PDA

View Full Version : What is Freedom?



Caledonian
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 10:57 AM
What is freedom?

Does freedom really exist?

How does freedom exist within a purely determinist universe and spatial plane?

Are we as human beings really free or is freedom merely a masquerade of our own delusions?

King Sitric
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 03:32 PM
These questions above evokes the works of Descartes, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heideggar, Jean-Paul Sarte etc...

Freedom is non-slavery as folk understand today.
It is liberty, free-will, free-choice, sovereignity, non-attachment, non-commitment, etc...

But as Sartre pointed out, 'Existence precedes essence.' In a secular and godless world today, with such freedom, human beings are now 'condemned' to be free. Human beings are 'free' to be what they want to be! With such freedoms today, folk now have to give themselves purpose.
Some folks hide and escape such freedom by slipping into a social role,etc... so as to give themselves an identity!

Wulfram
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 04:03 PM
I don't think anyone in history has ever been truly free, not even the rulers.
We should instead consider who has been the least restrained.

http://i539.photobucket.com/albums/ff355/williamofwaco/daily_picdump_640_17-1-1.jpg

Johann Landsersen
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 04:16 PM
Freedom is detatchment from modern society, and the expectations and restrictions of the media and the government. Hardly any body today is free. Far too many people are agents to the jews and it is planted within them to not realise it.

kuehnelt
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 05:05 PM
I don't have the freedom to spread all of the Moon across my bread this morning.

I don't have the freedom to take a wrench to the equipment and furnishings of a local bank that's defrauded me in time for Christmas.

Why don't I have these freedoms? In the first case, it's because I don't have the power to do that. I couldn't do it if I were alone on a tropical island, I couldn't do it if I ruled the entire world, I couldn't do it if everyone agreed to not try to stop or punish the act. In the second case, it's because I'll face undesirable consequences, from my perspective, for doing that. And that it's my perspective that matters, highlights that a restrictive consequence could be something like "my mother will cry" or "I may fall to accomplish the political objective."

So if it's bad that someone ever feels unfree, you could alleviate this by raising them in a VR chamber that simulated the satisfaction of crazy desires, or you could destroy parts of their brain until they no longer traced actions to any restraining consequences. That these are grotesque solutions doesn't reflect on my analysis, I think, so much as on 'freedom'. The idea must have its roots in reaction: "I really don't like that tyrant over there. I really don't like the hopeless look of that slave. I wonder, what would be a good word for 'not that' ? ..."

You might enjoy hearing songs about freedom, but I think when these are sung that the singers disguise all the genuinely good things they think about. People sweep dust under carpets; they don't sweep paintings under carpets. A fuzzy ambiguous disputable word shouldn't mask anything much better than it.

You might support those who advocate freedom in political spheres, but what does that even mean? Won't that just end in some compromise between sets of violations, because "of course 'true freedom' would be absurd!" ?

I prefer those who can say that such and such is wicked and evil, and then thoroughly defend this assertion, to the point of defending the actions they take against it. If you see an ongoing murder attempt, you don't need some grand vision of a post-murder world to motivate you to act. And if you had such a vision, it could distract you with thoughts like "but won't people react favorably to my plans if this horrible thing happens?"

King Sitric
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 12:35 AM
Freedom is also money, wealth!

Money buys power!

Power = Freedom!

Caledonian
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 12:41 AM
These questions above evokes the works of Descartes, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heideggar, Jean-Paul Sarte etc...

Freedom is non-slavery as folk understand today.
It is liberty, free-will, free-choice, sovereignity, non-attachment, non-commitment, etc...

But as Sartre pointed out, 'Existence precedes essence.' In a secular and godless world today, with such freedom, human beings are now 'condemned' to be free. Human beings are 'free' to be what they want to be! With such freedoms today, folk now have to give themselves purpose.
Some folks hide and escape such freedom by slipping into a social role,etc... so as to give themselves an identity!

More and more I think freedom to a great extent is an illusion in that people are not free but rather their behavior is determined in a set of parameters.

Those parameters define what they can and can't do where there really is no freedom at all.

Even freedom of choice is a illusion in that choice along with options are dictated by a set of determined parameters as well guided by necessity.

In existence we are slaves to those governed parameters whether we like it or not where we cannot literally in any real sense be called free.

This is specifically why I think discussions of freedom in social politics is useless and misguided.

[And why democracy is a ridiculous absurd notion.]


Ronan said: I don't think anyone in history has ever been truly free, not even the rulers.
We should instead consider who has been the least restrained.

