No Freedom.

no, freedom is a defined idea that has been postulated for hundreds of years.

no, not until you can empirically prove it.

i don’t disagree, but freedom is a defined political philosophy which is very real, and to assume otherwise is madness, with that said humanity has never experienced freedom, but a few very important thinkers have elucidated us on what freedom can and will be.

So is god and the devil. And I supposed since these ideas have been around for hundreds of years in that they are traditional we should just assume that they are absolutely correct in accepting them. :unamused:

Is this the level of thinking you have acquired?

Prove to me empirically that freedom exists.

Well a griffin is a defined mental idea which is very real to me in my mind and to artists that create them in sculpture.

Why is your defined political philosophy any more real than my griffin in my mind?

And if you allude that my idea of griffins is a fantasy in my mind in that griffins do not really exist apart from thinking them up what makes the idea of freedom any less fantastical in contrast to that of a griffins?

What makes the idea of freedom any less fictional than that of griffins?

So you say freedom is real but admit that humanity has never been able to expirience it.

How can we assume somthing is real without expiriencing it first? Is it delusion or is it that word you like so much throwing around which you alluded to be madness?

So we should just trust the wild and fickle imaginations of a couple of historical wind bags for trust’s sake. :unamused:

Is that what you would have us all here believe?

The white race has been the most problamatic ethnic group in the history of the universe! (known universe)

With our so called “good inventions” we basically fucked up the natural equilibrium with nature that almost every other race enjoyed.

I’m more fascinated with people who don’t have to move every few years due to over pollution and a destroyed environment.

i prefer them over your postmodernist imagination.

Freedom is not something noumenally real. It does not exist as something independent of man. It is, in fact, the supposed capacity of man to do something that no other animal nor any other thing in the universe can.

That is to say, the capacity of man to not be an effect and at the same time be a causal agent, and as a result be wholly culpable. Yes, it is that absurd. And no, you don’t feel freedom. You don’t feel this capacity I just mentioned. You feel the capacity to satiate whatever need has befallen you, if the circumstances are right, but you don’t feel the capacity to need whatever you want, or the capacity to be whomever you want to be, or to have the type of brain you want.

You can’t prove that man has this capacity without first showing that man, the causer, is itself without a cause; that the causer is not an effect. In a nutshell, you can’t cause yourself, and in lacking this, one has to admit that they are not free, i.e. one is not capable of wanting, or feeling, or needing, or choosing, or loving, or hating anything other than what is possible and actual in the brain. You are in effect as capable, and as culpable as the ‘L’ key on your keyboard.

Damn devils.

I’m sure you do because it’s so much easier and convenient for you to believe in such a world under a haze of comfortable security blankets to keep you warm in the middle of night as you sleep.

You care not of their fictional or unrealistic qualities so long as they benefit you.

You care not to scrutinize their existence on that perhaps they stem from absurd insane emotional roots within the human mind because at the end of the day it brings you security so that you can continue your habitual daily routine.

We’ve conquered the world and our geographical maps are full.

Interesting. I like it. I wish more people here would respond to your posts.

Would I be correct in understanding that you are saying all of life revolves around the capacity of having and not having power in life through momentum?

I hate the phrase “straw man”, but that’s what this is. Of course we have our physical limitations, we can’t jump off a 1000’ cliff and expect to be unharmed. And short of anarchy/chaos, there will always be moral limitations. We can’t march off and randomly kill someone without violating moral and legal limitations.

If you’re saying that leaves little room for freedom or liberty, I think that’s being short-sighted. In fact we can’t be truly free if we don’t honor the rights and freedoms of others–which is the definition of morality.

Mr Doom wrote:
I believe freedom is a myth or story and has no basis in reality. I build this affirmation on the lines that nothing is free from the bounds and dependencies of this world therefore nothing is free.

Okay, I was just going to say “how can you possiby say this, Mr. doom”? With that remark, you throw everyone into the same pot, as it were. Look around you. There are many who are not “bound” up and dependent – yes, many are, but many are not. There is personal freedom. We have a choice to do this and do that – or do you feel that we are pulled by something within or without us that is pulling the strings.

There were people in the concentration camps who felt totally “free”. They may have been bound up by the naziis and by iron fences, but within them THEY FELT FREE, they were free. There is such a quality as real freedom, personal or otherwise. Haven’t you at moments in your existence, certain moments when you felt “free” the kind of freedom which one can’t actually put into words – freedom is experienced.

How can anything which is contingent be free?

How can anything which is in need, is dependent, be considered independent?

Freedom, like many human concepts is a reference to an absent absolute.
It is used as a comparison: Free is relation to this or that or him or her. Free in degree. … 8&start=25

That’s what I was trying to tell this guy, but instead people rather believe the opposite.

Yes my dear friend, but from his perspective there is freedom and we all know that it’s all a matter of perspective.

From his perspective there is freedom and so there is freedom, and from yours there is no freedom and so there is none.

Both are mere perspectives and so we must choose according to which one makes us feel nice.

I vote for the freedom existing one.
It doesn’t make sense to me and it doesn’t correspond to any reality I live in, but it makes me feel nice and so I must go with my gut feeling…like the prez does.

See, I am free because I have a choice.
I can choose between chicken or steak, at the restaurant. This is evidence of my freedom.
I also vote.

Sure we can. :wink: :smiley:

Man is essentially free. The refusal of his/her freedom is their choice. The choice may not be a thing of great personal gain. Yet it is all yours.

One can easily argue for the semantic arguing of the physical limitations of freedom (i.e. Nature and Physics) but as far as man goes he can create, destroy, rebuild all with his mind.

Someone once said something along the lines of “My intelligence is great, but my greatest gift is my mind”.

Btw, I am currently taking a class on Existentialism so ya…you can see where I am coming from.

watch out. sartre has a nasty bite!

I just thought he was looking at me funny. Shame on me I didn’t even notice his Frenchie Fangs.

If you compare yourself to a man with 100% paralysis , you are relatively more free , But looking at freedom in the larger picture , our freedom is extremely limited…


Good video though. I couldn’t watch the next one about a fatal jump.