Are we slaves?

True. So long as your actions in accordance with what you believe to be right are within the legal boundaries of the law. One can not go 'round murdering others just because they don't like 'em. Or stealing from others just because one is too lazy to work for ones own. So if you are talking about the freedom to go 'round doing just anything one wants to do, with total disregard for how ones actions affect others and their freedoms; yes in that sense we are slaves. And yes, there are laws that also govern 'how' we live. For example, one can not go around in public urinating and defecating just anytime or anywhere one wants to. So again, no, we can not go around doing just anything we want to do. Although I agree that, in many ways, the government does step across a fine line in limiting our freedoms, I disagree that we are in anyway 'slaves'. For example, in my personal opinion, if someone wants to fry their brains out on drugs, that is no one else business. But it becomes my business, and the governments business, when the rest of us have to pay for the medical, and possibly even the burial bills. And you speak of 'our own moral purpose'. May I remind you, that there are those who believe it is 'moral' to strap bombs on themselves, and go out and blow themselves and others up? Then what has happened to the freedoms of those they blew up? Where is their 'essense of freedom'? Most laws are in no way necessarily meant to take away our individual freedom, but to protect every individual, and society as a whole, from ourselves and each other.

Don't misunderstand me; what I was citing was the classic Stoic definition of freedom, which distinguished political freedom from personal freedom. No Stoic would have advocated committing an act of violence or fraud upon a fellow citizen of the republic.

The point was that no one but you could provide yourself with true freedom: freedom from despair, from mental anguish, from disappointment. Those are within your power and yours alone.

I agree with your point. And this is while omitting all other freedoms that we have. Even is less developed nations, or really everywhere there are people living in abject poverty, people find various methods of entertainment, etc. to do this. As well as to, at least temporarily, get away from the everyday rigors of life. But whether rich, or poor, XavierAlex is accusing everyone else but himself of 'escapism', and has asked me the question of 'why do people want to escape?' As if everyone else should live in his despair, mental anguish, and disappointments. However, as he obviously has a computer and Tv, he himself is 'escaping'. And while in his post #8 he admits that his 'unchangeable' conclusion is wrong, he turns right around in the same post and contradicts himself, with the statement, that ' we make no decisions as to the systems course or direction', which you and I both know is false. In his post #6, he uses the example of speed limits and other laws that 'prevent or restrict his will'. As if he should be able to go around doing just anything he wants to do, just anytime he wants to, and anytime he wants to. If I were to make such statements, I would be labeled a 'complainer'. So I do not know if he is posing his arguments and statements as pure rhetoric in the discussion of a valid philosophical topic, or if he is trying to crawl out of his own miserable life.

Sadly you attempt to answer that which can never be understood. If life is your prison then you are more than free to escape to the realm of death... but who is to say that death is not just another absurd circus of imprisonment? Are we slaves? Indeed, quite possible. To whom? This is contradicts the first answer as one cannot be a prisoner if he has no one to keep him captive. So I will put before you a simple chain and you can decide for yourself which conclusion you wish to make.

There has never been a time when the human occupied world did not exist with a form of government, entertainment and institution of sorts. Because of this, there has never been a time when humans existed without government, entertainment and institution. Because of that, humans have never existed without a knowledge of these things Due to that, If indeed the above mentioned are a prison, then humans have never existed outside this prison Due to this, We have never experienced a true 'freedom' One cannot and will never understand what has never been experienced for himself. Therefore, if we have never existed outside this 'prison', as far as we are concerned, freedom cannot be understood and we know nothing of it. To the basic human, what is not known does not exist. To the basic human, freedom does not exist.

Then I must not be a 'basic human'. For although my freedoms may be limited, in that I cannot go around doing just anything I want to do, just anywhere I want to, or just anytime I want to; within the boundaries of the law and the society within which I live, I am still a free person. And by my own FREE WILL CHOICE, I am sitting here at my computer, participating in these forum, and listening to an internet radio station that is playing the old Rock and Roll music that I grew up on. No one, nor no thing is forcing me to, as I could just as well choose to do otherwise. And after going over two days without smoking, this morning I chose to purchase three packs of cigarettes, which I am now in the process of smoking. A bad choice on my part. But nevertheless, my own FREE WILL CHOICE. And though it may be true that my decision was influenced externally, absolutely no one, nor no thing, either presently or in the past, Forced me to make this bad choice. For those who want it, freedom is there, to make whatever FREE WILL CHOICES they CHOOSE to make. What you choose to make of that freedom, is your CHOICE and your problem. Not mine. I choose to exercise my freedom.

