NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the things that has pestered my poor mind over the past few years is the "reality" of freedom, of its potential and realistic implications, and of its impact on our lives. Certainly, the idea of freedom has been a topic of much discussion in the past and led to many significant changes in society. Let's not forget the idea of political freedom put forth in such assemblies as British Parliament and the French Estates General, and so embodied in such documents as the American Declaration of Independence and constitutions worldwide. Let us not forget the economic freedoms championed by Karl Marx (the belief that a social economy begets equality) and advocated by laissez-faire-ists. Perhaps even more portentious is the idea of religious freedom, for which separatists and reformists have struggled for centuries. With that said, it can also be argued that perhaps freedom does not exist--we have yet to provide complete economic freedom (is such a thing even either communistic or capitalistic? Or is it both?), political freedom is barely recognizable today (even in America, the so-called "bastion of freedom," the political arena is virtually monopolized by two polarized parties, not to mention the politically motivated despots and dictators which govern many third world nations), and certainly religious freedom is something that is practically nonexistent (you don't need to look far to find something in the world that has to do with religious debate of some kind). And so the question lies:
Does freedom exist? Can it even exist? Or is it just an ideal meant to spur movements and inspire great deeds?
I've talked too much. Please, discuss! The forum is open.

Well, freedom exists, but only if the people with guns want it too. Rights can be taken away, but that doesn't mean it's morally justified or particularly honest. Stripping other men of freedoms while retaining them for yourself or for your select group is dishonesty at it's worst: it's the refusal to be consistent in one's beliefs.

It's also very rarely defined correctly, as apparently I'm more "free" working for other people than I am when working for myself, according to most Socialists I've met.

Does freedom exist? Can it even exist? Or is it just an ideal meant to spur movements and inspire great deeds?
What is freedom?

Well, the question is, whose version?

To many people, political freedom is having your own dictator rather than someone else's. Having your own political system, rather than someone else's, even if the freedom quotient according to someone else is lower. It's about the guy in power being 'our man', even if he claims divine right of rule.

The introduction of a more representative system would therefore mean a reduction in freedom, because freedom of choice may not have been the desired choice.

Freedom comes with self-awareness.

You can, as a sentient creature, choose to do ANYTHING you want. That is freedom.

There may be social repercussions to your choices, but that does not mean you are not free to MAKE those choices.

Well, freedom exists, but only if the people with guns want it too. Rights can be taken away, but that doesn't mean it's morally justified or particularly honest. Stripping other men of freedoms while retaining them for yourself or for your select group is dishonesty at it's worst: it's the refusal to be consistent in one's beliefs.

It's also very rarely defined correctly, as apparently I'm more "free" working for other people than I am when working for myself, according to most Socialists I've met.

So freedom, in its broadest sense, is given and taken at will, depending on who has power. But does freedom really exist, then, or is it just a facade? But I do agree with you in that stripping other men's freedoms is entirely hypocritical.

Freedom comes with self-awareness.

You can, as a sentient creature, choose to do ANYTHING you want. That is freedom.

There may be social repercussions to your choices, but that does not mean you are not free to MAKE those choices.

Excellent point. I had not considered that...yes, perhaps that is the only true freedom we as men possess, the freedom to make (or not make, as that is a choice in and of itself) choices

If freedom is to be interpretted as being "in charge" or capable of making your own decisions, or having free-will:

1) How can freedom exist in a world where everything has a cause and an effect. Viewing the world from an atomic perspective (?)

2) If it does exist, why should we consider it inherently good? Not free from what but free for what: freedom as a means, not an ends.

And with knowledge come more questions...So it is, then. Why should freedom be considered inherently good? It is man and his decisions, therefore his own free will, and in the eyes of man his will is (usually) necessarily good

Absolute Freedom (if such a thing exists) is neither good nor evil. It is the "default" setting of a sentient organism.

Social freedom, political freedom, religious freedom... all of these are constructs put in place to help run and maintain a just (and maybe that's what you're really talking about here... Justice) society.

Freedom comes with self-awareness.

You can, as a sentient creature, choose to do ANYTHING you want. That is freedom.

There may be social repercussions to your choices, but that does not mean you are not free to MAKE those choices.

Although I am very self-aware (I think :)), I can't actually DO all those things that I want to do. So, am I free, or not?

