Ok, alright, let’s set about the work. You have both agreed that defining terms is crucial. So let’s start with one that I think is central to all our world-views, without aim towards agreement, but just to get the disciplined philosophy out there:
Freedom
I will leave the floor to you, unless you would like me or another to start.
There are many different concepts of freedom. Which one interests you the most? In the most general sense, the word “freedom” means “the number of things one can do” or “the number of goals one can achieve”. If you want to express it neatly as a number between 0 and 1, you can also say “the number of goals one can achieve divided by the total number of goals that can be imagined”. But there are also specific kinds of freedom. Freedom of the will is an example ( which is the freedom to do what you believe is the right thing to do. ) Freedom of speech is another ( which is the freedom to share your beliefs with others when it’s not causing undeserved harm to other people . ) Which one interests you the most, Mr. Origami?
How about this one, from Urwrongx1000?
I guess we’ll have to resort to “Yo, Aeon!” at this point (:
It’s obvious that he’s talking about people not wanting to become able to do certain things, it’s merely not clear what these things are i.e. what kind of freedom he’s talking about. Free in what way? Free to do what?
Well, I mean, insofar as you wanted me to pick some random use of “freedom” of my preference.
Urwrong mentions tragedy, though, so were are definitely not talking about selection of Doritos flavours here.
Freedom to think for yourself?
Freedom to have a gun?
Freedom to speak?
Freedom to hear what other people have to say?
Freedom to have a say in who’s going to rule your country?
Freedom to be different?
Freedom to choose what school your children will go to?
Freedom to choose whether or not you’ll pay the taxes?
Freedom to be mean to others on Internet forums?
I mean these are all clearly instances, but the object of this thread, insofar as it matters, was to define terms. Defining freedom as the freedom to something is wanting.
I can agree to let Urwrong speak for Urwrong if and when. That was simply my honest answer, if I could pick one instance of the use of the word to be defined for me, of which one it would be.
“Freedom to do X” is “the ability to do X”. It has less to do with wanting. Being able to do something does not necessarily mean you want to do it. It merely means you can do it. And if you want to be able to do something, it merely means you want to be able to do it if you ever decide – if you ever come to want – to do it. Perhaps you never will.
Every kind of freedom is like that. The question is merely what kind of freedom Urwrong is talking about.
No, Urwrong wasn’ talking about some specific type. Urwrong was talking about freedom, period. This was clear from the wording.
But I take it, here, you equate freedom with ability?
The general notion of freedom ( which is the number of things you can do ) is a bit useless because there are many freedoms that are not only of no value but are actually harmful.
It’s nice to have freedoms but only if your mind is capable of handling them. Imagine if you had the ability to instantly grab any food from any place on Earth. Or if you had the freedom to sleep with any woman. You’d most likely end up destroying yourself. The modern day world is characterized by such freedoms. You are, from a very young age, free to be gay . . . or change your gender. Or simply eat as much as you want. Very few people would make an effort to discourage you from doing those things. You are also free to watch naked people have sex with each other – again, from a very young age.
Yeah. There might be some differences between the two but I think they can be ignored for now.
From a moralistic perspective, possibly. I am not myself a moralist. From a health perspective it could possibly be considered, but it’s a stretch. Our question here is philosophical, not what freedom is good for or not, but how the term can be defined.
Urwrong’s use, however, seems to be very different from the one you are employing. Maybe we will ignore Urwrong’s for now.
How can it be ignored though?
You confront stranger, after stranger, after stranger, and ask them: “Are you Free?” Some will say Yes. Some will say No. Some of those who said yes, are tricked into believing they’re Free when they’re not. There is a fundamental, basic sense of Freedom, where a person who is genuinely Free, is remarkable apart from all those who are not. Consider “Free Thought” for example, Philosophy. How many Philosophers are there in history, or, alive right now? Not very many, yes? Why not? Is Free Thought exceptional, or, the norm? How much control does an average person have over their own thoughts, beliefs, feelings, emotions, etc?
Consider Propaganda, Commercialization, Computerization, Telecommunication, Social Media, Black Psy-Ops, all these pressures applied against Average Joe…he doesn’t stand a fucking chance and you know it, Pedro, and you know it, Magnus. So don’t pretend you don’t. You know exactly what I meant.
I mean those who want to become Free, peer into the void, and realize they’re not Brave or Courageous enough for it.
Intelligence is not enough for Life. Bravery is the other component. Not everybody can become Free because not everybody can become Brave…or can they??? I don’t know, you tell me.
My question here is, Urwrong, why I should give two shits about Average Joe?
We went through several wars in this continent to procure our freedom.
It was “Freedom” that was on the lips of our forefathers when they carpeted the soil with their blood. Not “Righteousness,” not “Purity,” not “Race,” not “Safety,” not “God.”
Try to remember that, because “bravery” and “courage” are easy terms to bandy about, and “the relative meaning of words” an easy phrase to put together.
Because you are Average Joe until you prove otherwise.
How else can a person distinguish themselves except apart from others?
How can freedom exist, except relatively and compared to others’ abundance of freedom, or lack of freedom?
When you see a man (or animal) in chains, spirit broken, you feel thankful that you are not him. You pity him.
Indeed great sacrifices of Inheritance can lead to Freedom; but it does not guarantee it; and it does not guarantee it indefinitely.
When a society/civilization becomes slack, hedonistic, un-disciplined, so too can it lose its grasp on freedom as well, and descend into Tyranny.
I’m not Average Joe or any other pitiful group qualifier. I am me, in a dusty desk job or in the fields of battle, in the calm annals of simple life or in the books of the exalted.
What kind of meek weakling is Average Joe?
Get a job, whipe your own ass.
I’m just saying that because general notion of freedom is of limited value – if any value at all – he’s likely not working with that concept but with a narrow one. The question is merely which one.
A very convenient way of avoiding to define your terms. I am not surprised at all.
One person is enough in order to tell how free that person is. You don’t need other people. Freedom simply means how many things one can do. There’s no need for comparison. Even if you were the only person in the universe, you’d still have certain amount of freedom; there still would be a number of things that you can do.
But I take it that you’re excessively concerned with social status, so you try to turn everything into a dick measuring contest.
So much for Urwrong’s definition.
No, no, I insist, Urwrong was talking about freedom, period. It was abundantly clear. And of some importance.
The limitation you are referring to is only in terms of morality, considering what you wrote on this previously, not in terms of definition.
Free creatures (like all genuine AI) have special programming nonfree creatures don’t have that enables us to (as far as we are aware) govern which competing programs get to manifest in our choices. If the AI folk ever figure(d) it out, they’ll be able to explain it very scientifically how we (ALL persons) are sometimes able to take the reigns of our processes/programs. If we want to ignore that higher programming, that’s what Sartre calls a choice made in bad faith. That’s why he said we are condemned to be free. We’re so free, we can’t even choose not to be free (to ignore that programming is to actually use it). We have to have the power (programming) to say yes/no to our programming.
Affirmation and negation. Both.