Freedom Is A State Of Mind....

[BraveNewWorld]

For my GSCE English coursework (U.k. schools) I have to do a speaking and listening peice. There were several topics but i chose "Freedom is a state of mind".So far I have come up with the following points, and was wondering whether anyone has any criticisms ore ideas/thoughts on the subject.



•If we believe we are free then we are free.
•Freedom of thought is the fundamental freedom. From it comes freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of travel, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.
•No-one can take freedom of thought from a person except by killing them
•It is the only undeniable freedom, the only global freedom
•Freedom of thought can only be limited, for example by censorship, book burning or arrest and isolation of targeted individuals

Different people have different interpretations of freedom, for example some might say the freedom to speak freely without fear of persecution, or the freedom to worship openly without fear of reprisal. Others might say that freedom is simply being unconfined and unrestrained by an authority figure.

Please post your thoughts.

Thanks,
BraveNewWorld

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Brave, a few thoughts:


If we believe we are free then we are free.

Sounds like make-believe: so if I believe I am an intergalactic megastar, I am one.


Freedom of thought is the fundamental freedom. From it comes freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of travel, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

This is an important freedom won by centuries of struggle, but it does not take precedence over other rights and freedoms.

So, for example, Nazis, have no right to spout their 'thoughts' (for that is one way they motivate violence against minorities, and the rights of the latter groups take precedence over the right of any Nazi to spout hate).

And, you might like to question what 'fundamental freedom' implies.


No-one can take freedom of thought from a person except by killing them.

Too vague; does it mean freedom to mull things over in one's head, or freedom to say and read what you like? If the former, the word 'freedom' cannot apply, since it is not something you can choose to do or not to do. If the latter, my previous comments apply.

I will respond to the other things later.

Have to go!

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Freedom of thought can only be limited, for example by censorship, book burning or arrest and isolation of targeted individuals

You could be on slightly shaky ground here. I shouldn't think you'll be called out on it in your English, but there are problems.

What if a child is raised a Catholic or a Muslim? is their thought "Free"?

In fact, what about Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, etc? Children are regularly taught these to be truths, is that free thought?

You can see that there are many examples similar to this. Basically, unless someone has never agreed to something without justification, they cannot be realistically called a free mind.

Philosophically, no mind is free. Our thoughts and opinions are all affected hugely by our environment. To have a real freedom of thought, you'd need never to be influeneced by anything. I'm not sure if that's possible, even in a hypothetical sense.

-Alex

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:44 am
For my GSCE English coursework (U.k. schools) I have to do a speaking and listening peice. There were several topics but i chose "Freedom is a state of mind".So far I have come up with the following points, and was wondering whether anyone has any criticisms ore ideas/thoughts on the subject.



•If we believe we are free then we are free.
•Freedom of thought is the fundamental freedom. From it comes freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of travel, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.
•No-one can take freedom of thought from a person except by killing them
•It is the only undeniable freedom, the only global freedom
•Freedom of thought can only be limited, for example by censorship, book burning or arrest and isolation of targeted individuals

Different people have different interpretations of freedom, for example some might say the freedom to speak freely without fear of persecution, or the freedom to worship openly without fear of reprisal. Others might say that freedom is simply being unconfined and unrestrained by an authority figure.

Please post your thoughts.

Thanks,
BraveNewWorld
sounds exactly like something Friedrich Hegel's said. correct me if I'm wrong??

but I believe Hegels claimed that exploited workers could feel exploited and oppressed by their bosses. and this was fine.
as long as the worker didn't let this "material oppression" get to him. as long as he or she feels SPIRITUALLY FREE he shall obey the state, (the state being like gods representative on earth) doing that you are sure to find happiness and freedom. very idealist! thats why Marx pretty much flipped that around!

I also believe Hegel suggested that humans would evolve into free man. as opposed to Marx who obviously believed that man had to raise up and revolt to make this change.

i call bullshit homie! freedom is not a state of mind. at the end of the day the chains still very on you!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BNW:


It is the only undeniable freedom, the only global freedom

What does the 'it' refer to?


Freedom of thought can only be limited, for example by censorship, book burning or arrest and isolation of targeted individuals

Or execution (if they are Nazis).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Philosophically, no mind is free.

You see how easy it is to slip into using such empty phrases.

This comment of yours, if made 'unfreely', cannot be yours (it must have been forced upon you, by someone or something).

