Defining Freedom

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Granth
Posts: 2084
Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Granth »

Subatomic God wrote:
Granth wrote:
A color's "behaviour" is the color as you perceive it with the senses available to you. A blind person does not perceive color as any behaviour including sound. Ask a blind person, as you hold up the color red before them, whether red exists. Whether they can hear it, even. Do do so would be to perform proper science.

At some point one has to use common sense and logic rather than use one's own interests and distractions to imagine to know what it is like for another. Otherwise this approach is anti-relational (lacks understanding).
Incorrect. Sound waves are not subjective, they are objective - they affect us via (anger) red ~ purple (ascension). They are real phenomenon - they exist outside of your human brain. Whether a blind person can or cannot recognize it, does not have any relevance to already observed phenomenon, especially when there's evidence that our planet is on the same frequency as our heart and the planet we live on evolved via the same pattern of colors (red, orange and yellow is the core; green, light blue and dark blue is outside the core; and purple is the Universe).
Utter ********. No longer interested in engaging with such limitation. It has now stepped over the boredom threshold.

-- Updated August 29th, 2014, 5:26 pm to add the following --

Now you are calling phenomena real whereas before you called phenomena a mirage. Good bye.
User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Subatomic God »

Granth wrote:
Now you are calling phenomena real whereas before you called phenomena a mirage. Good bye.
There's a reason why we can understand imagination and reality - they are two separate systems of the Universe.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Platos stepchild »

Whatever else freedom is, it must surely include an awareness of what might have otherwise been (i.e., "[t]he road less traveled by"). A sighted man" can choose whether, or not to look. A "blind man", however has no such freedom (Not-looking cannot be construed as an act of free will). More than mere knowledge, though is needed to make freedom what we imagine it must be. An act-of-free-will cannot exist without the ability to make something what it otherwise wouldn't have been.

But, how do we choose? "Freedom" doesn't provide it's own imperatives. How we value alternatives is different from how we choose them. Freedom is therefore morally neutral. An interesting question is whether we ever truly choose that which we value; or, is it, in reality just a covert rationale. I believe that freedom's best expression is when it goes against our ostensible, self-interests. Such behavior can either be "genuine altruism", or "flagrant self abuse". The difference lies in how we value that which "goes against" our "self-interests". True freedom is therefore extreme asceticism ( or hedonism), or else selfless heroism. These are the archetypes-of-freedom.
User avatar
Hog Rider
Posts: 1049
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 6:33 pm

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Hog Rider »

I do not think you have to know what NOT being free is to understand that you are free. But you do need to experience a lack of freedom or at least witness it in another to appreciate it. Conversely you can appreciate the limits of your freedom by witnessing something you cannot do: such as seeing a bird fly.
"I'm blaming the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism on unrestrained sexuality." Radar.
Platos stepchild
Posts: 545
Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Platos stepchild »

How do I define freedom? Although I tend to over intellectualize such questions, in this particular instance, my definition is more "visceral", than "intellectual". I've spent much of my adult life in what amounts to a rebellion against the protean shadows of my past. What I'm rebelling against are certain repressed memories, hovering right outside the threshold of my awareness. Strutting around like a primping-cock-tease, they're as dense as Mayflies, thriving in the dank pools of some secret pain. Occasionally, In the dead hours of despair, my memories'll taunt me. Diaphanous, they coalesce into emptiness, swirling past my frantic jabs. I've long known that the abrupt cessation of pain can be more intense than the pain, itself. So, I fantasize about the abrupt absence of my specters, and how they'd tatter, like wispy shadows, fading into the cusp of the morning light. That's why I've defined (or rather,fantasized about) freedom as being the giddiness of pain, expunged from even the darkest chambers of my mind.

But, I'll never truly be free of my "shadows". Perhaps I don't even want to be. Freedom isn't so much the "freedom from whatever", as it is the "freedom to endure whatever". As the Irish Statesman, Sir Thomas Moore said: "While we are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions". I secretly dread "[t]he consequences" of losing "my specters"; For too long, I've nurtured them on the wrong side of my skin. And because of that, I can no longer distinguish between torturer and victim. The sick-and-twisted truth is, neither really wants to be emancipated from the other. I've long since gotten used to choking on the Mayflies. If "freedom" means that my torturer no longer deems me worthy of torment, then my prison will have shrunk well beyond it's ability to contain me.

