What is freedom?
Is it independence or is it ability?
Is it relational or absolute?
If you don't want to answer to these questions directly feel free to elaborate your own views :)
Printable View
What is freedom?
Is it independence or is it ability?
Is it relational or absolute?
If you don't want to answer to these questions directly feel free to elaborate your own views :)
:rolleyes: this looks like a thread to stay out of :D Im guessing simon will be here soon:)
I think freedom is ability to do something without restrictions
Don't worry, this is a totally differnt issue :)
you have chosen ability and relational (fredom to do something)
Freedom is dom that doesnt cost anything!
what kind of freedom is posting a really stupid response?
:D
same as the above :)
There is always absolute freedoms, as there are absolute everything. Whether or not absolute freedom is good. That is another question. Ability without action is not independence, as a prisoner with money who doesnt bribe a guard isnt free...
Freedom is existence without imposed barriers.
markman
How do you define absolute freedom? Is it absolute independency(you don't rely on anything at all) or absolute ability(you can do anything), or do you suggest freedom is ambigous and need context?
But the prisoner is dependent on what?Quote:
Ability without action is not independence, as a prisoner with money who doesnt bribe a guard isnt free...
Behemoth
Do you mean restrictions of moving yourself into certain spaces, or restrictions in general?Quote:
Originally posted by Behemoth
Freedom is existence without imposed barriers.
As I said, I think there is no absolute ability unlless the ability is used. You are achieving the same thing if you do nothing with your power.
I dont understand your question on the prisoner being dependent...
You should get in touch with my history teacher. He carries out the exact same conversation with the class (we actually had this a while ago; dont really remember it)
Ah but you are making an assumption that you know what you are going to do, in other words relates ability to time. Nice, I need all kinds of views here.
You said Ability without action is not independence, in other words dependence, I was wondering how you came to that conclusion.
Maybe you could ask your history teacher of his views of freedom?
Freedom is relative.
This (UK) is suposed to be a "free country" where its citizens enjoy freedom.
Is it bollocks! :rolleyes:
indeed, a society implies restrictions, but does it imply dependency?Quote:
Originally posted by Guru
Freedom is relative.
This (UK) is suposed to be a "free country" where its citizens enjoy freedom.
Is it bollocks! :rolleyes:
Erm...Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
indeed, a society implies restrictions, but does it imply dependency?
Sorry, must dash the phones ringing... there's someone at the front door...the cat's being sick... :)
oven's on
nah, do as I do when I don't want to get up for classes at 10am ;)
While freedom could be defined as the
ability to do somthing with lack of restrictions
these restrictions seem to exist wether
one notices them or not. Sure im free to
go to the store and but a movie but if i dont
have the $25 for the DVD i want then im
being restricted to having to look for
a cheaper one. :p
Freedom is being allowed to +@1|< @$ j00 \/\/@|\|+
Freedom seems to be an interpretation
defined by one who defines freedom to
comform to his or her set of rules. If people
in Amsterdam are free to smoke weed why
am i not? Im supposed to live in the most free
country in the world. :p
Dilenger4
Yes, but you have two contexts for a relational able freedom.Quote:
Sure im free to
go to the store and but a movie but if i dont
have the $25 for the DVD i want then im
being restricted to having to look for
a cheaper one.
1. able to go to get a movie
2. unable to get a movie for more than 25$
LOL :DQuote:
Freedom seems to be an interpretation
defined by one who defines freedom to
a perspective freedom is relationalQuote:
comform to his or her set of rules.
Then how do you compare freedom in countries if it's relational? You'd need a context...Quote:
If people in Amsterdam are free to smoke weed why
am i not? Im supposed to live in the most free country in the world.
j00r @b501u731y r16|-|7 :p able, relational: specific :)Quote:
Originally posted by jpbtennisman
Freedom is being allowed to +@1|< @$ j00 \/\/@|\|+
In general.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Behemoth
Do you mean restrictions of moving yourself into certain spaces, or restrictions in general?
I believe freedom is a concept nothing more.
It seems impossible to talk about freedom
without the inherent restrictions that are
attached to it.
You really can't since it's all relative.Quote:
Posted by kedaman
Then how do you compare freedom in
countries if it's relational? You'd need a context...
Everyone has their own ideas of what
freedom should represent within the context
of what one is allowed and not allowed to do. :)
Dilenger4
I know what you mean, they want scaling and middle ground, there's a mathematical formula for that, similar to finding momentum or centre of gravity. Sumof[1 to n] (weightof_relation(perspective)*freedom_relational)/nQuote:
You really can't since it's all relative.
Everyone has their own ideas of what
freedom should represent in the context
of what one is allowed to do.
Behemoth
You want to point out existence, is it conceptually wrong to state "freedom to do something does not exist"?
Absolute Freedom = chaos
Beacon
do you mean Absolute Freedom => Chaos? how do you explain that?Quote:
Originally posted by Beacon
Absolute Freedom = chaos
By absolute freedom i mean that there is no restrictions whatsoever on the object! Totally free to do whatever it chooses.
