Freedom vs Life - Do we have an answer?

[Samana Johann]

Slave of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, ideas... indeed hard to gain freedom and so easy to be bond, caught, again and again.

[LuckyR]

The answer is: NO.

You are presenting Grey, and you ask whether it is black or white.

How is this grey, and how can it be divided into black and white? Elaborate.

To my view, you're trying to decide if quality or quantity of life is preferred. I'm a "both" kind of guy.

Quality is only meaningful when there exists a quantity of something. But quantity does not have to depend on quality in order to exist.

Similarly, I prefer life over freedom, simply because I do not think they are equal—I see freedom as a subset of life, but not life as a subset of freedom. I see life as a higher concept.

Of course, valuing both freedom and life seems like a net positive theoretically, but I don't see it being like that in real life. Life often presents us with situations where we have to sacrifice one to embrace one another, instead of embracing both. So I suppose I ask this question also out of pragmatic sense. If we don't decide which we prefer between life and freedom, there will be a situation in our lives where we have to decide between the two and we will either not be able to do anything, or devolve into making a decision based on instinct and emotion as opposed to ration.

Well first of all, you keep using the word "life" when you mean "longevity". But your original question as asked is kind of a false choice from a practical standpoint, you get the cards you are dealt, you play them the best way you can, but you can't change them. They are what they are.

[GrayArea]

How is this grey, and how can it be divided into black and white? Elaborate.

To my view, you're trying to decide if quality or quantity of life is preferred. I'm a "both" kind of guy.

Quality is only meaningful when there exists a quantity of something. But quantity does not have to depend on quality in order to exist.

Similarly, I prefer life over freedom, simply because I do not think they are equal—I see freedom as a subset of life, but not life as a subset of freedom. I see life as a higher concept.

Of course, valuing both freedom and life seems like a net positive theoretically, but I don't see it being like that in real life. Life often presents us with situations where we have to sacrifice one to embrace one another, instead of embracing both. So I suppose I ask this question also out of pragmatic sense. If we don't decide which we prefer between life and freedom, there will be a situation in our lives where we have to decide between the two and we will either not be able to do anything, or devolve into making a decision based on instinct and emotion as opposed to ration.

Well first of all, you keep using the word "life" when you mean "longevity". But your original question as asked is kind of a false choice from a practical standpoint, you get the cards you are dealt, you play them the best way you can, but you can't change them. They are what they are.

I accept that there exists a "freedom to choose life". In that sense, they are intertwined. But oftentimes the freedom to choose life is a very narrow kind of freedom—as in, being able to choose the freedom to choose life, in exchange for the freedom to do everything else, will lead to less individual autonomy overall.

So in that sense, it would stop becoming a false choice. In a dictatorship, the one who chooses the freedom to "stay subjugated to the government and not aspire for any more freedom" in order to live, still desires less freedom / autonomy than the ones who chooses the freedom to rebel against the government while risking their lives in order to gain more freedom.

[Samana Johann]

Eye is a dictator, ear..., nose..., tongue..., body..., intelect is a dictator. Yes, on would have the possibility to gain liberation but most prefer to serve them and go into what ever conflict they seek for.

[Good_Egg]

Life often presents us with situations where we have to sacrifice one to embrace one another, instead of embracing both.

I think life very seldom offers us the choice of gaining something by dying, but often offers the prospect of gain at some risk of dying in the attempt.

People die in car accidents; every time you use the road system you are taking a risk that you'll be one of them. Most of the time it's a small risk.

Whilst it may not be rational to choose certain death in return for benefits which that death prevents one from enjoying, it seems perfectly rational to accept a chance of dying prematurely in return for a higher quality of life.

[Hazel Mae Bagarinao]

I'll keep this short and simple.

Many people, throughout different time and places, have risked their lives fighting for their freedom.

Do you think freedom is truly more important than life? That is to say, would you prefer a short life with as much freedom/autonomy as you can possibly have over yourself, compared a long life with minimal freedom? And why?

How can someone have freedom without life? And I would rather chose short life with all the freedom than long life without yourself who controlled it.

[Anil G]

I choose Freedom over a long Life! If the life is short or long, without freedom even the short life will feel long. With Freedom, Short life will feel like a long life.