Loss is an integral part of freedom's economy. And, even though you might take "[t]he road less traveled by", having freely chosen it doesn't mean the other road has any less "[]he better claim". If I might be indulged another quote by Sir Thomas, "And soon, too soon, we part with pain, to sail o'er [the] silent seas, again". Emancipation from my "specters" isn't a release from the pain they traffic in. I'm a cheat, and a fraud when I claim to have "[f]antasize[d] about [their] abrupt absence". What I am is a pain junkie; and, even though "control" is surely an illusion, I nevertheless placate my vanity with promises to keep any repressed memories within only well defined, and well manicured boundaries. But, as with any junkie, I always know where my stash is. I play an elaborate shell-game with my fixes, adroitly denying that they're just "[o]utside the threshold of my awareness". So, how do I define freedom? Regardless of whatever else it is, while freedom does entail the poignancy of loss, "pain", itself can never be renounced.

-- Updated October 21st, 2014, 10:20 am to add the following --

As An American citizen, I'm guaranteed the "nalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". These, and other such "rights", though not enumerated, are my "umbrella" freedoms. But, I submit that, oh, let's say "the pursuit of happiness", for example, cannot represent a "true" freedom, unless I'm able to go against my ostensible self-interests, thereby incurring "unhappiness". Otherwise, I can never be sure that my "pursuit isn't, in some insidious way, coerced into serving another's interests. A trite "freedom" is whether I'll choose "Coke, or Pepsi". In "choosing", however (either way), I end up furthering some company's "economic agenda". How, then can I know that my "choice" is really my own? It's only in choosing to further no one's "ostensible self-interests" (including my own), that I can know I'm free. Ironically, then, "Nihilism" (as a repudiation of all socially-sanctioned "rights"), is the ultimate expression of "freedom". (Yes; Plato recognized that the "soul" might desire that which wasn't "good"; and, that such a "pursuit" goes against the virtues, and harmony of society. He certainly didn't "sanction" individual selfishness. Nevertheless, it's only in such vain "pursuits" that we can be sure we're free).
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Fooloso4 »

Scott:

Of course, the word freedom has little meaning if we do not have a common definition.
Of course the word has meaning without a common definition. See Wittgenstein’s discussion of meaning and the definition of “game”. There is no single comprehensive definition, and yet we all grew up knowing what it meant to play a game.

I see that you do not define the term “rights”. You begin with an appeal to the theory of natural rights but ignore the connection between natural and legal rights moving back and forth as if there was no significant difference between them.
Freedom starts with a principle of self-control, also known as self-ownership.
Do you mean autonomy and self-determination? I know some people without much self-control, who are free.
Because freedom entails political equality
I know of no government in which there is political equality. I do not have political equality with government officials or those with political influence. They have the power to make, interpret, and enforce the law. While it is true that I am free to pursue such positions, there is a significant difference between pursuing something and obtaining it.

In all forms of government there are some who are free and some who are not. If it were true that freedom entails political equality then it would false that anyone was free.
Basically, a free person has the legal allowance to do whatever he or she wants insofar as he or she does not offensively harm or coerce other people against those other people's wills.
Here you must be talking about some ideal state. None of us have the freedom to do whatever we want. We are legally bound to the law. If the law says that something is illegal, it does not matter whether the illegal action causes offensive harm. If the law says I must do something then I am not free to ignore the law.
Freedom obviously can not include the legal right to limit other people's freedom because that would be illogical.
Why is it illogical? In order for me to be free your freedom must be limited. You said this above:
freedom can only logically entail as much legal rights as compatible with the same legal rights in others.
For example, in such an absurd society, people might all have the legal right to stab other people, but nobody could have the legal right to not be stabbed and thus would not have the legal right to defend themselves from it.
This does not make sense. Why wouldn’t they have a legal right to defend themselves? The law may not protect them from being stabbed, but this does not mean they do not have a legal right to protect themselves, say, by using you legal right to stab someone who is trying to stab you.
freedom as the legal allowance of all people in a society to do whatever they want insofar as they do not offensively harm or coerce other people against those other people's wills.
My disregard for energy efficiency causes harm to others. My intent may not be to harm others, so it not offensive harm. The distinction between offensive and defensive harm is not sufficient to remain logically coherent regarding the problem of harm and freedom.
Theoretically, freedom is not that complex of an ideal.
The history of political philosophy does not support this assertion.
And I beg you to stubbornly resist those who suggest placing limitations on freedom.
This is both theoretically and practically problematic. There are many laws in place intended to improve our safety and well-being. Some have been around long enough that we no longer question them. Taxes, mandatory education, child labor laws, social security, military draft, vehicle safety laws, EPA, mandatory medical insurance, and other laws have all rejected by some segment of the population as coercive restrictions on freedom. So, while it is noble to stand up for freedom, one may end up standing on the wrong side when it comes to human rights and dignity.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Obvious Leo »

Fooloso4 wrote:If the law says I must do something then I am not free to ignore the law.
This statement is false. We are all free to ignore the law, and most of us routinely do so, however it is implicit in the social contract that we are answerable for our behaviour if we happen to get busted.

