Freedom



We often tend to think that a man is free if he can get or do whatever he wants to get or do.

But here, we must immediately face a counterargument: What if a man only wants what he can get? What if his desires are only about things that are available? In such a situation, he may indeed be able to get and do whatever he wants to -- but can we really call him free then?

It seems more plausible that if circumstances remain the same, a man is the more free the more things he wishes for, but cannot freely get or do them.
If a man wishes for things he cannot freely get or do, this indicates that this man's desires were generally *not* formed by what is available.

To say that a man's freedom is greater, the more things he wishes for that he cannot freely get or do -- this obviously seems a paradoxical argument.

However, it is also true that freedom can be recognized only in relation to what one's desires are independently of his environment.

If you have all you want, and all you want is what is available in your environment, then you are not free.

If you want something that is not available in your environment, then you are more independent and more free than the one who has all he wants.

Freedom



We often tend to think that a man is free if he can get or do whatever he wants to get or do.

But here, we must immediately face a counterargument: What if a man only wants what he can get? What if his desires are only about things that are available? In such a situation, he may indeed be able to get and do whatever he wants to -- but can we really call him free then?

Are the man's desires his to begin with? I hear from invert that "the boys in the basement" are actually the ones processing stimuli. Don't we have to establish this before responding to the next part?


If you want something that is not available in your environment, then you are more independent and more free than the one who has all he wants.

Hence our wait for Paradise. (then again you can't want to be naughty in Paradise :confused: )

Are the man's desires his to begin with? I hear from invert that "the boys in the basement" are actually the ones processing stimuli. Don't we have to establish this before responding to the next part?

If you are calling upon the "boys in the basement", then you are also saying that we are something that is separate from "the boys in the basement".

It is your teeth that grind the food -- but who is it that is eating? It is you.

Don't bring this argument down to some biological basis, as it is completely irrelevant for this topic here.

What is to be discussed are the philosophical aspects of freedom. For that, taking a biologistic stance is misplaced.

The definition of freedom, in my view, is one of choices.
The more choices you have the more free you are.
The choice to have a choice, of course, part of the equation and one of those concepts that leads to paradoxes if one uses absolutist definitions.

To exist, by its very nature, is to not be free, since the choice of existing or not and the time and place of existing were not chosen.
Also the circumstances of the existence were forced upon the one that comes to be.
Furthermore to exist entails the concept of existing within something which becomes the barrier of your possibilities and your potentials.

Consciousness is innately not free because its pre-existence is necessary for the choice to be made.

RosaMagika
The definition you offer appears to be coming at the topic from a desiring and not a choosing, angle.
Desiring something and choosing something are not the same.

I can desire something without choosing it or choose something without desiring it.

Being free does not require the taking advantage of the choice it just requires access to it.


But here, we must immediately face a counterargument: What if a man only wants what he can get? What if his desires are only about things that are available? In such a situation, he may indeed be able to get and do whatever he wants to -- but can we really call him free then?No, but we can definitely call him happy. ;)


It seems more plausible that if circumstances remain the same, a man is the more free the more things he wishes for, but cannot freely get or do them.
If a man wishes for things he cannot freely get or do, this indicates that this man's desires were generally *not* formed by what is available.No, it means this man is not really free.
Being unable to get to do something means there is a limitation present, either a temporal or a physical one.


To say that a man's freedom is greater, the more things he wishes for that he cannot freely get or do -- this obviously seems a paradoxical argument.You are using desire in place of freedom and not choice and possibility as you should.
If I desire something I can never get because I do not have the time or there is a physical barrier preventing me then I am not really free, now am I?


If you have all you want, and all you want is what is available in your environment, then you are not free.Yes, but for the wrong reason.
Wanting is a form of limitation.


If you want something that is not available in your environment, then you are more independent and more free than the one who has all he wants.Huh?!

:confused:

You have some issues with ‘Sour Grapes’, me thinks.

If you are calling upon the "boys in the basement", then you are also saying that we are something that is separate from "the boys in the basement".

It is your teeth that grind the food -- but who is it that is eating? It is you.

Don't bring this argument down to some biological basis, as it is completely irrelevant for this topic here.

What is to be discussed are the philosophical aspects of freedom. For that, taking a biologistic stance is misplaced.

Well get mad at invert and not me.. :D

Why do you say the man's desires are his to begin with? Don't say because there is no one else around to give credit to because that logic does not follow. In the immortal words of apologists: "evidence of absence is not absence of evidence". If we say the question is unnecessary then we arbitrate the answer to a lot of philosophical questions.

To play along and say his desires really are his:
I think choice is a better measure than desire but I think I follow.

If the man had pizza in front of him for dinner but did not desire it (no matter how much he tried to whet his appetite) then he is not free. That is because he has no say in what to desire and what not to desire. (If he did, then we'd go back to my original question of whether it really is his).

But a man who doesn't have the pizza in front of him but still desires it after a strenuous day - is he any more free? Why do we assume he is free to desire, or that the desire is of his making?

Only the body has desires. Desire stems from the feeling of defiency, from the lack of a complementary half which we lack. However, if we have found everything in ourselves, we can't lack anything, and we're "free" again.

He's free to work within his constraints, as is anyone. I suppose figuring out exactly what those are can be challenging.

If you want something that is not available in your environment, then you are more independent and more free than the one who has all he wants.
Huh?!

:confused:

You have some issues with ‘Sour Grapes’, me thinks.

Huh, yes!

My starting point for thinking about freedom is the *autonomy* of a man's desires. A man is free if his desires can be considered autonomous.

If we focus on the autonomy of a man's desires, then the whole problem of choice and possibility falls off.

I said "If you want something that is not available in your environment, then you are more independent and more free than the one who has all he wants."

Namely, if you want something that is not available in your environment, but you still desire it, then your desire is autonomous. The existence of such a desire is not conditioned by what is available in the environment.

If something is available in your environment, and you desire it -- can you be sure that your desire for it isn't simply something that "came along with the package" of being in that environment?


Your stance, focusing on choice and possibility is ultimately hiding this definition of freedom inside: "You are free if you can do and get anything you want."
One of the premises following from that stance is "If you cannot move mountains, then you are not free."

"You are free if you can do and get anything you want." is eventually a useless stance, as it is unrealistic, and particualrly negativistic -- as if a man seeing his limitations is to be endlessly sad and miserable because of this. You think like a disillusioned believer. :o
I mean no offence.


It is a fact to us that we cannot move mountains. But should we therefore give up on ourselves? Should we therefore think ourselves incompetent for this life?
Should we give in to sour grapes? Defining freedom as "You are free if you can do and get anything you want." is just screaming out for sour grapes!




* * *



Well get mad at invert and not me..

Why do you say the man's desires are his to begin with? Don't say because there is no one else around to give credit to because that logic does not follow. In the immortal words of apologists: "evidence of absence is not absence of evidence". If we say the question is unnecessary then we arbitrate the answer to a lot of philosophical questions.

My point is that we cannot simply mix up the findings of various scientific and philosophical disciplines.
If we take the biologistic stance, for example, then we consider ourselves predetermined, and our lives, from a *strictly* biologistic stance has no meaning (other than procreation).
But if we take a certain spiritual stance, for example, then our lives do have meaning.

From a biologistic stance, we can easily say that man is a chemical soup and then analyze and discuss this chemical soup.
But we cannot have a philosophical discussion and say that man is a chemical soup.

See what I mean? We should not mix up disciplines of knowledge just because some offer easy and ready-made answers.
If we are in the field of biology, we should ask biological questions / understand questions biologically and give biological answers.
If we are in the field of philosophy, we should ask philosophical questions / understand questions philosophically and give philosophical answers.

And I'm not mad at anyone.

My starting point for thinking about freedom is the *autonomy* of a man's desires. A man is free if his desires can be considered autonomous.Autonomous from what?
Existence is the state of needing and desiring.

Death is the state of Absolute contentment.


Namely, if you want something that is not available in your environment, but you still desire it, then your desire is autonomous. The existence of such a desire is not conditioned by what is available in the environment.No, then you are merely an idealist that believes that what is desired will live up to its imagined condition.


If something is available in your environment, and you desire it -- can you be sure that your desire for it isn't simply something that "came along with the package" of being in that environment? Since you yourself are a product of this very same environment then one can assume that what is desired is conditioned by the environment and so no desire exists independent from it.


Your stance, focusing on choice and possibility is ultimately hiding this definition of freedom inside: "You are free if you can do and get anything you want." No it’s admitting its absolute definition and comparing myself to it.
But everything is internal.
You looking for external sources of strength is also internal.


One of the premises following from that stance is "If you cannot move mountains, then you are not free."Duh....yes! :eek:


"You are free if you can do and get anything you want." is eventually a useless stance, as it is unrealistic, and particualrly negativistic -- as if a man seeing his limitations is to be endlessly sad and miserable because of this. You think like a disillusioned believer.
I mean no offence.None taken.

I’m more of a former idealist who woke up to reality one day.

Even your evaluation of me is a matter of perspective.

To an idealist I’m a cynical pessimist to a nihilist I’m an over-optimistic delusional.

Kind of like a centrist appears like a Nazi to a liberal and Communist to a conservative.

A man seeing his limitations can either be sad-and this is precisely a necessary right of ascension- or he can become efficient with his efforts and dreams because he knows his limitations.

Reality just IS, how you react to it, is your problem.
Should I paint pretty colorful pictures for you because you insist on living under a rainbow?
Sorry, rainbows are an illusion and only last for so long.
There’s no pot of gold at their base either.
Trust me I’ve looked.


It is a fact to us that we cannot move mountains. But should we therefore give up on ourselves? Should we therefore think ourselves incompetent for this life? The inevitable destiny of every thinking mind is to reach the precipice of reality and face the cold, dark void.
Nihilism is what happens at the end of every intellectual journey, if the mind remains true to its course and honest in its analysis.

Now, once the precipice is reached you are faced with multiple options.
Jump off the precipice, turn back into the safety of the past or see reality as the joke that it is.
Then you become a child again, your actions become meaningless and they lose the weight of consequence, and the adventure begins.



