Defining freedom

[Kshartle]

If there are two slaves working side by side and one slave is so convinced that being a slave is his destiny that, even if given the chance not to be a slave, he would choose to continue being a slave, while the other slave desperately wants his freedom from his master so that he can eat at McDonalds, play his XBox and run up credit card debt, is one of the slaves free while the other one is not?

You cannot choose to be a slave so this is a non-starter.

If it's your choice then it's not slavery.

[Mountaineer]

Freedom must mean free from something.

I am free TO love.  I believe that is more than just freedom FROM hate or the absence of hate.

[Kshartle]

The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.

That sounds like slavery to the collective to me.

Why should you sacrifice? Man isn't a sacrificial animal as Rand used to say.

What is the virtue in sacrifice? If sacrificing for others is virtuous, then their reciept of your sacrifice makes them unvirtuous. This can't be correct, it's a contradiction.

[Kshartle]

Freedom must mean free from something.

I am free TO love.  I believe that is more than just freedom FROM hate or the absence of hate.

You are capable of love is a more accurate statement.

Who can prevent you from loving? If no one can prevent you then we are all free to love and the concept of "free to love" has no meaning.

It's the capability to love that exists....not the freedom.

Again, I'm really not trying to split hairs, just explain my understanding of what we're discussing in the most accurate way I can.

[Kshartle]

If being able to buy a cruise means you are free then the people who can't buy a cruise are not free. The only difference between them is the amount of money they have. That would mean freedom vs. not freedom means having a certain amount of money vs. less than that certain amount. I hope it's obvious why that definition cannot be correct.

My premise is that there isn't a correct definition of freedom any more than there's a "correct" definition of happiness. It's a state of mind. If it was so easy to define, there's no reason why this thread should exist or we should be having this discussion. The fact that people disagree so drastically and vehemently about what freedom means tells me that it's a concept we should think of as a personally subjective opinion far more than a term with rationally-definable parameters and a universal and discoverable meaning.

It's obvious that we are using the same word "freedom" to define different concepts. It's not that freedom is different, it's the concepts and the missunderstanding of the meaning of the english word freedom that is causing the confusion. Clearly it's missunderstood because there are so many differenct concepts people are ascribing to it!

The different concepts and this thread are not evidence that freedom can't be defined properly. They are evidence that people are incorrectly labling some or all of these concepts as freedom. I might well be wrong also. This is an important distinction.

Take the cruise.....You are labling the means to purchase the ticket as "freedom". Mountainer is lableing the ability to love as "freedom". MT is labling the embracing of slavery as "freedom". Is it not obvious that some or all of these definitions must be wrong? What do they have in common with one another?

[Mountaineer]

Freedom must mean free from something.

I am free TO love.  I believe that is more than just freedom FROM hate or the absence of hate.

You are capable of love is a more accurate statement.

Who can prevent you from loving? If no one can prevent you then we are all free to love and the concept of "free to love" has no meaning.

It's the capability to love that exists....not the freedom.

Again, I'm really not trying to split hairs, just explain my understanding of what we're discussing in the most accurate way I can.

I hear you.  All I'm saying is that what we both say above is my definition of absolute freedom that no one can take away from me or force me escape FROM.  For me, I am free TO do anything I can think of (mental, emotional, spiritual - not physical); that is my ultimate meaning ... a universe away from no meaning.  If you wish to see it differently, you are certainly free TO do so, I really am not trying TO browbeat you inTO submission - that could be considered a forceful stimulus from which you would have TO choose TO be free TO not respond TO the stimulus. 

... Mountaineer

[MediumTex]

But if the slave who would choose to be a slave if given the choice insists that he is "free" because what he is doing is what he would choose to do, who are we to tell him that he is wrong about the way he is experiencing freedom?

If he thinks he is free, then isn't he free? 

OTOH, if someone thought they weren't free, but they were, in fact, free, would they be free or not?

[Pointedstick]

Take the cruise.....You are labling the means to purchase the ticket as "freedom". Mountainer is lableing the ability to love as "freedom". MT is labling the embracing of slavery as "freedom". Is it not obvious that some or all of these definitions must be wrong? What do they have in common with one another?

No, it is not obvious, at least not to me. What is obvious to me is that for several extremely intelligent and thoughtful people to have arrived at different hypothetical definitions of the same word means that the word probably doesn't have a single, universally true definition. It's probably a matter of personal perspective rather than having a single definition where anyone whose personal definition contradicts that is simply wrong. That seems like an overly inflexible and dogmatic approach to me.

I mean, if I told you that happiness is personal and I'm happy when I'm relaxing at night in front of a fire, could I simply be wrong?

[Mountaineer]

What do they have in common with one another?

F R E E D O M 

... Mountaineer

edit:  I just read the posts after I wrote the above reply.  I think we have come to the point of "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" as Pointedstick very eloquently stated (OK, I paraphrased). 

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

But if the slave who would choose to be a slave if given the choice insists that he is "free" because what he is doing is what he would choose to do, who are we to tell him that he is wrong about the way he is experiencing freedom?

If he thinks he is free, then isn't he free? 

OTOH, if someone thought they weren't free, but they were, in fact, free, would they be free or not?

If he thinks he's free but he's not then he's not.

If he is free but he thinks he's not, he still is.

If I think I can turn invisible I can't.

If I think I can't lift 20 lbs. I still can.

[Mountaineer]

But if the slave who would choose to be a slave if given the choice insists that he is "free" because what he is doing is what he would choose to do, who are we to tell him that he is wrong about the way he is experiencing freedom?

If he thinks he is free, then isn't he free? 

OTOH, if someone thought they weren't free, but they were, in fact, free, would they be free or not?

If he thinks he's free but he's not then he's not.

If he is free but he thinks he's not, he still is.

If I think I can turn invisible I can't.

If I think I can lift 20 lbs. I still can.

Now answer from Stephen Hawking's point of view.  Any insights?

... Mountainer

[Kshartle]

if I told you that happiness is personal and I'm happy when I'm relaxing at night in front of a fire, could I simply be wrong?

No you would not. Happiness is a state of mind based on unique-to-the- person circumstances.

Are you saying that freedom is just a state of mind?

I think the word is just being used to describe many different things. In the end it's a word, and we can assign whatever concept we want to it. However, it can't mean a bunch of different things.

Freedom can't just be whatever anyone says it is. Up can't be down.

[Pointedstick]

Let me give you a personal example. My wife and son and I visited my wife's sister and her husband recently. They do not have or want children, feeling that having a child would reduce their ability to live boldly, to go where they please, to indulge their whims, have friends over whenever they want, etc. And indeed, my wife and I are substantially constrained in those respects. In fact, we had to leave early when my son got cranky.

However, they are terribly burdened under mountains of student loan debt and are constantly feeling under the gun and are probably a few short weeks away from financial ruination. Despite this, they feel free because they at least still retain their spontaneity, and they have many adventures despite their indebtedness. And I feel free because of my superior financial position despite the fact that I have a child tying me down.

It looks to me like each of us have chosen lifestyles compatible with our own personal definitions of freedom and accumulated burdens that we have agreed to live with because they do not infringe as much on our senses of freedom as if we gave up the things we really care about.

But who's "correct"? Are we both "incorrect? Is that really the best way to look at this?

[Pointedstick]

Are you saying that freedom is just a state of mind?

Basically, yeah.

If happiness can be a state of mind, why can't the feeling of freedom? Note that I said the feeling of freedom.

[Mountaineer]

Freedom can't just be whatever anyone says it is. Up can't be down.

[Re. second sentence ... USA or Australian perspective?  Standing on the earth or in the Space Station?]

Sure it can.  Just look at the various definitions.  This is one of the downsides of the English language ... words can mean different things.  That is why context is so important (see the post where I mentioned when I thought of freedom the things that come to mind are to, from, physical, mental, etc.):

Dictionary: freedom
noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint: we do have some freedom of choice | he talks of revoking some of the freedoms.
• absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government: he was a champion of Irish freedom.
• the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved: the shark thrashed its way to freedom.
• the state of being physically unrestricted and able to move easily: the shorts have a side split for freedom of movement.
• (freedom from) the state of not being subject to or affected by (a particular undesirable thing): government policies to achieve freedom from want.
• the power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity.
• unrestricted use of something: the dog is happy having the freedom of the house when we are out.
• archaic familiarity or openness in speech or behavior.

Thesaurus:  freedom
noun
1 a desperate bid for freedom: liberty, liberation, release, deliverance, delivery, discharge; literary disenthrallment; historical manumission. ANTONYMS captivity.
2 revolution was the only path to freedom: independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy; democracy. ANTONYMS dependence.
3 freedom from local political accountability: exemption, immunity, dispensation; impunity. ANTONYMS liability.
4 freedom to choose your course of treatment: right, entitlement, privilege, prerogative; scope, latitude, leeway, flexibility, space, breathing space, room, elbow room; license, leave, free rein, a free hand, carte blanche, a blank check. ANTONYMS restriction.

[Gosso]

The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.

That sounds like slavery to the collective to me.

Why should you sacrifice? Man isn't a sacrificial animal as Rand used to say.

What is the virtue in sacrifice? If sacrificing for others is virtuous, then their reciept of your sacrifice makes them unvirtuous. This can't be correct, it's a contradiction.

I think DFW meant it more in regards to family and friends.

But if someone does something good for you, don't you feel in their debt, or "I owe you one."  I don't think this would work all that well on a political/macro level, but it seems to be generally true on the micro level (although some people are just jerks).

[Libertarian666]

Let me give you a personal example. My wife and son and I visited my wife's sister and her husband recently. They do not have or want children, feeling that having a child would reduce their ability to live boldly, to go where they please, to indulge their whims, have friends over whenever they want, etc. And indeed, my wife and I are substantially constrained in those respects. In fact, we had to leave early when my son got cranky.

However, they are terribly burdened under mountains of student loan debt and are constantly feeling under the gun and are probably a few short weeks away from financial ruination. Despite this, they feel free because they at least still retain their spontaneity, and they have many adventures despite their indebtedness. And I feel free because of my superior financial position despite the fact that I have a child tying me down.

It looks to me like each of us have chosen lifestyles compatible with our own personal definitions of freedom and accumulated burdens that we have agreed to live with because they do not infringe as much on our senses of freedom as if we gave up the things we really care about.

But who's "correct"? Are we both "incorrect? Is that really the best way to look at this?

This is a perfect example of people who may think they are free (assuming they do) but in fact are enslaved. Normal debt can at least be discharged in bankruptcy, but student loans are slavery.

[Kshartle]

Freedom can't just be whatever anyone says it is. Up can't be down.

[Re. second sentence ... USA or Australian perspective?  Standing on the earth or in the Space Station?]

Sure it can.  Just look at the various definitions.  This is one of the downsides of the English language ... words can mean different things.  That is why context is so important (see the post where I mentioned when I thought of freedom the things that come to mind are to, from, physical, mental, etc.):

Dictionary: freedom
noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint: we do have some freedom of choice | he talks of revoking some of the freedoms.
• absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government: he was a champion of Irish freedom.
• the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved: the shark thrashed its way to freedom.
• the state of being physically unrestricted and able to move easily: the shorts have a side split for freedom of movement.
• (freedom from) the state of not being subject to or affected by (a particular undesirable thing): government policies to achieve freedom from want.
• the power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity.
• unrestricted use of something: the dog is happy having the freedom of the house when we are out.
• archaic familiarity or openness in speech or behavior.
Thesaurus:  freedom
noun
1 a desperate bid for freedom: liberty, liberation, release, deliverance, delivery, discharge; literary disenthrallment; historical manumission. ANTONYMS captivity.
2 revolution was the only path to freedom: independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy; democracy. ANTONYMS dependence.
3 freedom from local political accountability: exemption, immunity, dispensation; impunity. ANTONYMS liability.
4 freedom to choose your course of treatment: right, entitlement, privilege, prerogative; scope, latitude, leeway, flexibility, space, breathing space, room, elbow room; license, leave, free rein, a free hand, carte blanche, a blank check. ANTONYMS restriction.

