Printable View
Freedom is a word that we all heard and read about and said it a lot.We all have our own versions of this word and it is meaning.
But what is the real meaning of freedom?
Is their an absolute freedom in our world?
Can freedom be conditioned? (applied when it suit us and not applied when it works against us).
To me, 'freedom' is the absence of suffering.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Persuasion
Pitcairn Islanders thought so, but the world caught up with them eventually.
Perhaps freedom is a term that necessitates context as universal laws will ultimately dictate the amount of actions that can occur. The elementary mechanisms — and root particles and rules that support these — that manifest in the macroscopic phenomena we experience intrinsically dilute the semantic merit of a term such as freedom. If all actions result from the interaction of mass within space then surely mass, and its interactions, is a limiting factor with regard to what can occur. The universe as it can be observed is finite and thus restricted. In context, freedom is a term that describes the relative restrictions of one situation to another.
No, there never can be. We still have to pay taxes, to enjoy the services we get such as refuse collection, street lighting, fire services, hospitals etc. if they aren't provided by the state, then we have to pay insurance companies. In order to pay those taxes, we have to work. We have responsibilites to others around us, even if only in a passive sense. We have to provide housing for our families, which comes at a price. We have to provide food for them, whether we pay for it, or whether we grow it. If we grow it, the land it is grown on may be leased/rented. What we grow is dictated by the needs of those we support. In any event, seed has to be paid for, unless we have seen to it that we have our own source, which could be constured as a lack of freedom. Every country in the world has a government, to which we are more or less subject. Not that any of this is necessarily bad, it could hardly be construed as total freedom.
to me, freedom is a necessary utopia that keeps us going through the centuries. there is no absolute freedom in nature, if we take into consideratio the fact that people have many a times been controlled by nature, not being able to control its powers. so from a point of view, human beings, and animate form of existence in general is not completely free, for it is always controlled to an extent.
being free means not being controlled, being able to act on our own, without being imposed, confronted etc. but we can see from our everyday life and experience, that complete freedom does not exist. children are controlled by their parents ; they are not free to do the things they want or give them pleasure if their parents think they are not for the child's good. but nevertheless, even if the motives are good, they 'steal' their children's freedom.
we are not allowed to work the way we want to, we have to go according to what our employer wishes us to do, otherwise we are fired. yes, we have the freedom to choose and quit, but are restrained by the instict of survival.
there are many examples that show us that absolute freedom cannot exist in a world where different forms of life interact, in a society where people co-exist, simply because, life is constructed in a hierarchy, in a system. if absolute freedom was ateempted by every single person, then what would occur would be a chaos. unfortunately, absolute freedom does not bring balance, simply because, total freedom means that everyone can do what he wishes, despite the fact that his wishes and actions might have great impacts on other people's lives. this way, everyone would be uncontrollable and perhaps terrible things would happen.
on the other hand of course, all these might not sound really humanistic, but rather practical and deterministic. yes, i believe that freedom does not exist entirely. but that does not mean that we are condemned to slavery. personally, i am not the one to judge the state of the world and of society, and although i try to see the naked truth of this issue, it is true that people have by nature the need to be free, like every other animal in this world.
I love your version of " Freedom" every time i read it i understand it more :)Quote:
Originally Posted by African_Love
Yeah as you all said there is no absolute freedom in our world or this universe we are all connected. together in away we can't have full and total freedom.
I think limited freedom is good as long as our pride and dignity is respected and our rights as human beings are preserved and protected. Limited freedom can help to shape our lives and find meaning to it.
But what I hate is the conditioned freedom, a freedom given to people as long as they are thinking, believing and living the way the political power want and their interests are met.
If one person or group of people chose a different believe or way of living, then their freedom is taken??!
Freedom is sin. Limited freedom is slavery.
Why freedom is sin ?:shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
I don't think that 'freedom' can be defined by one definition/meaning, in the same way that 'love' cannot be defined under one meaning.
In my opinion, there are types of freedom.
- There's the physical freedom, i.e. not being held in bondage/ captivitiy.
- Then there's freedom of rights - getting what's your due [and as dafydd said, we have to sometimes pay a monetary fee for these rights, eg garbage collection]
--Then there's freddom of thought - mental freedom. This is the type of freedom we should worry about. Are we really free from mental enslavement?
That's my take on it.
How can there be an absolute freedom, for we are slaves to so many things. Imagine you are a child and you depend on your parents or guardians for a variety of things fro foods through clothes, shelters to compassions and for all that you have to obey your parents. You may loath school, do not like to eat medicines while sick and like to eat lots of ice-cream and the like but you are not free to do all that your heart wants. You may be a grownup. You want to certain things or behave instinctively but there is a society or culture restricting you to sets of manners or to codes of conducts.
You are slaves to the foods you eat and in the same way you are a slave to the compassion of your wife. The state gives you a certain amount of security and you have to follow its rules and if you breach any of them you will be subjected to the punishments pursuant to the laws legislated by the people you chose to represent you and your community. Man can never be free and freedom is drivel ideated by a few political pundits in point of fact
Sin is a socially unacceptable, but common, act. It is frowned upon. In committing one you distance yourself from others on the basis on conduct and from religious law on the basis of defiance. Doing this creates a spiritual freedom. You are indulging in an experience, a feeling others seek to resist. You break away from religious law is a sense similar to the Americans breaking away from British Parliament prior to the Revolution. One creates from themselves a personal niche that nobody can infringe upon, because there is no standard with evil as there is with good. Hopefully that explanation is sufficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Persuasion
Good summary!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tournesol
Let's not get carried away... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
If, in a country where some human beings have physical ownership of and the right to torture other human beings, there are political voices calling for the "freedom" of the chained and tortured individuals, I think it would be wrong to dismiss those calls as 'drivel' simply because everyone is "enslaved" by food, or because society might still have less onerous restrictions preventing us from stealing or endangering each other, etc. I think that people using the word "freedom" aren't usually promising anything about freedom from food, or freedom from restrictions people generally find beneficial.
In most cases when talking abvout freedom we are talking about it in the political sense.
So in this context, freedom is the ability for an individual to make decisions over the soverignty of his destiny and life, and the ability to express himself and express those decisions. It locates the center of decision making in the individual and not the state or group or other mass entity. Ecomonic freedom is clearly a part of the political environment that he lives. If a man is not free to keep the fruits of his labor (his earnings, within some acceptable allowance for social responsibility) then he is clearly not free. If a man is taxed on his earnings at 50%, then he is only half free.