• Fallyn said on Nov 20, 2007....

  freedom to me.
  the ability to say what i want, when i want, how i want, without the use of violence of course.....without fear of being retaliated against
  
  physical freedom, to be able to come and go as i please
  
  to be able to think thoughts without a voice in my head saying no.
  
  the freedom to say yes, or no as i see fit.
  
  i'm not sure if i see liberty any differently.
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 20, 2007....

  although i once did a blog entry about freedom, i'm not real crazy about the answer i gave there.
  
  to me, freedom is the ability to choose. therefore, those things whicn enhance or facilitate making informed choices promote freedom, whereas those which restrict or complicate making informed choices are obviously anti-freedom.
  
  i still believe that there's tension between responsibility and freedom, though: it's hard to go through life without responsibility and we accept those as part of being grown-ups.
  
  in the geo-political sense, the sense in which this question is being asked however, i believe that freedom ultimately goes back to empowering the citizenry rather than circumscribing it.
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Nov 20, 2007....

  Hmm, I thought that this post would have had more responses by now.
  
  ed -- you linked to my own post.
  
  Let's see, I've given this a lot of thought. ed, I didn't mean to give this post a distinctly political point -- I was trying to be more general. Your point about responsibility versus freedom is well-taken. See the end of this post.
  
  fallyn -- do you restrict "retaliation" to just physical violence, or to mental and verbal as well?
  
  ed -- so do you see receiving "information" as a key to being free? Not being able to disseminate information -- that's a given IMO. But the right to know?
  
  I usually divide freedom into two aspects, although there are a couple of ancillary aspects to it as well.
  
  1. Freedom of Conscience.
  To paraphrase René Descartes, "I think, therefore I am free." The freedom to think original thoughts and to express them to others without prior restraint; the freedom to expose information regarding unpopular actions by government and private entities; the freedom to judge what is right and what is wrong by our own terms.
  
  2. Freedom of Action.
  While any action is technically "free", unless you have some kind of prior restraint, I mainly mean the action to pick up at the drop of a hat and leave my current circumstances and find a new set of circumstances. Too many people long for change without consequences. Well, guess what, that isn't going to happen. There are always consequences to the choices you make.
  
  Like ed said above, the choice is the thing. The realization of consequences and the fact that you cannot unchoose is not a barrier to your freedom. Rather it is a part of the information that you must use in order to make rational choice.
  
  ed -- I also agree that there is an essential conflict between responsibility and freedom. However responsibility is something that we freely choose.
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 21, 2007....

  TS: i view the state of being informed as a necessary precondition to being able to make decisions, so if freedom is about the ability to choose freely, then yes. :>
  
  there's a lot more to be said here but my thoughts are jumbled: it's early.
  
  ed

• Fallyn said on Nov 21, 2007....

  tin soldier, i've given this a lot of thought and still haven't come up with an answer to you.
  
  there is one case in particular that disturbs me on many levels.
  
  there is an abortion doctor who has a young son. this little boy has been exposed to extremely graphic huge pictures of aborted fetuses, blood and gore every single day of his life.
  
  from the protesters who have never left the sidewalk outside of his fathers house.
  
  if you ban free speech from the sidewalks? where will it end? it won't.
  on the flip......why can't this little boy be protected from being exposed to this every day of his life.
  
  i have no answer. there is no answer..... you can't start taking basic freedoms away, you can't.
  you can't permanently scar a child. you just can't.
  
  and you cannot reconcile these two situations....you just can't.
  

• TinSoldier said on Nov 21, 2007....

  I think that most humans are more resilient than that. We learn to flinch from images like that ourselves, in our culture, and yet other cultures deal with blood and butchery and death on a daily basis. Not fetuses, but hunting and food preparation and war and stuff like that.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 21, 2007....

   

  Let me see… Hum… The Electoral College makes a mockery of being elected by the people. The senate with its 2 senators per state makes a mockery of equality. Each state setting its own standard on whom can vote make a mockery of equality. And we never really had to define it precisely because these already make the question politically irrelevant.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 21, 2007....

   
  Why Was the Electoral College Created? by Marc Schulman
   
  The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
  
  The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:
  
  It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 21, 2007....

  While I disagree with your conclusions, sheltercrow, that's not really what we are discussing here.
  
  What does the ideal of "freedom" or "liberty" mean to you?
  

• sheltercrow said on Nov 21, 2007....