So, who's is it?

If it was made 'freely', then it is false.

So, either way we can ignore it.

[The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class. Print this out on a card, and super-glue it to your forehead, Burn.]

[here for the revolution]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 12:20 pm
Brave, a few thoughts:


If we believe we are free then we are free.

Sounds like make-believe: so if I believe I am an intergalactic megastar, I am one.


I agree, the idea of that sounds like some bs hitler would push down our throats. in my opinion freedom is a state of existence where you can do anything you want, you either have it or you don't

[BurnTheOliveTree]

[The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class. Print this out on a card, and super-glue it to your forehead, Burn.]

Now now. Be nice. :)

I didn't mean to imply that that they are trapped, either. But since the term free is used here in a complete and literal sense, i.e. utterly free, my comment makes sense. No mind is utterly free. No man is an island, if you will. All our thoughts are affected by environment, if not dictated by them. Agree? I had you down as a determinist type thing.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Now now. Be nice.

I am always nice to you!

Just because I say some of your ideas have a class-compromised origin, does not mean I am being horrible.

Now, if I let you remain in such a benighted state, that would be being nasty.

Like these:


i.e. utterly free, my comment makes sense.

I'd like to see you make sense of this. I can't.


No mind is utterly free. No man is an island, if you will. All our thoughts are affected by environment, if not dictated by them. Agree? I had you down as a determinist type thing.

And so you slip back into a priori mode, once more.

You just can't help yourself, can you?! :)

However, I do not know why you think I am a determinist. I have said enough times, I am a nothing-at-all-ist, except a Marxist.

Indeed, I upset a few comrades here back in the spring of 2006 picking holes in their determinism.

And before you jump in, I am not the opposite either.

I am a no-theory-whatsoever-ist, as I said.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here for the Revolution:


in my opinion freedom is a state of existence where you can do anything you want, you either have it or you don't

Thanks for your agreement, but this can't be correct.

In no conceivable state of matter (or society) could you ever be able to do what you wanted (even if it were allowed).

Not even superheros can do that.

So, say I wanted to alter the past.

Possible?

No.

Well, suppose I wanted humanity to be able to live on fresh air.

Possible?

No.

Suppose I wanted to stay 21 years old for ever?

Possible?

No

Need I go on?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rosa:

Yes, you are nice to me. I wasn't really too bothered about the superglue and card commment. :P

With the utterly free thing, I mean completely without influence. For something to be free, or liberated perhaps, in the real technical, philosophical sense, it would have to be completely independent. And our minds, at least to an extent, are affected by the environment we are surrounded by. Thus depending on the environment.

Any clearer? Clarity isn't my strong point, but I wonder if any amount of explaining/rewording is what you're looking for. I seem always to slightly miss the point on these language/sense issues.

I'm not really sure that I'm slipping into a priori mode here. You would disagree, then? Our thoughts aren't at least partially a product of our circumstances or environment?

Anyway, forgive me my shortcomings. The only philosophy I know is traditional, you're the only one I've met that rejects it so entirely. It's tough to adjust. :(

I'm not sure why I thought you were a determinist either, it seemed to fit in with your character I suppose. So you just don't have any opinion at all about it? Woah. A first? :lol:

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


I mean completely without influence

I know you think you mean this, but do you?

Have you thought this through?

I suspect not.

In what way is 'it' a thing then?


it would have to be completely independent

You mean it would have to exist in a world all on its own, not be made of any parts, a simple 'particle'/point?

(If it had any parts, it would be dependent on them, and thus not be totally independent as you say).

Notice how this 'it' of yours is slowly ceasing to be describable.

This makes it an empty term, as I indicated earlier.


I'm not really sure that I'm slipping into a priori mode here.

Well you just laid down some a priori principles that decided if something was or was not 'free', in your sense.

It is possible to show that all such moves descend in like manner into non-sense, i.e., they end up becoming indescribable.

This is because, as I asserted earlier, they all depend on a distortion of language.

Instead of laying down a priori rules which your word has to obey, why not try and see how we actually use this word, and let that be your guide. You will never go wrong that way (since the sense of what you say will be derived from the material language of the working-class), and this can be asserted with some confidence since the words I am using are all in their ordinary senses.

It is so obvious a tactic that 2500 years of ruling-class theory missed it!

