An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
If you disagree with my definition of freedom, how would you define it?
writes Scott in his essay .Freedom starts with a principle of self-control, also known as self-ownership. In a free society, each and every person has legal control (or "ownership") of their own body and mind.
Belinda wrote:Aren't you conflating freedom and licenciousness? Or perhaps freedom and liberty?
Freedom is actual, more than a feeling, and this applies to both freedom -to and freedom- from.
If I suffer from an addiction or a compulsion I am less free than if I am not addicted or compelled because my choices are wider than if I am not addicted or compelled .
Wonder wrote:dear Scott
My question is how do you define "control (ownership) of one's mind"?
I understand control of the body, but control of one's own mind?
Of cource I understand that all crazies get locked up, derprived of their freedom.
I basically agree whith all the rest.
I'm of the belief that there's no such thing as a truly selfless act. Here's a discussion Homicidal Pacifist and I had a while back in the Accountability is Still the #1 Virtue thread...Homicidal Pacifist wrote:whitetrshsoldier wrote:I would argue there is no such thing as selflessness. The only reason people commit selfless acts is for selfish reasons (i.e. it makes them "feel good", they "want" to, etc.)
That statement is not true. I do many things simply for the good of other people. The fact that I get enjoyment out of it is neither the cause of my action nor is it a characteristic of selfishness.
How does a human body function, HP? I guess that's the question at hand here. My understanding of it is that chemicals are released by neurotransmitters in the mind. Among those chemicals are seratonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. These chemicals are released based on various stimuli, among those are visual and auditory input. However, the body reacts as a result of the brain's desire for MORE CHEMICALS.
It is presumably "selfish" for a being to act solely in order to feed it's own need for "another hit", is it not? We're basically all just addicts, begging for a release of more chemicals from a neurotransmitter to a synapse, on and on, millions of times over every second. So stands my argument.
In the end, I don't think there is such a thing as a "selfless" act. No matter what it is that you do, you derive some kind of benefit from [if only a chemical/neurological/psychological "high"].
So our mind will always guide us to the most "pleasurable" or "painless" choice. But that still does not prevent me from arguing that governments should not exist to prevent my mind from being free to lead me towards achieving that end, should it?
whitetrshsoldier wrote:In other words, "control of the mind" is really just resisting the natural physical urges that drive us, if that's possible ...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests