Though not the same thing they seem inter related somewhat. — simplyG

Of course they are. The concept of freedom - all the freedoms: freedom from restraint and constraint, freedom of movement, speech, association, freedom to act, to choose - is predicated on the assumption that we do have free will. It is an article of faith and a cornerstone of law.
It doesn't matter that this is an illusion, because we have always experienced it as real.

Do you think free will and freedom are the same thing and where do you think would be a difference between the two? — simplyG

No I don't think they're the same.
Free will is a sort of illusion we can't avoid. While everything that happens, including our own actions and decisions, is a result of all the events, processes and interactions that preceded it, we do not have knowledge of these causative factors or the outcome. Therefore, we experience life as if we considered and formulated decisions, made judgments and calculations, had desires and impulses entirely of our own and acted on them. We also judge one another's actions as if they were taken by a autonomous agents. So, for all practical considerations, we have free will.

Freedom is an abstract concept regarding the range of actions available to humans under various conditions. It is a concept we value, explore, debate, make laws to limit and fight revolutions to achieve.

This thread has been so interesting and informative, I hope it doesn't become personal.

I realize this, but the question beyond his particularism remains; which god is true and how do we establish this? It's the salient question for any theist. — Tom Storm

Yes, and I have asked it. The answer being 'Christ Jesus', Thor, Quetzalcoatl and Shiva are out of the running. Therefore, the next logical question is how the particularity Christ Jesus came by his divinity. A slight variation on How do we establish this? It seems to me that neither answer can avoid reference to that same problematic book.

If God is truth - which God and how do we establish this god is true AND that you know what this god wants? — Tom Storm

He's already said the god in his story is Jesus. He has not said how Jesus can be god without Jehovah or how Jehovah can shed all his OT baggage.

Because I am speaking on the desire to not allow a higher power to have any basis over them. — Isaiasb

But we don't recognize you as a higher power, so we will fight, if necessary, to keep your basis off our heads.

"Christ Jesus
Isaiasb;840262" —

What makes him a god?

How else would those systems come into place? Most dictators remove religion or change it to fit their agenda. — Isaiasb

Through religious wars, conquest and royal edict. And most of the dictators in history have not removed religion so much as replaced the local religion with their own.

the rest was for non believers. The latter part is entirely dedicated to nonchristians and never mentions the bible. — Isaiasb

You didn't deny that your god is the one depicted in the bible. Is it or isn't it? Which version of deity are you talking about?

This is my point, the We is ambiguous because it would be the government that decided what is okay or not. — Isaiasb

It's better than being stoned to death for using a nonsense word to express displeasure when a can of tomato soup galls on your foot.

Which in turn would create more North Koreas or another USSR. — Isaiasb

I do not agree that a legal system causes dictatorship. But if that were true, it would certainly be more true of a theocracy than a democracy.

And the Old Testament wasn’t written for today — Isaiasb

Well, that's relief! So, when do you unveil the new tablets?

God didn’t impose any debt, just as though a bank loans money doesn’t create the debt if the people can’t pay them back the loan. — Isaiasb

When all the power is one side, that's an imposition, because the people can't pay up, because the bank determined their circumstances as well as the terms of the contract.

Do people deliberately do that? — universeness

No, they did it through a series of disastrous blunders. So no we're all sinking.

Then enlighten me on what they think. — Isaiasb

Even if I dedicated my life to your enlightenment, don't think I would have sufficient time.

Most people today claim philosophy does not impact their lives, nor do they believe in having a philosophy at all. — Isaiasb

How do you know what most people claim? Most of the people I've met didn't make any claims at all regarding philosophy.

Agnostics and atheists alike fight for their belief in nonbelief, and their desire to be contemptuous in believing nothing.

For their right to believe or not believe according to their own lights, and for their right to feel respect or contempt or whatever another's belief merits in their estimation. Religionists, Christian and Muslim both, force their belief, rules and practices onto everyone they can dominate, and so we have no option but to fight.