And really Ronan that's exactly what it comes down to in the end.

I agree with that.

I like to define civilization as a prison construct in that you have your prisoners, guards, and wardens which in a way can be a distinguished articulative analogy of describing the three social classes found in societal hierarchy.

At any rate the prisoners, guards, and wardens are not free in that their entire lives revolve around the prison that they exist in but nobody wants to be just a low level prisoner in the prison where everybody aspires to be either guards or wardens in that by achieving those ranks one atleast is able to be granted some level of privileges within the prison construct in contrast where the low level prisoners are not granted any at all.

It's a bit of a cynical way of looking at civilization but I truely do look at it as such.

Sometimes in this prison construct things become so chaotic where there is a prison uprising in the guise of revolution but after every uprising things just end up going back to the way they always were in terms of the prison status quo.

King Sitric
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 01:12 AM
"I like to define civilization as a prison construct...."

AlaricLachlan - You have touched upon Rousseau's critique of civilization where he more or less said that when humanity became civilized it became enslaved!

Caledonian
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 01:16 AM
"I like to define civilization as a prison construct...."

AlaricLachlan - You have touch upon Rousseau's critique of civilization where he more or less said that when humainity became civilized it became enslaved!

In a sense I agree with Jean Jacques Rousseau along with many modern day anarcho primitivists on the subject. ;)

Civilization has it's benefits of technology, industry, and science but at the end of the day of all the benefits that we enjoy from it we are nonetheless slaves to those artificial attachments or constructs along with the metanarratives that come with existing in modern civilization.

[ Primitive people's are still a slave to somthing outside of civilization but I believe they are less restrained to that of the civilized man when it concerns history in that the primitive man is only a slave to nature where the civilized man is a slave to a great deal of other things in comparison.]

[The primitive man is less restrained to fulfill their natural urges and instincts versus the civilized man who has every aspect of their existence restrained by somthing or someone else.]

[In civilization I believe what little independence that we have goes largely squandered by others.]

[By man's attempt to control existence around themselves through the vehicle of civilization in the attempt to universally elevate himself as his goal instead what only happens is that in that process of elevation he only enslaves himself even further by reducing all what he originally had to begin with.]

[Wouldn't he be less restrained in life, if he had done nothing at all?]

However if we want to get even more cynical we could say that beyond civilization we are slaves to nature and the reality of existence all around us where upon our own death we have to acknowledge just what exactly is the true master of us all.

King Sitric
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 01:22 AM
AlaricLachlan - So what is your opinion of 'primitive' societies ... ie The natives of Australia or Africans - folk that existed with nature for centuries and centuries before Europeans arrived and somewhat upset this eco balance of the way such societies/people lived?

Caledonian
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 01:34 AM
AlaricLachlan - So what is your opinion of 'primitive' societies ... ie The natives of Australia or Africans - folk that existed with nature for centuries and centuries before Europeans arrived and somewhat upset this eco balance of the way such societies/people lived?

As Jean Jacques Rousseau so eloquently put it ancient human beings were eternal children in a world of bliss where non-knowledge of the world around them made their lives simple and basic to the point of entirely being uncomplicated.

It wasn't a utopia. Far from it but in the simplicity of ancient times there was a sort of euphoric social equilibrium and bliss to which every conflict or instance of life back then had a simple manifested answer.


and centuries before Europeans arrived and somewhat upset this eco balance of the way such societies/people lived?

It wasn't so much Europeans that upseted the eco balance of the world as it was more to do with specific ideologies to which if the Europeans weren't the first to develop them somebody else in the world would of inevitably done so in their place.

At any rate the distinction of ancient life versus the more modern one is that in ancient times human beings lived within the natural landscape where it was apart of their everyday existece where now in modern times nature is merely looked at as a abundance of resources to be conquered in the creation of the fabricated seperate artificial world of civilization that is perceived to have it's own distinction.

Erlk÷nig
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 11:11 AM
Schopenhauer puts it best.


Everyone believes himself a priori to be perfectly free, even in his individual actions, and thinks that at every moment he can commence another manner of life. ... But a posteriori, through experience, he finds to his astonishment that he is not free, but subjected to necessity, that in spite of all his resolutions and reflections he does not change his conduct, and that from the beginning of his life to the end of it, he must carry out the very character which he himself condemns.

SpearBrave
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 11:40 AM
Freedom is freedom of choice, just be prepared to live with those choices if they cause harm or good.

Of course your choices are set by your environment and the influences of past experiences. The big question is can we change our environment to help us make the choices we would like.