Look at all those first definitions. They are the absence of the use of force by others to compel or prevent action.

The second group are not definitions since they are using the word in the descriptions.

[MediumTex]

if I told you that happiness is personal and I'm happy when I'm relaxing at night in front of a fire, could I simply be wrong?

No you would not. Happiness is a state of mind based on unique-to-the- person circumstances.

Are you saying that freedom is just a state of mind?

I think the word is just being used to describe many different things. In the end it's a word, and we can assign whatever concept we want to it. However, it can't mean a bunch of different things.

Freedom can't just be whatever anyone says it is. Up can't be down.

But your understanding of up and down can change over time, and it's not necessarily obvious which understanding was correct and which understanding was incorrect. 

You used to feel very differently about things than you do today.  Does that mean that you were wrong then and right now?  Is it possible that in the future you will feel differently about things than you do today, considering that it has already happened once?  Did you feel less certain about your old beliefs than you do about your current ones?  Do you think that your old self would agree with the way your current self answers this question?

My beliefs are always evolving, not because I am wishy washy, but because I am continually coming across new information and having new experiences that require me to revise my beliefs, for the same reason that past revisions to my beliefs occurred as I came across new ideas.

It's tempting to think that your current understanding is an ultimate form of understanding, but as time passes it has a way of being looked back on the way we might look back on Windows 95 or Dances With Wolves.  What I'm suggesting is that if you can look at your current beliefs NOW in the same way that you are likely to look at them in the FUTURE, it can make it that much easier to identify opportunities to increase your understanding today and move you closer to whatever a true ultimate level of understanding might be.

Imagine a past you and a future you sitting next to you all of the time.  As you deliver your ideas with absolute certainty and inflexibility, imagine each of them giving you a look of disapproval.

[Kshartle]

But if the slave who would choose to be a slave if given the choice insists that he is "free" because what he is doing is what he would choose to do, who are we to tell him that he is wrong about the way he is experiencing freedom?

If he thinks he is free, then isn't he free? 

OTOH, if someone thought they weren't free, but they were, in fact, free, would they be free or not?

If he thinks he's free but he's not then he's not.

If he is free but he thinks he's not, he still is.

If I think I can turn invisible I can't.

If I think I can't lift 20 lbs. I still can.

Now answer from Stephen Hawking's point of view.  Any insights?

... Mountainer

Same answers

[Kshartle]

if I told you that happiness is personal and I'm happy when I'm relaxing at night in front of a fire, could I simply be wrong?

No you would not. Happiness is a state of mind based on unique-to-the- person circumstances.

Are you saying that freedom is just a state of mind?

I think the word is just being used to describe many different things. In the end it's a word, and we can assign whatever concept we want to it. However, it can't mean a bunch of different things.

Freedom can't just be whatever anyone says it is. Up can't be down.

But your understanding of up and down can change over time, and it's not necessarily obvious which understanding was correct and which understanding was incorrect. 

You used to feel very differently about things than you do today.  Does that mean that you were wrong then and right now?  Is it possible that in the future you will feel differently about things than you do today, considering that it has already happened once?  Did you feel less certain about your old beliefs than you do about your current ones?  Do you think that your old self would agree with the way your current self answers this question?

My beliefs are always evolving, not because I am wishy washy, but because I am continually coming across new information and having new experiences that require me to revise my beliefs, for the same reason that past revisions to my beliefs occurred as I came across new ideas.

It's tempting to think that your current understanding is an ultimate form of understanding, but as time passes it has a way of being looked back on the way we might look back on Windows 95 or Dances With Wolves.  What I'm suggesting is that if you can look at your current beliefs NOW in the same way that you are likely to look at them in the FUTURE, it can make it that much easier to identify opportunities to increase your understanding today and move you closer to whatever a true ultimate level of understanding might be.

Imagine a past you and a future you sitting next to you all of the time.  As you deliver your ideas with absolute certainty and inflexibility, imagine each of them giving you a look of disapproval.

This is our fundamental disagreement on the concept of reality. I believe reality exists, and it appears that you don't. It seems you think the concept of reality is nonsense. Nothing actually exists and nothing is true. That's so obviously false I don't where to begin except that the argument against reality existing falls flat before it even starts.

