Well, are we? ;)

Depends on your meaning of "free"

:lol: Isn't there only one?

Maybe to you.

Alright then, will you tell me what your meaning of freedom is?

You asked the question, you should pose your definition. I don't even claim that anyone is free.

You mean without physical or mental constraints? No. You limited to what you have & what you were born with. Your reach in the physical world is limited. You cannot visit the sun for example.

I see that the other freedom topic was discovered. Unless someone articulates a sound reason to have this as a separate topic, I will delete it.

I don't see a need for a separate thread on this topic, but i might suggest keeping it live on the question of "wat does it mean to be free?"

Fair enough.

You're right. I should've stated it in the beginnning. Well, for starters, I'll say that I think that every human is born free. I also think that it is our nature to be free. To be free, to me, is to have the right to own myself, my property and to make volitional choices. Also, I would not be upholding these beliefs if I were to violate anyone's else's right to freedom.

I am not so sure we are all born free, though it is a nice peaceful tought. I think I am with Delta on this one - I don't think anyone can claim to be "free". Law, as good as it can be, prevents freedom in some ways. So does religion and politics. ((I know I did the taboo of putting religion and politics in the same sentence))

I think the closest thing as to being free in this world are wild animals, wild bugs, wild plants, and wild tribal people which thankfully live on in our deepest forests and deserts. Now I would love for someone to try and define a reason why the above are not free.

:ph43r: - Clandestine

I think that freedom is more of a state of mind than a state of being.

As long as you feel free, who is to tell you that you are not. Sure, law politics and religion hold you back some, I would have to agree. Myself being a Catholic, with the religion looming over me (I go to a Catholic school), I find that I rarely, if ever feel free. But surely if someone, the most devout religious person, claims to feel free, you cannot rebuke that.

People can only be free in their own minds, truly free. As long as you feel free, what does it matter what other people think?

And Clandestine, while agree that wild animals, wild bugs, and wild plants are free, aren't wild tribal people held to just as many rules and expectations in their own society as we are in ours?

Aren't they ruled by their animal nature? Or instints? As for plants, I'm not sure that they really have a will of their own, outside of their nature, which they seem to be bound by.

You feel free until you discover something you can't do. You don't have the freedom to kill someone else. You don't have the freedom to take anybody else's property. So basically you are free as long as you don't try to violate somebody else’s freedoms.

I do have the freedom to kill someone. Thousands of people do it daily.

Quite true that they do have limitations and their own set of laws - but they are free to go as they please to and fro - are they not? Free to hunt and forage as they please, without their tribal leaders jailing them for not having permission to hunt. A hunter in a tribal community is always deemed as a mild hero, since he is now about to feed and nourish his friends and family. When a tribal person's home is torn down, he can build another without having to pay anyform of tax or without performing any legalities with his elders - his home NEEDS rebuilding after all. In a sense they do have limitations, but certain ones make for better societies, amongst humans anyways - don't they? I guess that should be another question altogether.

I feel that you may be right as freedom being a state of mind in one aspect, but if a slave feels he is free because he master is nicer to him, and treats him more humanely than his neighbour - would he still be free? Which leads me to Delta's last post. In the same line-of-thought, the slave is free to disobey, or harm his master - but what happens next may be essential in the description and status of his freedom. As for the plants Delta - have you ever heard of the reasons for inventing the polygraph? it's quite inetersting what happened in the process.

As for being as free as long as one doesn't tread on another's freedom, it's an interesting thought... This could lead to disputes very easily, whether on a morale or political scenario. For example, if I am free to have one acre, why shouldn't be free to have 10. Now if my neighbour has been surrounded by those who each own 10, yet he owns 1 yet wishes ten, whom is in breach of whom's freedom?

I personally think freedom IS a state of mind, yet am inclined to think that that it is as well a physical affliction. I think ultimately freedom should state that no other one person (if not many) own you. Technically, our governments and corporations, no matter how free we think we are, own us - as oddly enough we own them?

:ph43r: - Clandestine.

Freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on another's freedom sounds all well and good, but when you start thinking about it it really doesn't work. Minimum wage laws? Shouldn't a business owner have the freedom to pay his workers what he or she wants? Or do the workers have some sort of elusive right to "minimum wage?" If they do (and I believe they do), then that model crumbles. That's only one of a score of examples, but you get the idea.

I, of course, oversimplified Mill's ideas. Read "On Liberty" if you want a fuller veiwpoint. I'm pretty sure the 4th chapter is where this comes in.

Can we be free of desire? If not, can we ever say that we are completely free?