Wulfram
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 11:44 AM
The only true freedom is to not have to think about what freedom is at all.
The more you think about it the heavier your chains become.
The only genuine expression of freedom is that which is enjoyed by animals.
The very moment you define it you are enslaved.

flÔneur
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 11:50 AM
What is freedom?

Does freedom really exist?

How does freedom exist within a purely determinist universe and spatial plane?

Are we as human beings really free or is freedom merely a masquerade of our own delusions?

I think that in this day and age a man can live his life according to his own philosophy and ideas.
It takes a bit of hard work to cut yourself away from the dross and become independent,but you can do it.

The requisite of course is an iron will power....which for the most part us Germanics are blessed with.

Caledonian
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 08:26 PM
Freedom is freedom of choice, just be prepared to live with those choices if they cause harm or good.

Of course your choices are set by your environment and the influences of past experiences. The big question is can we change our environment to help us make the choices we would like.

There is no freedom of choice or options because both are determined within a given parameter of things where choices only exist upon the parameters one finds themselves in that dictates them to you.

SpearBrave
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 10:32 PM
^That is very true so one must first change their parameter in order to have better choices and 'freedoms' that fit them.

Caledonian
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 11:32 PM
^That is very true so one must first change their parameter in order to have better choices and 'freedoms' that fit them.

One cannot change their parameters in that they can only expand within it where the expansion eventually changes over time assuming that they are lucky enough to posses the knowledge and means to expand within.

The expansion is the only significant change of which is completely dependent on.

King Sitric
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 01:21 AM
So, does this apply to everybody, aka the human race and to those that get 'lucky' over time? ........ I assume then it does!

Ocko
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 02:07 AM
Your deeds have an effect, at you, at your life, you are not free of that.

other than that you are free to do whatever you want.

From a practical point of view:

do what you want.

If freedom doesn't exist it doesn't matter. Then the play is exactly written as what you do.

If freedom exist, then you are fine too.


So from a practical point of view the question is non existant.

Caledonian
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 03:18 AM
Your deeds have an effect, at you, at your life, you are not free of that.

other than that you are free to do whatever you want.

From a practical point of view:

do what you want.

If freedom doesn't exist it doesn't matter. Then the play is exactly written as what you do.

If freedom exist, then you are fine too.


So from a practical point of view the question is non existant.

For every action there is reaction for everything revolves around causality.


other than that you are free to do whatever you want.
One is not free do whatever they want in that one's abilities, choices, and options are directed or supplied by the parameters that one lives in.

Yes you have options and choices but they come within limitations of the parameter structuring that one finds themselves in.

Everything is dependent and determined by somthing other therefore freedom is an illusion along with free will.


Then the play is exactly written as what you do.

The play revolves around who is ever writing the metanarrative and script.

Even if you were to rebel or become criminal telling the rest of the world to go to complete hell you would still be reduced to who is writing the metanarrative and script in the world around you in how you would be labeled.

We are all but actors and characters in a play that is directed by whoever has a level of control to dictate the storyline.

[Whether it be by a actual person, group of people, or by nature itself.]

Let us presume that the play isn't actually dictated by people at all but by nature itself even still we would be nothing but pawns under the script of the natural world that dictates life and death.


So from a practical point of view the question is non existant.

It is a practical question because under today's social politics that brandishes the state of existence revolving around freedom and the absence of delude people into thinking they are free to begin with when most of the subject revolves around a diverse amount of nonsensical ideas.

Freedom as a concept rarely makes sense beyond it's sensational romanticism of appeal.

ulfrik
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 04:39 AM
Freedom is doing what you want without infringing on the freedom of others.

People sometimes perpetuate the myth that freedom is impossible because they are afraid of freedom or because they somehow benefit from suppressing freedom.

Regulating and controlling the morality, ambitions and destinys of others simply won't work and if someone tried to, it would be an error that would cause them great peril.

Ălfrun
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 04:44 AM
Freedom is living in a house in the woods, being self sufficient, not having to worry about discrimination or other cultures and not taking orders from a corrupt govenment :)

Elessar
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 04:56 AM
Freedom is the condition whereby obedience cannot be obtained by any offer of liberty. The free man is the one who rejects the entire system of incentives (bribes) and disincentives (threats) by which a slavemaster exerts control. The free man is the one who cannot be bought. He may be a prisoner, but he is yet more free than the slave, for the very need to imprison him physically implies that he has refused to bargain spiritually with the slavemaster. Freedom is not liberty, but defiance.

