A thought on absolute freedom...

[Ben No.3]

So here is how I see the issue of Freedom:

 

Absolute freedom is not archievable not only for every human being but really for any living thing that is capable of thinking.

 

You see, the main issue with absolute freedom is how easily it is destroyed. If you introduce even the slightest limitation, that freedom is not an absolute one.

 

Now, if we follow that line of thought, then we need to avoid any form of limitation in order to preserve our freedom. But here is the problem: any thought that I have, any idea that I come up with, really anything that crosses my mind, influences me. And in doing so, it limits me, because an influence means that I will think in a certain direction, I no longer have the freedom to think absolutely free. And really, the same principle can be applied to even the simplest form of thinking, including instincts.

 

THE CAPABILITY TO THINK DISABLES MY ABILITY TO BE ABSOLUTELY FREE.

 

Thus, ironically, death is not the violation of my absolute freedom... Life is.

 

 

Just something I came up with that I thought thought was worth sharing.

 

 

 

Please note that by no means I think absolute freedom is something that is good. If I love someone, that is a huge limitation to my freedom.

 

I'd rather live.

I'd rather love.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Ben No.3

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Sober up OP.

[Ben No.3]

Hey, someone might actually find this interesting

[algroth]

I'm up for some bar philosophy. :D

 

So... Your argument calls to mind somewhat that Bergsonian idea that the body acts as a preferential point with which we can act out on the material world, and as it defines and allows our ability to interact with it, so are we also limited by its boundaries and limitations. Even if the mind desires it, we cannot fly on our own, and our perception cannot leave the confines of our body and where it is currently positioned. If we take absolute freedom to its broadest sense, I guess you can pretty much say that existing and interacting in a material world is in itself already making such a thing impossible, and maybe the potential limitlessness of imagination only serves to further highlight that impossibility.

 

Another reading to this could be that absolute freedom comes in the ability to attempt anything that is desired by the mind, and by that notion, say, if you wish to touch the Sun by jumping to it, you may as well be free to try it by jumping, but be unable to reach the desired goal. There's freedom in choice and action despite the possibility of failure. In that sense I also reckon everyone's absolutely free regardless of any laws or social barriers that would punish us were we to go against them. You may be free to shoot a man, but you'll have to pay the consequences if you do. But as to how the consequences, physical limitations and potential of failure inhibit our desires to do such things, that is another matter that could also inhibit the mind and thus limit its freedom.

 

As to whether ideas and decisions limit our freedom... If we go that way then I also guess it's hard to assume there's any freedom in any mind that in order to stay free much never think, never make a decision, never acquire an idea or learn a specific code. But I at least do not assume a decision and a manner of thinking necessarily goes against freedom. Codes such as language as well as ideologies can nevertheless limit it, as they are setting in an individual a strict and largely arbitrary way of interpreting the world that surrounds them, and likewise limits out everything that has no place in them. You can't think of something that exists outside a language you know, for example, or that has no words for it. Best you can do is reccur to something akin to Ricoeur's metaphorical process, and try to join elements of two or more semantic fields to generate a composite/hybrid that may give way to something 'new'. But still it would be a mixture of, say, a lion, a grasshopper and a cloud. In this sense you can say the mind is always shackled to what it knows and can recognize/process.

 

In terms of absolute freedom before the law... That would itself be paradoxical to say the least. If we were to assume that the One and Only Law were that every human being had the right to freedom, then it would likely give them the right to, for example, enslavement. If a man is absolutely free and by doing so removes the freedom of another, then his freedom is also likely bound to be limited by another eventually. In the end the matter of freedom before the law is more about how to ensure the most freedom for every individual, and the essential liberalist idea we embrace nowadays (an individual's freedom ends where another's begins and so on) is probably the best we can hope for at this time. Its application is a much muddier affair though, as is the matter that in a society where so many inequalities thrive, an equality of rights through all classes and sectors ultimately favours those in a higher hierarchy: as Anatole France once wrote, "in its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

 

Anyhow, I'm straying off subject with that, I believe. Just some ranting on my side, is all. :D

 

And to end this, some music pls:

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by algroth

[Chippy]

Just an observation - for the most part I would be happy if government got a balance between law and justice. I've met several murderers who were doing life sentences for killing people who assaulted/raped family members, and each time someone was informed (it was mandatory) they'd get this level of shock, but to put them at ease I'd describe the murder - e.g. that guy killed the child molester that violently raped his son. Then the person would (most of the time) be more at ease with this murderer than they were with the person hogging the stapler.  So there seemed to me that they each felt a sense of justice had been done.

