Freedom

[Orange Juche]

Heres a philosophical question for you all:

What is your definition of freedom?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Choice of options. There is no absolut freedom.

[komon]

agree with options but still you need options in choices

[Roses in the Hospital]

Freedom does not exist. We can never be truely free. Even in the absence of the State we would still be under the influence of our peers/families/communities or at the very least our own bodies. Generally I would see freedom in an Aristotalian sense: we are only free once we are participating in politics. Once we have established this we are in a position to secure any other form of freedom we may need...

[Dyst]

I don't think freedom has that much to do with politics. Sure, you should be able to say what you mean without being censored or attacked in any way except arguments, but it is more important that you can controll your own body, and actually decide what the hell you want to do with your life. For example, I think compulsory schooling is the opposite of freedom, although it might be better for the community as a whole. People should be allowed to decide what they want to do with themselves, and if they don't want to be a part of that tedious 'go to school/work every day' ephemeral plunge circuit they shouldn't have to.

[The New State]

No matter what the Materialist fools will tell you, we are not just ant-like cogs in a class machine developing on a pre-determined path as told by the Prophet Marx.

Choice does exist.

no matter how many factors are contributing towards persuading me to choose a certain path, I, as an independent human being, have the power to choose the unpopular option.

This sort of situation is what Socrates used to prove the rational mind's separation from the body(which I don't necessarily agree with, but that's another discussion, sorta).

A man dying of thirst sees a cup of water which he knows is poisonous, he, having foresight, is able to abstain from drinking it.

Hence, Choice. Freedom.

[Commie Rat]

freedom and choice don't exist

but the illision of chice does and we have a degree of freedommost of us should have our democratic freedom

and fredom of speech religion and justice

[pandora]

Well, I'm a Buddhist so I believe there is ultimate freedom, but unlike the Judeo-Muslim-Christian ideas of heaven, freedom in Buddhism from suffering comes from a LIBERATED MIND. And a liberated mind comes from understanding cause and effect, by stopping having a negative impact on others, stopping being attached to material things and desirous attachment, while understanding of one's love of others expands, and great love and equanimity towards all beings becomes greater.

It is like Che said," A true Revolutionary is motivated by great feelings of love."

Towards the end Che seemed overtaken by this greater mind, as did many of the civil rights leaders, Ghandhi, Hafiz, Rumi, etc. as well as many female leaders, some of whose names remain shadowed in the darkness of his-story.

Freedom: It's ultimate awareness enables one to sacrifice one's life to work for the liberation of others from their pain and suffering, and to address directly the pain and suffering on this planet. By doing this one puts other's needs over one's own petty concerns, and is liberated from one's problems, in that as MLK said, "It don't matter to me now, I may not get there with you, but we as a people will get to the promised land," of racial harmony and economic justice, education and sustainablitity. Freedom is also the freedom to be human to make mistakes and learn from them, something dearly missing in our deeply competitive world.

Freedom does not come simply from options if one squanders one's opportunities on selfish pursuits that do nothing for anyone else, one is still a slave to one's own self cherishing and ego.

Freedom comes from helping others to be free, and making the choices to let go of one's petty concerns to love and be use to others.

Still we're stuck in difficult times and one must care for oneself best they can, or they are of no use to others and do not have the options to be of service. So one needs the freedom from starvation and destitution to be stable enough to help others, so some freedom is attached to being stable, not necessarily safe, nothing is but stable, if only in a peaceful state of mind.

Meditation for me is only of benefit if it helps me to endure the difficulties in life and make rational decisons in times of great strife. This mental clarity creates a sense of spaciousness that is freedom. In this way time is a luxury that creates freedom, because if we have the "time" to reflect on our actions, then we can make great strides towards true freedom for ourselves and others.

[Versive]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 05:39 PM
What is your definition of freedom?
A function of the constantly-shifting sequence of points we call the present. We have no freedom in the past (think what we like about it, respond as we may to its repercussions, we can't actually change it), and we have at most a theoretical future freedom (the future is the not-yet-existent, to butcher a Blochean category.)

Politically, freedom is a quite different can of worms.

[The New State]

A function of the constantly-shifting sequence of points we call the present.


Isn't that obvious without saying, though? Of course choice(/freedom) exists in the present, the question is: what is choice, and does it exist, or are all decisions simply computed reactions guided by outside forces?