   
  The political is always personal. When there is no real freedom in the political affairs of a nation it affects all facets of the citizen’s life. I sound crazy, but when the leadership of a country is so hard to separate from all the other forces that negate our personal freedoms it makes for, as Jimmy Carter said, a “malaise” on the national psyche. [this topic could take another post alone]
   
  Where are any models for personal responsibility when our leaders are so rapacious? How’s a person to know what real freedom or dignity is is when their culture is based on the principle of greed? Some may thing they have freedom and dignity but it’s only self delusion to mask the true guilt that must lie hidden. Their freedom and dignity comes at the cost of someone else’s freedom and dignity, which makes their freedom and dignity chatter sound rather hollow. Ask the third world sweat shop denizen what freedom and dignity means to him and you will find out at what price he paid for your freedom and dignity.
   
  Here is political freedom.
   
  “the ability to have access to particular resources from the government without constraint” is nebulous at best. The government favors, in the real world of raw corporate power, remunerate interests almost to the exclusion of all else. Yes you can have a driver’s license, and yes you can buy this house, and yes to a lot of things that need permits and permissions; but to what end? Does consumption, as in being defined as a consumer and not a citizen, make you free? Are you now just a consumer and not a citizen? How many freedoms do you really have? Are they your freedoms or are they meaningless needs made clear to you by another agency? Do you know what freedom is or have you been told what it is by another for another purpose? Questions.

  Freedom is narrowly defined by Classic Liberals and Neoliberals as the ability to act without restraint from the government, or more broadly defined as the ability to have access to particular resources from the government without constraint by Social Liberals and most variants of Socialism. Defined thus, 'freedom' is a broad notion, not necessarily covering the same field as 'free will'.

  This makes a little more sense.

  The protection of interpersonal freedom can be the object of a social and political investigation, while the metaphysical foundation of inner freedom is a philosophical and psychological question. Both forms of freedom come together in each individual as the internal and external values mesh together in a dynamic compromise and power struggle; the society fighting for power in defining the values of individuals and the individual fighting for societal acceptance and respect in establishing one's own values in it.

  This makes more sense.

  The philosopher Isaiah Berlin drew an important distinction between "freedom from" (negative freedom) and "freedom to" (positive freedom). For example, freedom from oppression and freedom to develop one's potential. Both these types of freedom are in fact reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

  Freedom as the absence of restraint means unwilling to subjugate, lacking submission, or without forceful inequality. The achievement of this form of freedom depends upon a combination of the resistance of the individual (or group) and one's (their) environment; if one is in jail or even limited by a lack of resources, this person is free within their power and environment, but not free to defy reality. Natural laws restrict this form of freedom; for instance, no one is free to fly (though we may or may not be free to attempt to do so). Isaiah Berlin appears to call this kind of freedom "negative freedom" - an absence of obstacles put in the way of my action (especially by other people). He distinguishes this from "positive freedom", which refers to my power to make choices leading to action.

  But if one has defined his freedom as written above it still leaves out the subliminal ghost. Can you be truly free while someone else is not? It’s a dark question that most will simply ignore. I think real freedom is intimately intertwined with a man’s moral equilibrium. Yes you can wholly think you are free but the moral demons must be faced if you want dignity too.

  I wrestle with the notions of freedom, dignity and liberty but come up with just words. I rather think I am humbled by the fact that these are concepts that have no precise meaning if any meaning at all in this real world that we have to live in.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 21, 2007....

  Yeah, I don't tie freedom with demanding resources from the government (or anyone) at all.
  
  The part about "freedom from" and "freedom to" is definitely something that I've thought about however.
  
  
  Can you be truly free while someone else is not? It’s a dark question that most will simply ignore. I think real freedom is intimately intertwined with a man’s moral equilibrium. Yes you can wholly think you are free but the moral demons must be faced if you want dignity too.
  
  I wrestle with the notions of freedom, dignity and liberty but come up with just words. I rather think I am humbled by the fact that these are concepts that have no precise meaning if any meaning at all in this real world that we have to live in.
  
  
  Heh, common ground, and well said.
  

• lfbno7 said on Nov 25, 2007....

  Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from poverty, freedom from fear. Those were FDR's four freedoms. They sound pretty good to me. Liberty means the same thing to me, except seems to focus more on the first two, the positive choices, rather than the last two, the avoidance of negatives. And these four freedoms make the U.S. stand out when compared to some of the more dreadful countries that have existed, or still do.
  
