PDA

View Full Version : Give me Liberty or...?


Vlerchan
September 2nd, 2016, 05:31 PM
I see a lot of defences of expression, person, speech, and so on, on the grounds of Freedom. This tends to go undefended, with freedom being seen as an ultimately just end in its own right.

This thread is for those, who value freedom, to defend freedom as being an object of value.

Paraxiom
September 2nd, 2016, 06:59 PM
Vlerchan

I'm looking forward to how this thread goes.

So you're opening the floor to allow those who view freedom as an abstract object to explain their motivation and reasoning? Does seeing freedom as a concept count here, or rather seeing freedom as a thing primarily accessible through objects?

My technology subsection in the technetheism (that I could bring in, if you are alright with that) may get surprisingly quickly relevant with this.

jamie_n5
September 2nd, 2016, 07:16 PM
I view freedom as being able to go about your life the way you choose to. Obviously we have to obey the laws of the land but we are still free to chose where we live and what we want to do. The people that choose to live in the wilds of Alaska and wildernesses like that have obviously more leeway to do what they please opposed to people that choose to live in large cities. It will be interesting to see what others concept of freedom is.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 02:05 AM
I think freedom is doing whatever you want, without anyone (or the government) forcing their beliefs on you. As long as you're not hurting anyone you should be free to do whatever you want :)

Of course there are limits to this freedom, but I don't think this thread is about that?

Vlerchan
September 3rd, 2016, 05:09 AM
The thread isn't about defining freedom but about defending why we as human beings should be free.

Sorry if that wasn't clear in the OP.

Reise
September 3rd, 2016, 07:56 AM
The thread isn't about defining freedom but about defending why we as human beings should be free.

Sorry if that wasn't clear in the OP.
Wouldn't it be important to define freedom then?

Vlerchan
September 3rd, 2016, 08:09 AM
Wouldn't it be important to define freedom then?
Most of this board wholes, either implicitly or explicitly, to the notion that prevailed following the Enlightenment: freedom from the state, freedom from the whole, freedom from politics.

But, of course, if someone holds to a different definition of freedom, they are welcome to define and defend it.

But I'm starting this thread with more of an interested in the modern liberal notion of freedom which seems to be ingrained beyond our realisation in contemporary political dialogue.

Porpoise101
September 3rd, 2016, 12:21 PM
Freedom promotes healthy innovation as people have the choice to improve themselves. Freedom exposes corruption and inadequacy. Then it gives people the option to remove it.

Good stuff, freedom is.*

*When used responsibly and when people are smart enough to make the choices

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 11:34 AM
The thread isn't about defining freedom but about defending why we as human beings should be free.

Sorry if that wasn't clear in the OP.

Out of curiosity, will you introduce a view to counter the more freedom-laden perspectives on what humanity should be like?


As long as you're not hurting anyone you should be free to do whatever you want :)

What would hurting another be?

Would it be okay to hurt someone in the short-term in anticipation of that person benefiting from this in the longer-term?

(Just clarifying / asking what you mean.)


Most of this board wholes, either implicitly or explicitly, to the notion that prevailed following the Enlightenment: freedom from the state, freedom from the whole, freedom from politics.

It's for sure possible for someone to be free from a larger economic, social and political realms that surround that person by being in the minds of the people around him/her.


But, of course, if someone holds to a different definition of freedom, they are welcome to define and defend it.

Alright, I will try.

Freedom is a lack of necessity between an entity and its relation with another entity. The freedom has be meaningful as 'freedom of entity X from entity Y'. The freedom has to be about something.

For a person, being free from e.g. a whole society means that the person can/is him/herself regardless of whatever form the society takes with its interaction with the person.

In other words, I am free from a society if I am not dependent/influenced by it for my existence as person X. If my self is dependent on any aspect of the society to be myself, then I am not fully free from the society.

Generally, the less you interact with a certain entity, the better the trend that you are freer from that certain entity.


But I'm starting this thread with more of an interested in the modern liberal notion of freedom which seems to be ingrained beyond our realisation in contemporary political dialogue.