[Zingu]

Well, scientific research has shown that our subconscience has more control over us than we thought, one test has shown that when we actively think to move our arm, it turns out our nerve cells in our arm are already fired up before we even think about it, but subconsciencly we think about it! So, does freedom also include the the choices our very own subconscience make; or something we can't control, not in our power?

[The New State]

Well, scientific research has shown that our subconscience has more control over us than we thought, one test has shown that when we actively think to move our arm, it turns out our nerve cells in our arm are already fired up before we even think about it, but subconsciencly we think about it!

Can you direct me to evidence of this claim?

The concept of the independent subconscious is still debateable, so I wouldn't be so quick to say that the magical subconscious gnome makes us flick the guy going 55 in a 70 when we're late for work :)

[Dio]

Freedom just like death no longer has one universal meaning. Theres political freedom, and i also know of free will, which is the freedom of choice. The word freedom includes a whole doctrine of definitions, not worth researching.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 27 2004, 03:26 AM


Can you direct me to evidence of this claim?

The concept of the independent subconscious is still debateable, so I wouldn't be so quick to say that the magical subconscious gnome makes us flick the guy going 55 in a 70 when we're late for work :)
I don't remember the source for this one, but I know of a magazine that has another test about where a person would move their arm at a "random" time and again it turned out that his subconscience, allegedly, made his arm start moving before he thought about moving it. So give me a few to find it.

[komon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 03:33 AM
Freedom just like death no longer has one universal meaning. Theres political freedom, and i also know of free will, which is the freedom of choice. The word freedom includes a whole doctrine of definitions, not worth researching.
then they win,you loose and you can not choose and research anymore
and for you :freedom is not a doctrin it is a feeling .

[Orange Juche]

I define freedom as the ability to be happy. Pretty plain and simple. Something I can't find in a capitalist system.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

something I cant find period

[Strange]

Joy.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

yes joy, I cant find joy.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I believe there are typically two ways in which the term freedom is used:

The first refers to social freedom - that is, the ability to what one will, free of violence or coercion acting to constrain ones actions. It grows out of our ability to make agreements and to consent, and forms the basis of a community, and, with luck, one day, a society.

The second type of "freedom" is the sort that religious whakos, cappies, etc. believe in - freedom from causation - wo/man as an autonomous agent acting outside the objective facts of reality. This is bullshit, and I think I've already posted my short essay on the topic. If not, I'll post it if the thread comes to that point.

[Wiesty]

freedom in my opinion, is being able to express your opinions by any way (but if u decide to express by force thats when ur going to serve time and be butt raped by a large inmate) with out any opposition. Un-like an anarchist nation, there still needs to be laws, people still need people to put the foot down on the line between freedom and anarchy. On other lines, if its like a choice of not paying your taxes, that just wouldnt work, the country needs money to maintain a existence.

So full freedom can never be reached
but their are extents

[Latifa]

Freedom is a dodgy concept. I don't even think it's particularly relevant anymore.
Take this example:

In pretty much any society, you are not allowed to kill people ( unless you are in the military, but lets keep this simple. ) Some people would say this deprives you of the freedom to kill.

But think of it this way....

In a society where killing is not allowed, you have the freedom not to be killed.

So what freedom is is defined by the people who make your boundries.
So if this is your peers, yourself, your parents.....
But having 'freedom' defined by a policeman sucks.

Yet another reason to become an anarchist.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

though I am not an anarchist I can sympathyse

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think the boundries ought to be defined by consent of those effected. I should have the right to kill anybody who consents to be killed, and those who wish to be killed should be able to be killed by any who consent to kill them.

In a free society, "restrictions" on freedom are defined according to the needs and wants of the participants in any given situation. Power exchanges and the question of who makes boundries are defined according to specific circumstances. Imagine a world of sports games - in each game, the players make the rules, and act them out. Since the players make the rules, and participation is completely voluntary, the only restrictions are consented to.

Dig?

[Latifa]

Good point, I forgot about the people at the other end of the deal.
However your post also points out that society would probably selfdestruct without morals, there needs to be other people impacting, and even enforcing correct morals, so 'consent' is too light a term here.
I dig.

[I want to be an anarchist.]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 27 2004, 01:13 AM
freedom and choice don't exist

but the illision of chice does and we have a degree of freedommost of us should have our democratic freedom

and fredom of speech religion and justice
Are determinism and freedom really incompatible?

Just because things will happen in a certain way, doesn't mean I wont have chosen them to happen in that way.

Choice is the attribute of higher function cogniotions.

WE have choice in the way we t hink, but if we act on impulse we have no choice except the choice to either act on impulse or not.

