What is "freedom" ? (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

To me freedom is the ability of individuals to make the decisions which they feel will maximise what they perceive as their happiness.

It's all about individual people knowing what will make them happy better than anyone else does or can.

 

[dieburndie]

That's a very emotive way of looking at it. Does someone's socialisation make them worthless as a human being? Do you mean to say that their lives are disposable in the view of attaining freedom?

No, those remarks were just a little bitter, don't take them with too much weight.

 

[Tangent]

Freedom is to say and do what we want- it is a part of our rights. That being said absolute freedom cannot be attained without the loss of anothers freedom.
Someone cant decide one day that they want to bash their neighbours head in with a sledge hammer because their neighbour likes to play their music loud, as it would be in this case conflicting with thier neighbours right to live, and freedom to live the way they want.
Freedom is not equal, factors contribute: wealth, appearance, social standing (these are all intermingled), nationality, religion.

When it comes down to it, freedom is just the power to make choices for yourself. Absolute freedom is dangerous to society, so there are institutions to balance that freedom.

 

[yoddle]

No, those remarks were just a little bitter, don't take them with too much weight.

Mmmm. But as they say, there's always an element of truth in a joke. (Or in this case, a bitter statement)

 

[dieburndie]

Freedom is to say and do what we want- it is a part of our rights. That being said absolute freedom cannot be attained without the loss of anothers freedom.
Someone cant decide one day that they want to bash their neighbours head in with a sledge hammer because their neighbour likes to play their music loud, as it would be in this case conflicting with thier neighbours right to live, and freedom to live the way they want.
Freedom is not equal, factors contribute: wealth, appearance, social standing (these are all intermingled), nationality, religion.

When it comes down to it, freedom is just the power to make choices for yourself. Absolute freedom is dangerous to society, so there are institutions to balance that freedom.

Your first point is obvious, the discussion so far has been centred on the individual's freedom over themselves.
You also might want to describe in more detail what you mean by absolute freedom.

Mmmm. But as they say, there's always an element of truth in a joke. (Or in this case, a bitter statement)

That's a fair statement.

 

[KFunk]

Freedom is the creation of meaning.

 

[Bacilli]

Kfunk ltns, sup?

 

[dieburndie]

Freedom is the creation of meaning.

Is this all you have to say on the topic KFunk, sir?

 

[Bacilli]

I was expecting more too, however, really nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Tangent]

Your first point is obvious, the discussion so far has been centred on the individual's freedom over themselves.
You also might want to describe in more detail what you mean by absolute freedom.

Just trying to state what freedom is to me, as simply as possible.
By absolute freedom, i mean the power to make any decision, the freedom to do "anything" at all. This is dangerous, as i have said in my last post.

Freedom seems so attractive because it gives us some sense of control in this mad world.

=S

 

[Uncle]

RTA crashes my freedom.
fuck them hard.
use to drive personnel truck back on the field, on civilian roads cant do that.

 

[Riet]

Freedom is being able to rape women for showing their ankles and then have them stoned to death for commiting adultery

 

[Azamakumar]

Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.

 

[B_B_J]

repped

 

[KFunk]

Is this all you have to say on the topic KFunk, sir?

Haha, I could say more I guess. A few night time thoughts:

As far as metaphysical versions of freedom go, I think that the naive concept of free will is bunk, in particular the idea that we are free to do anything that we want or, to put it another way, that we could always have acted otherwise that we did. Simply put, the thesis that our actions/choices are undetermined. I find the concept silly because it is in being limited or restricted in some way that our choices are made relevant to the world and to who we are as individuals, e.g. relevant to our beliefs, values and so forth. Roll of the dice randomness is not only contrary to empirical observation, but it strikes me as contrary to autonomy in so far as it divorces actions from the character of the individual and their relations with the world.

In terms of political freedom, I think that both negative and positive liberties (of certain kinds) are worth fostering. I should note, though, that the negative/positive dichotomy oversimplifies, and as a result perhaps obfuscates, the concept of freedom. See, for example, triadic, relational analyses of (political?) freedom in terms of an agent, potential actions and preventing conditions. As I have made clear enough previously, I find the idea that negative freedom best maximises utility is silly, especially given the cultural construction of beliefs and desires (not to mention irrationality! Note: of course an economics based on the premise that rational utility maximisers abound will make freedom look grand). An interesting question to ponder, which just came to mind, is where the divide between the internal and external lies if we work on the basis of deterministic materialism.

In saying that freedom is the creation of meaning I have in mind, among other things, the final chapter of Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception - a brilliant bit of writing, imo. He takes on determinism, libertarian freedom (of the metaphysical variety), materialism, historical materialism, Sartrean absolute freedom, etc., and suggests what I see as being a very beautiful alternative.