Caledonian
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 04:56 AM
Freedom is doing what you want without infringing on the freedom of others.

People sometimes perpetuate the myth that freedom is impossible because they are afraid of freedom or because they somehow benefit from suppressing freedom.

Regulating and controlling the morality, ambitions and destinys of others simply won't work and if someone tried to, it would be an error that would cause them great peril.


Freedom is doing what you want without infringing on the freedom of others.

In a state of inequality amongst society and all of civilization the existence of others are infringed everyday by other people somthing of which to some level so far seems to be somthing that isn't ever going away anytime soon.

Here again the notion of freedom is left to pure illusion.


People sometimes perpetuate the myth that freedom is impossible because they are afraid of freedom or because they somehow benefit from suppressing freedom.

Where does freedom exist?


Regulating and controlling the morality, ambitions and destinys of others simply won't work and if someone tried to, it would be an error that would cause them great peril.

Isn't all of that what every society already does?


Ălfrun:

Freedom is living in a house in the woods, being self sufficient, not having to worry about discrimination or other cultures and not taking orders from a corrupt govenment.

Where one is not dictated by others they are instead dictated by nature itself.

Even in the middle of nowhere away from the grips of civilization itself one isn't free in that they are largely dependent and determined by the natural world around them.


Elessar:

Freedom is the condition whereby obedience cannot be obtained by any offer of liberty. The free man is the one who rejects the entire system of incentives (bribes) and disincentives (threats) by which a slavemaster exerts control. The free man is the one who cannot be bought. He may be a prisoner, but he is yet more free than the slave, for the very need to imprison him physically implies that he has refused to bargain spiritually with the slavemaster. Freedom is not liberty, but defiance.

All individuals in society one way or another are obedient to somthing and somebody leaving freedom once again a tarnished illusion as a concept.


The free man is the one who rejects the entire system of incentives (bribes) and disincentives (threats) by which a slavemaster exerts control.

Really? Show me such a man.


The free man is the one who cannot be bought. He may be a prisoner, but he is yet more free than the slave, for the very need to imprison him physically implies that he has refused to bargain spiritually with the slavemaster.

How can one be a prisoner and yet still be free?


Freedom is not liberty, but defiance.

A great deal of defiance in today's world is illegal and outlawed defined as criminal.

The only defiance that is left unchecked is that of mental thought alone where someday in the future even that of mental thoughts may some day become illegal to have in terms of cognitive mental defiance.

[Mental thoughts becoming regulated.]

Elessar
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 05:18 AM
You asked, I told you. Take it or leave it. I don't claim to be the end-all authority, nor am I so apathetic to discredit every possibility either. I'm here to give an opinion, solely, because that's all there is. Nit-picking everyone's statements to make a sort of quote parade goes nowhere.
Either evaluate and meditate on what's been said, or don't expect a reply at all. Why ask if you just shoot down everyone's replies with condescending subjection of given statements?
It's as if you'll think of any antagonistic argument as to not come to grips that maybe, just maybe, someone has a point. This i don't understand.
Might I ask, what is freedom to you?

Caledonian
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 05:55 AM
You asked, I told you. Take it or leave it. I don't claim to be the end-all authority, nor am I so apathetic to discredit every possibility either. I'm here to give an opinion, solely, because that's all there is. Nit-picking everyone's statements to make a sort of quote parade goes nowhere.
Either evaluate and meditate on what's been said, or don't expect a reply at all. Why ask if you just shoot down everyone's replies with condescending subjection of given statements?
It's as if you'll think of any antagonistic argument as to not come to grips that maybe, just maybe, someone has a point. This i don't understand.
Might I ask, what is freedom to you?

Freedom to me is pure illusion.

For me it doesn't exist and it is unobtainable.

I'm not trying to be mean with my comments or my posting.

I'm merely offering some criticism in that I enjoy a good solid debate.

I'm not trying to convince anybody anything in that I know that to be a fruitless goal in that noone can ever convince anybody anything especially when their mind is already made up to believe in what they want to.

If I come off a bit aggressive it's not my intention to.

I've spent a great deal meditating on other people's opinions and perspectives which probally rather unfortunately makes it look like I'm quick to not listen to others.

It's simply not like that though in that when I'm criticizing or debating I am listening to what is being presented to me from others.

[It's just I merely disagree in the whole process of communication.]

Elessar
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 06:01 AM
Freedom to me is pure illusion.

I'm not trying to convince anybody anything in that I know that to be a fruitless goal in that noone can ever convince anybody anything especially when their mind is already made up to believe in what they want to.


