Freedom

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
RWStanding
Posts: 384
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Freedom

Post by RWStanding »

Freedom
Progress in the natural and human world has always been about cooperation, not competition. The difference with humanity is that cooperation can extend beyond the small family group, at which point the natural world breaks down into competition for raw survival.
Freedom is a value that applies to the individual and to society. The one cannot be divorced from the other.
Where people are absolutely free, there can be no common law or morality, and society is effectively defunct and a state of chaos reigns.
At some point an individual will exert himself over others, if only his family group or clan. At that point a form of society exists based on service to authority. Individual freedom is expunged.
Where such a society then becomes in some degree tolerant, due to the inability of authority to exert total control, or a wish to share authority, the idea of the 'free' or 'democratic' society will be initiated.
There will then be an alternative strategy, of individualism as against mutuality. Neither of which confers absolute freedom of any kind, since that would be a return to chaos. The ultimate individualist society would be the globalised autonomous individual at a peaceful standoff from others in their own territories. Ultimate mutualism, would itself be based on communities within the whole, acting for mutual benefit.
It is in the nature of authority to lay down laws and codes, with their justification being that of authority itself.
Individualist society would have no laws or moral code beyond peaceful co-existence.
thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Freedom

Post by thata23 »

RWStanding wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:04 am Freedom
Where people are absolutely free, there can be no common law or morality, and society is effectively defunct and a state of chaos reigns.
At some point an individual will exert himself over others, if only his family group or clan. At that point a form of society exists based on service to authority. Individual freedom is expunged.
Why would a "state of chaos" reign? That is assuming that natually (without any laws or authority), humans do not want to cooperate and push society and technology forward. I don't think an individual needs to "exert himself": if one or a few individuals begin to advance forward, they will lead by example. If force is needed, then something is wrong in the leader's approach - he or she will forge forward no matter what, and people (assuming they want the best for society, which I do) will naturally follow. True authority does not need to exert their will on others to lead, the others will naturally follow, essentially becoming an extension of this person to form a true human team willing to find the place of humans in this universe.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Freedom

Post by Nick_A »

Freedom is usually considered in the context of the external world and with other people. However along with external freedom there is the question of inner freedom. Forgetting about what humans do, we can verify that we are not inwardly free but slaves to all sorts of negative emotions and unnatural acquired fears. To be inwardly free requires becoming master of oneself. If we admit that we are not, it is reasonable to assume that only a small minority have acquired inner freedom necessary to act as a conscious human being as opposed to creatures of conditioned habits. So my question is how we can assume freedom based on cooperation is possible without first having acquired inner freedom from the need to destroy what defies our negative emotions and unnatural fears?
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Freedom

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

RWStanding wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:04 am Freedom
Progress in the natural and human world has always been about cooperation, not competition. The difference with humanity is that cooperation can extend beyond the small family group, at which point the natural world breaks down into competition for raw survival.
Freedom is a value that applies to the individual and to society. The one cannot be divorced from the other.
Where people are absolutely free, there can be no common law or morality, and society is effectively defunct and a state of chaos reigns.
At some point an individual will exert himself over others, if only his family group or clan. At that point a form of society exists based on service to authority. Individual freedom is expunged.
Where such a society then becomes in some degree tolerant, due to the inability of authority to exert total control, or a wish to share authority, the idea of the 'free' or 'democratic' society will be initiated.
There will then be an alternative strategy, of individualism as against mutuality. Neither of which confers absolute freedom of any kind, since that would be a return to chaos. The ultimate individualist society would be the globalised autonomous individual at a peaceful standoff from others in their own territories. Ultimate mutualism, would itself be based on communities within the whole, acting for mutual benefit.
It is in the nature of authority to lay down laws and codes, with their justification being that of authority itself.
Individualist society would have no laws or moral code beyond peaceful co-existence.
How are you separating the natural world from the human world? - We are no less a a part of nature than any other species, what they do is natural for them, and what we do is natural for us, everything therefore being natural.

So your point then is that competition on its own does n`t work because it first requires to be afforded advantageous response/cooperation, correct? There would be no point in producing cheaper carrots if nobody cooperated/made the decision to purchase them.