  Freedom of expression is superior here to, say, China during the Cultural Revolution, and probably China today too, and from what I've heard, Russia as well, still. There are plenty of places in the world where your big mouth can get you in a lot more trouble than it is likely to here.
  
  Freedom of religion used to be a bigger issue in the 40s than it is now, considering that back then six million Jews were murdered. But even in our present times, and in fairly recent times, plenty of places lacked this freedom. Religion was illegal in the Soviet Union. The Arab world only respects Islam, prevents non-Muslims from entering Mecca, and in general treats non-Muslims like shit. India treats non-Hindus like shit, referring to them as Untouchables. There are dire financial consequences to being a Christian in India. So while there may be freedom to choose your religion, you start getting into the third freedom, mixing the second and third, putting up economic roadblocks to choosing a religion.
  
  Freedom from poverty isn't very well established in America. There's plenty of poverty in America. But it isn't as widespread and intense here as in many other places. Here, people aren't dropping dead of starvation by the thousands. I wouldn't give America such great marks for this freedom though. People are struggling to get by, and many can't afford to get their teeth or their overall health attended to. It's pretty fucked up at the moment. In a world where some people have billions of dollars and buy the stupidest things for themselves, most of us are struggling with "want" a lot more than we should be, myself included, and that is why I believe that there should be both an income limit and a wealth accumulation limit. The thing that is causing our "want" is the fact that the people who've got it all aren't sharing, are hoarding, and are ripping us off every time we make a purchase of anything, besides the fact that they are shirking their tax responsibility and shifting it all on us, finding loopholes to avoid paying any taxes, hiding their assets offshore. Our country is in collusion with them, setting up rules that these ultra rich and selfish pigs are Allowed to hide their assets offshore and not pay taxes on them. It is corruption. It is America, a land dedicated to the proposition that all obscenely wealthy people should have everything their way.
  
  Freedom from fear is pretty well established here in America but is under attack from the Bush administration. Their failure to do anything at all about the 9/11 fiasco gave them the power, ironically, to fuck with this freedom, to try to spy on your library habits, to illegally fuck with people in various ways and call it legal.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 25, 2007....

  India treats non-Hindus like shit, referring to them as Untouchables.
  
  That's not exactly true -- I don't know how India treats non-Hindus (being the country with the third largest Muslim population in the world) but "untouchable" is a specifically Hindu caste.
  
  I also kinda disagree with your bits about poverty. I think that a big driver of poverty and a lack of sharing of resources is satisfying our own wants, among the upper impoverished, lower middle class, and above. We pay so much money for non-necessities and whine and cry when we can't afford or have them that we ignore the truly needy among us.
  
  It's not just relegated to the richest.
  
  Oh, and lfbno7 -- I owe you a sincere apology for things that I've said to you in the past. We may continue to disagree but I will do my best to understand your point of view and answer your points from my own point of view.

• lfbno7 said on Nov 25, 2007....

  Thanks for the apology but I don't know what it was for. Did you ever see the Popeye movie starring Robin Williams? One of the characters kept walking around saying to others "You owe me an apology." I kind of like that.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 25, 2007....

  Heh, I think that I said that I couldn't find enough common ground with you to even begin a discussion, and I think that kruuyai made a post based on that comment...
  
  I haven't seen that movie in a long while.
  
  http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/92611/Refusing-to-Believe
  
  I don't even remember the original post or comment now -- you had railed against the US system of economics and government and I was overwhelmed by the gap between our ideals.
  
  And yet, I know that seeking to understand even if disagreement remains is the better path to take.
  
  I come here to learn, not to shout my ideals into some echo chamber.
  

• lfbno7 said on Nov 25, 2007....

  I disagree with everyone about something. Either it is my criticism of govt, or of evolution, or of religion, or my belief in creationism, or my criticism of patriotism, or my disgust with pro-Arab liberalism. I can be counted on to piss off pretty much everybody. People who would be expected to be on my side, because of our similarity of beliefs in one area, end up fighting with me in another, because I don't fit at all into the left or right wing. Depending on which particular post you read, you either like me a lot or can't stand me, but if you read them all, you will hate a lot of them.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 25, 2007....

  

   

  Ifbno7

  Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from poverty, freedom from fear. Those were FDR's four freedoms. They sound pretty good to me. Liberty means the same thing to me, except seems to focus more on the first two, the positive choices, rather than the last two, the avoidance of negatives. And these four freedoms make the U.S. stand out when compared to some of the more dreadful countries that have existed, or still do.