If this is the case considering these two statements, why would you even make this thread? If you can't convince anybody, and people can't convince you, what's the aim of debating?

It seems you want to tell others what's what, but you shut down any opposition by calling it a romantic illusion or some other sort of subjective reality.

Caledonian
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 06:03 AM
If this is the case considering these two statements, why would you even make this thread? If you can't convince anybody, and people can't convince you, what's the aim of debating?

Because despite my disagreement with people on the subject I nonetheless like listening to other people's opinions on it where it is my hope that through the exchange of this thread I might learn somthing that I don't already know.

ulfrik
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 06:14 AM
@ AlaricLiachlan
I was simply giving my opinion of what freedom ideally is and then stating some theories about why people try to suppress freedom.

Basically it is a eternal struggle between absolute control and absolute freedom.
There will always be tyrants and there will always be rebels.

Caledonian
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 06:18 AM
@ AlaricLiachlan
I was simply giving my opinion of what freedom ideally is and then stating some theories about why people try to suppress freedom.

Basically it is a eternal struggle between absolute control and absolute freedom.
There will always be tyrants and there will always be rebels.

I understand. :)

Bernhard
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 02:13 PM
I do not concur with the post-modern liberal idea of individual freedom. Freedom, in my opinion, is to do what one is supposed to do. Perhaps this seems like a paradox, but how can someone develop himself and his personality when he is trapped by expectations to which he cannot come up to? For example: is a person free when he is supposed to follow, yet society expects him to lead (i.e. democracy)? No, he is trapped by these expectations and demands which are not adjusted to his inner being. But when individuals do what they are made for, what they are supposed to do by means of their inner (and outer) nature, only than can they truly develop themselves to rise into the heavenly spheres and become immortal. To define my idea of freedom I can quote Evola who gives the following definition in the context of a cast based society:


It [i.e. the freedom enjoyed by the man of Tradition] did not consist in discarding but in being able to rejoin the deeper vein of his will, which was related to the mystery of his own existential "form."
I should point out that I'm not really an Evolian, but I do think that he makes some interesting points now and then.

Another analysis of how liberalism actually enslaves people in stead of liberating them can be read in this article: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=36660

It follows that I do not agree with Rousseau's idea of primitive man as the essence of human beings, which has been mentioned in this thread. Societies aren't necassarily a degeneration, but are often the reflection of the soul of a certain set of human beings (race, ethnos) and therefor cannot be seperated from human beings. An organic hierarchical state reflects the essence of man, which his hierarchical by nature, and thus cannot be seen apart from it. Rousseau sees primitive man only as an individual and denies social relations (collectivism, stratification) as innate to man. So he reduces society to a set of equal individuals, which is the same problem of modern liberalism. Combine this with my definition of freedom as stated above and you can see that individualism, by making all individuals equal, actually denies individuality. It leaves no room for individuals to develop, to rise and live in ┴sgard, but enslaves them by denying their inner being and essence.

Ocko
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 08:15 PM
Maybe you better ask the question 'What is restraining me?'

At first I would say there are 'natural laws' like gravity, need to breathe, to eat/drink, health, physical abilities etc.

Your body is not free in that, but has a great range to be moved around.

your mind is not free either as it is bound to logics. From my point of view aristotelian logic is a good one, but the Steiner definition of logic is more appropiate to me, but nevertheless both are restrictions to the mind.

One can be more free with imagination, the only restriction there is your mind itself, or at least what it knows, as one's imagination is bound to that. One cannot imagine something which does not in part itself exist.

Emotions are most often reactions to circumstances and thus they are not free either.

I think real freedom only could exist in an area vaguely describably as Indiviualism, the real I or whatever. And even there might be that way more powerful beings put limitations to it. Though the story of Satan seemed to show that there is a freedom. (Depends on your interpretation).


that means Freedom is not an absolute, it is not an either yes or no, but has only a degree. To widen the degree depends on the individual.

GeistFaust
Friday, May 6th, 2011, 04:10 AM
What is freedom?

Does freedom really exist?

How does freedom exist within a purely determinist universe and spatial plane?

Are we as human beings really free or is freedom merely a masquerade of our own delusions?


This is a very major philosophical issue that was taken up by many individuals during the enlightenment period. First we need to define free from what and in what sense can we define freedom from that which we are free from. First when you think of freedom you think of social or political freedom. The state plays a critical role in regulating and allowing us to be free to do certain things.