 

But if the law wasn't observed, and they hadn't been sent to jail, I think we'd end up in a system where justice becomes influenced by other factors, and can be used to subvert freedom. Which is where I think alot of critiques of Sharia Law stem from - which is a topic I'd prefer not to talk about.

[BruceVC]

Just an observation - for the most part I would be happy if government got a balance between law and justice. I've met several murderers who were doing life sentences for killing people who assaulted/raped family members, and each time someone was informed (it was mandatory) they'd get this level of shock, but to put them at ease I'd describe the murder - e.g. that guy killed the child molester that violently raped his son. Then the person would (most of the time) be more at ease with this murderer than they were with the person hogging the stapler.  So there seemed to me that they each felt a sense of justice had been done.

 

But if the law wasn't observed, and they hadn't been sent to jail, I think we'd end up in a system where justice becomes influenced by other factors, and can be used to subvert freedom. Which is where I think alot of critiques of Sharia Law stem from - which is a topic I'd prefer not to talk about.

Now we have to talk about it ....the moment anyone says  " I would rather not talk about it " I immediately think we should 

 

But Sharia Law...there isn't much to say about it ?

 

Its the law that gets implemented in most Muslim countries . Its archaic, anachronistic, brutal and uncompromising but it will get modernized and eventually become more palatable and reasonable. The Muslim world is going through numerous changes, like dealing with Islamic extremism, but eventually I believe it come out of this transition stronger

 

I believe firmly in the importance and sustainability of how Western countries are governed. Things that matter to me  are human rights, free media , governments that are accountable, free market driving the economy .etc

 

One of the biggest criticisms I now have of all the refugees is the realisation that its complicated to integrate people who have lived for decades under Sharia to now integrate into Western countries 

Edited November 6, 2016 by BruceVC

[Chippy]

The thing is we have a Muslim mayor in London who is interpreting hatespeach laws to get people arrested for spreading whatever is considered hatespeech these days - so I suspect you of trying to get me arrested so that I'm not here to take the **** if Trump wins.

 

We apparently have Sharia courts in the UK that are suppressing the rights of women and keeping them ignorant of their (supposedly real) rights set forth by the UK courts. TBH I find it as baffling from the point of view of law, as much as I do from the lack of action on the point of view of justice - that is supposedly held by third wave feminists who are completely silent on it and other crimes being commited.

[BruceVC]

The thing is we have a Muslim mayor in London who is interpreting hatespeach laws to get people arrested for spreading whatever is considered hatespeech these days - so I suspect you of trying to get me arrested so that I'm not here to take the **** if Trump wins.

 

We apparently have Sharia courts in the UK that are suppressing the rights of women and keeping them ignorant of their (supposedly real) rights set forth by the UK courts. TBH I find it as baffling from the point of view of law, as much as I do from the lack of action on the point of view of justice - that is supposedly held by third wave feminists who are completely silent on it and other crimes being commited.

Chippy I'm not saying you wrong but I have family and numerous work and historical ties to the UK as I mentioned in the past and  I havent heard this before?

 

What do you mean by the London mayor and hate speech? Can you elaborate ?

 

Its not possible to have Sharia law in the Uk as there are numerous laws in Sharia that are in complete contradiction to any Western constitution?

 

And also Im confused by how third wave feminists are involved

[HoonDing]

The purpose of the weak is to serve the will of the strong.

[Meshugger]

We cannot have absolute freedom because people would then pursue interests according to their gender roles.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

The purpose of the weak is to serve the will of the strong.

 

We cannot have absolute freedom because people would then pursue interests according to their gender roles.

 No? We can have freedom within the confines of the laws of a country but addressing historical discrimination is not about the erosion of freedom, these are 2 different issues 

 

So in other words gender equality has nothing to do with the freedom citizens of country have ...unless you can give me an example?

[Meshugger]

Total freedom is an inheritly patrarchical system as every man will be on its own and women will be the losers of such chaos.

[BruceVC]

Total freedom is an inheritly patrarchical system as every man will be on its own and women will be the losers of such chaos.

I thought the words  " total freedom " didnt seem practical 

[Meshugger]

Successful trolling is successful.

[Chippy]

Chippy I'm not saying you wrong but I have family and numerous work and historical ties to the UK as I mentioned in the past and  I havent heard this before?

 

 

What do you mean by the London mayor and hate speech? Can you elaborate ?

 

Its not possible to have Sharia law in the Uk as there are numerous laws in Sharia that are in complete contradiction to any Western constitution?

 

And also Im confused by how third wave feminists are involved

 

These are just observations and don't represent any personal views.  I've known of some examples of people divorcing as in the first source cited - where it all seems fair - but have also heard that some communities are closed off to British laws.