  Well… let me see. These are wonderful ideas but are they of any use when defining freedom? All the freedoms you mention are technically true to a naive observer. But are these freedoms and actuality in our society?

  Freedom of expression is quite useful but is significantly degraded when you take into consideration that most of what passes as the content of that act of expression is consciously and subconsciously censored quite literally by the person making use of that freedom. In laymen terms you express only what society allow you to express with due consideration for the consequences you may incur. What passes for freedom of expression is freedom to express what you are allowing yourself to express without societies proscription. As any good Marxist could see you have become the mouthpiece for your society’s propaganda.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 25, 2007....

  
   

  Ifbno7

  Freedom of religion, freedom from poverty, freedom from fear.

  Freedom from poverty and fear are not freedoms at all in the sense that you do not have an objective choice in the matter. It is the conditions of the milieu you were born into and society’s acceptance or denial of your ascension through its ranks that define the choice you are then allowed to make or accept.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 25, 2007....

  

   

  Most of our citizens, to one degree or another, are subscribing to the myth of the “American Dream” no matter what they consciously express. This particular myth is most powerful for those that have succeeded economically to their minimum level of comfort. It is also powerful during time of economic upturn and political acceptance. An economic downturn will find wealth and political power transferred back to whence it came. The myth of the American Dream will become a distant and less focused concept again.

  It is a sad reality that in our society the poor have little voice and are to a great extent ignored or incarcerated if they try to speak. The wealthy will rail on about the American Dream which they have wholly embraced while the poor, having no voice, can say nothing about their concern that they have been shut out from the myth process.

   

• sheltercrow said on Nov 25, 2007....

  In a world where some people have billions of dollars and buy the stupidest things for themselves, most of us are struggling with "want" a lot more than we should be, myself included, and that is why I believe that there should be both an income limit and a wealth accumulation limit. The thing that is causing our "want" is the fact that the people who've got it all aren't sharing, are hoarding, and are ripping us off every time we make a purchase of anything, besides the fact that they are shirking their tax responsibility and shifting it all on us, finding loopholes to avoid paying any taxes, hiding their assets offshore. Our country is in collusion with them, setting up rules that these ultra rich and selfish pigs are allowed to hide their assets offshore and not pay taxes on them. It is corruption. It is America, a land dedicated to the proposition that all obscenely wealthy people should have everything their way.

  This, my friend, is your most profound observation that negates the argument that we are all free and equal. How does one struggle with the notion that some make tens of millions of dollars and some are struggling with a subsistence income? Where is the moral and ethical circumspection needed to allow such unequal incomes? How have we all been participants in this moral and ethical failure?

• lfbno7 said on Nov 25, 2007....

  Shelter, you haven't read many of my posts or you'd know better than to write some of your comments. I have become the mouthpiece of my society's propaganda? That's utterly inaccurate. You're kind of new here. Actually, my saying something kind about America is out of character for me, and my later comments, the ones you called my most profound, are my standard fare. I tear America a new asshole on a regular basis. But I do admit that there are other countries in the world, like China and Russia, that kill their own version of Noam Chomsky. He's safe here.
  
  Actually you made a horrible early impression on me too, when you rewrote Queen Paranoia's post in improved English grammar and spelling. That was very rude of you. Can you make yourself understood in a second language? I know I can't. I'm impressed with her English skills, and the trick you pulled on her was both rude and stupid.
  
  So we've gotten off to a rocky start, you and I.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 25, 2007....

  
   

  Sorry, I must be tired, I was using the “third person imperial” you not the “first person” you. I described a condition not you personally.

  I myself am a great fan of Chomsky.

  I have vowed to myself not to comment on QP.

  As for the statement on being rude it all comes from your perspective. Ignorance of a condition is fallible but defense of the indefensible is a sure sign of senility.

  I will take a look at your old posts for a possible understanding of your condition.

  My enemies provide me with comedy not stimulating reading so let us be friends?

  Peace.

  

• sheltercrow said on Nov 25, 2007....

  

  I can think of times in my own life where I was being treated disrespectfully and I did something about it. You have to hit. You have to back people up. I don't mean you have to hit physically. You have to hit with your words. You have to knock people back on their heels. Then they respect you and treat you good. If you don't knock them back on their heels, they will treat you like a piece of shit. Think about that the next time you are being put on the defensive for something you did or didn't do. The point isn't whether you are innocent or guilty, perfect or imperfect. The point is whether you will verbally crack the person over the head or not. And the point is, if you decide to do that, will you do it effectively? Will you crack the person so hard that they get shoved backwards and think damn, I better not mess with him again?