Then I must not be a 'basic human'. For although my freedoms may be limited, in that I cannot go around doing just anything I want to do, just anywhere I want to, or just anytime I want to; within the boundaries of the law and the society within which I live, I am still a free person. And by my own FREE WILL CHOICE, I am sitting here at my computer, participating in these forum, and listening to an internet radio station that is playing the old Rock and Roll music that I grew up on. No one, nor no thing is forcing me to, as I could just as well choose to do otherwise. And after going over two days without smoking, this morning I chose to purchase three packs of cigarettes, which I am now in the process of smoking. A bad choice on my part. But nevertheless, my own FREE WILL CHOICE. And though it may be true that my decision was influenced externally, absolutely no one, nor no thing, either presently or in the past, Forced me to make this bad choice. For those who want it, freedom is there, to make whatever FREE WILL CHOICES they CHOOSE to make. What you choose to make of that freedom, is your CHOICE and your problem. Not mine. I choose to exercise my freedom.

Free will Needn't be confused with freedom. What was said on my part relates almost solely to what the original poster had defined as imprisonment. And what he seeks to establish as 'freedom'
What is within and out of one's personal will is remains a separated issue. Definition of this will may or may not always be debated. To take the stoic view into account, one could easily quote the sayings of Epictetus in regards to will.
"No, what matters is studying how to rid his life of lamentation, complaint, cries of 'Alas! how miserable I am!" misery and disappointment. And to learn what death, what prison and what hemlock is, so that he may be able to say, like Socrates, 'My dear Crito, if that is what pleases the gods, so be it."


Epictetus himself preached that the philosopher must fully understand the difference between what is in his power and what is not. The internal freedom and the external chains, the internal being; Our choices, opinions, impulses, desires, thoughts and decisions. He referred to such as the 'reasoning factor', that which allows man to comprehend that which cannot comprehend itself. The external chains however, included; reputation, misfortune, property, body and whatever are not our own actions. From this, misfortune occurs because, though what is not in our power can by all means influence what is in out power, the same cannot be done both ways. This therefore decieves man into forgetting the significance of his internal power, for it is now undeniably subdued by the strenght of the external. For this reason, Epictetus contradicts himself by saying that One can, in some way, learn to rid himself of all suffering and disappointment, because misfortune itself is an external cause and cannot be challenged by the internal. What he may suggest instead is that though one can never rid his life of misfortune, he may indeed learn to successfully counter the external with the ability of his internal will. He must learn to accept the external as the superior and the obtain the ability to remain, like the spartans, indifferent to the pain of its whip. ------------------- Again this relates almost solely to what perceived to be free will. From this, many views on the subject in matter may be immortally varied and subjective. Where subjectivity lies, conclusion cannot be certain. A man in a prison cell, hanging loosely from iron chains is, by physical definition, a captive, thus he is not free. This brings an assumption that freedom is based purely on physical stance. In this case, of course, an individual paralyzed from the neck down would never be free... But does then then render the mentally disabled man, who is perfectly fit and healthy, a free man? Or is freedom simply the ability to go wherever you want whenever you choose to, eat whatever you want when you need to? Is the poor woman held captive by poverty? Do not confuse misfortune with captivity. One can only escape if he is held prisoner. If you choose to search for the meaning of freedom, you must first establish the identity of the master who holds you captive. Of course we can speculate this endlessly, after all endless speculation, to me, is a great fortune.

To Zeichner1: Do I see a fellow Stoic? Refreshing!

This question makes me think about the countries where there is more freedom than in the US. Look at Mexico, there are parts of this country where you have the freedom to kill, and one can be certain that you can get away with it. This country is full of corruption and impunity. So, I really think that in order to have freedom, one has to have certain level of integrity, civilization etc... Please forgive my English, it's my third language and I'm not very good at it. And correct me if I am wrong.

