Freedom

[JohnAvg]

What does freedom mean to you?
How would you define this word?

[aBIGsheep]

America. 'Nuff said.

[mmaria]

Freedom is the most beautiful word in every language.:)

[skasian]

I believe freedom is being unlimited, infinite, absence of barriers that stop our wills.
I believe freedom is being able to express who you are, absence of critics, judgments and prejudice.
I believe freedom is being in love with someone, absence of worries that the person may not return the same.

[blp]

America. 'Nuff said.

:eek2:

Not nearly enough, but the forum rules forbid...

Well, I'm thinking orange jumpsuits and waterboarding (no, it's not a new extreme sport).

[blp]

'Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose...'
- Me and Bobby McGee

[hoope]

Freedom has a wide concept , its like you have the right to chose how you wanna live;
you own it, without any power over you to control it.
free to chose your religion , your education , your way in life , your work , free to talk

Its just not limited but i do mention that there r rules within to guide us
like we r free to listen to music in a loud voice without lowering down the volume
but yet we have to respect other ppl around us , hence we r asked to low the volume by our parents and sometimes by ourselves coz we feel like its hurting the others.

What i mean is that our freedom should never break the freedom of the ppl around us
They respect our freedom so as we have to .

And we all know about how the Black lived in Slavery in US " Being free worth more than you can think" .....

[Silas Thorne]

Something William Wallace yelled continuously at the end of Braveheart.

Freedom!

[Zee.]

I think people, and they do this with a lot of things, generally look for freedom outside of their minds and bodies. It's like those " Free your mind, your body will follow " ideas. And I really believe that. I think when people can somehow free themselves from such things as.. negative thoughts, worry, etc etc, they can free themselves. So I believe that freedom needs to be reached within ourselves before it is sought elsewhere.
Because even a man locked up may be freer than any one of us.

[mmaria]

How about this: freedom is when ones own conscience and ideals are not internalization of outer expectations, but are really his/hers, and express aims produced by his/her own self?

[Lust Hogg]

"Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom" (kierkegaard)

[NikolaiI]

How about this: freedom is when ones own conscience and ideals are not internalization of outer expectations, but are really his/hers, and express aims produced by his/her own self?

This is one of the best answers!

My view is related in some to several answers I've seen so far. I think if we are spiritually free, then there are no limitations, we can grow spiritually and work toward enlightenment. I think enlightenment is no specific place but simply it is awareness, joy, and peace. I was recently reading about and thinking about kings and queens, and I believe a lot of these things are simply within the mind. If one is liberated or free, one does not seek after ghosts, such as wealth, beauty, fame, satisfaction through sense-gratification. The sense are our most gross association with this life, while the soul is the most subtle. I think that the original source of all life is pure, eternal, and blissful - the essence of God, Buddha, or Krishna. So life is about learning about our source, in other words, learning about our relationship with the source (the universe), and becoming more like the source. When one is free (perfect - ideally) one has realized their essence, and they are filled with joy, peace, and awareness. Life is about coming to sanity, which is "feeling whole" but more than that, not seeing any illusions, and instead seeing truth. (Stopping and seeing). Freedom is the most important thing, and the search for freedom cannot wait! :):)

Ultimately there is nothing whose essence is not free, pure, eternal; nothing which did not come from this and nothing which would not return to it. Even if this is our ideal, we can work towards it with positive formations, intentions, actions, receptions, interactions, vibrations. The first step is to be convinced intellectually that life is rooted in something greater than what we can intellectually know. We cannot intellectually know the universe, or the soul, or ultimate freedom. But that doesn't mean that these things don't exist, or even that they will always be inaccessible, nor even that we do not have a right to them. But actually, everything has a right to them, and we should not deny life and freedom to anything or anyone.

