So... posting some drivel on freedom. Share your thoughts.

[Elledan]

<<

<<

<< "Group freedom" is socialist nonsense. There is no such thing. A group cannot be more, or less free than the individuals in it. >>


If someone is part of a group, s/he is contrained by the (unwritten) rules in that group. A group constrains the freedom of an individual.

Yet this 'sacrifice' of personal freedom is compensated by the newly gained freedom: the ability to do things which were previously impossible. >>



Ability is not freedom, just as benefits aren't freedom. If freedom is restricted to gain an ability. Than freedom is restricted. Period.

Again, you're over complicating this. >>


Freedom:

1. the power to act, speak or think freely.
2. the state of being free > unrestricted use of something[/b]
5. a special privilege or right of access

(source: Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

Especially definition #5 is interesting.

Joining a group can increase one's freedom, at the cost of some personal freedom.

 

[Geekbabe]

Nothing in this life is "free" about the best you can hope for is the ability to decide for yourself which things you're willing to pay for and which you'd rather pass on

 

[linuxboy]

well, this thread quickly went into a bunch of side conversations. I then will respond to any serious objections to my idea and comment on thoughts, even if I addressed them already with what I think to be pretty good objections, although it is doubtful they are as they failed to convince.

AmusedOne

Any inherent thing can be oppressed or repressed. Even life itself. BUT, if it exists as the default in all cases (as freedom does) than it is inherent. Any time the oppression or repression is removed, freedom emerges. If there never is oppression or repression, freedom is always there.

In other words, it takes ACTION to stop freedom. But freedom exists as the default when no action is taken.

Understand?

Ehm... Isn't that the same thing I said? I called it implicit order and said that most people are so far away from true freedom by what I call house-building, or thinking that their lives with associated delusions have meaning and some sort of ultimate value, which in turn gives them security.

b0mbrman

Everyone has their own values. Freedom leaves the decision up to you to follow the law or not...

Ok, you needed sleep then. Freedom and the law are different functions unless you mean an idea of the law that is part of human beings, meaning what is present when we peel away the layers and heal the scars. Explain more if you like, your post is pretty circular.


Elledan

There is no 'freedom'. Freedom is the name we have given to a large collection of 'freedoms', all different, many targeting different things in life.

You can not give one definition for 'freedom' because it's so fractured.

No. Perceived freedoms of liberties are not the same things as true freedoms. I assume that my perception is somehow true fr many people, since I have encountered people from many walks of life and with varying beliefs but have found this idea of true freedom to be universal, although some people may not realize it fully or act on some different principles. A fracturing of freedom is not the same thing as the state of being free, or |freedom|.

navyrn

People are mixing up freedom and justice. Seperate them and see what happens.

Freedom is the absence of restraints. What ever that restaint is...jail, depression, boxer shorts.

This is a very individual and relative concept. One person can accept his state of affairs and not feel any loss. Another in the exact same position may feel closed in and without choice.

Please see my objection to the idea of subjective absolvance of limitations. The relative abolition of what I call nomoi does not imply the person is truly free since people still exist in the corporeal world and this requires attachment to something. What I ague for is an attachment to a "true self", and I tied that in with ideas of ecological interdependence.

AmusedOne

<< There is no 'freedom'. Freedom is the name we have given to a large collection of 'freedoms', all different, many targeting different things in life.

You can not give one definition for 'freedom' because it's so fractured. >>





Freedom is a lack of restriction; the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. Period. Anything else is just a variation of this central meaning.

Freedom is NOT that hard to understand, nor is it so dangerous as many would have us believe.

Ok, I disagree. We cannot be free of restriction. We die, that is a limit, and we try to overcome that and other limits by satisfying ego functions and desire, bringing pleasure and the feeling of freedom. But is this true freedom? True freedom doe not fade, pleasure does, I think.

Ornery, I addressed this idea in a previous objection. Consequences still imply there is a restriction and is liberty, not true freedom.


Josephus

Freedom is the ability to stop between stimulus and response and choose..

Freedom is not allowing your circumstances to control your state of mind...