By = chaos i mean if there was abosulte freedom it would be crazy and messed up.
I might elaborate more later. Quite busy at the moment!
Whoops i though u said what do you mean by what i said.
hehe
:p
No i mean "Absolute freedom = chaos" kedaman.
Perhaps you have a different definition of Absolute Freedom then i?
Absolute freedom means anything goes : killing someone because you can and all the other obvious possibilities.
Absolute freedom also means not dependant on external factors : not dependant on breathing, eating, do anything physical without constraints.
Absolute freedom means detaching yourself from the rules of society and the rules of nature.
Absolute freedom is unattainable, we can only approximate it.
Oooooooooooooh bugger, now I'm in trouble. If keddie or simon reads this ....
*shudder* :eek: :eek:
But are humans the only things that are available to freedom?? I dont think so.
Aii wally thats what i was trying to say sort ofish.
Without knowing my qm to well i dont think that absolute freedom can be obtained by any object!
Perhaps a black hole could have absolute freedom??
don't think so. It is bound to the internal and external forces keeping it going.
Unless you're talking about someones unwashed arse of course. They have absolute freedom to do as they please.
Absolutely no-one will bother them :D
freedom is tha ability to run around trafalgar square, completley naked with a feather stuck up your ....... oops, sorry just day dreaming about a fantasy ;) :D
I agree essentially with this sentiment. Freedom is completely undefineable. We can only define things that restrict freedom, not freedom itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilenger4
I believe freedom is a concept nothing more.
It seems impossible to talk about freedom
without the inherent restrictions that are
attached to it.
As for restrictions, Are you restricted from doing something if you don't want to do it anyway? If not, the ultimate way to achieve freedom is to focus your mind onto doing things that you are not refrained from doing.
Absolute freedom in the strictest sense does exist but is unattainable.
What we perceive as freedom is our own self style version of it.
A lead cube floating freely in space hasn't got absolute freedom. It's very "existence" hinges on the forces that keep its particles together. Without it, the lead cube will disintegrate.
Same with living beings. We are bound to several forces and laws of nature to keep us going. If we abandon these laws, we no longer are able to exist.
Thus the freedom we yearn is only an approximation, not absolute.
Absolute means free of any restrictions of whatever kind.
Time for coffee methinks :rolleyes:
I disagree, because I believe that all restraints are self-imposed. If we all realised this, we would all be free. With intense meditation on that which restrains, the self, we can move around it.Quote:
Thus the freedom we yearn is only an approximation, not absolute.
Absolute means free of any restrictions of whatever kind.
How exactly is the necessity to breathe self-imposed then ?
Ah, but the necessity to breath is only a restraint if you want not to breath. If your mind sees breathing as a restriction, then you are not free, but it is your mind that imposes the restriction, not the breathing itself.Quote:
How exactly is the necessity to breathe self-imposed then ?
Beacon
Actually no, reason why I started this thead is because I am not sure what freedom is. I have four candidates, and I'm not even sure if that's enough.Quote:
Perhaps you have a different definition of Absolute Freedom then i?
Do you mean that when you say chaos, you mean the exact same things as absolute fredom and vice versa?Quote:
No i mean "Absolute freedom = chaos" kedaman.
that's what i said, and meant, can you elaborate?Quote:
Whoops i though u said what do you mean by what i said.
reality check simon : whether your mind does or doesn't see it as a restriction, it still remains a restriction unless you regard being death as a form of freedom.
Walk under water for an hour and as soon as your air reserves are used up it's no matter anymore of the mind thinking that breathing is a restriction, it then becomes a necessity. Breathe or die. It's as simple as that. I dare say that at that moment you may choose not to breathe but it will result in death, no more chances to think about freedom as you do right now :)
As long as there are processes necessary for our survival, absolute freedom is not an issue, its a dream. What we perceive as freedom is only an approximation that conveniently cancels out a few necessary elements.
mmmm coffee .....
Wally Pipp
I believe you misunderstand me.Quote:
reality check simon : whether your mind does or doesn't see it as a restriction, it still remains a restriction unless you regard being death as a form of freedom.
I am not suggesting mind over matter (although that is another possibility) by suggesting that with the right mental focus, you can overcome any obstacle to freedom.
What I am suggesting is that we can be totally free by choosing not to do anything that we would otherwise be restrained from doing. I am saying that a restriction is not a restriction unless it is preventing you from doing something you want to do. If you don't want to do it, it's not a restriction.
Thus, the only obstacle we must overcome to achieve total freedom is to recognise that all restrictions are self-imposed.
Simon
Perhaps you are the first to take a stand for absolute independency? I know you're not able to explain it but I can, its quite simple actually.Quote:
I agree essentially with this sentiment. Freedom is completely undefineable. We can only define things that restrict freedom, not freedom itself.