As I see it, a state is a mental construct between a group of people, that maintains with maximal efficiency the mental and physical health/well-being of that same group of people. People within the state should be bound with the state in these matters, which entails that people shouldn't do actions that hinder on the mental/physical well-being of other people within the same state, or which hinder the state's processes itself (assuming this state doesn't of course get corrupt, etc).

Anything that is not necessary for the physical/metal health of someone, is free for the person to either do or not do. People can engage in activities which do not significantly reduce the mentally/physically well-being of themselves, and which also minimally/negligibly influence the activities other people and/or don't reduce their mental/physical well-being.

I know that I've done an abstract job on this, you're free to interrogate further :P .

I don't know if I am taking a 'typical liberal' stance here.

Flapjack
September 5th, 2016, 03:31 PM
What would hurting another be?

Would it be okay to hurt someone in the short-term in anticipation of that person benefiting from this in the longer-term?

(Just clarifying / asking what you mean.)

I was thinking more harassment and encouraging physical harm but as for you example... it depends xD Calling all poor people lazy bums in the hope they get a job would be a nasty thing to do but I believe they should have the freedom to say it :)

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 03:40 PM
I was thinking more harassment and encouraging physical harm but as for you example... it depends xD Calling all poor people lazy bums in the hope they get a job would be a nasty thing to do but I believe they should have the freedom to say it :)

Alright, I get you.

Vlerchan
September 5th, 2016, 03:44 PM
Out of curiosity, will you introduce a view to counter the more freedom-laden perspectives on what humanity should be like?
Well, of course.

If my self is dependent on any aspect of the society to be myself, then I am not fully free from the society.
I don't see being free from all influence of your social context as being possible - and nor would I consider that level of detachment desirable.

As long as you're not hurting anyone you should be free to do whatever you want
Does the man who does drugs and abandons his family, hurt anyone?

Does the man who commits infidelities within a marriage, hurt anyone?

I'm sure you see where I'm going. Our actions, in all cases, affect the people around us. If our actions are selfish, or vanity-driven, or un-virtueous otherwise, then we are impeding not just the moral development of our societies, but undermining the welfare of those around us.

The man who acts with disregard towards virtue is a slave to his desires: and a defence of his freedom, is only ever that of injustice.

In other words,

'Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.'

Edmund Burke

Flapjack
September 5th, 2016, 03:48 PM
Does the man who does drugs and abandons his family, hurt anyone?

Does the man who commits infidelities within a marriage, hurt anyone?

I'm sure you see where I'm going. Our actions, in all cases, affect the people around us. If our actions are selfish, or vanity-driven, or un-virtueous otherwise, then we are impeding not just the moral development of our societies, but undermining the welfare of those around us.

The man who acts with disregard towards virtue is a slave to his desires: and a defence of his freedom, is only ever that of injustice.

In other words,
'Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.'

Edmund Burke
No I 100% get what you're saying is and I don't know the answer, I don't want the government involved in our relationships but I do get what you are saying:)

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 03:49 PM
Well, of course.

Good. :D


I don't see being free from all influence of your social context as being possible - and nor would I consider that level of detachment desirable.

I don't see it as possible either, I was giving the theoretical point of pure/absolute freedom from society.

As I see it, you cannot be human and be absolutely free from any known entity - even thinking about it involves bondage of thought and such.

Flapjack
September 5th, 2016, 03:51 PM
Alright, I get you.
I should clarify for some reason my brain only engaged enough to think about freedom of speech xD

As for hurting people to help long term in other sense, I think it depends! It is hard to give a general answer to a question like that :)

Vlerchan
September 5th, 2016, 03:51 PM
I don't see it as possible either, I was giving the theoretical point of pure/absolute freedom from society.

As I see it, you cannot be human and be absolutely free from any known entity - even thinking about it involves bondage of thought and such.
I presume, though, you figure this sort of freedom is desirable?

---

Would you also say a fetus posses this freedom to the greatest extent?

As for hurting people to help long term in other sense, I think it depends!
Pushing a large man off a bridge, where he will block an incoming train, to save a group of children.

Flapjack
September 5th, 2016, 03:57 PM
Pushing a large man off a bridge, where he will block an incoming train, to save a group of children.