That freedom implies that one requires external stimulus or an outside to create freedom. True freedom is not created nor is it lost, although I do think it can be suppressed. Not allowing circumstances to control freedom means that freedom is contextual. True freedom is a state of being, a knowledge and awareness, an obedience to something that is part of us and part of human beings, I think. It cannot be as simple as being in that pause between stimulus and response. Behaviorism and Skinner fail at some point, I think.


Moonbeam

I am bound by blood to take my Mom to dinner today, so the prison of time removes my freedom to respond more fully.

Then a lack of freedom is a following through of obligations? And time means freedom is removed or suppressed? I think this is true, although it's not really an objection.


Moonbeam

The relationship I would explore, had I the time, would be that which Amused calls default and linuxboy proposes as related to the true self. Both imply some sort of 'background radiation'.

That's it. Would you like to get into it after all these people finish voicing thoughts and not recognizing that I had already made objections to them that they have not addressed?



luvly

Personally, I do not believe in natural rights. I am not a realist on this aspect for partly the reasons pointed out by Linuxboy. My view kinda of mimicks John Mill's utilitarianism on this aspect of liberty. I know there are flaws in the "harm principles", but that makes more sense to me for justiying the rights we decree/assert. Talk to you all later.

Ok, liberty is fine and taking that view is pretty safe, especially if you recognize the objections but what then is true freedom?

Elledan

You seem to rely on definitions and concepts and ideas of what others have said freedom is. I think that's great if you agree with that but you then need to support your arguments further or try and meet my objections. Thus far, the pattern is: I state idea, you make a claim as absolute and factual and expect everyone to see how that ties in to my idea and defintion. Try and make objections so I can see connections, I'm not a very bright guy.

And I also don't know where you're going with this, although I suspect many do not really understand the point I made either.

baffled

Nothing in this life is "free" about the best you can hope for is the ability to decide for yourself which things you're willing to pay for and which you'd rather pass on

Bloody genius. I think that's it right there. We pay for some things and pass on the rest, but my question is just what sort of price do we pay and if that price has any meaning and if there is any way we can be so filthy rich that the price won't matter or likewise so poor that we can afford nothing and must do everything by our own selves instead of engaging in an economic system, if that's even possible somehow.


Eh... So I still don't see any good objections. Amused started out really well but it seems our ideas have converged. MB, care to move on or done anyone else have ideas about this? If so, try and make objections or not repeat themes and ideas we have already addressed just to save us all time.

Cheers !

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Kind of reminds me of the fourfold negation dealio. Freedom cannot be affirmed, cannot be deined, cannot be affirmed and denied, cannot NOT be affirmed and denied. Seems like it's just another "it" that we've ascribed a word to, and now we're struggling with what exactly the word encompasses. I think the only way to understand freedom is to unlearn the word.

 

[linuxboy]

Kind of reminds me of the fourfold negation dealio. Freedom cannot be affirmed, cannot be deined, cannot be affirmed and denied, cannot NOT be affirmed and denied. Seems like it's just another "it" that we've ascribed a word to, and now we're struggling with what exactly the word encompasses. I think the only way to understand freedom is to unlearn the word.

compare with my response:

Real freedom is that.

I choose words with great care usually. What I meant is that real freedom is THAT. If you recall from my previous posts, that that is an intersting state or awareness. I agree with you but must point out, I already addressed it

thanks for the contribution.

Cheers !

 

[Amused]

<<

<<

<<

<< "Group freedom" is socialist nonsense. There is no such thing. A group cannot be more, or less free than the individuals in it. >>


If someone is part of a group, s/he is contrained by the (unwritten) rules in that group. A group constrains the freedom of an individual.

Yet this 'sacrifice' of personal freedom is compensated by the newly gained freedom: the ability to do things which were previously impossible. >>



Ability is not freedom, just as benefits aren't freedom. If freedom is restricted to gain an ability. Than freedom is restricted. Period.

Again, you're over complicating this. >>


Freedom:

1. the power to act, speak or think freely.
2. the state of being free > unrestricted use of something[/b]
5. a special privilege or right of access

(source: Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

Especially definition #5 is interesting.