No matter what we have a philosophy, because this is the core of any person.

OK that's as valid as any opinion.

If a person is a Stoic, they would act differently than a Platonic. Whether or not they claim the philosophy, they will still act the same way.

It's true: everyone acts some way, according to their inclination, circumstances and ability.

Most people who do not claim a philosophy struggle to accept this simple fact,

There you go again, reading most people's minds without even asking their permission.

The only way to know this would be inherently wrong is to have a philosophy, which directs our morals and beliefs.

No kidding!

Postmodernism, which is the absence of absolute truth, declares we can’t know everything out there so we are all right in our beliefs,

I don't think it declares anything at all.

In a sense, we have fallen back into Nihilism methodology

Back? Methodology?

The battle for absolute truth is the biggest philosophical problem since the beginning of time.

Battle between what opposing forces? Where is this absolute truth located?

If absolute truth isn’t true, where do we draw the line between good and bad, murder and manslaughter, theft and taking back what you are owed?

We muddle through with legal guidelines, reason, considering the circumstances, deliberating among ourselves.

On the flip side, if absolute truth is true, what is it, and can it be obtained?

It doesn't exist and cannot be obtained.

In conclusion, belief in God declares Absolute Truth, but if a person does not believe in God Truth cannot exist. — Isaiasb

Oh, OK. So is this the god depicted in the bible? The one who drowned all the animals and children because he was pissed off by some men's disobedience, after he already threw their ancestors out of Eden for the same offense, then cursed a son who accidentally caught a glimpse of his drunk old man's wrinkled appendage, and impregnated a young virgin so she could have a baby in a barn and raise him to be brutally murdered in order to pay the debt he himself had placed on the people?
I doubt that god would know the difference between murder and manslaughter, he committed and instigated so many of both. I don't think OT law would suit "most people today".

They would still have such as freedom of travel. — universeness

And why would members of tribes in a federation, not be more free to travel than citizens or nations are now?

Yes, I was referring to older tribal systems. — universeness

Even they were not restricted in knowledge. They travelled all the time - on explorations, personal quests, for trade and education. They exchanged skills, craft items, seeds, tools, geographical information and stories, as well as sons and daughters.

There is some variety yes, but not 'great variety.' — universeness

Read more.

Do many individual bricks, beat the hell out of a wall or a home? — universeness

Yes, if that home is built on a sinkhole. Besides, bricks are a lousy construction material. Not as bad a concrete, but pretty bad.

Does a universe beat the hell out of one big multi-verse? — universeness

How should I know? I haven't see either.

Limited land boundary. — universeness

That also applies to the globe. If you wanted to preserve some remnant of nature, humans would have to be limited ion what land they can occupy and exploit.

Limited knowledge base. — universeness

Why? Won't they all have internet access, once the economy and governance is technology based?

Living under a hierarchical authority system, often with a single leader at the top. — universeness

Who says? Tribal systems are organized in a great variety of ways, most of them far more egalitarian than what we now, with a bitter laugh, call democracies.

A small tribe on a big planet. — universeness

Many small tribes on a big planet beats all hell out of one ginormous tribe on a small planet.

Yeah but they don't live in a different universe, — universeness

Theirs is a self-created reality-bubble that they want to impose on the real world, which has already had a number of dystopian alternate realities imposed upon it.

Short of total armageddon – in this scarcity-driven global civilization, my friend – how do you propose to get the "nefarious few" to relinquish "control over a divided and ill-informed global mass of people" who are, for the most part, "money tricked" — 180 Proof

There is no way. Armageddon begins with a couple of wars and climate crises, proceeds to multiple displaced populations carrying overlapping plagues, and somewhere in there, the economic system collapses, never to rise again. Human society resumes - if it does - after a long interval, with much reduced numbers and resources. But at least the more provident and farsighted among us have already laid up caches of knowledge, seed and DNA for their use.