[Anthony Kenny's books are a good place to start.]


So you just don't have any opinion at all about it? Woah. A first?

Now that is not what I said. :angry:

I do have an opinion, and it's the same opinion I have about all such ruling-class theories (and their negations): they are all non-sense.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I know you think you mean this, but do you?

Ermm. Yes, I think I probably do. :unsure:

You're reinforcing my point here. A truly free mind is not possible, because, as you pointed out, it has imperfect component parts, and is inescapably influeneced by external factors.

The truly free mind concept will slowly, or even quickly, cease to be describable. On that I agree. Which is why I don't think that a truly free mind is a possible reality. Understand?


This makes it an empty term, as I indicated earlier

Bingo. :D


Instead of laying down a priori rules which your word has to obey, why not try and see how we actually use this word, and let that be your guide. You will never go wrong that way (since the sense of what you say will be derived from the material language of the working-class), and this can be asserted with some confidence since the words I am using are all in their ordinary senses.

Perhaps if you could give me a couple of examples I would understand this point better. I think I'm getting there. So if say, a word as defined in a dictionary is used in a different manner by the working class, the working class's version should be preferred? The common use should be preferred rather than the one established by the dictionary?

I'll try and hunt for Anthony Kenny one I've finished off Russell.


Now that is not what I said.

Sorry! I didn't mean to offend. But isn't determinism a case of one or the other? Things are either determined or they aren't determined? You can't think both are wrong, can you? It would be like saying "I don't think think that the cheese is yellow. I also don't think that it is not yellow. Both theories are nonsense."

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


A truly free mind is not possible

That is not what I showed; I demonstrated that you had not thought this through, and that the state of affairs you were trying to rule out is incapable of being described, and hence you are not saying anything to which a sense can be given.

In short, your denial is no denial; it is too confused to be so described.

You have yet to rule this possibilty out since you have not yet described what it is you are ruling out.


Perhaps if you could give me a couple of examples I would understand this point better. I think I'm getting there. So if say, a word as defined in a dictionary is used in a different manner by the working class, the working class's version should be preferred? The common use should be preferred rather than the one established by the dictionary?

I have been writing responses here all day, and I am knackered! So, I will be brief (for a change!).

You only have to think of how you would use the word 'free' to see what you mean by it.

A cat is caught in a fence; it wriggles free. 'It is completely free of the fence', I hear you say.

No metaphysics anywhere in sight but we have a completely free cat.

If cats can do it so can you.

[And do not say, 'but it isn't completely free..., since you yourself cannot give a sense to that use of language.]

Kenny's 'Action, Emotion and Will', is to my mind the book on the philosophy of mind, followed up by his 'Will, Freedon and Power'.

But, it's all modern day Aristotle, Frege and Wittgenstein -- so be prepared to be deflated (a bit like the way I stick pins into metaphysical hot air balloons here).


But isn't determinism a case of one or the other?

No, both indeterminism and determinism only get off the ground by mis-using language.

So it's a choice between the Jabberwocky and those pesky Toves again.

I'll post the link to that earlier thread on this topic tomorrow some time.

I'm off; my fingers ache!! :(

[bretty]

I think your right Rosa with the example; if anyone has studied frege or Wittgenstein they will be familiar with the context principle (Rosa recommended a book on Wittgenstein's Tractatus that examines this). Before you use the word 'free' in a certain sense you need to look at the context its used in, that is why these examples of how one can be 'free' fall apart because they are tied together with a concept of freedom with lack of any context in reality. The only way to set a definition of the word 'free' is to examine the context your trying to use it in.

[404]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:07 am
I think your right Rosa with the example; if anyone has studied frege or Wittgenstein they will be familiar with the context principle (Rosa recommended a book on Wittgenstein's Tractatus that examines this). Before you use the word 'free' in a certain sense you need to look at the context its used in, that is why these examples of how one can be 'free' fall apart because they are tied together with a concept of freedom with lack of any context in reality. The only way to set a definition of the word 'free' is to examine the context your trying to use it in.
Wittgenstein, "bubble gum for the mind!" I concur on that note.