[NikolaiI]

" Consciousness is a fundamental thing, the fundamental thing in existence — it is the energy, the motion, the movement of consciousness that creates the universe and all that is in it — not only the macrocosm but the microcosm is nothing but consciousness arranging itself. For instance, when consciousness in its movement or rather a certain stress of movement forgets itself in the action it becomes an apparently «unconscious» energy; when it forgets itself in the form it becomes the electron, the atom, the material object. In reality it is still consciousness that works in the energy and determines the form and the evolution of form. When it wants to liberate itself, slowly, evolutionarily, out of Matter, but still in the form, it emerges as life, as animal, as man and it can go on evolving itself still farther out of its involution and become something more than mere man. If you can grasp that, then it ought not to be difficult to see further that it can subjectively formulate itself as a physical, a vital, a mental, a psychic consciousness — all these are present in man, but as they are all mixed up together in the external consciousness with their real status behind in the inner being, one can only become fully aware of them by releasing the original limiting stress of the consciousness which makes us live in our external being and become awake and centred within in the inner being. As the consciousness in us, by its external concentration or stress, has to put all these things behind — behind a wall or veil, it has to break down the wall or veil and get back in its stress into these inner parts of existence — that is what we call living within; then our external being seems to us something small and superficial, we are or can become aware of the large and rich and inexhaustible kingdom within. So also consciousness in us has drawn a lid or covering or whatever one likes to call it between the lower planes of mind, life, body supported by the psychic and the higher planes which contain the spiritual kingdoms where the self is always free and limitless, and it can break or open the lid or covering and ascend there and become the Self free and wide and luminous or else bring down the influence, reflection, finally even the presence and power of the higher consciousness into the lower nature. "

http://www.aurobindo.ru/workings/sa/22-24/eng_1_5.htm#i

[CSK001]

Hi,

First of all thanks for this wonderful stuff. Freedom means to act in a positive manner and make others feel comfortable around you.

CSK

home job
home work
start a business
home based business
business ideas

Home Based Business (http://business.bizoppjunction.com)

[Zee.]

As a few people have said, freedom is defined by the individual. Once we find the key to that freedom, we can unlock it.

In my case, I need to learn to control my thoughts and emotions - to discipline my mind. I know that once I calm the often frantic thought pattern of my mind, I can be free.

[Silas Thorne]

Who calms your mind? Who is 'you'? How can you be free from yourself? :)

[Zee.]

If i revealed what calmed my mind, people would laugh

[mono]

Who calms your mind? Who is 'you'? How can you be free from yourself? :)
Wow, very impressive!

-----

As others have described, the perception of freedom seems a subjective judgment of ideals. What makes us happy? What makes us create that happiness? What makes that happiness we created remain uncorrupted?
Perhaps nothing. Call me a nihilist, but I believe in Absolute freedom, yet find it impossible to obtain; even if we did obtain it, I think we would either deny its existence or question our perception.
Remaining true to subjectivism, different ideas make us feel free. Some people enjoy servitude, feeling to fulfill a purpose, for example, while others prefer ruling.
Freedom seems the realization of your own desires, the projection of such into the external world, and the maintenance of such to provide its existence into not only your lifetime, but for others to continue its legacy (for we all desire our ideas to extend into infinity). This seems desperately idealistic, but so does Absolute freedom; it seems unreliant and unbiased upon intelligence, virtue, ability, and judgment from others, entirely unrelated to any governmental system, whether monarchy, oligarchy, anarchy, democracy, etc. Freedom makes one limitless - otherwise, what makes something free?
The fault of freedom involves others. The greatest of politicians have failed to create the ideal of freedom for every one of his/her citizens; this seems because every individual identifies a subjective ideal of freedom. Does this make Absolute freedom unattainable? In contingency, have we reached our greatest ideal in politics? Not only does this appear biased in our generation, but the question has no unit of measure. Yes, just like the estimation of every emotion - happiness, sadness, anger, etc. - freedom has no measure, and seems a ideal built upon itself, a castle in the sky, impossible to achieve and maintain, for we shall always bear the restraints from others, keep in mind the restrictions of the law, and recall with every action potential consequences.

[Zee.]

I said in a post .. on one forum, that I believed the word freedom should only be applied when it is absolute. Though I don't always stick to this, I still stand by it. Freedom within myself is only regulated by myself. I try not to regulate it, it is absolute

[Silas Thorne]

Then that would be capital F for Freedom, lima.
F Freedom.
Freedom means never having to say you're sorry.
:)

[Zee.]