The good comes from the fact that opposing positions creates choice and choice is always better than no choice. — universeness

In education, choosing among different versions of history does not lead to resolution, but to conflict. And we have no objective source, because the computer has been fed its information by humans. The best we can do is supply teachers with all possible facts and encourage discussion in the classroom.

See, common ground! If only I could find as much common ground with MAGA Trump supporters, as I can with you. — universeness

You and I live in the same universe. They don't.

Imo, traditional tribalism, learned in a rather shallow and narrow scope, will naturally fade over time, due to the wider scope on offer, with more cooperation. — universeness

What do you mean by "learned in a shallow and narrow scope"? Ethnic identity tends to go quite deep and encompass culture that was centuries or millennia in the making. There is no reason tribes have to compete instead of cooperating. There have been alliances and federations since long before history, and intertribal trade and social gatherings to exchange information and mates go back to Neanderthal clan structure. Cooperation doesn't require homogenization.

All historical civilisations have failed. — universeness

And the bigger empires grew the faster they collapsed.
My contention is that civilizations fail because they attempt to eradicate tribalism, in order to subsume the members of the tribes they conquer into a unified whole. It's never worked, so far. People do not want to be relived of their group identity and loyalty. They fight onto the death to liberate their tribe from the domination of a larger, more powerful civilization - even if that civilization is by all of its own standards superior to their own. Children assimilate more easily - which was the original idea behind the residential school system: the benevolent and beautiful white people were going to capture young savages in the wilderness and civilize them. It didn't go according to plan.

We need to teach why, — universeness

Unfortunately, we believe and/or profess very different versions of that "why".

I advocate for a united species, no more nations, one planet, global governance with a resource based global economy that has automation at its core and good stewardship of this planet, as one of it's prime directives. — universeness

I agree with that vision, except in one particular: let the global union be a federation of self-defined tribes, because that is the level of organization at which human societies have been cohesive and stable for the longest periods. The global government needs do nothing more than arbitrate inter-tribal contention, oversee equitable resource distribution and make pooled knowledge available to all.

You can, for the sake of convenience, draw a line around this collection of parts and treat it as one singular thing. But the fact remains that it is divisible. Even a perfect circle is divisible. — petrichor

But then it is no longer a circle, not even an imperfect circle. A lump of clay would just be smaller lumps of clay, but a human brain would be several lumps of dead tissue. It's true that a person can still be the same person with some little piece of their brain removed, but if you take out or electrocute a significant chunk, that person becomes a zombie.

I suspect that even in waking states, we are not as integrated and consistently "ourselves" as we think. — petrichor

We are not all the same. Some people - yogis for example, ascetics and obsessives - choose to cultivate one aspect of their personality and submerge or at least restrain all other interests and desires. They then have superlative discipline, at the expense of balance. They seem to those of us who take a more inclusive approach to 'self' and 'integrity' somehow admirable but in other ways less than a person.

I don't think that's a statement about their freedom or ours. Just different choices.

Maybe they do. — L'éléphant

All of them?

I’m pro-choice, by the way, in case that wasn’t clear and it matters at all, and I wasn’t arguing for or against abortion because that wasn’t the point. — praxis

What was the point?

Athena said

I think, when it comes to abortion we might want to ask what does "liberty" mean? For darn sure a woman with a child, in her belly or her arms, does not have liberty. If she does not want to be a mother and/or does not have the ability to provide for the child, the effect of her pregnancy will not be good.

How does society look at mothers who need help supporting a child? Is she honored almost as much as the Great Earth Mother or is she shamed and marginalized? Will her child be welcomed by the community and be valued by this community? It is not just the mother and child we need to consider but also the community the child is being born into.

PS How about privacy? I think privacy is very important and what we do with our bodies including not only abortion but also the right to die with dignity, is between ourselves and God. There are some things that are public and others that are private. Government and our neighbors should stay out of what is private.

and you responded

Unwilling parents have been known to rise to the occasion and a child add much to their lives, so the overall effect could turn out to be good in many cases, in which case your cause-and-effect moral theory doesn't pan-out so well.