In short, if you belive in choice you must belive that choice is [SIZE=7]always [SIZE=1]possible.

Aren't illusions just the first layer of the way we look at things. Are they necessarily misperceptions? Do they require an illusionist or not?

Choice does exist, at least in one way of looking at things.

(And is there not choice in the way we look at things?)

[I want to be an anarchist.]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 29 2004, 04:16 AM
I think the boundries ought to be defined by consent of those effected. I should have the right to kill anybody who consents to be killed, and those who wish to be killed should be able to be killed by any who consent to kill them.

In a free society, "restrictions" on freedom are defined according to the needs and wants of the participants in any given situation. Power exchanges and the question of who makes boundries are defined according to specific circumstances. Imagine a world of sports games - in each game, the players make the rules, and act them out. Since the players make the rules, and participation is completely voluntary, the only restrictions are consented to.

Dig?
How can you prove they wanted to be killed after you have killed them?

( or even before? )

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Haha, it was about consent, comrade - I wasn't trying to provide a particularly realistic example. My point is simply that nothing ought to be absolutely forbidden, rather, "rules" need to reflect the specific needs/desires of those involved in any given situation.

We might look to that situation that arose in Germany, a few years ago, where a consenting adult agreed to be cooked and eaten by another consenting adult. I certainly don't get off on it, but I don't feel it's my right to pass judgement on such a situation. Hoorah for moral individualism.

Regarding freedom and determinism:

Though not widely accepted, the behavior of all humans is strictly determined by forces beyond their control and understanding. This is a direct result of causality, and is backed by a body of empirical data; the arguments against this position rely, often, on twisting definitions, or unashamed irrationalism. First, then, before examining the matter itself, and the arguments surrounding, it is crucial to lay out one or two understandings of differently applied words.
The most contentious terminology, “Free will,” and “Freedom,” will be used in the sense the sense that Blatchford uses them, meaning “[For one’s will to be] free of all control or interference.”1 Another term will be used to refer to freedom as described by Stace and soft determinists. This dichotomy, will, naturally, be further explained when considering soft determinist arguments against the above thesis. “Mind,” will be accepted as a description of the experience of consciousness, as opposed to some metaphysical “other,” which affects the physical body.
At first, the proposal that one’s will is not free may seem absurd, “[The average man] knows that he chooses between two courses every hour, and often every minute, and he thinks the choice is free.”2 What we must ask, however, is what exactly occurs in process of choosing. In ones mind, one might turn over and judge the choices, but is the mind actually affecting the process of choosing? It has been shown that our thoughts are paralleled, by electrical activity in the brain. The work of Doctor Penfield suggests, more than that, that electrical activity in the brain, and our thoughts are inalienable. If the mind, then, is an effect of the physical brain, we can apply a secular Occam’s Razor and rule out from our model an “other” nonphysical part, separate from the brain, which somehow affects the brain and chooses. If we accept that in the realm of the physical all things are caused, it would follow that the action of the physical brain is caused, and, therefore, choices, occurring within the brain, are likewise the product of physical causation and not some higher dictating power/consciousness. Choice, as we know it then, is an illusion; not, necessarily, because we could never choose any other way as asserted by Blatchford (This is untestable), but because the process of choosing is itself illusory.
Stace, however, dismisses this as irrelevant because he concerns himself with the different matter of external freedom. The argument follows that choices are free, or not free, according to circumstance. He cites several examples, then sums up, saying:

We have now collected a number of cases of actions which, in the ordinary usage of the English language, would be called cases in which people have acted of their own free will. We should also say in all these cases that they chose to act as they did. We should also say that they could have acted otherwise, if they had chosen. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi was not compelled to fast; he chose to do so. He could have eaten if he had wanted to. When Smith went out to get his lunch, he chose to do so. He could have stayed and done some work, if he had wanted to. We have also collected a number of cases of the opposite kind. They are cases in which men were not able to exercise their free will. They had no choice. They were compelled to do as they did. The man in the desert did not fast of his own free will. He had no choice in the matter. He was compelled to fast because there was nothing for him to eat.3