Oops,
*Freedom

[mmaria]

Do you think that freedom is an individual matter, something to be solved between you and you, in the depths of your own spiritual being?

[Zee.]

I think that Freedom can only be defined by the individual. It means something different for everybody.

[NikolaiI]

I meant to say that if one lives truly free, then one lives, in the term Lima used on another thread, god-like. It's just that if we can be free and live simply and naturally we can live in bliss and peace. And being blissful and peaceful is our divine nature.

It is true it is an individual thing, but we are similar in many aspects (such as sensation, feeling, emotion, thoughts, and consciousness). What may be free for us may be different for others, and yet still others may not have any idea about what is good or best for them, or they may be wrong.

My quote from Aurobindo I think means that like there are many things on the visual or light spectrum which we cannot see, similarly there is consciousness above and below our understanding there; and the spectrum of consciousness is not limited by "our" as humans greatest limit. In fact one reason I speak of this is because mystics from all religions and cultures speak of realms of consciousness sometimes very much the same. For this reason I am a proponent that there are higher (as well as "lower," or more involved) states of consciousness which are absolutely real, and also attainable (for anyone, fairly much regardless of intelligence).

[lotus_flower123]

Hi.....
I love your definitions of the term "freedom", but you concentrated more on the individual freedom, or the freedom within. But, do you think that you can reach the peace and calmness inside if there was a merciless power around you that steals even your smile... I mean how will you be able to have control over yourself if you can't decide over your destiny....

[subterranean]

Freedom means never having to say you're sorry.
:)

Ow, I don't really agree on that:). Saying sorry when you really need to say it actually prove that you're a free person, not being afraid to admit your flaws.

[Silas Thorne]

Ow, I don't really agree on that:). Saying sorry when you really need to say it actually prove that you're a free person, not being afraid to admit your flaws.

I know, just kidding. :)Actually some people might think that that freedom means they can do whatever they want.

[skasian]

I know, just kidding. :)Actually some people might think that that freedom means they can do whatever they want.

Whats wrong of thinking that freedom implies people who can do what they desire? Freedom doesnt necessarily mean being able to run like freaks in the sunflower fields with butterflies in the open blue sky. Freedom for some people is being able steal cash from convenient stores, freedom of having power over cashiers, with loaded pistol directed at their heads. A psycho being cleared out of a mental hospital can have the freedom, freedom to murder people.

If the system of justice and law is what you are thinking in mind, what about the nations "most wanted". They obviously have the freedom of doing whatever they want as they are not trapped behind bars.

[mmaria]

Hi.....
I love your definitions of the term "freedom", but you concentrated more on the individual freedom, or the freedom within. But, do you think that you can reach the peace and calmness inside if there was a merciless power around you that steals even your smile... I mean how will you be able to have control over yourself if you can't decide over your destiny....


This is a very interesting observation.

[Amundsen]

Freedom. Liberty. Svoboda. Yes nice word, but we shouldn't forgot that here with us is something that kills freedom. COMMUNISM!!! and all tyranic politicals systems. Yes it is good idea that will be no differences among people, everybody should be happy, planning of importing and exporting things and more. How many people died? F.e. in protest of occupying Czechoslovakia in 1968 Jan Palach burned himself in Vaclav's square. He was not alone more people in eastern Europe maked suicide in protest for this. So, yes I wrote not much informations, but communism is very very very very very very very bad. (And my word list)

[mono]

Whats wrong of thinking that freedom implies people who can do what they desire? Freedom doesnt necessarily mean being able to run like freaks in the sunflower fields with butterflies in the open blue sky. Freedom for some people is being able steal cash from convenient stores, freedom of having power over cashiers, with loaded pistol directed at their heads. A psycho being cleared out of a mental hospital can have the freedom, freedom to murder people.
Freedom, I think, does not always imply ability or virtue, for good or bad reasons. Unless in cases of the truest insanity (when an individual cannot discern right and wrong, right and wrong identified by that individual's city/state/country/federal law), I do not think a person who has the ability to steal cash from a convenience store feels free. If the robber has a gun, and uses that as a means for stealing, he realizes he has an impediment, and must gain the money by force, thus a wrong; the robber will then flee the scene before acute identification occurs, and the police arrive.
The robber, even if successful in stealing a great sum of money, doubtfully feels free; he probably feels concealed, has a great desire to hide, and maintain a low profile. Only a robber who would not see the consequences of illegal actions could feel free after stealing money from a convenience store. Perhaps a 'psycho being cleared out of a mental hospital,' though I would never call a patient of a psychiatric hospital such, may not have the capacity to know that freedom likely will not come from impulsive actions, but we would hope that staff would not release the patient so unjudiciously.