Be a murderer and save kids or do nothing and let kids die. I personally do not believe I could ever kill anyone so I would not push however I understand that both could be considered morally correct. In this situation I would pardon a man that did push :)

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 04:30 PM
I presume, though, you figure this sort of freedom is desirable?

A relatively high amount of freedom, on the more liberal side of things (as you may have guessed).

Freedom/bondage is on a spectrum, between but not including absolute bondage and absolute freedom.


Would you also say a fetus posses this freedom to the greatest extent?

Do you mean freedom from society, or freedom in general?

If I am to interpret freedom here as freedom of a person from entities in general, the fetuses are not of person-hood, so they are actually absolutely free by this interpretation.

Think of it that application of this interpretation of freedom outside its meaningful frame leads to infinities, which is what I see it as.


Anyway I'm not sure what you mean, but I guess you're integrating it with the abortion thread.

Vlerchan
September 5th, 2016, 04:34 PM
A relatively high amount of freedom, on the more liberal side of things (as you may have guessed).

Freedom/bondage is on a spectrum, between but not including absolute bondage and absolute freedom.
Your perspective also presumes that free will exists, I presume. Otherwise, at least it seems to me, it breaks down.

Anyway I'm not sure what you mean, but I guess you're integrating it with the abortion thread.
Fetus' are free from all social pressures, and even there own thoughts.

If it requires person-hood to experience, then it can't be experienced, at a definitional level (since person-hood requires consciousness of social pressures, and thought). In such a case, I find it paradoxical that freedom requires something that neccisarily negates it.

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 04:55 PM
Your perspective also presumes that free will exists, I presume. Otherwise, at least it seems to me, it breaks down.

If I take the physics angle, there is no free will.

From the psychological angle for a self though (which I tend to hold to better as it is closer to what it means for things to manifestly exist to me, and that is all that I have), there is free will.


Fetus' are free from all social pressures, and even there own thoughts.

If we view the social pressures and thoughts from the perspective of the self of the fetus, then yes; the absolute freedom arises from the meaninglessness of seeing a human self with the fetus. A human self necessarily is bound to entities.


If it requires person-hood to experience, then it can't be experienced, at a definitional level (since person-hood requires consciousness of social pressures, and thought). In such a case, I find it paradoxical that freedom requires something that neccisarily negates it.

By "if it requires", do you mean "if freedom requires"?

Stronk Serb
September 7th, 2016, 07:30 AM
Freedom shouldn't come without obligations and duties to your community and society.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2016, 03:47 PM
From the psychological angle for a self though (which I tend to hold to better as it is closer to what it means for things to manifestly exist to me, and that is all that I have), there is free will.
I'm not sure what this means. Being as our psychological processes are ultimately chemical and what's ultimately chemical is ultimately grounded in physics, I'm not sure I see the difference to see the least.

By "if it requires", do you mean "if freedom requires"?
Yes.

Paraxiom
September 8th, 2016, 03:52 PM
I'm not sure what this means. Being as our psychological processes are ultimately chemical and what's ultimately chemical is ultimately grounded in physics, I'm not sure I see the difference to see the least.

What I was saying is that I feel free of will. I don't feel myself bound 'on the rails' of neurobiological processes and such.


Yes.

I wasn't saying that freedom requires consciousness at all, I was using 'freedom of a conscious self from entity X' as an example.

Vlerchan
September 12th, 2016, 12:05 PM
What I was saying is that I feel free of will. I don't feel myself bound 'on the rails' of neurobiological processes and such.
That we feel free, does not in fact make us free, of course.

I wasn't saying that freedom requires consciousness at all, I was using 'freedom of a conscious self from entity X' as an example.

Earlier:
If I am to interpret freedom here as freedom of a person from entities in general, the fetuses are not of person-hood, so they are actually absolutely free by this interpretation.

In the abortion thread, it seemed (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3430524&postcount=159) we agreed that personhood requires consciousness.

Paraxiom
September 13th, 2016, 05:35 AM
That we feel free, does not in fact make us free, of course.

I was talking about freedom to choose as it is subjective to us psychologically; there's of course physics takes on it, some of which say that we do not have free will, but those are objective.