Joining a group can increase one's freedom, at the cost of some personal freedom. >>



If personal freedom is lost. Freedom is lost.

 

[Elledan]

<< If personal freedom is lost. Freedom is lost. >>

Correct.

But this is not the case when talking about joining a group.

linuxboy,

I read your post, yet it did seem indeed mere drivel to me. Whatever your point was, it got lost in an ocean of words.

 

[linuxboy]

linuxboy,

I read your post, yet it did seem indeed mere drivel to me. Whatever your point was, it got lost in an ocean of words.

I summarized at the end. And I did a decent job organizing, the structure of which I already explained.

the point is:

Real freedom is that. It is knowing this, acting by it, and holding it as a value and belief knowing that those beliefs are really meaningless since to be free is to be outside of meaning and values.

Freedom as obedience is a shorter summary. So far, you just took this thing on some tangent away from my main idea.

Cheers !

 

[Elledan]

<< linuxboy,

I read your post, yet it did seem indeed mere drivel to me. Whatever your point was, it got lost in an ocean of words.

I summarized at the end. And I did a decent job organizing, the structure of which I already explained.

the point is:

Real freedom is that. It is knowing this, acting by it, and holding it as a value and belief knowing that those beliefs are really meaningless since to be free is to be outside of meaning and values.

Freedom as obedience is a shorter summary. So far, you just took this thing on some tangent away from my main idea.

Cheers ! >>

Freedom as obedience?!

I read your post once more, but it still eludes me whatever you're trying to make clear.

Also, there is no 'self'. Sunyata.

And how can anything be 'outside of meaning and values'?

Remember, use logic, not philosophy if you want me to understand you.

 

"Remember, use logic, not philosophy if you want me to understand you."

Elledan, you remind me of those who know not something but attempt to conceal that fact by pretending to know and pretending to prove the other incorrect.

Take your time with philosophy classes. Need I remind you that logic is a subset of philosophy?

A logician recognises this fact. Perhaps you are not a logician as you think? :/

 

[fatalbert]

too much text, not enough motivation to read

 

[Elledan]

<< "Remember, use logic, not philosophy if you want me to understand you."

Elledan, you remind me of those who know not something but attempt to conceal that fact by pretending to know and pretending to prove the other incorrect. >>

This accusation is false.



<< Take your time with philosophy classes. Need I remind you that logic is a subset of philosophy?

>>

Sorry, I should have said metaphysics instead of just philosophy.


<< A logician recognises this fact. Perhaps you are not a logician as you think? :/

>>

Logic is the foundation on which everything is build. Once one discovers it, it becomes the only possible way of life.

 

[linuxboy]

Freedom as obedience?!

I read your post once more, but it still eludes me whatever you're trying to make clear.

It wasn't addressed to "you".

Also, there is no 'self'. Sunyata.

Well, you make a reference to some eastern line of thought without really explaining what you mean. I at least make an effort that some seem to grasp, even if you can't. Make the effort... at least meet me there.

And how can anything be 'outside of meaning and values'?

How can it not? I just make the assertion, same as you do, why should I have to explain myself. I use logic, of course it is true of false, when one discovers that, there is no alternative.

Remember, use logic, not philosophy if you want me to understand you.

I tell you to do the same. I made no metaphysical assertions, do not let your bias cloud your logic. I did, however, use metaphors rather liberally. It is like reading a novel; if you have not experienced life, you cannot understand what the characters truly experience since there is no empathy.

Let logic solve that for ya.

This accusation is false.

That assertion is false.

Cheers !

 

[Elledan]

<< Freedom as obedience?!

I read your post once more, but it still eludes me whatever you're trying to make clear.

It wasn't addressed to "you". >>

So? I should be able to understand it regardless of that fact, no?


<<
Also, there is no 'self'. Sunyata.

Well, you make a reference to some eastern line of thought without really explaining what you mean. I at least make an effort that some seem to grasp, even if you can't. Make the effort... at least meet me there. >>

Don't let your self-importance get in the way.