[mmaria]

From all that is said here, it seems that one of the first prerequisites for achieving the freedom is sanity, ability to discern what is good and what is bad from the human general point of view.

[skasian]

Freedom, I think, does not always imply ability or virtue, for good or bad reasons. Unless in cases of the truest insanity (when an individual cannot discern right and wrong, right and wrong identified by that individual's city/state/country/federal law), I do not think a person who has the ability to steal cash from a convenience store feels free. If the robber has a gun, and uses that as a means for stealing, he realizes he has an impediment, and must gain the money by force, thus a wrong; the robber will then flee the scene before acute identification occurs, and the police arrive.
The robber, even if successful in stealing a great sum of money, doubtfully feels free; he probably feels concealed, has a great desire to hide, and maintain a low profile. Only a robber who would not see the consequences of illegal actions could feel free after stealing money from a convenience store. Perhaps a 'psycho being cleared out of a mental hospital,' though I would never call a patient of a psychiatric hospital such, may not have the capacity to know that freedom likely will not come from impulsive actions, but we would hope that staff would not release the patient so unjudiciously.

Yes, I believe that freedom disregards the right or wrong choices one are capable of but all without any boundaries limiting their actions.

Regardless of the outside stimulus and factors such as law and the judgement upon the wrongdoings, the thief does have a sense of freedom to act his intentions to steal. In the thief's perspective, there is enough freedom of action within him that will tell him that it is alright to act as he pleases. Freedom to steal may not be the same for the model citizen however, for the thief, it is adequate enough to induce the crime.

The new released psycho does not have any limitation that will stop him from desiring to kill the next target he sees. What the psycho hopes and dreams exists with freedom, freedom where no one can reach inside his head and stop him from hoping and dreaming. The act of thinking, and suming up a feeling of desire is unlimited, therefore has freedom.

[mmaria]

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. (G.B.Show)

[skasian]

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. (G.B.Show)

Yes, liberty is responsibility in a way because it is freedom of choice and decisions. Responsibility is created when one chooses and decides by themselves.

[guyofcomicbooks]

People usually differentiate between two kinds of freedom. Negative and positive. The negative freedom is the freedom FROM something. This is the freedom of democracy. Positive freedom is the freedom to DO something, this is the freedom of autonomy, and to me, the true form of freedom. http://a09d0129txfi266.imageshacknow.info/img/2600/d09k0129glqg/1x1t.gif
Freedom loses its meaning outside of society, away from other people.

[mmaria]

Freedom od choice might be the best way to describe in brief what freedom means.

[NikolaiI]

I would disagree with you skasian when you say that the criminal has freedom. Assuming we are talking about someone who would disregard laws which the majority of the population follow, as in those laws such as prohibit killing and stealing. It might seem like they are free but actually they are completely bound to their desires. Freedom does not come from ignoring everything and doing what we want; that works completely against us. Freedom comes when we live in harmony, in other words, when everything in our lives is working right.

[mmaria]

Why mix freedom with insanity? If you talk about freedom from your own point of view, and if we suppose that you are sane, why should you mention crimes and similar notions?

[skasian]

I would disagree with you skasian when you say that the criminal has freedom. Assuming we are talking about someone who would disregard laws which the majority of the population follow, as in those laws such as prohibit killing and stealing. It might seem like they are free but actually they are completely bound to their desires. Freedom does not come from ignoring everything and doing what we want; that works completely against us. Freedom comes when we live in harmony, in other words, when everything in our lives is working right.