By appealing to the “ordinary usage,” Stace sidesteps the matter at hand entirely. That is because Stace’s “ordinary usage” concerns itself, not with the question of an individual’s ability to actively choose between two options, internally - e.g. “I would like to eat / I would not like to eat” - but the external, typically social, question what one can or cannot do - the contrasting “I can eat / I am prevented from eating.” The latter is a different matter entirely, as it does not relate to whether or not our actions are determined, but to our interaction with the outside world. If we use Hospers’s hand-washer, briefly, as an example he is, in terms of the original issue, without free will. Soft determinism, however, would maintain that he is free as long as he has access to a sink and is able to obey his compulsion, and unfree when some external thing, animal vegetable or mineral prevents him from washing his hands. This is all well and good, but a different matter entirely, our initial problem not concerning itself with manifesting “the will” within the world in terms of action, but in terms of “the will” itself.
Some soft determinists have also attacked claims by Blatchford and others who share his outlook by attacking the idea that, given that all things are caused, they can therefore be predicted (“We all know that we can foretell the actions of certain men in certain situations, because we know the men,”4). They cite the limits of “heredity and environment,” or suggest that the universe has a tendency toward entropy and unpredictability which makes human action impredictable. This assertion is very likely correct, but, again, it is periphery to the crux of the question. While Blatchford might be bothered, impredictability does not undermine causation or determinism.
Self-determinists, or advocates of “Agency” argue that we may be independent causal agents - that the individual, an alienable force, may act freely of antecedent conditions, while acting to create other forces. Richard Taylor says:

The only conception of action that accords with our data is one according to which men—and perhaps some other things too—are sometimes, but of course not always, self-determining beings; that is, beings which are sometimes the causes of their own behavior.5

Unfortunately, this relies on the idea of a self which is free from the laws of causality. It implies, as Taylor confesses, “Two rather strange metaphysical notions that are never applied elsewhere in nature.” 6 The first of these is that there is an actual self - not simply as a construct, or product of the action of the brain, but as something intangible yet real. Since this complicates matters, is untestable, and fails to provide any answers beyond that already provided by the idea that the mind is not an agent to itself, it is reasonable to dismiss this as irrelevant and unnecessary until the presentation of some new evidence in its favour. The second notion is that events can by caused by nonevents. While this cannot be ruled out immediately, there is no credible evidence that this is the case. On similar grounds, it is rational to dismiss the more extreme, and, ultimately antirational, inderterminsim.
What though, are the practical implications of the rejection of free will? How would such a conclusion affect our society, as opposed to current dominant conceptions of the free individual? First and foremost, it demands we reassess our understandings of responsibility. After all, to if our choices are not made freely, to what degree might we be held accountable for them? It demands we address matters, of crime and other social ills no longer in a reactionary manner, but instead, by taking proactive action to undermine the root causes of problems. It means the building of institutions along new lines that reflect an understanding of people not as aloof, alienable, agents, but as part of a holistic universe, and society. Though we cannot say for certain what it might look like, it would very likely be organized on lines drastically different than those of the largely individualist, “retribution-as-justice” based society which we currently inhabit.
In closing, there is reasonable grounds to believe the behavior of all humans is strictly determined. The arguments against this position from various sides are, often, limited or irrational. The actual implications of the rejection of free will are, at the very least, radical.

Footnotes

1Blatchford, Robert. "The Delusion Of Free Will" (Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives On Perennial Issues., 1994) 112.

2Ibid. 112.

3Stace, W.T. "The Problem Of Free Will" (Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives On Perennial Issues., 1994) 121

4Blatchford, Robert. "The Delusion Of Free Will" (Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives On Perennial Issues., 1994) 115.

5Taylor, Richard. "Freedom and Determinism" (Philosophy: Contemporary Perspectives On Perennial Issues., 1994) 132.

6Ibid. 133.

[I want to be an anarchist.]

Wow that is alot to digest.

But it did bring to mind a few classic bits of philospophy. For instance when you were talking about Stace and the soft determinists and the man in the desert not being able to choose not to starve. it brought to mind the john locke example.

If a man is in room and chooses not to open a door, not knowing that it is locked, has he made a free choice?

Also when you were talking about the function of the brain being pararell to the metaphysical action of thought i have to ask whcih came first, the chicken or the egg?

"If the brain is a computer, then man has a computer, not is computer." - I wish i could remember names and not just quotes. <_<

The metaphysical is the idea behind something. It does exist, but only as a counterpart to the physical. It is a way of looking at things from a &#39;higher&#39; perspective. Just becuase the brain is made up of electrical impulses doesn&#39;t mean that there is no idea behind it.

f free will does not exist people must still be held responsible in the same way they would should free will exist. This is for the process of rehabilitation. Just becuase someone does something wrong and they are not to blame for it doesn&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t teach them not to do it&#33;

Whether we have free will or not, contrary to what you have said, is irrelevant.