[RebelDog]

No-one can take freedom of thought from a person except by killing them

How can it be deduced that no-one can can take someones freedom of thought, exept by killing them. How is it then possible for a ruling class to take surplus value from the working class. Something must be interfering with proletarian minds that they do not instantly destroy this exploitative structure. Many workers I know view the relationship as being one where the capitalist has done them a service by allowing them to work on their production machines and not one where the worker is in fact being robbed of their surplus value. We have bourgeois hegenomy of ideas in the bourgeois capitalist state and anybody born in the capitalist epoch will be affected by those ideas, or indeed any epoch, and that goes for all of us.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

404:


Wittgenstein, "bubble gum for the mind!" I concur on that note.

And you expect to be taken serioiusly with this sort of comment?

[hoopla]

Now THATS something to chew on :rolleyes:

[hoopla]

I like metophors. I just don't swallow them! Boom tish, not sure what anyone's point is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


I like metophors. I just don't swallow them! Boom tish, not sure what anyone's point is.

And with comments like that, you wonder why I seldom take you seriously.

You should post only in 'chit chat' if this is the best you can do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, as W's method implies, once you establish a context in which it is natural to describe things a certain way, all the metaphysical hot air that has accumulated around this and other 'philosophical' problems just vanishes.

But, recall, it is not the circumstances that deicde the meaning here, but the fact that it is natural to say certain things in such circumstances.

Many people confuse W's 'context' priciple to mean that meaning changes according to context of utterance (indeed, on occasion he began to say such things himself), but that cannot be so since it devolves meaning into circumstance, and ignores the socially-driven rules we have all been trained into using in such circumstances.

You can see that is right, since everyone understands my cat example, and the circumstances I depict are entirely fictional, so they cannot have determined the meaning of the words I used. Indeed, the meaning of the words I used allowed me to depict these fictional surroundings.

We (collectively) determine meaning; circumstances cannot since they are not agents of any sort.

[seraphim]

Freedom of thought is an illusion. Thought isn't free it's perpetually influenced by everything around you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Seraphim:


Thought isn't free it's perpetually influenced by everything around you.

Does this include your own thoughts?

If so, we can ignore the above as an objective picture of reality since, by its own lights, it will have been the result of your own subjective response to your surroundings.

If not, then at least one person in history will have had a 'free' thought, namely you.

Either way, we can ignore your comment.

[As I noted above, you cannot engage 'traditional philosophy' using its own vocabulary and methods. No wonder not a single 'philosophical problem' has ever been solved, or even so much a slightly solved.

In fact, it is arguable that we do even understand what these 'problems' are!

I suggested there is a way out of this quagmire above, too.]

[seraphim]

Does this include your own thoughts?

Of course it does I don't claim to be special. No one person can have a truely free thought except perhaps in the sense that it belongs only to you as far as it's in your head.

Nothing we actually think is free and original it's all influenced by external forces. The extent to which the influence exerts itself differs from person to person and thought to thought but you cannot get away from the fact that it's not free.

[bolshevik butcher]

Surely as materialists we have to recognise that all thoughts and ideas are products of their time and place? I mean no idea is truely "free" all ideas are a result of the material conditions that provailed where they originate.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 11:41 am
Bretty, as W's method implies, once you establish a context in which it is natural to describe things a certain way, all the metaphysical hot air that has accumulated around this and other 'philosophical' problems just vanishes.

But, recall, it is not the circumstances that deicde the meaning here, but the fact that it is natural to say certain things in such circumstances.

Many people confuse W's 'context' priciple to mean that meaning changes according to context of utterance (indeed, on occasion he began to say such things himself), but that cannot be so since it devolves meaning into circumstance, and ignores the socially-driven rules we have all been trained into using in such circumstances.

You can see that is right, since everyone understands my cat example, and the circumstances I depict are entirely fictional, so they cannot have determined the meaning of the words I used. Indeed, the meaning of the words I used allowed me to depict these fictional surroundings.

We (collectively) determine meaning; circumstances cannot since they are not agents of any sort.
What I meant is not circumstance as in what is happening at the time of using a certain word, but the context in which it is used in language, as in your example of the cat. It can only be understood when used in a certain context of the sentence being uttered. Because not all sentences and uses of language are depicting events happening at any given time.

[Jesus Christ!]

I disagree with the idea of " If you think you're free you are free." This seems to lead to a sort of "happy slave" mentality if you will. You may think you are free all you want and you can make justifications for anything you want but does that mean you are free? What if you think every time the whip cracks on your back it is just the sound of your freedom? Isn't this just disillusionment?