Doesnt this all comes down to what we perceive freedom as? I thought freedom didnt regard morality, excluding the consequences in real life. However if we do select freedom as a good thing, then obviously you are right, criminals with their wrongdoings do not possess freedom at all.

[shud-shee]

the philosophy of freedom which was crystallized in Berdyaev's prophetic lamentations

[Bancini]

Freedom equals anarchy

That doesn't mean freedom is bad or that anarchy is good. But every rule or law takes away your freedom. Even laws that give us rights are actually limitations on freedom.

In order for you to have the "Right to freedom of speech" I have to give up my freedom to shut you up.

[NikolaiI]

Why mix freedom with insanity? If you talk about freedom from your own point of view, and if we suppose that you are sane, why should you mention crimes and similar notions?

Was this directed to me? I did not mention them, I was replying to skasian's post which talked about a criminal being free.


Doesnt this all comes down to what we perceive freedom as? I thought freedom didnt regard morality, excluding the consequences in real life. However if we do select freedom as a good thing, then obviously you are right, criminals with their wrongdoings do not possess freedom at all.

Yes and no... the reason why it does not is that what we perceive isn't always the truth. For instance a criminal might think he is free, but another person can see he is bound by anger and desire.

My view of it does take into consideration karma; even good actions bind us to karma. The three modes of material nature are goodness, passion, and ignorance, and in general we are servine one of those three modes. The goal of life is gradual elevation until one has reached their natural state, which is transcendental.

[shud-shee]

freedom is intelligent and experienced necessity, not anarchy - it's but vile chaos

[mono]

Why mix freedom with insanity? If you talk about freedom from your own point of view, and if we suppose that you are sane, why should you mention crimes and similar notions?Was this directed to me? I did not mention them, I was replying to skasian's post which talked about a criminal being free.
No, NikolaiI, likely directed either at skasian or me, as we debated some of the subjective perspectives and experiences of freedom.
Though I try to stay distant from words like 'insane,' 'psycho,' or 'nuts,' I cannot perceive why anyone with a severe psychiatric diagnosis could not strive towards freedom as someone established as mentally sound (if that truly exists in a scientific dimensional approach). Perhaps I believe too strongly in subjectivism, but I figure everyone may have a unique perspective upon the definition of freedom (this thread has demonstrated that too well), and whether an individual has gotten institutionalized for psychiatric instability, gone to prison for committing murder, appears mentally sound, strictly obeys the law, appears of lesser intelligence, or has physical disabilities, he/she will still own some concept of freedom. Whether or not it seems attainable to him/her, we cannot judge.

[Bancini]

show me a law, even the a 'right' and it will be a loss of freedom

if laws equal a loss of freedom, it might follow that no laws equal absolute freedom

no laws=anarchy

most of us are willing to give up some freedom in order to avoid anarchy

[subterranean]

I suppose freedom should be differentiate between 'freedom to' and freedom from'. The first refers to a more 'active' behaviour and might leads to a state of anarchy (e.g freedom to pursue material prosperity). The later is, more or less, a passive behaviour, where it depends on the change of outward situation and might requires law and regulations to obtain it (e.g. freedom from poverty).

[Bancini]

the problem I have with most freedom from's is that they by definition take away everyone else's freedom to's

makes freedom from's very dangerous, i'm not an anarchist but it freedom from's usually come with huge side effects that some people don't want to acknowledge

[subterranean]

show me a law, even the a 'right' and it will be a loss of freedom

if laws equal a loss of freedom, it might follow that no laws equal absolute freedom

no laws=anarchy

most of us are willing to give up some freedom in order to avoid anarchy



the problem I have with most freedom from's is that they by definition take away everyone else's freedom to's

makes freedom from's very dangerous, i'm not an anarchist but it freedom from's usually come with huge side effects that some people don't want to acknowledge



This is like saying, 'I'm a vegetarian who doesn't eat beef, but I enjoy chicken'. :)

[Judas130]

How about this: freedom is when ones own conscience and ideals are not internalization of outer expectations, but are really his/hers, and express aims produced by his/her own self?

this is what I initially see when I think of freedom. I feel much of our ideals and motives are not ours, but conditions of our society and upbringing. However, this is autonomous thinking, and conceptual freedom, freedom from indoctrinated thoughts. as wikipedia adds:
* the ability to act in accordance with the dictates of reason;
* the ability to act in accordance with one's own true self or values;
* the ability to act in accordance with universal values (such as the True and the Good); and
* the ability to act independently of both the dictates of reason and the urges of desires, i.e. arbitrarily (autonomously).


freedom though, what is it?