 

"...the Bow Group has published an authoritative report that casts new light on the suffering of Muslim women in the UK and addresses the emergence of a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system, which not only promotes systematic gender discrimination, but also undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all."

 

"In a brief email exchange, the feminist led-political movement admitted their they did not take a position on Sharia inspired laws or the many Sharia courts which continue to grow in number in Britain. The email came after activist, and PEGIDA UK campaigner, Anne Marie Waters questioned the group after receiving a promotional email from them."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/divorce/9434099/English-law-is-fair-to-women-not-unfair-to-Muslims.html

http://www.bowgroup.org/policy/bow-group-report-parallel-world-confronting-abuse-muslim-women-britain

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/05/womens-equality-party-admits-it-has-no-position-on-sharia/

 

Edit:

https://www.rt.com/uk/355969-london-police-online-crime/

Edited November 7, 2016 by Chippy

[BruceVC]

 

Chippy I'm not saying you wrong but I have family and numerous work and historical ties to the UK as I mentioned in the past and  I havent heard this before?

 

 

What do you mean by the London mayor and hate speech? Can you elaborate ?

 

Its not possible to have Sharia law in the Uk as there are numerous laws in Sharia that are in complete contradiction to any Western constitution?

 

And also Im confused by how third wave feminists are involved

 

These are just observations and don't represent any personal views.  I've known of some examples of people divorcing as in the first source cited - where it all seems fair - but have also heard that some communities are closed off to British laws.

 

"...the Bow Group has published an authoritative report that casts new light on the suffering of Muslim women in the UK and addresses the emergence of a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system, which not only promotes systematic gender discrimination, but also undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all."

 

"In a brief email exchange, the feminist led-political movement admitted their they did not take a position on Sharia inspired laws or the many Sharia courts which continue to grow in number in Britain. The email came after activist, and PEGIDA UK campaigner, Anne Marie Waters questioned the group after receiving a promotional email from them."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/divorce/9434099/English-law-is-fair-to-women-not-unfair-to-Muslims.html

http://www.bowgroup.org/policy/bow-group-report-parallel-world-confronting-abuse-muslim-women-britain

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/05/womens-equality-party-admits-it-has-no-position-on-sharia/

 

Edit:

https://www.rt.com/uk/355969-london-police-online-crime/

 

Its simple to me, if you want to live in  a Western country you need to have shared values and that means Sharia law is not ever going to be accepted 

[Chippy]

If Volourn sees your post I think he should knock you a point off the SJW Nazi spectrum. Probably about a 90/100 atm.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Chippy

[Ben No.3]

The purpose of the weak is to serve the will of the strong.

Have you looked into German philosophy of 1933-1945? I think you might like it

[Namutree]

 

The purpose of the weak is to serve the will of the strong.

Have you looked into German philosophy of 1933-1945? I think you might like it

 

 

Weren't the nazis giving out welfare to the poor and conserving animals? They don't seem to believe it. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Namutree

[Ben No.3]

Do you have any idea of Nazi Germany? As in, at all?

[Meshugger]

Do you have any idea of Nazi Germany? As in, at all?

 

They had great cancer research and made great discoveries in the field of rocketry. But i heard that they had underwhelming results with the social sciences as their very leader bullied into suicide by foreigners.

 

What kind of lies are they teaching you in Germany?

[BruceVC]

 

Do you have any idea of Nazi Germany? As in, at all?

 

They had great cancer research and made great discoveries in the field of rocketry. But i heard that they had underwhelming results with the social sciences as their very leader bullied into suicide by foreigners.

 

What kind of lies are they teaching you in Germany?

 

Bennie, just ignore the sarcasm

 

Share with us what you want to say about Germany in the 1930's 

[Gorgon]

Without the social discord brought on my economic crisis the Veimar republic could have been a success ?

[Malcador]

One thing is for sure, it's something that the management of is best kept out of the hands of people here.

[Ben No.3]

Without the social discord brought on my economic crisis the Veimar republic could have been a success ?

Yes, in the short run. In the long run it is impossible I tell... While you are definitely correct in your statement that the Great Depression and the resulting crises made Hitlers rapid rise possible, you also need to take into consideration that the Weimar constitution had an article in it that allowed the chancellor to take complete control. Now, this article was born out of fear of the chaos that surrounded 1919. However, later it was easy for Hitler to abuse that article, and it would have been just as easy for everyone else.

 

Also, Japan and Italy would have been unchanged. It is on the other hand questionable if the LoN would maybe have reacted harsher towards Japan invading Manchuria with Germany as a clear ally, but it definitely would have reacted harsher to Mussolini, since there would not have been a need for an ally against Germany.

 

So yeah, you're probably right