Unless you mean more that you need to be mentally free before you can be physically free kind of an idea. Like " no matter what they do to me I will be free." kind of thing?

That whole freedom of thought reminds me of Anne Frank.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


Surely as materialists we have to recognise that all thoughts and ideas are products of their time and place? I mean no idea is truely "free" all ideas are a result of the material conditions that provailed where they originate.

Indeed, but we can do without this ruling-class vocabulary (and their forms-of-thought) to be able to do so.

The material language of the working class is unbelievably rich in the resources it contains, which allow us to do just what you say (except, your words: 'no idea is truely "free"', have no sense, as I have tried to show, above).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


What I meant is not circumstance as in what is happening at the time of using a certain word, but the context in which it is used in language, as in your example of the cat. It can only be understood when used in a certain context of the sentence being uttered. Because not all sentences and uses of language are depicting events happening at any given time.

Yes, I see that now!

Thanks!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Seraphim:


No one person can have a truely free thought except perhaps in the sense that it belongs only to you as far as it's in your head.

I am not sure you have quite grasped the logical hole this drops you into.

I tried to outline it for you, but maybe I wasn't clear enough.

You see, you too cannot resist appealing to a proiri ideas (which, as I showed above, have no sense) to make your point (all so traditional):


Nothing we actually think is free and original it's all influenced by external forces. The extent to which the influence exerts itself differs from person to person and thought to thought but you cannot get away from the fact that it's not free.

I do not know how you know this, or could prove it, even if you could explain to us what you are ruling out (so that we knew where you stood, and hence what you are ruling in).

And in case you are tempted to tell us what you are ruling out (ie., a 'completely free thought', I presume), you will need to explain what one of these is, so we can follow your drift.

Burn the Olive Tree tried, but failed, I think.

[Hit The North]

Rosa:


I do not know how you know this, [Seraphim's assertion that "Nothing we actually think is free and original it's all influenced by external forces." - CZ]or could prove it, even if you could explain to us what you are ruling out (so that we knew where you stood, and hence what you are ruling in).

Any thought so original that it was not influenced at all by something outside itself would inevitably be inexpressible - so pretty useless.

I had once. No replacement for a good shit, I can tell you. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Any thought so original that it was not influenced at all by something outside itself would inevitably be inexpressible - so pretty useless.

Thanks for that, but you are employing an odd notion of freedom here, one to which, I claim, it is impossible to give a sense.

You are invited to try.

Good luck -- you only have 2000 or so years of failed attempts to overcome.

[seraphim]

RL


I do not know how you know this, or could prove it

I don't even pretend that I have a level of language skills or intelligence to be able to prove it or even fully explain it to anybody. It just makes sense to me maybe that is useless maybe it devalues my opinion but that's as it is.

I just feel that for as long as humans and society has existed that what people consider to be their thoughts and as such their freedoms are no such thing. That especially in modern times we are so heavily influenced by everything around as that true freedom defention (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom) (part 2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc) of thought is impossible to have.

I'm sure that my opinions and theories could be disproved and shot down from many different angles, as it is with most opinions or beliefs or theories. There can be as many supporting arguments as contradictory. What really matters is the debate.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Seraphim:


I don't even pretend that I have a level of language skills or intelligence to be able to prove it or even fully explain it to anybody. It just makes sense to me maybe that is useless maybe it devalues my opinion but that's as it is

Well, if you can't explain it, then you cannot explain it to yourself, even. In that case, it can make no sense to you, too -- unless, once again you are using such words in a quirky sort of way.

And if that is so, you need to tell us how you intend those words to be taken so we can agree that this idea of your does indeed make sense, or whether it is based on an irrational act of faith.


I just feel that for as long as humans and society has existed that what people consider to be their thoughts and as such their freedoms are no such thing. That especially in modern times we are so heavily influenced by everything around as that true freedom defention (part 2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc) of thought is impossible to have.

I do not disagree with much of this, it is just that -- as I explained above -- we do not need to use the idealist/metaphysical language of the ruling-class to express such ideas (as you keep trying to do).


I'm sure that my opinions and theories could be disproved and shot down from many different angles, as it is with most opinions or beliefs or theories. There can be as many supporting arguments as contradictory. What really matters is the debate.

Well, do we need a 'philosophical' theory here, if the language it is based on makes no sense.

Indeed, if we cannot even frame the 'problem' without using empty phrases (or misusing language), is there even a 'philosophical problem' here to begin with?