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.


We all have different views on what liberty is, as many ideas as there are types of flower, and in this dictionary's case it applies to human law. Exemption from external control, supports Antinomianism religiously, and Anarchy legalistically. The power to determine action without restraint applies to all of the above, but explicit autonomous thinking and motivation.
You have different forms of freedom: social, personal, political, religious. Then you have positive and negative freedom, or freedom to and freedom from - which someone else eluded to before me.
Yet freedom is a very broad concept and needs to be refined if applied to circumstance or discussed and reviewed, which is not what the thread is asking.

[maraki16]

to me, freedom is the state of being able to go out whenever you want, to be able to express your thoughts and feelings as long as they do not offend others. it is the right we have to make dreams, to do whatever we can in order to pursuit our dreams, and the feeling that our bodies, and most of all our souls, belong to us.

[Bancini]

the key word in my second quote is 'most'

All freedom from's (all laws) take freedom away from us. Most of the time I think that is bad. However, I believe certain laws are necessary.

Maybe this is more like saying I don't like to eat meat that has fat.

[Bancini]

to me, freedom is the state of being able...to express your thoughts and feelings as long as they do not offend others.

This does not sound like freedom to me. Almost the opposite. This sounds more like "You can only express opinions that others want you to express."

[NikolaiI]

This does not sound like freedom to me. Almost the opposite. This sounds more like "You can only express opinions that others want you to express."

One reason I can think of to support Maraki's statement is like this. You are at a party and you offend someone, let's say the host. This doesn't give you freedom, it actually locks you into a universe where you've offended the host. Every action produces results, produces reactions and karma. Good and bad actions both bind you to a specific karmic reaction. In this case, your offensive remark to the host might result in your being kicked out of the party. Then you are free... to walk around or go home or whatever. But you are not free to remain at the party, unless you chose to stay against their wishes, etc., and the situation would rise in complexity. My point is not never to offend anyone, but only to give an example or my own view of why it would be better, in general, not to offend people unnecessarily. In other words - why agitate people? In the Dhammapada the Buddha warns strongly against angry speech, because it comes back to you in retaliation. Affliction is caused by things like anger, aversion, attachment, and craving.

Perhaps harmony is necessary for freedom.

[maraki16]

i think that we are talking about freedom in human terms, so, you can actually be free but you cannot impose things on others, because then, you won't let THEM be free. we are able to express our feelings, but this does not give us the freedom to offend others. we have to be polite and not only think of ourselves. and this is what being human is all about. and this is what gives meaning to the word freedom. otherwise it would be called savage behaviour. and we would be called animals( not that we aren't...but you know what i mean...)
this is what i believe about freedom. because you know something, if we did not think of others before we act, then imprisonong nations and making wars would not mean that you don'
t respect the other's right to freedom. we would just say that we are free to do whatever pleases us, and if this is to kill people and put them in dungeons then freedom it may be called. now i think i have made myself pretty clear right?

[skasian]

Yes and no... the reason why it does not is that what we perceive isn't always the truth. For instance a criminal might think he is free, but another person can see he is bound by anger and desire.

My view of it does take into consideration karma; even good actions bind us to karma. The three modes of material nature are goodness, passion, and ignorance, and in general we are servine one of those three modes. The goal of life is gradual elevation until one has reached their natural state, which is transcendental.

True, what we may think and want to believe can be false. If this logic is governed by the situations of criminals, then you are completely right.

Would you please care to elaborate on the three modes of material nature? I mean why are goodness, passion and ignorance the three modes?

[skasian]

A bible verse "Truth will set you free" seems relevant here. Seeing this verse was used in The Shawshank Redemption, it seems justice is strongly linked with truth when dealing with freedom.