If I believed at one point that 2+2=5 and now I think 2+2+=6 that isn't evidence that I am right. It is evidence that I am either wrong now or was wrong then. They can't both be right.

Statements about the world aren't correct (reality) because I believe them. They are right or wrong regardless of what I believe.

If you want to believe that a slave is free simply because he thinks it that's fine. That's bizarre and incorrect, and it's easily provable that it's wrong. All that's required is that he act on his false belief, and the proof will be swift. I guess it's a nice thought to cling to. I don't see the relevance to the fact that I've changed my mind on something. I believed in Santa when I was five. Now I don't. That's not proof of either, but it is proof that I was wrong at one point and right in another.

Santa exists or doesn't regardless of what I believe. Your beliefs don't change reality. To think that you must not believe in the concept of reality, which means you really don't even believe that something exists for your mind to somehow create.

MT....is the slave free because he thinks he is? Can a slave be free? If someone is free...can they be a slave?

[Kshartle]

But your understanding of up and down can change over time, and it's not necessarily obvious which understanding was correct and which understanding was incorrect. 

Really MT?

It's not obvious what is up and down? How about black and white then? Can your understanding of black and white change over time and is it not necessarily obvious which understanding was correct and which understanding was incorrect?

Are you playing an internet game or is that a serious statement?

[MediumTex]

But your understanding of up and down can change over time, and it's not necessarily obvious which understanding was correct and which understanding was incorrect. 

Really MT?

It's not obvious what is up and down? How about black and white then? Can your understanding of black and white change over time and is it not necessarily obvious which understanding was correct and which understanding was incorrect?

Are you playing an internet game or is that a serious statement?

If you're in space up and down have different meanings than they do on the surface of a planet, and thus at the very least you might say that up and down are relative.

If I'm in a world of complete darkness, the whole concept of black and white would be meaningless.

I wouldn't play an internet game with you.  Life is hard enough as it is. 

[l82start]

Sure it can.  Just look at the various definitions.  This is one of the downsides of the English language ... words can mean different things.  That is why context is so important (see the post where I mentioned when I thought of freedom the things that come to mind are to, from, physical, mental, etc.):

Dictionary: freedom
noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint: we do have some freedom of choice | he talks of revoking some of the freedoms.
• absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government: he was a champion of Irish freedom.
• the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved: the shark thrashed its way to freedom.
• the state of being physically unrestricted and able to move easily: the shorts have a side split for freedom of movement.
• (freedom from) the state of not being subject to or affected by (a particular undesirable thing): government policies to achieve freedom from want.
• the power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity.
• unrestricted use of something: the dog is happy having the freedom of the house when we are out.
• archaic familiarity or openness in speech or behavior.
Thesaurus:  freedom
noun
1 a desperate bid for freedom: liberty, liberation, release, deliverance, delivery, discharge; literary disenthrallment; historical manumission. ANTONYMS captivity.
2 revolution was the only path to freedom: independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy; democracy. ANTONYMS dependence.
3 freedom from local political accountability: exemption, immunity, dispensation; impunity. ANTONYMS liability.
4 freedom to choose your course of treatment: right, entitlement, privilege, prerogative; scope, latitude, leeway, flexibility, space, breathing space, room, elbow room; license, leave, free rein, a free hand, carte blanche, a blank check. ANTONYMS restriction.

• 5. just another word for, "nothing left to loose"

[Pointedstick]

Kshartle, I find it quite telling that you invoke mathematics to make your point that reality is understandable. Math is the perfect example of this because it is unchanging and eternal. 2+2 will always equal 4, never 3 and never 6.

But most of life isn't the same. Even fields that are heavily based on mathematics, such as engineering must bow to the fact that what is true today may not be true the next.

For example, if I use math to design a bridge--a perfect bridge for the current circumstance--reality can still come along and change the conditions. Maybe traffic lessens and the bridge becomes overkill. Maybe global warming happens and water levels rise and metal beams that were previously exposed only to air become submerged.

Was my original design wrong? Maybe the conditions just changed.