The philosophy of freedom.
These points would make perfect sense if freedom were what you think of it.
Freedom is synonymous with will. You may feel as if you are constrained, as in the prison example, but within your environment your options for potential behaviours are never ever limited. From where you sit now or anywhere, you can move, speak, think, whatever however you please within the constraints of reality – but those constraints on reality never invalidate the very nature of the freedoms of your existence.
You’re thinking in terms of freedom being something ATTAINED. What IS ‘freedom’ then if it’s something to be acquired “out there” in the world? Who’s got all the freedom? Who distributes it? Who defined it in the first place? Where are any of the rules set it stone?
@Sean D Stevens, your chains-courtyard-parole example reminds me of Zeno’s Paradox. It states that if you’re always reducing the distance between “here” and “there” that you will never get “there” because there is always an increasingly small fraction of distance that can be reduced. This is a true logical paradox, but like all paradoxes only seems to be true because of the illusory duality of “here” and “there” when there is only “Here” in the universe.
absoulute freedom only works when people dont infringe on other peoples freedoms americas got it decent we could do better but we could also do a lot worse
Only when we realize our potential to be a unique individual, we are free. That’s why, we must lift ourselves out of our group-existence, for instance, out of the prejudices we receive from our family, nation, ethnic group and religion, and all that we inherit from the past that limits our creative and imaginative capacity to meet the world directly.
I think it all comes back to how you’re definining freedom: positive freedom or negative freedom.
Positive freedom: the freedom “to do” something; @IJesusChrist ‘s example, “I have the freedom to reply to you right now”
Once you begin thinking about freedom in these terms, other important factors present themselves. Which type of freedom do you associate with being “free”, which do you associate with being “enlightened”? I’m still asking myself these questions.
@axel, That concept of parallel realities doesn’t really get over the fact that I destroyed your freedom in this reality.
@birdflyinghigh, Nicely analyzed! There is, perhaps, not true absolute ‘positive’ freedom as you state it.
Perhaps even you’re negative freedom is not possible in absolute terms either because all actions directly or indirectly will affect others. Absolute stagnation is freedom, in that nobody can do anything, and nobody’s freedom can be infringed upon.
I think we have concluded that freedom doesn’t exist.
Except in the metaphysical form, which is pretty blatantly above and beyond what’s being discussed. Really you can fly around if you wanted to, but… thats been discussed elsewhere.
I think loss of ALL fear and attachments would result in absolute freedom. Our actions are only limited by various fears and attachments(fear of losing). More the fears, more the limitation. If we can embrace all experiences NO MATTER WHAT then we are totally free.
IMO the physical world just exists as a part of mental perception. It is just a part of the waking state among the 3 states of consciousness – waking, dreaming, sleep. For attaining total freedom, I might need to discover an all inclusive transcendent unchanging essence/understanding/perception and should be able to unwaveringly stay in it.
@ijesuschrist, “I think we have concluded that freedom doesn’t exist.”
I think I agree with you.
Nice forum! Even nicer conversation! :) I believe we need to see freedom from a different spectrum because that one’ s too depressing! :P
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.