  Good personal philosophy Ifbno7.

  A quite circumspection and a concerted well thought out response to injustice. I think we have more in common than you think.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 25, 2007....

  

   

  Sorry...

  A quiet circumspection and a concerted well thought out response to injustice. I think we have more in common than you think.

• TinSoldier said on Nov 25, 2007....

  sheltercrow, regarding self-censorship:
  
  Would you prefer that we have a society of people seemingly affected by Tourette Syndrome or coprolalia? Or is self-censorship not a part of freedom of expression? It certainly is part of freedom of conscience, in my view, as a person uses their own judgment and conscience to decide what to say and how to say it.
  
  sheltercrow, regarding the American Dream:
  
  So, let me get this straight: if you benefit from the American Dream then you are one of the opressors (or at least one of the deluded), and the poor are unable to benefit from the American Dream because it is denied to them even though the rest of society bends over backwards to try and give them every possible benefit?
  
  Okay, maybe not every possible benefit, but still.
  
  Is it really "The Man" keeping the poor down, or his own neighbors who are afraid of him getting to uppity and "selling out"?
  

• sheltercrow said on Nov 25, 2007....

  

   

  sheltercrow, regarding self-censorship:

  Would you prefer that we have a society of people seemingly affected by Tourette syndrome or coprolalia? Or is self-censorship not a part of freedom of expression? It certainly is part of freedom of conscience, in my view, as a person uses their own judgment and conscience to decide what to say and how to say it.

  Hum… Let’s take a look.

  Is this self-censorship as in the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable?

  I suppose this is a form of expression as in something done or given as regards a means of communicating a feeling or thought to somebody else.

  Freedom of conscience as in the ability to exercise free will and make choices independently of any external determining force in regards to the sense of what is right and wrong that governs somebody's thoughts and actions, urging him or her to do right rather than wrong.

  To exercise free will and make choices independently of any external determining force in regards to the sense of what is right and wrong that governs somebody's thoughts and actions, urging him or her to do right rather than wrong.

  The problem of free will is the problem of how choices can be free, given that what one does in the future is already determined as more or less true or false in the present. I do not believe in freedom of will entirely as your freedom to action is determined by your prior experience which necessitates a predetermination based on those experiences.

  Freedom of conscience as a concept is a labyrinth that I see no concrete way to rationally support.

  sheltercrow, regarding the American Dream:

  So, let me get this straight: if you benefit from the American Dream then you are one of the opressors (or at least one of the deluded), and the poor are unable to benefit from the American Dream because it is denied to them even though the rest of society bends over backwards to try and give them every possible benefit?

  If you benefit from the American Dream you are already in a privileged subset; that of a class of people, especially the rich or the upper classes, which benefit from special rights or resources. Human beings more or less act to maximize their own security and comfort and that naturally entails a conscious or unconscious choice to restrict access to the resources they themselves need to others. It is a distressing reality that one man’s comfort is always purchased at another man’s expense. Comfort and security itself is a subjective notion.  

  “even though the rest of society bends over backwards to try and give them every possible benefit?”

  I know more believe this than I believe that pigs can fly.

  Okay, maybe not every possible benefit, but still.

  Is it really "The Man" keeping the poor down, or his own neighbors who are afraid of him getting to uppity and "selling out"?

  Define “The Man” for me and you may have a chance to excel in political science. I have never thought of my neighbors other than as a local biological infestation and an impediment to my comfort and security.

   

  

• TinSoldier said on Nov 25, 2007....

  The problem of free will is the problem of how choices can be free, given that what one does in the future is already determined as more or less true or false in the present. I do not believe in freedom of will entirely as your freedom to action is determined by your prior experience which necessitates a predetermination based on those experiences.
  
  Freedom of conscience as a concept is a labyrinth that I see no concrete way to rationally support.
  
  
  Ah, then what use is trying to define or even justify freedom at all? That's what it boils down to.
  
  Almost all of our decisions are based on previous expectations, and all of our decisions are based on neurochemical reactions in our brains and in our bodies. So when you break it down, there really is no free will or free conscience or ethics or morality or anything. It's all biology and even the idea that "I think therefore I am" is a myth.
  