And with knowledge come more questions...So it is, then. Why should freedom be considered inherently good? It is man and his decisions, therefore his own free will, and in the eyes of man his will is (usually) necessarily good

I think what you're talking about here is the idea that self-determination is an inherent good. Self-determination is restricted by the mores or society. I, as an American, believe that self-determination, mediated by the rules and regulations of my society, are as close as I can get to Absolute Freedom today.

Americans use the word "freedom" when what they really mean is "greater social acceptance of self-determination".

Although I am very self-aware (I think :)), I can't actually DO all those things that I want to do. So, am I free, or not?

When I say "anything" I am, of course, meaning "anything within the boundaries of possibility."

Though that's another interesting discussion. I believe that there are a lot of things "possible" that we currently don't believe are possible. Which turns the discussion to the nature of reality, but I don't want to hijack.

So freedom, in its broadest sense, is given and taken at will, depending on who has power. But does freedom really exist, then, or is it just a facade? But I do agree with you in that stripping other men's freedoms is entirely hypocritical.
In order to understand the concept of 'freedom' we must first examine the premises on which it rests. Freedom is generally accepted to mean ease of action in a social environment: freedom is greatest when our actions and habits are not resricted, and minimized when they are.

Freedom is a Right, and a Right is a moral principle that sanctions man's actions within a social context. Rights exist, to put it bluntly, because without them we would have no sanction for any action whatsoever in the aforementioned social context. It does exist, but like any aspect of reality it's not impossible to completely ignore if you put your mind to it.

I think everything an individual believes will end up labelling itself as "good." But if this is the case, we did not choose this, it was a pre-determined outcome. I'm not so sure on this point.

But I do want to discuss the impliminactions of the scientific world-view on free-will. Assume all actions are within material realm. (not cartesian "ghost in the machine") Second, assume these actions are determined by smaller divisions within the body i.e. synapses firing, cell division-> atomic and sub-atomic level. We are composed of atoms. So is the moon. How is it that an inanimate object, governed completely by physical laws has no free-will, yet humans, who are in a similar situation (except with much more complex biological functions) have free-will?

I cannot see any room within physical sciences to allow for humans to have free-will.

Why strive for freedom at all ? Everyone suspects ultimate freedom leads to a utopia like society where compassion and caring for all will spread. In reality and even as logic will dictate... ulimate freedom can never acheive these rosey conditions because no two people think a like. THrough freedom hatrid and intolerance can spread because it too has a voice. And discontent and tension will always exist if not trive as people blatently speak their minds with no reguard for their neigbors.

If you truely consider what would best reveal a utopian or caring HUMANE state the choice is clear. A state which best utilizes propaganda, through brainwashing techniques. You tell the people what to think, how to feel from birth and they will know no other reality. Many of our faults today are because of learned processes in society. Eliminate them by controlling how society thinks and feels and you eliminate many of those faults.

Of course with this day and age.. we are not yet prepared for this type of thinking ^_^

Both an ideal and a perhaps a reality, al'tho 'rot necessarily both. It's definately an ideal know, could be and will always. But a reality? Generally yes and no.
It's too vague; But there's FREEDOM.....but is absolute freedom? And then there's the FATE-argument of philosophy...do our decision's be really independant, or are they already mapped out by some destiny...or our personality's "natural choiche"? It's all semantic's, I guess ;)

Sartre would say its not a matter of us having freedom, but freedom having us. He views man as being entirelly free, and sees this as an abyssal situation, man is "condemned to be free."

Absolute Freedom (if such a thing exists) is neither good nor evil. It is the "default" setting of a sentient organism.

Social freedom, political freedom, religious freedom... all of these are constructs put in place to help run and maintain a just (and maybe that's what you're really talking about here... Justice) society.

...don't forget financial/economic freedom... freedom of the wallet.

...don't forget financial/economic freedom... freedom of the wallet.

I was just using those as examples. It wasn't intended to be an exhaustive list. heh

True freedom is anarchy, libertarianism comes close, but these concepts can't work in a large society that wants to stay united.

True freedom isn't an ideal, it's dangerous. People cannot be totally free, or the system would break down. We wouldn't be free, but oppressed by the nature of those who want to take advantage of us. Anarchy is the worst form of tyranny imaginable.

People should have the maximum freedom possible without causing society to collapse; it also should not infringe on the freedom of others. Regluated freedom is necessary to the survival of the individual, the state, and the entire society.