Which had no relation to her argument that other people should not be dictating what an individual does with their own body. You then seemed to be arguing that, yes, they did, because you can imagine a situation wherein an individual might change their mind if they accepted society's dictate. In this instance, I agree with Athena: Government and our neighbours should stay out of what is private.
But I'll add that it would make a better a society and easier personal choices if government and our neighbours were more supportive of the individual's needs.

It’s better to say that an addict has cravings rather than is a slave to them, in my opinion, because to do otherwise suggests that these impulses are not his own. — NOS4A2

That is a metaphor, like the monkey on his back. This is how addiction and compulsion feels; this is how the addict or compulsive behaves. Of course they are his cravings, not he their man, and when he realizes this - not simply recognizes it as true, but actually realizes it, he begins to gain mastery over the craving. This is also a fairly effective approach to depression, obesity and chronic pain: own it, so that it cannot own you.

Discipline is part of harmonization, but tyranny is not. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed. And yet again, so can tyranny promote self-discipline. Who can retain his dignity when caned by an overzealous headmaster can also retain his integrity under an oppressive political regime. Unfortunately, for every survivor, a hundred others bend double or break. But it's that one supremely disciplined survivor who will lead the rebellion. Societies, even stable ones, are never static. There are a million transactions, significant and trivial, in every minute; a million microscopic shifts in power and liberty.

Unfortunately, questions of early anthropology are very political, and one can read books describing the lost Eden of the "noble savage," published right along side documentaries on the "vicious state of nature," that man once lived in. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's why I prefer anthropologists with a comprehensive view. I also refer to native mythologies for a sense of how peoples thought, behaved and related to the world.

The role of technology in warfare is one of the places where knowledge intersects with freedom, since deterrence and self-defense sometimes play a role in safeguarding freedoms. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As well as in restricting and denying freedoms. There is always a contract in society. Sometimes that contract is grossly lopsided; sometimes it balances quite well over the whole interactive network of human activities and aspirations.

I did not read the book — L'éléphant

It was actually pretty good. Not that much longer than LOTR, and it made a lot more sense then Finnegan's Wake.
People who quote their favourite dead philosopher as if he had the final truth of everything.

Guess I merely stating my belief in psychological hedonism, that a pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is the primary source of human motivation. — Nils Loc

That's the primary motivation of all living things. We humans make an elaborate song-and-dance about it, while a grasshopper just chews on leaves and leaps out of the way of the lawnmower.

Also based on a lack of knowledge or false beliefs about female physiology, behaviour, and roles. — Amity

I'm not buying that excuse. Most of the men who made up the philosophy and the rules were married. Besides, how come the highly educated gentlemen of Europe knew less than the savage redskins of America? How come the same men who fought for Maud and venerated Elizabeth refused to let their daughters into university? The rationale has always been rickety, at best.

The particular culture and societal norms; the need of/for males to show they were not emotional. — Amity

Except at football games and taverns. You can have the same feelings, as long as you call it by a different name. The righteous indignation of one is the shrewish scolding of the other - and there is a head-cage to remedy the latter.

Awareness of ourselves and a sense of freedom. Isn't that a natural state of affairs? — Amity

The sense of freedom is articulated and celebrated only by humans, because only humans knowingly inflict and accept bondage. Free animals cannot imagine any other state; they live in fear of being hunted and killed. Free humans live in constant fear of losing their freedom to other humans, and constant hope of gaining more freedom.
All human freedom is conditional and provisional. Free to do or be or say something; free from something; free of something, free within some predetermined limit or free as long as a contract is honoured. For other species in a state of nature, freedom is limited by their capabilities, their environment and their fortune: it doesn't require examination or explanation.

I am always troubled when someone cites a 'moral' aspect to freedom; its purpose; what we should do, what we must do. Surely, those imperatives don't refer to what we individually experience as a sense of freedom?

