Freedom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTingTing

freedom means to me i can do whatever i want to. i'm self-employed so i can pretty much work whenever i want, take breaks, meet with friends. freedom also means i earn enough money to realize my "dreams" and please my girlfriend as much as i want.

---

In what manner, may I ask?

I say freedom is the complete ability to make decisions for yourself. Freedom to do, or not do. Freedom to feel, or not feel.

As soon as you take away someone elses freedom, (aka - killing) you've over stepped your right to freedom, and therefore should be punished accordingly.

IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k3lster

In what manner, may I ask?

---

All 3 manners at once, if hes doin' it right ;)

gifts, love and sexytime ofc ;)

True freedom doesn't exist in this world.

freedom is the ability to do whatever you want.

In a society, no one (or almost no one, anyway) is completely free. Which I think is the best possible outcome.

Give everyone complete freedom and it wouldn't last, anyway. Someone or a group of someones will always be greedy for more power, and begin taking away other people's freedoms.

Now, I'm not claiming that our society is perfect. Far from it (though I believe we are better than the aforementioned anarchy).

I believe that everyone should be free up to the point where they start infringing on other people's freedoms, and we are a long way from that ideal. We still have laws against gay marriage, laws against drugs/marijuana, electoral systems that are heavily biased against anyone who isn't rich and easily pigeonholed, in the States healthcare is still crazy expensive I believe, nuclear weapons stockpiles, very high tuition for quality post-secondary education, and so on.

also this is completely unrelated to my argument, but it seems to fit the topic:

"Give the like of Baldrick the vote and we'll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning, and dung for dinner."

:3

Yeah, my bad, slight typo. It's Philosophy(never know where to put these "y" letters :D ).
She(our teacher) defined it as a sort of a "prison". //You are born "free" but you are doomed for the rest of your life to make a choice which is not freedom.//
Something along those lines.
At that moment in class I cam up with this in a short moment.

There is no freedom. Freedom is a thing which is given to us and is up to us to protect it. But if we are forced to protect it how can we be free?

I think that's why a government is needed to protect everyone's freedoms for them. Ideally a selfless government, dedicated to self-sacrifice so that its people might live in freedom (without encroaching on other peoples freedoms, as I said before).

I don't think any nation on earth has that sort of system, but I don't think it's impossible for such a thing to exist.

Freedom is the state of being able to do what you want without sanction.

Don't confuse it with liberty.

Freedom to me?

My own shower.
Being able to go to the toilet whenever I feel like it.
Having a glass of water whenever I feel like it.
Not having to justify when I feel sick, or tired.
No standing in attention.
No taking of orders.

Freedom in the sense of the word:
I will borrow something from Kant here and alter it to express the principle I think describes freedom:
Freedom to me is the state of relieve from self-inflicted subordination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowsworn

I don't think any nation on earth has that sort of system, but I don't think it's impossible for such a thing to exist.

---

I think it's impossible for such a thing to exist, if by exsit you mean a selfless government.

Freedom is a word that is used in order to pass bills that restrict your freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pok

Freedom is a word that is used in order to pass bills that restrict your freedom.

---

But what is freedom for you? When do you consider you are "free"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marcipaans

When do you consider you are "free"?

---

When you are dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronyTaken

When you are dead.

---

True, true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronyTaken

When you are dead.

---

Free from what? lol.

True freedom is just an utopia.
Society will always pressure you and your decisions one way or another. You have laws, social codes and morality to follow, whether you want it or not.

Keep in mind these things are necessary in order to live as a society. It may limit you in some way, but it's also controlling factor.

With no bounds, humans may act worse than animals. (Well, worse than now)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xenonight2

Freedom is the state of being able to do what you want without sanction.

Don't confuse it with liberty.

---

Liberté
C'est un rêve...

@hian, first paragraph:
Every word abbreviates some situational reality.

There is no such thing as an abstract self-sufficient concept.

(Even if it where possible, it would be irrelevant.)

@last paragraph:
If submission to established circumstances is natural, that is no condition that favors an elitist democracy, as the results are the same.
The call for swift and flexible decisions is a display of a search for empowerment; It makes only sense if you lack power.

