If one has absolute freedom, can one choose Not to be free? You should be able to, if your freedom is absolute. But then, if you choose Not to be free -- and therefore, you are no longer free -- was your freedom truly absolute in the first place? Was it merely conditional, conditional on not choosing to Not be free?
jerry
Originally posted by Mindship
If one has absolute freedom, can one choose Not to be free? You should be able to, if your freedom is absolute. But then, if you choose Not to be free -- and therefore, you are no longer free -- was your freedom truly absolute in the first place? Was it merely conditional, conditional on not choosing to Not be free?jerry
Omnipotence has inherent paradoxes, yes.... 😐
What is "Freedom"?
there's a war going on in iraq for just that reason: "freedom". (since all other reasons have failed)
yet i see no such thing...at least not the concept of freedom which i've come to understand. in fact whenever i hear the word "freedom" mentioned in proposals on foreign policy it ends up with tens, even hundreds of thousands of innocent people slaughtered, an occupying military regime, and complete hatred for those who spread this "freedom".
in america people seem to think that freedom is a right to impose religious beliefs on the populus through their right to vote for a radical politician. their reason being "majority rules"....but wouldnt that have justified slavery?
so...it seems to me that 'freedom' an inherant right of the aggressive to impose their will on the minority/passive/weak. it also seems that 'freedom' and 'liberty' have become antonyms. any mention of civil liberties and you're a card carrying communist freedom hater.
anyway, i know its a rant, but the topic is valid. define "freedom" as you see it
I think the idea of total freedom is nothing more than a dream. In reality, we all have the freedom we'll really need.
Though, there's exceptions; People who want abortion, homosexuals, people being oppressed for these reasons when they really shouldn't be. I think there could be more things legal that aren't, but I don't think the idea of "total freedom." will ever come to pass.
-AC
I read some time back a defintion of freedom IIRC it was something like....
Freedom is self control of your actions well enough so another does not have to step in to do so.
Of course the problem is there are so many people with so many ideas of what is "acceptable conduct" it would really depend on who is in official charge in the area you are located.
What is acceptable in one country or social group is not in another or sometimes even certain locations in a country.
freedom and responsibility are radically different concepts
responsibility may be necessary for prolonged amounts of freedom in a social organization, however, the "authority" of responsibility imposes certain rules on people's behaviour. The "benefit" of this authority is because absolute freedom is counter productive to the human condition.
Originally posted by inimalist
freedom and responsibility are radically different conceptsresponsibility may be necessary for prolonged amounts of freedom in a social organization, however, the "authority" of responsibility imposes certain rules on people's behaviour. The "benefit" of this authority is because absolute freedom is counter productive to the human condition.
Allow me, if I could, to enter a Paradise. Plato's Republic if you will. That where the world would be perfect and no man would ever harm another (man being in the most general of senses. Absolutely no bias towards women). Now, then wouldn't freedom indeed be following the rules of society or as Thoreau would put it "The beat of our own drummer; self-governing"? That we would follow a set of "rules" or natural laws that actually bring us freedom, contrary to popular belief that the actually idea of rebellion and nonconformity bring freedom?
I seem to be rambling and my thoughts entangled. I guess what I'm trying to say is, as I did in the first post, is freedom is doing what we are supposed to do. That neither at the risk of our identity or lives we live according to the way things are. That there is no disturbance in "the system". Everything has an order. And when things are in balance there is peace and there is freedom. It wouldn't be freedom for the ladybug to act like a bird. Not that it can't, but rather it shouldn't. Because the lady bug could, and then be "forced" to live the life of the bird and that would not be freedom.
So again I say: "Freedom is doing what we ought to do."
I think the freedom you mean, PVS-Whirly sock, is an amount of what you are allowed to do by the standards of a society compared to your actual ability to do things.
Like, you might be allowed to just suddenly levitate, you don't have the ability though, so that is hardly a freedom. The freedom liberal idealists are talking about is one where the individual in a state have as much control over their own lives as possible together with a wish to be able to use those freedoms in a manner that is ii suppose humane....to do that there must be some kind of laws that cut down some of the possibilities you have to ensure a higher freedom of everyone.
Going to Iraq for freedom is slightly ridiculous obviously. Freedom is not something that should be imposed on you...I feel.