Regards Leo
User avatar
Bligh
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 5:35 pm

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Bligh »

I wish EJ Bartek had said, the imagined or apparent "free will" ...... B
Gordon975
Posts: 101
Joined: December 9th, 2014, 6:51 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Gordon975 »

Its population, and the environment within which it finds itself living restrict the freedom that a life form can experience. With intellect comes the capacity to increase population by restricting behaviour patterns of the individual members of a species. Restrictions of freedom can be by common consent or imposed by force and tend to become more comprehensive as the habitat becomes more densely populated and resources reduce in availability. Restrictions on freedom are tolerated within an intellectually driven species up to the point where they begin to control the basic needs of an individual’s survival and that of its perceived family group.

In the case of simple life forms the rules governing freedom are created slowly through the process of natural selection, with the human species the rules governing freedom also develop as the result of the intellect and comprise political and religious institutions or a combination of the two working together to make and enforce them.

If a species of creature has no conscience and lives in a small population then freedom is total and means that members of the population can do what they like when they like to whatever they want. As the population increases so to do the restrictions placed on the individual by the other members of the population and habitat, the fittest survive as the result reproductive natural selection.

For the human species habitat does not just mean physical space but also the access to materials within that space and the rules about freedom become more aggressively restrictive on individual freedoms the more restricted material wealth and space becomes.

If rules imposed restrict food supply and the ability to look after family members, so restricting reproductive evolution, and there is inequality of rewards for contributing to the intellectually based rules, then demands for freedom, first of expression to demand changes, then demands for the implementation of change occur.

Most democratised societies work because the population that feels its freedoms being eroded controls the point, at which freedoms are restricted, beyond where they become unacceptable. This is why if we do nothing else we must always defend democracy and argue with our words and actions for its best possible continued implementation.

The other restriction placed on the individual members of a species freedom is based on the restrictions placed upon it by its ethical nature, in the human, this is the conscience bought about by species natural selection. In a creature with intellect some members of the population can exist who have no restrictions imposed on them by conscience, perhaps also described as self-control, these individuals if they don’t break the rules restricting freedom and end up outcasts from normal society, can become the individuals controlling the very freedoms that they themselves have no feelings of guilt in breaking. Often it is the rules set by the religions that enable individuals without conscience to survive successfully and in many cases lead useful lives within our society. A lack of a conscience can be useful and enables the intellect to make decisions and come to conclusions that it would otherwise be unable to do. Many individuals with a limited conscience, can rise to be important and good leaders controlling the direction of population and resource management within political, commercial and religious organizations, their intellectual freedom being almost total and only controlled by careful adherence to rules set by government and religion to curtail their excesses.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the long-term freedoms comes from individuals without conscious who control commercial organisations. These individuals receive their intellectual control from that imposed by motives for creating wealth for a minority of a population at the expense of the majority for what they see as their own justified personnel reward. In itself this activity should be possible to control via democratic institutions, but the danger always exists that commercial organisations funding the existence of democratic ones can as the result of conscious free intellect cause decisions to be made that are of commercial benefit but not to population benefit.

One of the most basic freedoms that every life form should be given is the right to a family life. This is not an option that is always possible to achieve and within a population there will always be members who fall outside the rules making this possible.

Every form of life needs access to resources that enable the ability to accomplish reproductive natural selection within its species; humans are no different in this respect than is any other. Denial of the freedom to a family life leads to the breakdown of society and social cohesion; this may manifest itself in many guises, use of drugs, violence to other species members and theft of property to achieve perceived status to enable family existence possible. Although our system of government and culture may try and apply all sorts of explanations for human behaviour that falls outside that which would be considered normal and restrict freedoms accordingly, our behaviour has evolved over millions of years and the resulting populations that we have now are the result of many successful evolving generations.