  And yet, we are still considering and discussing these abstract concepts, are we not? And attempting to judge them on their abstract merits.
  
  
  It is a distressing reality that one man’s comfort is always purchased at another man’s expense. Comfort and security itself is a subjective notion. 
  
  
  These two statements seem to contradict; however, I don't believe that life is a zero-sum game. I at least take issue with the term "always" in the statement above. I think that that is easily proven wrong.
  
  
  Define “The Man” for me and you may have a chance to excel in political science.
  
  
  Define "The Man"? Why that's easy -- "The Man" is also known as "The Other". He is the one who is not Us. The Man is the one with all of the political and economic power that we feel that we do not enjoy. Nameless. Faceless. Anonymous. Subhuman.
  
  Not that I have any interest in excelling in political science.
  
  
  I have never thought of my neighbors other than as a local biological infestation and an impediment to my comfort and security.
  
  
  While I'm not the most social creature, that's actually kinda sad. I don't see my fellow human beings that way.
  
  Maybe if I lived in a more primitive or less prosperous society.
  
  So tell me (or make your own blog) what would a perfect society look like to you?
  

• sheltercrow said on Nov 25, 2007....

  
   

  It is a distressing reality that one man’s comfort is always purchased at another man’s expense. Comfort and security itself is a subjective notion. 

  These two statements seem to contradict; however, I don't believe that life is a zero-sum game. I at least take issue with the term "always" in the statement above. I think that that is easily proven wrong.

  I agree and see what you mean.

  It is a distressing reality that one man’s comfort is often purchased at another man’s expense. Comfort and security itself is a subjective or prejudiced notion. 

  The subjective or prejudiced notion of comfort and security seems to me to be in its definitive fluid nature.  Comfort and security are often defined on the perception of the collective environment one finds oneself in. If the general level of comfort and security is perceived to have changed in your collective environment you as an individual must change with it to reflect your perceived status.

  Define "The Man"? Why that's easy -- "The Man" is also known as "The Other". He is the one who is not Us. The Man is the one with all of the political and economic power that we feel that we do not enjoy. Nameless. Faceless. Anonymous. Subhuman.

  Not that I have any interest in excelling in political science.

  Lol.

  While I'm not the most social creature, that's actually kinda sad. I don't see my fellow human beings that way.

  Maybe if I lived in a more primitive or less prosperous society.

  Lol.  You’re not reading enough Friedrich Nietzsche. Albert Camus's ideas on the Absurd.

  WiKi-note: Camus's ideas on the Absurd. In his essays Camus presented the reader with dualisms: happiness and sadness, dark and light, life and death, etc. His aim was to emphasize the fact that happiness is fleeting and that the human condition is one of mortality. He did this not to be morbid, but to reflect a greater appreciation for life and happiness. In Le Mythe, this dualism becomes a paradox: We value our lives and existence so greatly, but at the same time we know we will eventually die, and ultimately our endeavors are meaningless. While we can live with a dualism (I can accept periods of unhappiness, because I know I will also experience happiness to come), we cannot live with the paradox (I think my life is of great importance, but I also think it is meaningless). In Le Mythe, Camus was interested in how we experience the Absurd and how we live with it. Our life must have meaning for us to value it. If we accept that life has no meaning and therefore no value, should we kill ourselves?

  

• TinSoldier said on Nov 25, 2007....

  I agree and see what you mean.

  It is a distressing reality that one man’s comfort is often purchased at another man’s expense. Comfort and security itself is a subjective or prejudiced notion. 
  Heh. Point taken :D.
  
  Regarding Camus:
  
  Interesting -- I'm only familiar with one story by Camus that I read during my one community college term in Philosophy. And Le Mythe apparently wasn't it. :D
  
  And we didn't cover Nietzsche although I know who he is and I've at least scratched the surface of his ideas.
  
  I know that I have to look at more philosophy and economics, and I also need to study more the writers of the Enlightenment whom I already revere and yet that reverence is based more on faith than on actual study.
  
  Outside of computer and technical subjects, philosophy, economics, and history are three subjects that fascinate me endlessly. And yet, I am but a layman dabbler in them.
  
  Fortunately I converse all the time with folks online who have greater knowledge of these subjects than I do, and who can point me in directions that even a formal education might not take me.
  

Comment on "Defining Freedom"

Currently tagged	freedom liberty words (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously