I say this because a lot of problems in our world come from allowing others TOO MUCH freedom or TOO MANY rights to begin with.
The more I research ancient cultures, the more firm my belief is that certain people / culture’s are inferior when you assess them using logic and reason and you have to do whatever is necessary to stop the inferiority from infecting others. For instance all the big religions today have outlived their usefulness and yet they are a pervasive cultural force, since instinct, indoctirnation is stronger then reason in a large percent of the populations at large.
Oswald Spengler in Decline of the west thought freedom was a negative concept since it tends to destroy civilization by valuing the return to primitive instincts. Thoughts?
I think that what people call genuine freedom is unrestrained in contrast to the state’s version of freedom which is modified with thousands of regulations and restrictions.
What has happened in the past thousands of years is that the weak knew they couldn’t physically match their physical betters so they infiltrated laws instead transforming them into parasitical means of living making society itself become parasitic.
All parasitical laws today in existence is the opposite of trusting one’s own strength instead becoming a beacon of creating a million passive slaves where sacrificing oneself to another has become the prime virtue.
One who is strong in their will wouldn’t even consider for a moment of sacrificing their lives to another let alone a complete stranger in contrast to what happens everyday presently.
He is right in my opinion. Personally I don’t see the destruction of civilization as a bad thing.
Of course if we had a civilization that was dominant in a warrior hierarchy that could balance out some form of a steady equilibrium but such thing like that happening today is doubtful.
Freedom of ignorance is a bad thing, but what is true freedom without the whole package?
Freedom to have 7 kids by age 26, freedom to be an asshole, freedom to be uneducated…all bad things, but ultimately part of modern freedom.
I do think each of these things has their own weight to them, like a mother who obviously can’t raise their 3 babies because she’s only 19. When you bring another person into the world, you need to be responsible for that person (a child is not free to abuse because it a seperate entity). There should be laws for this.
People who have done drugs can see them as a good thing or a bad thing, so why say they are bad for everyone? It’s a matter of opinion. Concequences come about naturally, so it all works out in the end.
Moral superstitions pretending to be exalted proof comes marching in.
I love it how overtly privileged human beings go around demanding the world even freedom itself to conform around their proclamations of how life should be. Delightful irony.
This ‘universal freedom’ - free to be a slave, tortured and killed against ones will without being morally deserving lol, yes thats that good freedom right there we all want to be slaves to nature as much we can.
Constantly out of our control, universal freedom is slavery based on irrationality, cause and effect and nature having more control over our actions than it would if we were rational and many a process went through our minds in order to decide whats the best thing to do.
We exist as a conscious, freedom is maximizing our consciences ability to think and experience ( pleasure ) it is having the maximum control we can over our actions, our conscience thought process is all we got for dat.
Call it conscious freedom if you want.
To maximise freedom among a population on a whole and individual level certain rules regulations need to be put into place and goals need to be worked towards. Not allowing to take away others freedom to a certain extent and having to a set minimum of work in the name progressing and increase ones and everyone else’s freedom
Mandatory work is necessary in the name of sustaining and increasing freedom to maximise it for the population as whole and on an individual level.
There is a balance to it, find it and keep refining it and you’re on your way.
Many dun got a fugged understanding of logical concepts, very apparent in de wording, lack of sense iss rife!
All youze caught up in dat dere sensationalist evil! ignorance is bliss so slavery can be pleasure full but you can be damn sure pleasure caused by ignorance in a collective society ends up being someone else’s pain.
My wording may be a little fucked but the chance this is falling on ignorant ears is very likely, the choice was indeed rational efficient and sufficient.
Before the dawn of civilization there existed a rudimentary equilibrium where men fought each other for their freedom revolving around natural selection on the account of success or failure down to life and death.
Reason has only complicated that original equilibrium with it’s moral guises or it’s delusions of granduer called equality.
Freedom today in moral disguises means that one must sacrifice their lives or sell their bodies into enslavement to achieve temporary liberation on a day off from economical occupation. That isn’t freedom!
It would be quite suiting for you to use Smearses title"resident contrarian" contradiction upon contradiction yet you then try to for some form of rational truth based point in your statements?
You didn’t disprove any of my statements whatsoever.
lol reason has made things complicated ? things are only comprehended to those with insufficient intellects and rational capability, the stupid find things complicated that the smart don’t, you comprende ?
You are a joker of sorts but i certainly don’t find you funny.
It’s searching for the best form of understanding we, as a conscience it’s sort of the best thing we can do.
An example of unfounded assumption ?, see a problem with you stating that is how can you rationalize what is an unfounded and unverifiable assumption, that takes quite some rationalizing to decide whether thats actually the case.
I see theres a high chance of fanciful disguised illogic, i cant recall the term for it right now but i will look into epistemology and George Berkely, rationality cant be bettered by the way of its definition alternate arguing against rationality with irrationality wont work how ether new takes and forms of critical rational theories looking to be more critical of existing concepts can be used.
That is a farce though, children are economic investments of money/food/time, etc why shouldn’t a parent have some degree of ownership over their child? Just because we draw an arbitrary line between a human and property? I mean look at the insanity of private property and capitalists… I often argue with the free market fundies that if they support private property they support my right to own people outright, since people are made of the land (property).
The logic is sound, we just create arbitrary boundaries if it goes against the power groups instincts, not all people have the same hangups or instincts.
There is pure freedom and from there, society brakes it down to fit a more civilized and collective progressive format. In terms of how an individual develops, pure freedom can probably be defined by the ability to act in every possible manner, as long as they cover both ends of the “emotional, instinctual, natural…etc” balance. (probably juggling with all the emotions; to kill a man and to save one)
A. Freedom should be maximized in this society for all people equally.
B. This freedom will exclude the freedom to contradict A.
Too much freedom can necessarily only be bad, if it contradicts the “good” you define in “A”. Any “A”, if it also includes ways to contradict “A”, would be bad in this general definition.
Thanks for clearing that up in a short statement! I tend to think rigorously logically and am quite aware of the vagueness of language when I enter vague areas and that I KNOW I’m in a vague area, (like say emotions, when I was talking to someone in another thread about the fact that our words is just an arbitrarily defined concept (a created bounded language-object that must define something real))
So I went and googled a bit and found the following on emotion (for possible use in another thread):
I also have the understanding that what we call human beings “will” or “being” are arbitrary constructs, a human being identifies itself by what it believes about itself informationally and sensationally (emotionally), and this gives them a. basic identity.
We are all born with some basic identity that is genetic, and this “Seed identity”, changes and grows over time depending on what happens to it both in the early stages of life and throughout its life.
hmmm… I agree but disagree as well. the strong prey on the weak. this is not a good thing. because the strong don’t necessarily have the ability to think in depth , the strong are based on the ability to survive , physically , much like dinosaurs. all strengh and teeth but no brains sort of thing.