Explain this concept of the natural world breaking down in the face of human competition. Surely, that is the natural world.

I was the member of a society, sixteen of us students, when I trained at Dartington. They were trapped there, whereas, I escaped across Dartmoor on my bicycle whensoever I wished. I was a free member of a society in want of freedom.

The environment for total and absolute freedom is only made possible with enforced laws in place. Many would exploit total freedom only for the betterment of their fellow beings, and this is where many would experience the most joy.

Yes, we are a democracy, and total control is not exercised here, so I accept this point.

Without any rules there would n`t be peaceful coexistence, what?

Individualism, how is that a return to chaos? Sub group/group mentality is the primary cause of chaos, coupled with the want of effective laws.

In the first place, it is only possible to have an "individualist" society to the extent that members of it possess functionality of individualism. It is not fundamental to the existence of rules that little true individualism exists in our society, it is simply a tendency inherent to being human. As humans we tend to feeling a need to fit in.

Where do you acquire your thinking from, none of it is stolen I take it?
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Freedom

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:43 pm Freedom is usually considered in the context of the external world and with other people. However along with external freedom there is the question of inner freedom. Forgetting about what humans do, we can verify that we are not inwardly free but slaves to all sorts of negative emotions and unnatural acquired fears. To be inwardly free requires becoming master of oneself. If we admit that we are not, it is reasonable to assume that only a small minority have acquired inner freedom necessary to act as a conscious human being as opposed to creatures of conditioned habits. So my question is how we can assume freedom based on cooperation is possible without first having acquired inner freedom from the need to destroy what defies our negative emotions and unnatural fears?
Your definition for freedom then is only to be discovered in death? I appreciate my negative thoughts and emotions because they form a necessary back drop for the experience of my positive ones, they come with being human, and I only feel trapped when I permit my mind to go there. Worldly freedom is only a perceptual commodity, and for more than this we must die.
duszek
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: Freedom

Post by duszek »

I know some women who inherited money so they could be called ladies of independent means.
And yet they lack social skills in such a high degree that I would not change places with them.
They seem very unfree to me, very inhibited in their ways and choices.

How can it be ?
thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Freedom

Post by thata23 »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:43 pm Freedom is usually considered in the context of the external world and with other people. However along with external freedom there is the question of inner freedom. Forgetting about what humans do, we can verify that we are not inwardly free but slaves to all sorts of negative emotions and unnatural acquired fears. To be inwardly free requires becoming master of oneself. If we admit that we are not, it is reasonable to assume that only a small minority have acquired inner freedom necessary to act as a conscious human being as opposed to creatures of conditioned habits. So my question is how we can assume freedom based on cooperation is possible without first having acquired inner freedom from the need to destroy what defies our negative emotions and unnatural fears?
I think freedom from other human beings (no one being a slave to anyone else, but everyone is on the same page on a common mission) is first needed for us to acquire any inner freedom. Without being on a common mission, fears of other humans dominate our thoughts (job security, relationships, bills to companies, etc.). Having freedom from these relatively trivial (not in the modern world, but in the universe) tasks would allow for a whole new perspective on what it means to be human - all of us would be on the same page trying to advance society for the better rather than fighting.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Freedom

Post by Nick_A »

thata23 wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:50 am
Nick_A wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:43 pm Freedom is usually considered in the context of the external world and with other people. However along with external freedom there is the question of inner freedom. Forgetting about what humans do, we can verify that we are not inwardly free but slaves to all sorts of negative emotions and unnatural acquired fears. To be inwardly free requires becoming master of oneself. If we admit that we are not, it is reasonable to assume that only a small minority have acquired inner freedom necessary to act as a conscious human being as opposed to creatures of conditioned habits. So my question is how we can assume freedom based on cooperation is possible without first having acquired inner freedom from the need to destroy what defies our negative emotions and unnatural fears?
I think freedom from other human beings (no one being a slave to anyone else, but everyone is on the same page on a common mission) is first needed for us to acquire any inner freedom. Without being on a common mission, fears of other humans dominate our thoughts (job security, relationships, bills to companies, etc.). Having freedom from these relatively trivial (not in the modern world, but in the universe) tasks would allow for a whole new perspective on what it means to be human - all of us would be on the same page trying to advance society for the better rather than fighting.
What makes you think people want to be on a common mission. As I understand it the primary motivation for life in society for dominant types is prestige.
The full expression of personality depends upon its being inflated by social prestige; it is a social privilege. Simone Weil
Equality by definition would eliminate desire for prestige. The only ones who would want that are those lacking the feeling of prestige.
thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Freedom

