- Joined
- Jul 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,136
- Nebulae
- 1,681
(...) against popular belief, Freedom should not be comprehended as one's capacity to act and behave unconditionally. Freedom should not be portrayed as a quantitative idea. One cannot have more; or less free will. It cannot serve as a unit of measurement for it has no extension. Such would imply some material characteristic of freedom - which, cannot exist due to its incompatibility with the concept itself.
One argument that sustains this theory refers to a man whose hands and legs were chained, rendering this person incapable of enjoying their daily tasks and pleasures. Hypothetically, this man had agreed to remain chained for an indefinite period of time and did not plan on having their hands and legs freed in the near future. This situation begs the question, was the man really being kept captive? A plausible counterargument is the absurdity of this scenario and how dystopic it is in comparison to what the common person would want for themself - but so is the nature of our behaviour and intellect.
This can only result in one brief conclusion: material reality and freedom are not related to each other. Irrelevant to one another. This is possible to verify if we carefully analyze the world around us. If we seek true freedom - in its purest form - in the material world, we soon realize such a concept does not exist. From the highest echelons of human society to the simplest form of life - everything is inevitably subject to laws (be they social* or natural laws), in one way or another.
But if free will cannot exist in practice, then how can it? Only in theory. More precisely, only in the spirit. In similarity to Seneca's thought - «Everything hangs on
one's thinking: a man is as unhappy as he has convinced himself he is». The same principle applies to free will.
As a result, the nature of freedom is purely qualitative - one either has it or does not. And to have free will is to be at peace with both past, present and future. It is too, to only follow one's beliefs. To not seek morality but to act straight from the heart. Only then a man can be truly free.
(...)
(...)
This is too where modern democracies and republics fail. A false premise of freedom never reached. But this should and cannot be an apology to autocracy. Because in an autocratic society, the concept of freedom is obsolete. Any and all its descriptions under such form of a state contradict the requirements for free will.
In similarity to socialism, freedom is utopic. A guiding principle but never growing beyond that.
«Freedom is not just about walls and bars, but also about mindset. The best way to keep a prisoner captive is to ensure they never realize they're in prison.»
Fiodor Dostoiesvki
*Every law that is not a product of nature is a product of human society.
One argument that sustains this theory refers to a man whose hands and legs were chained, rendering this person incapable of enjoying their daily tasks and pleasures. Hypothetically, this man had agreed to remain chained for an indefinite period of time and did not plan on having their hands and legs freed in the near future. This situation begs the question, was the man really being kept captive? A plausible counterargument is the absurdity of this scenario and how dystopic it is in comparison to what the common person would want for themself - but so is the nature of our behaviour and intellect.
This can only result in one brief conclusion: material reality and freedom are not related to each other. Irrelevant to one another. This is possible to verify if we carefully analyze the world around us. If we seek true freedom - in its purest form - in the material world, we soon realize such a concept does not exist. From the highest echelons of human society to the simplest form of life - everything is inevitably subject to laws (be they social* or natural laws), in one way or another.
But if free will cannot exist in practice, then how can it? Only in theory. More precisely, only in the spirit. In similarity to Seneca's thought - «Everything hangs on
one's thinking: a man is as unhappy as he has convinced himself he is». The same principle applies to free will.
As a result, the nature of freedom is purely qualitative - one either has it or does not. And to have free will is to be at peace with both past, present and future. It is too, to only follow one's beliefs. To not seek morality but to act straight from the heart. Only then a man can be truly free.
(...)
(...)
This is too where modern democracies and republics fail. A false premise of freedom never reached. But this should and cannot be an apology to autocracy. Because in an autocratic society, the concept of freedom is obsolete. Any and all its descriptions under such form of a state contradict the requirements for free will.
In similarity to socialism, freedom is utopic. A guiding principle but never growing beyond that.
«Freedom is not just about walls and bars, but also about mindset. The best way to keep a prisoner captive is to ensure they never realize they're in prison.»
Fiodor Dostoiesvki
*Every law that is not a product of nature is a product of human society.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Last edited:
Reactions:
List