Or how about being free from consequence? Would that signify freedom? Would it be an actual gift, or curse?

Well, quite frankly, laws and religion are not hampers of freedom. They do not restrict us. We choose to follow the law or to abide by our religion. It is no one's choice but our own. While we may say they are obstacles of freedom, they are not. They are choices. The slave is still free. He could choose to not do his master's bidding. We are wholly free to do whatever it is we are physically able to do. However, the consequences of disobedience are most likely not worth it. It is the consequences that cause us to act certain ways, not the lack of freedom.

However, freedom of mind is something completely different. I'd comment on that, but I should be getting onto my homework now. I'll add to it later.

Edit: Oh yah, this is #4.

Must we be taught to be free?

Freedom is kinda like money in a way. You have to learn how to deal with having a windfall of either.

So yes, people have to first recognize newly found freedoms, to learn what it means in practice and to learn any limitations that surround those freedoms. Some might say that complete freedom only exists in total chaos. Then victims of those that abuse such freedoms violate the various rights of others (to whatever ones they feel due).

Social order through laws doesn't bring freedoms per say; but stimulates civil liberties and peaceful prosperity. The world has seen that business and individual wealth increases during those periods between international disputes/wars, civil wars and revolutionary rebellions. With the increased income, that brings about freedoms to travel or enjoy new materialistic wants, plus the ability to pursue familial or lustful-pleasures.

No, there isn't total freedom enjoyed by anyone or anything. Yet the attitude that we can do or acheive anything will give us the feeling of greater freedoms. No, maybe we can't fly without airplanes or wings, but that doesn't mean we haven't done so in our dreams.

We do get to enjoy the freedom of dreaming how things could be. Sometimes, courses of actions are a result.

If we use that definition, then yes, it is taught.

A related question: Are we free from the endless chains of cause and effect?

No, but we can alter the chain of cause and effect to a certain extent. Not totally, but what we choose as cause, which would be our freedom of choice, we (indirectly) choose the affect.

And how is it that I am choosing the cause? Or what is it in me that is choosing the cause? Whatever that agent is, is it not merely responding to some previous cause (or set of causes)?

What do you mean "how is that choosing cause?" You choose the cause. I choose to go to work or not to go to work. The chain of cause and effects can be broken by making a choice that its outside the line of plausablity.

What in you is "choosing?"

Freedom is all about perception. No two people have the same concept of freedom, human nature, etc, etc...

I believe that to be free is not simply to be free from restraint (the government, law, etc, etc... but to achieve something by something.

ex. if you accomplish your goals, you are free. you have succeeded in what you have tried to accomplish. you have reached your goals.

also, freedom can mean that you (x) are free from y (obstacle) to perform z(goal). but what is the obstacle? that is what YOU determine. there are different obstances for everyone.. government, law, classism, etc, etc...

but that is all in what you are looking for in society.

What do you mean?
I understand that you are saying that no two people have the same idea of freedom (debatable, but I'm not going to get into that), but what does this statement serve to say? Are you implying that because there are differing conceptions of the term that it means anything? I'm confused.

You seem to be under the impression that the government and the law are hinderances upon freedom. I disagree strongly. I wrote about this in another topic a short while ago, so if you want a better explanation, go there. The constitution is that which makes us concretely free. Without it, we are only abstractly free (meaning if there was nothing that set our freedoms into stone, we would have nothing to appeal to were our freedoms ever taken).


One thing that needs to be stated (unless it's already been said, in which case, just add a "re-" in front of the correct term) is the difference between the idea of "freedom for" and "freedom from." It seems in this society we have an ample amount of the latter, but when it comes to the former, we are lost. "Freedom from" means that you are constantly running away from something, that you are constantly in hiding. Don't like something? Ignore it. Don't do it. We are free from education, politics, history, religion... we are even free from reality. We set up intellectual constipators (e.g. "that's your reality!") so that we can live in out own little world full of our own opinions free from judgment. "Freedom for," however, has to do with cultivating one's soul. If a man wants to be a guitarist, he must practice ceaselessly until he perfects his craft, but even then, he is not done. He must continually reevaluate himself and continue to reinvent guitar-playing. Once again, I bring us back to the "freedom from's." "Who is to say what a great guitar player is?" Exactly. With that mentality, Joe Schmoe who picked up a guitar yesterday is just as talented as Santana or Jimi Hendrix.
With that being said, I would say that true freedom is the ability to exit the land of necessity and enter into a world where you can truly cultivate your soul (because think about it-- if you're always working and trying to pay the bills, you seldom ever have time to become great at something).