To what point do we believe in freedom? Is there a place where certain freedoms must be restricted in order to keep others? Is it wrong to give the illusion of freedom? I believe freedom is something we have under any circumstance. It's something that cannot be restricted by another man; only a person can restrict their own freedom. For there is always a choice to obey or disobey an order or command - this is ultimately freedom. However, the vast masses seem to fail see this, that we always have a choice. Of course, sometimes the choice is less clear than other times, but there is always a choice. Sometimes, what we chose to happen might not happen, but yet the choice still existed. Thoughts?
Read some Sartre. Research existentialism. It falls closely in line with what you believe about freedom. I agree with you on a human level, but on a universal level I haven no choice but to accept that fact that everything must be as it is the way it is today because of everything that has happened before.
Thanks man. No doubt there will be an artictle on existentialism on wikipedia. good a place as any to start. Also, if any out there agrees/disagrees, by all means feel free to say so.
I believe in freedom for all. That means that we may do whatever we want, whenever we want, as long as it doesn't invade on the freedom of someone else.
But then that's not really freedom. If you don't have the freedom to what you want to someone else, you can't call it freedom can you?
If freedom is the ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want, then I guess not. Freedom-Lite, I guess.
Indeed. Should freedom also be universal though? The same for all, unrestricted? It is, of course, the same for all, because as I said, no one can restrict your freedoms but yourself. This is where morals and ethics come in to play though
heh Australia is mean to be a free country, I remember someone saying it was. Some politician guy. It ain't though. There is no such thing as a free country or freedom of rights. Everything you do and say has consequences. The closest thing you get to freedom is the dreams you have when you are asleep. The only time I've ever felt freedom was when I used to \horse ride. It was an amazing feeling where I knew nothing could touch me or invade my space. That is freedom. Hard to explain the feeling but if you have ever cantered a horse along the beach or a quiet bush track I am sure you would understand exactly.
You cannot be free from nature. That's understood. To be free from nature is to be dead-too not exist. Those dreams are as tied to the waking world as your physical body is. They are restrained by your mental capacity, so you don't even have freedom in them, according to your reasoning. According to your definition, if you are truly free then there would be not "you."
Touche. Freedom is something you can't restrict, because strictly speaking, freedom only exists in your own frame of mind. If you believe you have no freedoms,then you don't, if you believe you have all the freedom to what youwant, then you do. It's superficial, naieve, and immature to believe that any other person can restrict one's freedoms with some thing like consequence. Consequence is small and insignificant when compared with the initial choice.
Freedom is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. It's sad, but I actually believe that. To be honest, I don't think humanity is capable of dealing with complete freedom. We need to have someone to blame when it all goes tits up. But then, I'm a cynic and not a fan of humanity, so think what you like...
I don't believe freedom is illusionary, but simply relative to a person and their perceptions and is restricted by legislation. For example, if you were to agree with the laws of your nation and that they are necessary to protect its inhabitants, you will probably voluntarily give up the freedom of killing your neighbor for their property in hopes that the same fate will not fall upon you -- though this course of action is still an option, just met with more resistance. The person does not feel that relinquishing that option is a threat to their freedom. This would also mean that a "complete" freedom is undesirable.
"Your freedom ends where the next person's begins." -some politician. I can't remember the exact quote but it's something like that. I don't think being able to do whatever you want is freedom, I think that's the "illusion" of freedom. People need boundaries, whether they like them or not, but then again I'm the kind of person that believes all humans are naturally evil...
Don't know if someone has said this already, but total freedom is anarchy, and a very dangerous place to be.
Freedom is not absolute. There will always be a point where exercising your freedom sharply curtails someone els's freedom. The goal has to be to maximize freedom for all people collectively. Am I free to push my religious beliefs on everyone else? No. And yet there are people who believe this is one of their basic freedoms, and they justify it because evangelism (or its equivalent) is a mandate of their religion.
We are always free to choose from the choices that are available to us in any situation. I could get a weapon and kill someone, but I won't because I do not wish to end the life of somebody else. Also, I do not want to face the possible consequence of getting caught and sentenced. Consequence may influence our feelings toward actions, but the option is still available. Ultimately in deciding not to do it I am also exercising my freedom of choice. In this way I agree very much with Adamant's post.
I think you can have small moments of freedom. I know that it isn't complete freedom, so I do not believe in complete freedom. Just spurts of it. For example. Right now I am free to say, do, wear, scream anything-without consequence. untill my daughter comes in the room, or until I have to go run errands etc. I think there are many reasons why there is no true freedom in the world and number one of that is money There is always a time where your freedom will stop.
humankind is the only species in the entire animal kingdom that restricts its own freedom... the reason is that it's the only species with what we like to call 'free will' in that what we do is not only guided by instinct, as in all the other species, but also by 'conscience' or a sense of what we consider to be 'right' and 'wrong' behavior... given that difference, humanity as a whole can never have the total 'freedom' our fellow animals enjoy... those aberrant ones who ignore that moral sense of 'rightness' and 'wrongness' may be as free as the other species for a time, but it only lasts till they're caught and punished for giving in to it, in ways that infringe on others' rights...
I'm not free to magically create a bottled water on my desk right now. So I don't have free will, do I? If I had the power to do anything I wanted, whenever I wanted, then I would have true free will.
That is omnipotence, and goes well beyond free will. Free will refers to the latitude to make any choice you are capable of executing.
yup!... that's a silly example... and not of 'freedom'... as cog notes, 'freedom' is the ability to do whatever is within your power to do...