I referred to 'Sunyata'. Now how difficult is it to open a new tab and type 'Sunyata' in Google?



<< And how can anything be 'outside of meaning and values'?

How can it not? I just make the assertion, same as you do, why should I have to explain myself. I use logic, of course it is true of false, when one discovers that, there is no alternative. >>

You're making statements which I can not prove false or correct. At least give your complete reasoning, like I do.



<< Remember, use logic, not philosophy if you want me to understand you.

I tell you to do the same. I made no metaphysical assertions, do not let your bias cloud your logic. I did, however, use metaphors rather liberally. It is like reading a novel; if you have not experienced life, you cannot understand what the characters truly experience since there is no empathy. >>

Blah blah blah.... you're getting tiresome, lad.



<< Let logic solve that for ya.

This accusation is false.

That assertion is false.

Cheers ! >>

Gheez... smartass.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would say that in one way freedom could be submission to the will of God. Speaking from a different perspective it might be loving.

Amused speaks of personal freedom, but what if what people think of as the personal, the self, has died and been replaced by something else. Somebody without a self might exhibit a radically different kind of freedom since, of course, there would be nobody to chain.

 

[OS]

-

 

[linuxboy]

Elledan, I'm just messing with ya. I really do get visits from ennui, des temps en temps

I don't know what the point of discontinuity is for you. When you read, I cannot understand the point where you stop understanding and all you post are fragments so I resort to a sort of mirroring.

MB,
there would be nobody to chain.

I like this idea, but if there is nobody to chain, is there still obedience? Or do these notions disappear and there is only obedience? I think there is some "background radiation" there but can't quite put into words what that that is.

Thanks for the contribution.

Cheers !

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think that what I said is very different than this:

"Freedom then is obedience to implicit order, even though it appears as if its chaos. Freedom, real freedom, is knowing what things are and evaluating them properly, seeing through the eye of the heart. That is freedom. Freedom will not result in a wrong; it does not err since it knows everything is meaningless. Freedom will not result in disappointment and frustration at a lack of conquest or because of unattainment. Real freedom is not some sort of misogynistic withdrawal from others and escapes into nature or into some halcyon state of pulchritude. Real freedom is still submission to what is and must be. It is not a rationalization of one?s state or a systematization of outside reality by a system or a dualistic system that works mostly on polarity. Real freedom is not doing something as long as one accepts responsibility for the outcomes or simply doing something based on the merits of the means. It is not a decided course of action but a state, an attitude, and an approach. A worldview. Through living by this sort of freedom, we are free. We are ourselves and not neurotic. We do not with to transcend since we do not yearn for some sort of security in another. We love and maintain ties with the world around us, which make up our efforts and place goals and priorities in our actions.

Real freedom is that. It is knowing this, acting by it, and holding it as a value and belief knowing that those beliefs are really meaningless since to be free is to be outside of meaning and values."

As far as the obedience thing is concerned maybe like jumping into a river and gowing with the current, you can swim anywhere not against the current.

 

[Elledan]

<< Elledan, I'm just messing with ya. I really do get visits from ennui, des temps en temps

I don't know what the point of discontinuity is for you. When you read, I cannot understand the point where you stop understanding and all you post are fragments so I resort to a sort of mirroring. >>


I manage to follow your reasoning up to about this point:

"Having pondered questions like these, I think my answer is nothing really of the sort. First of all, a sort of arbitrariness stemming from the self, a subjective living in a moment and acting from that motivation is not freedom. Experiencing the now and being free from what we perceive to be restrictions and encumbrances and being outside of time is not really being free. Why? It is not because we cause harm to others because harm is such a relative thing. Notions of objective morality are still touchy, despite attempts by many philosophers to define morality as an absolute. It is not because we harm ourselves or because we choose to live. These are sorts of self-preservation prerequisites. It is not really because we are guarded by a state in which we know we are free to be without fear in pursuing happiness."
At this point you fall back from a logical reasoning based on verifiable evidence to a reasoning based on (metaphysical) philosophical musing. A reasoning I can not validate and therefore can not accept.