The freedoms of the human is now more controlled by the human minds intellect than by the human bodies environment and our more basic and more important instincts for enabling survival are now controlled by laws governing behaviour necessary in a habitat with limited resources and a large population. Limitations of freedoms imposed by the intellect have the danger of coming into conflict with the ones arising from the evolutionary path that all humans are on via reproductive natural selection.
User avatar
Romanian
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: January 14th, 2015, 7:43 am

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Romanian »

I have a question: A thief enters in a store. A policeman comes, arrests him and put him under bars. Does the policeman block the freedom of the thief? (From the point of view of the thief, someone blocked his freedom)
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13822
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Belinda »

Indeed yes, Romanian. But although the policeman was one necessary cause of the thief's loss of liberty the policeman is not sufficient cause. For sufficient cause of the thief's loss of liberty one must see that there are concentric circles of causes which stretch to infinity. It is matter of social consensus which causes, including the policeman and the law of the land, are considered to be the salient causes.
Socialist
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Misty »

Romanian wrote:I have a question: A thief enters in a store. A policeman comes, arrests him and put him under bars. Does the policeman block the freedom of the thief? (From the point of view of the thief, someone blocked his freedom)
The thief blocked his own freedom because his actions became subject to the law (because he was caught) being upheld by the policeman.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Fooloso4 »

Romanian:

I have a question: A thief enters in a store. A policeman comes, arrests him and put him under bars. Does the policeman block the freedom of the thief? (From the point of view of the thief, someone blocked his freedom)
You are conflating two different concepts of freedom. Freedom within civil society, according to social contract theory, involves the freedom to voluntarily limit one’s freedom for the benefit of living in a civil society. Freedom, according to the concept of natural rights, is limited by actions that interfere with the rights of others.

Neither theory allows for freedom to do whatever you want. Neither theory allows a thief to steal the property of others, which violates their right to property.

There is a sense in which the thief is free to rob the store, provided he is not prevented from doing so. But there is another sense in which he is not free. It is this latter sense that freedom is defined in civil society. We do not know what the point of view of the thief is. He may very well understand that he is not free to do what he is doing, and that is why he attempts to do it in a way that prevents him from getting caught. He may see getting caught as the cost of doing business, not as having his freedom blocked.
User avatar
Jus_tryin2getit
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: February 9th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Jus_tryin2getit »

Freedom. It is such a beautiful word that we will never physically understand the full capacity of. Too big to imagine what freedom could be. It's almost like trying to imagine how big the Universe is! I think Freedom is being able to grasp and hold onto the things that you are not allowed to touch. Freedom is being able to see with your naked eye, whatever you please without anything being hidden behind walls and guarded 'til death at all hours of the night. Freedom is having the right to know everything that is going on in your country or any place. Better yet, freedom wouldn't have any countries. It would be one place! Freedom wouldn't segregate. Freedom is having no restrictions, no boundaries and there not being anything to hold you back. Freedom is our soul once we pass.
Cogito ergo sum
Posts: 174
Joined: June 11th, 2014, 2:32 am
Favorite Philosopher: Karl Popper

Re: Defining Freedom

Post by Cogito ergo sum »

Rights are given, freedoms are obtained by choices. The king did not obtain his position by freedom but by divine right. Just in the same way you were not given the freedom to obtain liberty but where given the right to, either by man or god.

I have the freedom to go out and get my drivers license, as long as I can physically go about doing it, from there I obtain a right to drive.

I have exercised a freedom ( an individual choice) to go about obtaining a license by my own "free will", or choice, and have therefore been given the right to drive (either by man or god)

From here I am able to satisfy my freedom to drive recklessly, honorably, violently, with complete regard for those around me or with utter disregard for those around me. That is my freedom.

The bystander on the side of the road, the individual you might have driven by at 75 mph, while the speed limit is in fact, 25 mph, has viewed your freedom as an infringement on his rights.

Those rights that were infringed,where the most fundamental rights we view and the most basic, the right to live and the right to life.

At the same time the individual driving said car has felt an infringement on his freedom or his choices to do as he sees fit.

I prime example, on a grand scale, is the fight against Longshanks and William Wallace. Longshanks was given the right whether by man or by god to rule and have dominion over his land. That land he was given dominion over just so happened to be where William Wallace lived. Wiallam Wallace felt his freedoms to live his life as he sees fit was being infringed upon by the right to rule that Longshanks felt he was given. In the same vein Longshanks felt his right to rule was being made a mockery of by this little man.

This translates into all the aspects and arguments that happen with the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, the right to religion the right to etc. Because, for every right we have is a freedom being infringed and every freedom we have has the potential to infringe on a right.

Is abortion an infringement on the right to life or an infringement on freedom? We will never come to terms with these arguments because of what was stated above.

The human condition is to make logical sense of what is happening around us and certain things are illogical and invalid but at the same time logical and sound.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021