1. Emotion (lower) was viewed as the opposite of 2. Reason (higher). — Amity

You know that's largely hypocrisy. At the same time the 'rational' man disparages the emotionalism of women, he extols the flaming passion of a lover, the patriotic zeal of a soldier, and the consuming rage of a proud man wronged. At the same time he dismisses feminine intuition, he follows his own 'gut feeling'. And the dishonesty goes far beyond that: he also takes his wife's best ideas and sells them as his own. The whole 'women are intellectually feeble and emotionally unstable' bulltwaddle has only one purpose: to retain control (if possible, outright ownership) of the resources women provide for men's undertakings. The 'philosophy' is a flimsy cover for brute force.

Freedom is a human capacity that exists since the species is aware of its existence. — Moral freedom - life persona

This sentence struck me as peculiar, not only because the last bit is nonsense, but how its truth resonates in the context of life. No other animal has a concept of freedom, simply because no other animal has ever been unfree, until humans trapped, domesticated and subjugated them. Once a finch is inside a cage, he thinks of nothing but flying free. Even budgies, bred generation upon generation in affectionate captivity, escape if they can. We have the moral freedom to do what is right in human terms, but no dog is allowed to do what would be right in a canine pack, no cow is allowed to kick the farmer who killed her child so he can take her milk.

I can explain why I find that story so hilarious, if you don't understand it, but, the more interesting 'cultural' fallout, is perhaps expressed in a question such as, are the implications of names, culturally critical? — universeness

I doubt we really needed all that background info. I went to highschool back when they were still teaching history, and in a recent ex-colony, where heavy emphasis was placed on British history.
Surnames are passed down largely unchanged, long after the original meaning of the word, the place or occupation it denotes is forgotten. Some names are easy to transplant from one language into another; some are very difficult, either because they have a different meaning or because of some ideological association in the other culture - these, people usually abbreviate or change altogether. Your particular example is even more ironic

Pope is a Scottish surname meaning father

As for given names, it's a matter of tradition (naming children after parents, grandparents or godparents) and fashion. An actor or athlete or general becomes famous and has lots and lots of babies of a generation named after him. There are periodic waves of Biblical names or literary names, or even names from popular movies and songs. The English have generally eschewed direct Christ references, perhaps regarding it as sacrilege; other nations embrace it as homage. 19th century Americans were quite enamoured of Old Testament prophets and heroines, whose names still turn up from time to time, and the apostles are ever popular.
Each nation has its historical and legendary figures whose names come into vogue in little waves of national pride. Aristotle and Alexander have never been in shortage in Greece, as well as the perennial Peter and Christopher. Every second generation in Hungary yields a crop of Attilas and Csabas; the French and English have their kings.
Naming may have been indicative of what was considered significant in a culture, back before global networking. Now African children may be named after American fictional detectives, while Austrian children may bear the name of some legendary figure in what the parents fancy as their Mideastern roots. And of course, for a mercifully short time, we had a crop of babies called things like Moon Orchid and Indigo River.

Anyone - fool, coward, hero, saint, old maid, disowned son, abandoned child - can have hope. Hope doesn't need reason or evidence. "In sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life". Hope doesn't cost anything or mean anything or affect anything. Despair is transitory: if you chicken out on the next exit, you have to keep truckin' and leave it behind.

I could have used many other examples. — praxis

I wonder.

Consider possible outcomes of a more sadistic version of the marshmallow test. The children are told that they will be harshly beaten if they eat the marshmallows that sit on table in their room. Those that make the mistake get beaten. Would there be any children, who having lived through the experience of being beaten for eating the marshmallows, continue to choose to eat the marshmallows again and again because the pleasure of the eating outweighs the pain of the beating? Would that choice be attributable to a hedonistic tendency? — Nils Loc

That's the story of Genesis. Adam and Eve were pure hedonists before taking the fruit. They took it anyway, got the grandfather of all beatings, and yet did did continue to pursue knowledge, including expressly forbidden knowledge. Is that a Socratic tendency?