As for restrictions, Are you restricted from doing something if you don't want to do it anyway? If not, the ultimate way to achieve freedom is to focus your mind onto doing things that you are not refrained from doing.
Go on then...Quote:
I know you're not able to explain it but I can, its quite simple actually.
Back to the breathing thing again.
You're saying the following :
It is no restriction because we can choose not to. If we apply that thinking to all then we would be free. Now we are not because we choose to do so. Thus self-imposed.
I say : in the case of breathing there is a choice of doing so or not but that choice will not affect the fact that it will continue.
We could impose ourselves not to breathe but that will result in death. The fact remains that breathing is a necessity, unhampered by our notions that we "could" choose not to.
If we don't then we die, such is nature.
In order to live we must breathe thus breathing is a restriction but only if we choose to live. If we choose to die, the restriction is alleviated because at that point it becomes irrelevant.
The freedom you're discussing is a version of absolute freedom but with the added element of life and death. Absolute freedom while living is impossible.
Sugar please ! Oh, and a bit of milk too if you would be so kind ...
Simon
Ok, caring about nothing leads to independence, as you've suggested concentrating on not doing removes the retriction of not being able.
Absolute independency freedom is death, by overcoming all obstacles (including biological) you've obtained absolute independency freedom. Reason why you can die is because there's nothing stopping you from being passive.
OMG :D You've done it again :DQuote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Absolute freedom while living is impossible.
Sugar please ! Oh, and a bit of milk too if you would be so kind ...
I told you but would you listen ? Noooooo ! :D
Wally Pipp
No, I am not saying that we can choose not to breath. I am saying that we can choose not to regard the necessity of breathing as a restriction. If it is not a restriction, we are free to do what we want to do (which includes breathing).Quote:
You're saying the following :
It is no restriction because we can choose not to.
The point is, we can always find things to regard as restrictions. Every definition and natural law in the universe could be regarded as such so the only way to be free in your model would be to cease to exist.
Wally, I frequently underestimate you :p damn you seem to be knowing more than me at times :)
Example then :Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pipp
No, I am not saying that we can choose not to breath. I am saying that we can choose not to regard the necessity of breathing as a restriction. If it is not a restriction, we are free to do what we want to do (which includes breathing).
The point is, we can always find things to regard as restrictions. Every definition and natural law in the universe could be regarded as such so the only way to be free in your model would be to cease to exist.
By your definition, you should have the freedom to walk under water for 3 hours when you regard breathing not a restriction.
How long do you think you can hold that theory ?
Keddie, don't tell anyone but I'm just mouthing you so everyone else understands it too ;)
Simon could do that too but he chose not to :p
yup, thanks for taking my place :)
Freedom is relative.
everything with you is relative Bonker. Even the validity of your posts :p
WallyPip
I don't know how to explain myself any better so that you will undnerstand what I am trying to say.Quote:
By your definition, you should have the freedom to walk under water for 3 hours when you regard breathing not a restriction.
How long do you think you can hold that theory ?
My whole hypothesis rests on the fact that there is no such thing as freedom. There are only restrictions. Something is only a restriction if we regard it as such. We can choose not to regard a restriction as a restriction.
If you don't want to do something, you are not restrained from doing it and therefore you are free. Not to do something that would be a restriction if you wanted to do it. You are free because you only want to do things that you are not restrained from doing.
Bonker, love the classics too :o
Wally, just tell me when things get too heavy :p I'll take over whenever you want
I think you are confusing relative with absolute here.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
WallyPip
I don't know how to explain myself any better so that you will undnerstand what I am trying to say.
My whole hypothesis rests on the fact that there is no such thing as freedom. There are only restrictions. Something is only a restriction if we regard it as such. We can choose not to regard a restriction as a restriction.
If you don't want to do something, you are not restrained from doing it and therefore you are free. Not to do something that would be a restriction if you wanted to do it. You are free because you only want to do things that you are not restrained from doing.
For many things your hypothesis will work, for some things it will not work.
Physical limitations are also limitations on freedom. For example, however hard you'd wish for it, humans cannot fly even if they wanted to. Thus flying is, for us humans, a restriction whether we choose to regard it as such or not.
So if I wanted to fly then I couldn't do that because we're not meant to fly.
Thus your freedom is relative, relative to the things we can do.
Absolute freedom covers all, even things we're not meant to do. Absolute freedom means that if I wanted to fly I should fly.
Absolute freedom in the frame of living is not possible, relative freedom to a certain extend is.
WallyPip
Well, that's precisely where we differ. I don't believe that a restriction is a restriction unless we regard it as such.Quote:
Thus flying is, for us humans, a restriction whether we choose to regard it as such or not.
If I don't want to do something, am I being restrained from doing it?
Yes you sometimes are by your very nature.
You can jump off buildings but it'll not be flying, it'll be plummeting to a certain death.
Whether you do or do not want to do it doesn't change that.