Salvation is at hand! Again, 'freedom', like your 'body', has 'existence' in your mind only. If you BELIEVE that you have no freedom, then, you have no freedom! The 'actuality' if there is an 'actuality' can never be known anyway. 'Belief' is all. Perspective...
How about, 'freedom' is 'options'? The more 'options' one has in one's life, the more 'free'. Options, is Chaos. Chaos is infinite options before the 'options' are 'distilled' from the 'raw potential' of 'possibility', Chaos. Chaos is the ultimate 'instability'. The Bindhu, 'undifferentiated potential' of the Hindus. The more 'freedom' one acknowledges, the more unstable one's life. Instability is a 'horror' for humans. Freedom, truly, would also be a 'horror'. Freedom cannot be 'comfortable', cannot be 'secure'! Most would be driven further insane by the mere 'smell' of this extent of 'freedom'. Perhaps this is why we 'self limit', for our 'comfort', our mental 'stability', as opposed to Being on the cutting edge of the 'creation' of our 'reality'! A taste of this sort of real 'freedom' would make most folks spontaneously self implode into babbling idiocy and suicide. Some 'live' in this place...
Ok, dude, I think you're getting a bit "out there". First of all, I don't think chaos can be equated to choices. Chaos is a state of disorder. It just means patterns can not be found or circumstances can not be predicted. What does that have to do with being able to make more choices? This sounds like you are suggesting that possibly our biological existence and Nature in general is not a factor. I happen to think that yes, our minds are prisoners in our bodies, and our bodies are dominated by overactive minds. It is a matter of lack of perfection of construction and simultaneously all the crap that the "external" world throws at us (like hurricane Katrina and bad drivers).