Even an ultimate pursuit of ascetic self-denial must have an incentive. The subject that demands such self-control must know the anticipation for reward/relief, even if it never comes. — Nils Loc

I sup[pose the 'pleasure' being sought is either mastery over nature or Heaven.

How are we free unless our actions are ruled by our thoughts, unless we act for a reason? Surely, completely arbitrary action isn't freedom, right? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It might be freedom, but where would completely arbitrary action come from? We - I include all sentient beings - don't act without motivation and there is always a cause and purpose to our actions.

I am not ruled by my thoughts when I have a muscle spasm or when I unconsciously scratch an itch, but these don't seem like freer actions because of this. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Maybe you don't need to think about these things, but if you were in restraints and not free to ease a spasm or scratch an itch, you would certainly think about them.

Likewise, an alcoholic isn't more free when they feel a twinge of anxiety and unthinkingly pour themselves some scotch versus when they decide to throw out all their liquor one night after reflecting on the negative effects of their drinking. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Addiction is a whole kettle of fish by itself. If traced to its origins, it may well have been caused by external constraints and imposed limitations, or an unsuccessful struggle against internalized constraints (such as religious or ideological dogma or negative self-image). Substance dependency is formed, most often, through self-medication for a real or perceived disability. Overcoming addiction is a process of self-empowerment, that begins with the realization that one is captive to the substance and a desire to be free of it.
___

But we might think some circumstances we find in something approaching a "state of nature," for mankind are not good: widespread food insecurity, constant band level warfare, thralldom and slavery for the vanquished, male relatives exerting undue control over their female relatives' romantic relationships, infanticide etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think that's an entirely accurate description of all humans living in nature for 100,000 or so years. There was a great variety in social organizations, cultures and mores, as well as physical circumstances. In fact, more variety than there has been in historical civilizations.

The idea of self-tyranny or slavery to one’s thoughts and desires is an odd one because one cannot be a slave to himself, both master and slave at the same time. — NOS4A2

I think that idea depends on separating parts of "self". Desires, or drives are animal, or 'lower'; thought or reason is human and 'higher'. Emotion and instinct must be some kind of invisible buffer between the two layers. I don't subscribe to a theory of duality or divided self in normally functioning individuals; I think we operate on a constant interaction and feedback system, all parts of the brain contributing to what we experience, feel, think and do.

You can't even imagine parents who were initially unwilling but ended up with a good outcome for themselves and their initially unwanted child??? — praxis

I can imagine it, but that image doesn't fit with anything I've seen in the real world.
For a grown woman in a stable marriage with reasonably secure income and health insurance, an unplanned baby is no great hardship. For a 15-year-old homeless girl whose boyfriend/stepfather/john/rapist agent of conception is long departed from the scene, it's the disaster. Which do you suppose is more likely to want an abortion? Which do you suppose has less access to one?

suggesting that morality is essentially rational, that it "is a matter of cause & effect" is false and misguided. — praxis

Fine. I didn't say a word about morality. But now it's here, I might remark that I'm not a fan of people who are not required to pay the price of the outcome thrusting their moral judgment on the people who are, and justify it by being able to 'imagine' a situation where the outcome isn't bad.

Why do you think that computer is our best hope? — 0 thru 9

Humans have so far proved incapable of rational resource management.

There would seem to be no moral issue for women who are unable to give birth, given that there's no choice in the matter. — praxis

Of course they do! Lots of women who can't give birth adopt babies from women who could and didn't want to, or children taken away from parents who could not or would not adequately rise to parenthood, or import one from a country too poor to care for all of its children, or commission a surrogate or buy one on the black market. All those children are available and negotiable.