Earlier:
If I am to interpret freedom here as freedom of a person from entities in general, the fetuses are not of person-hood, so they are actually absolutely free by this interpretation.

In the abortion thread, it seemed (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3430524&postcount=159) we agreed that personhood requires consciousness.

Personhood does require consciousness, yes. By the way, I'm talking about subjective freedom of a person from entities.

The absolute freedom that fetuses have in this meaning makes sense overall in that it doesn't make sense within it - I hope you get me. Absolute freedom of entity X from entity Y only happens when entity X interacts in a relation of dependence in absolutely no way whatsoever with entity Y.

In the case of the fetus, it as a person is absolutely free from entities because there isn't even a person to talk about. Entity X (the person) cannot even be talked about having any relation with entity Y, if there is no person already. There is absolutely no interaction between entity X and entity Y if there is no entity X to speak of in the first place.

The freedom in this context is taken outside its meaningful frame, which leads to infinities. Absolute freedom is more a feature of degeneration (like 6/0 in mathematics) than anything else.

Vlerchan
September 13th, 2016, 10:01 AM
I was talking about freedom to choose as it is subjective to us psychologically; there's of course physics takes on it, some of which say that we do not have free will, but those are objective.
It seems to me that this entire system of belief rests on what human beings typically believe about the world, as opposed to any sort of constant. It doesn't approach anything near truth as it is conventionally defined.

Do you incorporate this into your politics?

Personhood does require consciousness, yes. By the way, I'm talking about subjective freedom of a person from entities.
The understanding I have, by the way, is this is your central definition of freedom.

The absolute freedom that fetuses have in this meaning makes sense overall in that it doesn't make sense within it - I hope you get me.
Which is the issue I have. If the experience of freedom cannot - on a definitional level - be experienced, then it's incoherent, senseless, reasonless, and I fail to see the fruit its discussion bears.

Given this, I figure we should select a different definition of freedom.

The freedom in this context is taken outside its meaningful frame, which leads to infinities. Absolute freedom is more a feature of degeneration (like 6/0 in mathematics) than anything else.
I'm not sure how it leads to infinities but I think I get the metaphor.

Paraxiom
September 13th, 2016, 02:36 PM
It seems to me that this entire system of belief rests on what human beings typically believe about the world, as opposed to any sort of constant. It doesn't approach anything near truth as it is conventionally defined.

I agree, it doesn't. I've been taking a more psychological-experiential background angle on things for a while, but I'm good with suspending that though.


Do you incorporate this into your politics?

My politics is more formless than formed, due to me not being much into going along with political ideas. I suppose 'yes' is a better answer than 'no'. (I don't want to be difficult, if it seems like I am.)


The understanding I have, by the way, is this is your central definition of freedom.

Then I have presented an example incorrectly as a general definition.

For me, freedom is a state of contingency between an entity X and an entity Y. Entity X is free from entity Y if its existence is not dependent on entity Y. Putting it another way, entity X if free from entity Y if entity X is not necessarily in conjunction with entity Y.

I was talking about what freedom means for a person, in this person's interaction/relation to a certain entity or set of entities.


Which is the issue I have. If the experience of freedom cannot - on a definitional level - be experienced, then it's incoherent, senseless, reasonless, and I fail to see the fruit its discussion bears.

Given this, I figure we should select a different definition of freedom.

I'm not sure as to what you mean. Freedom can be / is experienced.


I'm not sure how it leads to infinities but I think I get the metaphor.

I was comparing absolute freedom with infinite freedom, both being not of useful quantification. I'm glad you understood anyway.

Bloo
September 15th, 2016, 03:59 AM
I think a lot of people will defend freedom up until someone disagrees with or goes against there beliefs. For instance many (not saying a majority or all, just many), Christians in America love freedom of religion and being able to celebrate Christianity but hate Muslims and Islam because they don't believe in the same God/prophet or hold different values. Or many conservatives (again not all/majority) love the freedom America offers but don't like gay marriage and think it should be banned.