I contend not.

[redcannon]

the truth of the matter is that no physical entity is free. Even in a politically free environment, we are still tied down by the laws of physics, by time, by space. No matter how free i am, i will never be able to break the laws of gravity, at least not without following some other law of the universe.

besides, who wants to be free? with almost 7 billion people in chains, it doesn't look like the public is in favor of it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedC:


the truth of the matter is that no physical entity is free.

Once more, this has been shown to collapse into senselessness above.

You must try to stop repeasting these old nostrums; they do not work.


No matter how free i am, i will never be able to break the laws of gravity, at least not without following some other law of the universe.

This implies the universe is run by some mind, or some sort of state -- which has laid down verbal principles that everything 'obeys' as a law-abiding citizen (this is indeed where this fetishised idea came from) -- and hence that everything in realty is a kind of mind (so that it can understand these laws so as to comply with the), as Leibniz, for one, believed.


besides, who wants to be free? with almost 7 billion people in chains, it doesn't look like the public is in favor of it.

Of what?

You have mixed so many things up, this makes no sense.

[seraphim]

Ok then let me revise my initial statement.

If we can agree that freedom as I stated previously is;


exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

and also as you said you agreed with much of my previous statement;


QUOTE
I just feel that for as long as humans and society has existed that what people consider to be their thoughts and as such their freedoms are no such thing. That especially in modern times we are so heavily influenced by everything around as that true freedom defention (part 2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc) of thought is impossible to have.



I do not disagree with much of this, it is just that -- as I explained above -- we do not need to use the idealist/metaphysical language of the ruling-class to express such ideas (as you keep trying to do).

Then infact to say that freedom of thought is an illusion is perhaps a little too vague but it is infact an oxymoron on a par with 'military intelligence'. freedom as such can only really be physical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Seraphim:


exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

No, this cannot be correct -- it is far too vague, general and abstract (in the ordinary sense of that word).


freedom as such can only really be physical.

No, 'freedom' cannot be so constrained.

This is a complex social, legal and ethical concept, which has many and varied meanings.

I gave one example of 'freedom' above (that cat).

Here is another: the working class in the UK are free to strike.

Now, we all know that this is a merely formal freedom, dependent on many factors (and one that has been won through years of struggle, slowly being eroded).

But this form of freedom poses a threat to class rule, and could become a focus for either side to extend or restrict it.

[And, of course, the ruling class rely on the trade union bureaucracy to police this freedom. But it is a freedom they would happily see go out of the window if they could get away with it.]

But it is formally guaranteed by law, and so is constituted by regulation.

Hence, increased freedom can be that which results from certain constraints put on one class by another.

To be sure, this sort of freedom is not enough, and Marxists seek to increase the freedom of the working class so that they become the class that decides on the freedoms of others.

Now, this is more complex an issue than the above indicates, but it has only been summarised here to make plain that simple metaphysical 'definitions' of freedom are next to useless.

Any qualifications comrades want to add to the above will merely confirm its complexity, but at the same time will provide no support for simple defintions.

[seraphim]

QUOTE
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.



No, this cannot be correct -- it is far too vague, general and abstract (in the ordinary sense of that word).

Ok then again apply any of these definitions freedom (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom) to the debate and as I said and you agreed


That especially in modern times we are so heavily influenced by everything around as that true freedom defention (part 2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc) of thought is impossible to have.



I do not disagree with much of this, it is just that -- as I explained above -- we do not need to use the idealist/metaphysical language of the ruling-class to express such ideas (as you keep trying to do).

Then it comes down to 'freedom of thought' being a contradiction in terms.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Seraphim, it looks like we are talking past each other here. You keep saying I agreed to something; I do not remember doing that.


Then it comes down to 'freedom of thought' being a contradiction in terms.

Well, a contradiction can only apply to certain sentences, so there is no such thing as a contradiction in terms.

But even if there were, this would not be one, since, as I noted earlier, it is too confused to make it that fsr.

[BlakSheep]

I agree with what BURNTHEOLIVETREE said at the beginning of this forum. If a child is raised a certain religion, he has no freedom of mind unless he makes the effort to educate himself, and make a conscious effort to make a change for the better. I was a raised catholic in a Latino family. Unless you make the effort yourself to educate yourself, you never truly have freedom of thought.