To Aschwarz--your English is fine.

You should read Cicero on this subject; he is very lucid on the role of government in preserving liberty.

Zeichner1,

We have never experienced a true 'freedom' One cannot and will never understand what has never been experienced for himself. Therefore, if we have never existed outside this 'prison', as far as we are concerned, freedom cannot be understood and we know nothing of it.

We can know and understand things with out having experienced these things our selves. While the knowledge may be limited it does exist; and counts for something.

Sadly you attempt to answer that which can never be understood. If life is your prison then you are more than free to escape to the realm of death... but who is to say that death is not just another absurd circus of imprisonment? Are we slaves? Indeed, quite possible.

If your believe your analysis to be correct how can you say how possible something is?

Freedom and free will are not separate issues, while thinking or acting so may make the conversation more simple. Freedom is the ability to act on ones free will(in a political context or otherwise).

We are extremely dependent on each other.

Zeichner1 - You understand freedom pretty well with divided and broken down ways of understanding its impossibilities and limitations. I think habits is another issue in the talk about slaves. If you have a habit(which most and maybe all humans have) then you actually have another master. You must serve your cravings or unending grabbing for satisfaction. Your master informs you of what it wants(you want or need) and you forcibly go out to receive it. Habits can be good or bad for yourselves or surrounding people depending on your morals. The only way to escape or destroy this master is the unfortunate pet path of retrieving another master(habit). I believe this may be the reason why people of our generation choose to follow the crowd or the YOLO lifestyle (You only live once). Chasing pleasure and easy desires since whatever is done will be erased when we die. Comments would be appreciated.

We can know and understand things with out having experienced these things our selves. While the knowledge may be limited it does exist; and counts for something.

Can you provide evidence to support your claim? We can not truly understand what is has not experienced, only our own theories based on man made concepts, don't confuse this with legitimate knowledge. If a man lives his life trapped on one side of a great wall, unable to see the other side, he will never understand what lies beyond the wall. He can make up his own theories, and attempt to form understanding based on his own experiences but his knowledge will remain unjustified and inconclusive until he can witness for himself what lies beyond the wall. It is the same as if one where to discover a fruit which they had never seen, heard of or tasted before. Would you assume that they would have knowledge of the taste of the fruit without first tasting it? Of course they could, again, form theories based on their experiences of tasting other fruits, but it remains inconclusive until the fruit is tasted. Do not compare my explanation of death, something which can never be explained by humans because he who has died cannot return to demonstrate his existence as a dead person, with physical knowledge, knowledge which can be explained to others by someone else who has experienced it, therefore allowing the others to gain an understanding of it without having to experience it themselves. ie, one can gain knowledge and understanding of a culture in a different part of the world through research without having to travel and experience the culture for ourselves. We have knowledge and understanding of ancient civilizations and historical details (extinction of dinosaurs etc) even though we did not experience such things for ourselves. This is physical knowledge, physical understanding, understanding that can be gained without direct experience. However the knowledge of death is a different matter, as the dead are unable to teach us the meaning of death, we can only understand the meaning of dying, which by all means is the process of losing one's life. Anything beyond that is unknown.

Freedom and free will are not separate issues, while thinking or acting so may make the conversation more simple. Freedom is the ability to act on ones free will(in a political context or otherwise).

Yes they are, and you have unfortunately contradicted yourself by referring to them as separate issues yourself by saying "Freedom is the ability to act in one's free will." revealing that they are indeed independent concepts. I also am confused as to the point you where trying to make, as my point referred only to free will and not to freedom? I am aware of the differences between freedom and free will. and as i previously said "Free will Needn't be confused with freedom. What was said on my part relates almost solely to what the original poster had defined as imprisonment. And what he seeks to establish as 'freedom' What is within and out of one's personal will is remains a separated issue." As for that, this is your concept of freedom, and is inconclusive. Human understanding of Freedom is the lack of imprisonment. Free will is entirely subjective to who it relates to, and because freedom itself is not subjective I must respectfully argue that your definition can not be certain. Lack of freedom cannot lead to lack of free will, it entirely independent of itself, thus saying that it is not a separate issue from freedom is misleading. You are correct in the sense that one cannot be a free man unless he has free will, however the same is not both ways.