Freedom in and of itself, though a seemingly simple idea, is incredibly subjective. And who is to say where the line stands between oppression, freedom, and anarchy. As long as people share different beliefs there will never be a perfect balance, someone will always be opressed and there will always be anarchy somewhere. I think many places in the western world have come the closest to that happy balance that is freedom, but I think they are still very far off.

Id say governments tend to be the general gate keepers to "freedom", where in places like North Korea you have extreme oppression, where people are assigned jobs, can't practice religion, and are taught only what the government wants them to know. However many countries in Africa, which have very little governmental control have complete anarchy, where people can do whatever they want, which has led to extreme poverty and controlling factions.

Like I said it's just a balance that I don't think will ever be perfected.

Jthompson
September 15th, 2016, 06:23 AM
The constitution allows you basic freedoms, as long as it does not impeded on anyone else. And certain freedoms need to be sacrificed for the sake of security. Freedom
Is a balence, and dependent on the social climate of the time.

PlasmaHam
September 15th, 2016, 08:52 AM
I think a lot of people will defend freedom up until someone disagrees with or goes against there beliefs. For instance many (not saying a majority or all, just many), Christians in America love freedom of religion and being able to celebrate Christianity but hate Muslims and Islam because they don't believe in the same God/prophet or hold different values. Or many conservatives (again not all/majority) love the freedom America offers but don't like gay marriage and think it should be banned.

I'm not wanting to go into political debates here, but Islam isn't seen in a negative light by most Christians because it has differing beliefs. If that was true, then you would see the same negative feelings towards Judaism and other religions, which doesn't exist. Islam is not liked, because it ironically promotes lesser freedoms, and is a threat to American values of liberty. I don't like gay marriage either, and saying that they should see the same legal status as a straight couple, which is entirely different, is not freedom, but political bargaining.

Freedom in and of itself, though a seemingly simple idea, is incredibly subjective. And who is to say where the line stands between oppression, freedom, and anarchy. As long as people share different beliefs there will never be a perfect balance, someone will always be opressed and there will always be anarchy somewhere. I think many places in the western world have come the closest to that happy balance that is freedom, but I think they are still very far off.
I've heard people promote very similar views. As long as people disagree, there can never be true freedom. And to get true freedom, everyone must agree on it. That's a noble statement, but ultimately it is actually the opposite of freedom. To enforce one set of rules as the definitions of freedom, then you are ironically just promoting your own view of freedom. What happens to those that have a legit disagreement with your system? Are you going to let them keep that opinion, which will disturb your "perfect" freedom system. Or will you silence him, keeping the "perfect" system by oppressing those who disagree with it. There can never be a cut and dry liberty assessment.
The constitution allows you basic freedoms, as long as it does not impeded on anyone else. And certain freedoms need to be sacrificed for the sake of security. Freedom
Is a balence, and dependent on the social climate of the time.
Freedom vs security. That is a separate debate in and of itself. I am curious though of what you meant by impeding on others though. That ranges vastly today between countries, what limit are you talking about? That can range from direct harm to being mildly offensive.

ThisBougieLife
September 15th, 2016, 04:45 PM
I have no clue what Vlerchan and Paraxiom are talking about, but I am in awe of it. I just figure if I were two years older and Irish I would have some grasp on it.

Vlerchan
September 15th, 2016, 06:38 PM
My politics is more formless than formed, due to me not being much into going along with political ideas. I suppose 'yes' is a better answer than 'no'. (I don't want to be difficult, if it seems like I am.)
It's only that I had begun this thread with political theory in mind:P.

Entity X is free from entity Y if its existence is not dependent on entity Y. Putting it another way, entity X if free from entity Y if entity X is not necessarily in conjunction with entity Y.

I was talking about what freedom means for a person, in this person's interaction/relation to a certain entity or set of entities.
So, you'd agree, freedom - in its purest sense, is impossible. I tend to take freedom as being a binary: i.e., we are free or we are not free, so I find it difficult to accept the idea that we might have fifty shades of it.

How can this freedom you're describing be valuable? Or do you believe it's of value at all?

I'm not sure as to what you mean. Freedom can be / is experienced.
I mean pure freedom.

d saying that they should see the same legal status as a straight couple, which is entirely different, is not freedom, but political bargaining.
The defence of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with freedom but rather the equal enforcement of the law. There's no reason that the institution shouldn't recognise same-sex couples - and, citing historical reasons, can only work if we find the same argument a satisfactory basis for withholding women's and minority rights, before you begin.