Should we give in to sour grapes? Defining freedom as "You are free if you can do and get anything you want." is just screaming out for sour grapes!Isn’t life …..”wonderful”!

Sorry but I didn’t create this universe nor do I agree with it, most of the time.
All I can do is describe it as I see it.
If you disagree and your perspective is superior to mine then I’m sure your arguments will testify to it.
If you cannot defend your suppositions and the only defense left to you is to cast aspersions on the one contradicting you so that your illusions are saved and your mind does not go mad, then you must try harder.

Here’s a metaphor:
If someone, call him X, believes in immortality and finds great comfort in that concept and someone else, call him Y, confronts him to a point where he must rethink his own belief but he cannot, then the only thing left for X to do is either find better arguments for his supposition or accuse Y of hating life to a point where he longs for death and so would explain his denial of immortality’s possibility.

Now perhaps it is true and Y does hate life or maybe Y loves life so much that he cannot fool himself about it. He wants to drink it all in, the positive and the negative the wonderful and the terrifying.
Either way X’s position isn’t clarified or proven by attacking Y.

“ My starting point for thinking about freedom is the *autonomy* of a man's desires. A man is free if his desires can be considered autonomous. ”

Autonomous from what?
Existence is the state of needing and desiring.

I simply think that the state of needing and desiring does not mean that one cannot be autonomous. If there is a sense of self, this self can be autonomous. One of the indicators of autonomy are desires that aren't conditioned by what is already available in the environment.



Death is the state of Absolute contentment.

??



“ Namely, if you want something that is not available in your environment, but you still desire it, then your desire is autonomous. The existence of such a desire is not conditioned by what is available in the environment. ”

No, then you are merely an idealist that believes that what is desired will live up to its imagined condition.

I don't see how that follows from what I said.
But I see where you are coming from.



Since you yourself are a product of this very same environment then one can assume that what is desired is conditioned by the environment and so no desire exists independent from it.

True, but following this line of logic, then how could there ever exist a sense of self? How could there ever be concepts of uniqueness and specialness?
Someone "just made them up" in their idealism?



“ Your stance, focusing on choice and possibility is ultimately hiding this definition of freedom inside: "You are free if you can do and get anything you want." ”

No it’s admitting its absolute definition and comparing myself to it.

Now what did we say of absolutes ...



“ One of the premises following from that stance is "If you cannot move mountains, then you are not free." ”

Duh....yes!

Then you have a self-defeating philosophy, if you think that freedom is also being able to move mountains.



Even your evaluation of me is a matter of perspective.

Of course it is. How could it be otherwise?



The inevitable destiny of every thinking mind is to reach the precipice of reality and face the cold, dark void.
Nihilism is what happens at the end of every intellectual journey, if the mind remains true to its course and honest in its analysis.

Yes.



Now, once the precipice is reached you are faced with multiple options.
Jump off the precipice, turn back into the safety of the past or see reality as the joke that it is.

No, if you are a nihilist, then reality cannot be a joke either.



Then you become a child again, your actions become meaningless and they lose the weight of consequence, and the adventure begins.

Trying to escape consicence?



Sorry but I didn’t create this universe nor do I agree with it, most of the time.
All I can do is describe it as I see it.
If you disagree and your perspective is superior to mine then I’m sure your arguments will testify to it.
If you cannot defend your suppositions and the only defense left to you is to cast aspersions on the one contradicting you so that your illusions are saved and your mind does not go mad, then you must try harder.

Here’s a metaphor:
If someone, call him X, believes in immortality and finds great comfort in that concept and someone else, call him Y, confronts him to a point where he must rethink his own belief but he cannot, then the only thing left for X to do is either find better arguments for his supposition or accuse Y of hating life to a point where he longs for death and so would explain his denial of immortality’s possibility.

Now perhaps it is true and Y does hate life or maybe Y loves life so much that he cannot fool himself about it. He wants to drink it all in, the positive and the negative the wonderful and the terrifying.
Either way X’s position isn’t clarified or proven by attacking Y.

At some point, words, arguments become meaningless. One ought to learn to choose one's battles, and to leave betimes.

Freedom
If you have all you want, and all you want is what is available in your environment, then you are not free.

If you want something that is not available in your environment, then you are more independent and more free than the one who has all he wants.

Let me classify three environments: internal, external and medium. An internal environment is the mind. The external environment is outside the boundary just beyond the human body. For the convience of my comment I'll classify the human body (between the exterior and the consciousness boundaries) as a medium environment. I have been comprehensive in the general sense with sensed environments.

Things that a person wants, desires, intends, theorizes, etc., in any way are in the internal environment. The internal environment consists of the consciousness and some stored thoughts (memories).

No thought may exist unless it is based upon (caused by) the medium or exterior environment. (What would you imagine or think? Nothing? Exactly.) Without a cause, the interior environment may not have a thought, because no thought may exist without a sense of the body or exterior environment.

Therefore, with implication of these ideas combined, all fundamental or primary thoughts are determined by the medium (body) and or exterior environment.

Although, the interior environment may create new orders of those thoughts. Could this be free will creativity? No. The interior environment itself is determined by the laws of physics, so free-will is a false paradox.