I am free to say this or that but just because I am free to do it does not mean there will not be consequences. I think this is the major thing with freedom is we have the freedom to do the right or wrong thing. Now if we have the freedom to do things I think it would be best if we chose what is right over what is wrong because seemingly doing right would be more virtuous then doing wrong. In another sense we are not as free as we want to think we are sort of fixed and gravitate to our biological organisms such as the brain and when we act towards something or upon something in such a way we develop a natural inclination to repeat these actions.

This is called a habit and in a sense we are sort doomed to certain consequences when we choose something which we will either reap reward from or suffer damage from. True freedom is being able to understand the possible consequences of doing this or that. We are presented with certain possibilities that exist indifferently to our freedom but which give our will the opportunity to act per se. In a sense our decisions are made in a sense and conditioned by our environment and our settings.

Also our actions and choices are sometimes determined by outside forces which we are not always conscious of such as groups we belong to, community structures, and family structures. But then again these groups and community structures are determined by others that have come before them. We are trapped in the nexus of freedom which is not freedom in a sense.

This means little to our own consciousness which we use in the course of an action we are stuck in the matrix if there is a glitch or mistake in our ability to choose freely or properly we tend not to recognize it on an individual level. Such as a bad habit for instance because after a while a bad habit becomes solidified to a certain extent that we are glued or fixed to repeating these actions which end up resulting in bad consequences. We might see quite faintly the bad it is doing us but after a while the the continuity of our choices and our freedom has become locked to certain preconditioned possibilities which have presented themselves to us.

So even if we know an act is bad and decide to choose it we are free to choose it but after a while we depend on acting in such a way because our brain has become programmed to act in this way. It happens usually slowly over time. Our choices do not become fixed until its usually too late to recognize their consequences on ourselves or others so in a sense our freedom to choose is blinded by our ignorance of the long term implications of an end in so far as it relates to the present moment in time.

There are some other things we are free to do and the consequences tend to be unintentional and when a result of an act of unintentional this usually would mean that we would have to say that motives of an act determines the moor worth of an act. This is not always the case though so in a sense we have a faint idea of the possible future implications of an action or choice we make and although we might not be entirely free to understand the consequences we should be able to instinctually connect the pieces of the puzzle to say it is very probable that if I eat three pieces of cake it will disturb my health. Not to mention the bad habits that can be created by eating three pieces of cake most of the time our habits go unnoticed to us.


In so far as it relates to political freedom we are granted certain rights or privileges within the state body the same goes with the human individual we have a certain sense of dignity. This dignity is the foundation of our freedom to choose and to choose consciously. We are dignified beings unlike the animals because we have the freedom to act consciously.

What does this mean? Well there are quite possibly just as many meanings you want to give it and as many possible situations in which freedom can be determined. The thing is freedom is something not merely a choice but also something that is predetermined in us naturally by nature. To a certain extent nature gives more freedoms to some people instead of others. But at the end of the day regardless of how much we have been conditioned by our environment or our settings we should never allow those around us to take away our dignity by influencing our freedom to choose too heavily.

We should always be able to take into account the repercussions of our actions and choices and know that when we make bad choices we take away our freedom to make good choices and choices that will preserve that innate dignity which distinguished man from the animal kingdom. That dignity which is the foundation of all our freedom can only be preserved in so far as our freedom to do things directs itself towards good, virtuous and right ends because only then are we truly free.

Alice
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 05:25 PM
I think true freedom is choosing the good, and it is largely interior.

Gareth Lee Hunter
Friday, March 22nd, 2019, 06:55 PM
"Freedom" to do what?

Most people are trapped in a restricted world of wage slavery just to barely survive day-to-day. The time that remains to them is either spent sleeping due to absolute exhaustion caused by shedding their blood, sweat, and tears making the rich richer, or purchasing essential products the rich are selling to them at unreasonable prices; much of it with usurious interest rates attached.

Only the financially independent elites are free to do as they damn well please with near impunity.

jagdmesser
Saturday, March 23rd, 2019, 04:12 PM
The Greatest Freedom: is the ‘right to be left alone’.

The greatest right that any nation can afford its people is the right to be left alone and that’s what we’ve got to do. We’ve got to start leaving people alone unless they’re violating the law.

That’s very important, but the government seems to always want to be more intrusive into our private lives and the problem with that is that most people are so passive and ignorant that they stand still and allow this to happen. They think they don’t have a voice, they can’t make a difference.

Government interference is part of parliamentary democracy which is synonymous with graft and corruption.

Graft - abuse of one's position or influence, as in politics.