I have no clue what Vlerchan and Paraxiom are talking about, but I am in awe of it.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit,” eh?

Paraxiom
September 18th, 2016, 10:36 PM
I have no clue what Vlerchan and Paraxiom are talking about, but I am in awe of it. I just figure if I were two years older and Irish I would have some grasp on it.

Trust me, the most Irishness I hold to is that I happen to be brought up in Ireland. :P

My abstractions were for bringing it back anyway, as I hope you will see.


It's only that I had begun this thread with political theory in mind:P.

I know yes, but I wanted to show how I settle it to that from what I said.


So, you'd agree, freedom - in its purest sense, is impossible. I tend to take freedom as being a binary: i.e., we are free or we are not free, so I find it difficult to accept the idea that we might have fifty shades of it.

This is where I'll divide my personal view apart from the more general view. For me, freedom and bondage are on a spectrum, where even thinking of something means that that thinking being is bound in some way to that action/object. There therefore cannot be any absolute freedom from an entity X unless the being never thinks or interacts with the entity X.

Now I totally get what you mean, the binary view, if a human is defined in a way such that there are either necessary features or contingent features, instead of a fuzzy boundary between both. If a human being is of certain necessary features X Y and Z and the human does some actions that don't affect the presence of those necessary features, then the human is not fundamentally affected by those actions; the human isn't dependent on those actions being present or not, because the human's existence / basic form doesn't get affected by it.


How can this freedom you're describing be valuable? Or do you believe it's of value at all?


I mean pure freedom.

It's indirectly valuable as a concept. I'm aware of certain entities taking up more of my world and/or self than other entities; my self's form is more dependent on certain entities being present or not, than other entities. The more I interact with something, the better the trend that I am affected by it.

It doesn't make sense for my self to be purely free from (or bound to) certain entities, if these entities are also to be seen as within my life in some way. If I'm to be purely free from something, then whatever the form/actions of that something are, it makes absolutely no difference to me at all in any way. It's with that that I see absolute freedom and bondage to be as inaccessible extremes on a spectrum of relative freedom/bondage. That's how I get the indirect value out of pure freedom.


Now I get off the abstraction and bring it back to the political side of things.

Pure freedom is inaccessible to me, and is only valuable as a conceptual model.

I'm for the practice of a state which sustains a human population's physical and mental health with maximal efficiency. Leaving aside the topic of crime and such. As example, we as humans are bound to food, water, sanitation and such for continuing physically. The state supplies these things to every person, through whatever necessary economic/logistic means.

The state is primarily focused in systematically supplying that which the population is bound to for survival. It's not focused on maintaining each citizen in the population 'top-down' by seeing the whole before the individuals, but rather the other way around, 'bottom-up'. A system is put in place which allows a group of people to live through sharing needed resources. The only things which citizens are not allowed to do are actions which critically influence / threaten the operations of the state system, and/or the mental/physical health/existence of another citizen.

Do you get me? The state is there as an agreement between a group of people to have a more efficient means to create/maintain a foundation for living, than if everyone were alone in keeping themselves alive.

If each of us were alone on Earth, then our actions for survival would not be restricted by anything but the perceived forms of physical processes. A group of humans can only take ordered form if each one within it restricts some of their actions, otherwise there would just be a number of people effectively alone but happenstance in close physical proximity to each other. The restricted actions are those which are to systematically guarantee basic resources for all.

For this reasoning, I lean on the libertarian side. Give me liberty where I don't stop others from getting food/water/houses/vehicles/etc.

Pure freedom is conceptual, but it eventually shows how a state is mainly for sustaining human populations by guaranteeing the set of entities that each human is bound to for existence, nothing more.


TL;DR : Maximal freedom, because limited actions are only for contributing to a system of guaranteeing necessary resources to a group of people which you are part of.


(This has been typed at 4 am so I am not sure how worse in quality this is, than if I were to have done it earlier. I can explain it again if it doesn't make full sense.)