Post by thata23 »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:20 am
thata23 wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:50 am
Nick_A wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:43 pm Freedom is usually considered in the context of the external world and with other people. However along with external freedom there is the question of inner freedom. Forgetting about what humans do, we can verify that we are not inwardly free but slaves to all sorts of negative emotions and unnatural acquired fears. To be inwardly free requires becoming master of oneself. If we admit that we are not, it is reasonable to assume that only a small minority have acquired inner freedom necessary to act as a conscious human being as opposed to creatures of conditioned habits. So my question is how we can assume freedom based on cooperation is possible without first having acquired inner freedom from the need to destroy what defies our negative emotions and unnatural fears?
I think freedom from other human beings (no one being a slave to anyone else, but everyone is on the same page on a common mission) is first needed for us to acquire any inner freedom. Without being on a common mission, fears of other humans dominate our thoughts (job security, relationships, bills to companies, etc.). Having freedom from these relatively trivial (not in the modern world, but in the universe) tasks would allow for a whole new perspective on what it means to be human - all of us would be on the same page trying to advance society for the better rather than fighting.
What makes you think people want to be on a common mission. As I understand it the primary motivation for life in society for dominant types is prestige.
The full expression of personality depends upon its being inflated by social prestige; it is a social privilege. Simone Weil
Equality by definition would eliminate desire for prestige. The only ones who would want that are those lacking the feeling of prestige.
Unless you are perfect in every aspect of live and with every move (which is impossible), prestige is meaningless because that means you have required for other humans to correct your mistakes. A true person would perform "prestigious" tasks with the sole purpose of advancing humanity, not selfish reasons. If selfishness is the reason for one's actions, others will spot that and may not be willing to help as much to drive humanity forward. Why would someone not want to be on a common mission?, no one is above the team. It may be fun to think of ourselves as on some personal mission and this may provide motivation to perform tasks we would not otherwise perform, but if we step back we see that we are part of something much greater and building on the actions of all humans before us. If we can see this much bigger picture and still be motivated, that is true leadership and will win out over selfishness. This does not mean we can't all have our unique characters and personalities, but knowing we are all on a mission together is key.
Arsen02
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: Freedom

Post by Arsen02 »

Real freedom is a term coined by the political philosopher and economist Philippe Van Parijs. It expands upon notions of negative freedom by incorporating not simply institutional or other constraints on a person's choices, but also the requirements of physical reality, resources and personal capacity. To have real freedom, according to Van Parjis, an individual must:
1. not be prevented from acting on their will (i.e. they must have traditional negative freedom)
2. possess the resources or capacities actually to carry out their will.
Under this conception, a moral agent could be negatively free to take a holiday in Miami, because no-one is forcing them not to (condition 1 is met); but not really free to do so, because they cannot afford the flight (condition 2 is not met). Similarly, someone could be negatively free to swim across the English Channel; but not really free, because they are not a good enough swimmer and would not be able to succeed in the task. Real freedom is, then, a matter of degree — one is more or less really free, not just either really free or not; and no-one has complete real freedom — no-one is really free to teleport to Mars, for instance.
Real freedom expands on negative freedom by adding the idea of actually being able to exercise a capacity or resource in the absence of constraint; but does not go as far as some ideas of positive freedom, by refraining from appeal to self-government by a real, best, or higher self.
Van Parijs uses the concept of real freedom as part of his influential argument for a universal basic income.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Freedom

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Before even speaking the language of freedom I`d wish to examine will/wanting, for much of what we "want" is merely that which we have been programmed to want, and this is n`t real wanting, neither the province of freedom. There is neither genuine freedom to be found where one`s will clashes with others. The first step towards freedom is in spiritual healing. The journey to freedom is not straight forward, if indeed even possible, and it also rests very much upon one`s definition of the term. Absolute freedom obviously only exists in death.
Post Reply