Of course swift decisions can't be lasting as a methodology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xenonight2

@Hian: I understand what yr saying.

I'm talking about it from a different viewpoint. That is, the classical perspective: State of Nature and all that. Within the State of Nature there is no formal sanctions for the actions people have (freedoms) so people can largely do as they wish. When a social contract is fulfilled, they give up their ability to perform some actions without facing sanction in order to preserve some other actions/rights that they can perform without sanction. I.e. give up being able to kill without due process for the right to free speech. Thus, liberty becomes freedom defined within the social contract, whereas freedom is the ability to do an action without sanction. Or, perhaps more specifically: freedom is the ability to do something without the threat of sanction.

If freedom is defined as the ability to just do whatever, sanction or not, then the only things you are not free to do seems to be only things that are impossible. Not a very useful definition, but still a valid one depending on the viewpoint.

And I see where yr coming from, hian. The definition I give doesn't really cover things like balls and chains keeping people from the ability to do as they wish. So you can have two definitions in one: what I said earlier, as well as something limiting yr ability to engage in that behavior in the present.

---

I took the red pill.

the skin you wear doesn't belong to you more than the air you breathe.

I have a much longer reply for you, Ronin, if you want it, but I realized, that your post is lacking in terms of arguments, it's filled with empty assertions, and more often than not, has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

This isn't about my determinism(which isn't what you think it is), or about anything else.

Your post is almost entirely irrelevant, and for that reason, I won't bother to post my enormous wall of text(which I saved in a notepad file), unless you wish me to go into specifics.

Also, I mean no offense, but there really is no other way to say this - realize that when people ask you to write more clearly, they're not asking for long definitions on terms like "tautology" - They're asking for you to write in a way that looks more like English, and less like French passed through google translator. Really sorry, but, there is no other way I can express how your posts read at times.:(

My point thoughout all this, is that we use words all the time to address issues we have(for the lack of better words) "intuitive understanding" of, yet if we do not manage to put that understanding into the definition of the word, we will not be able to truly express or discuss topics pertaining to the word.

When we use the term, "freedom" loosely, everyone knows perfectly well what we're talking about.
However, in courts of law, when translating into new languages, debating serious issues(of morality etc) or writing scientific journals, that just isn't enough - And the reason it isn't, is because it has room for misunderstandings, loopholes, and in some cases, the term is just nonsense(which is what I feel terms like "free will", and "supernatural" is, but that's another story).

For this reason, a working definition, is imperative.
How can we talk about achieving freedom, if we don't even have a common definition of what freedom is to begin with?
What if your definition of the term freedom doesn't even make sense?
(Aren't you effectually just talking nonsense then?)
This really sums up the point I'm trying to make.
If you can't reply to these three simple questions, there is really no point in replying to this post at all, because you'll just be going off topic, and it will only mean that you still aren't getting what I'm saying.

You know that Descartes was a theist, right?

I am not sure, if you are aware what side of the coin you argument for.

Of course that is a major derail.
Neither what Descartes, Kant, Locke, Hume, Socrates, Aquinius, Russel, Popper, Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, or any other philosopher had to say is relevant in a thread about a question from an introductory philosophy class.

Surely there is also no connection between Determinism and the existence of a priori definitions of the meaning of words. That an article on Wikipedia exists on the "problem of universals" (looked that up to verify my translation of the term btw) is a coincidence, as there is an article on just about any subject. Also that both concern themselves with metaphysics, doesn't mean that you can throw them into one pot, just like it where essentially overlapping topics.

Now you bring up the law;
Wrong again. The laws are different in different states and can thus not all derive from the unaltered perfect laws of physics that govern society.

Do you want to know however how you can really judge if something is true or not?
Vehicle safety.

Without vehicle safety we would all be bleeding dead.
It's an excelled example that language just works.

Yea, I know, not very tasteful, but it's probably easier for you now to find that way out of this talk that you seem to seek.
I am also tired of turning textbook-pages and copying stuff down for you, to hear that you know everything beforehand and still act like it makes your answers more convincing.
I wonder where the idea that the law matters in this comes from. To me this is an unfamiliar concept.