You seem to be suggesting that forcing birth, or rather that making abortion illegal is immoral because in some cases it may result in bad consequences. — praxis

I don't see that anywhere in the quoted text. I will say now that forcing parenthood on the unwilling will always have bad consequences, especially for the unwanted child. There are several ways both for the woman and her society to avoid that bad outcome; abortion is only one option. I didn't invoke morality on either side of the issue, nor do I wish to engage in yet another debate on abortion.
As regards education, which was central to this thread all along, it could and should imo be instrumental both in preventing unwanted pregnancies and in promoting sound family management.

Why are you identifying giving birth as the cause of the bad result? — praxis

Because without a birth, there would be no child of contention. And of course I did not identify the birth as the cause of a bad result, but rather the forcing of a child on unwilling parent(s).

5. What specifically do you mean by 'social' and 'imposition'? — Amity

I meant constitutional clauses, enacted legislation, enforceable laws. The rules of a country or bylaws of a city by which all residents are expected to abide, and face formal reprisal of some kind if they break.

6. How do you quantify 'amount' of personal freedom?

Usually by specific rights and freedoms. Children are not free to choose their occupation or buy cigarettes; mental patients have no freedom of association; prisoners on parole may not leave the jurisdiction. Non-residents are not allowed to seek employment. Some societies place restrictions on women or ethnic minorities. There is also a great variation in enforcement of theoretical freedoms and rights. A child may have freedom of speech and under the law, yet the law will not step between him and a disapproving father to enforce the child's right to curse.

The 'should' suggests an ethical component,

I meant only to ask for opinion, whether on ethical, rational or sentimental grounds.

But freedom is, in part, using our knowledge of cause and effect to bring about states of affairs we prefer. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's clear now, and a valuable insight, I believe.
I keep reflecting back on the little I know of First Nations philosophies.

Native American culture and politics revolved around the individual. ....The position of Where You Are put the individual at the center of her universe, with the other six directions dependent on her. While this symbolic position honored the individual as the star in her own universe, it also implied that she possessed the power and the opportunity to keep that universe in balance. The Cherokees, like the Iroquois and others, viewed this balancing act as the product of lifelong self-discovery. To this end, the cultures offered a tolerant environment for artistic, sexual, philosophical, and spiritual experimentation. To reflect this they also allowed children to change their names as they grew and explored themselves. An act of heroism, a discovered talent, a cultivated physical or spiritual trait, even a famous relative could be cause for name-changing. The community thereby encouraged the individual to define and redefine himself freely throughout the course of his life.

For instance, how often to you feel pleased at taking a shower, or having mashed potatoes? — kudos

Every single time. These are pure, innocent hedonistic pleasures that cause nobody any pain.

We see it in the pain of another who feels their lack in our place. — kudos

Only if it's denied to them because someone has it. My marital relations do not deny anyone else the enjoyment of physical love. My mashed potatoes were not stolen from anyone's table. My shower did not drain anyone's drinking water.

Pleasure is a psycho-active identification of pain in another. — kudos

I disagree. (I held back a much ruder response. Where the hell do get these simplistic 1/0 ideas?)

OK, it sounds like what you're saying is that drug use should not be illegal, but drug addiction should be. — kudos

No, I haven't said of the kind. I outlined what various harms could come to a society with wide-spread use of psychotropic drug. That is, attempting to answer the question:

twhether there is something about recreational drug-use behaviour and cultural effects on the moral-citizen role ... that tends to oppose the popular will as it is actuated in culture.

We, as a global society, have no problem with the sorts of ideas that drug use perpetuates, such as the idea of excess, lust, gluttony, self-indulgence, hedonism, etc. — kudos

There is no "we" or "global society". There are separate, quite different societies with rules based on very different belief-systems and moral principles. And most of these societies do have problems of various magnitude with various kinds of drug use.

If one feels pleasure, another must feel pain. — kudos

Why? I've been involved in a number of encounters wherein pleasure was mutual, shared and reciprocal.

But what of hedonism and uncontrolled self indulgent pleasures of the senses would this, if it went unchecked have a negative effect on a higher cultured society, would it bring it down say or have these two always co-existed ? — simplyG

That depends on the proportions and the society's means of providing for basic needs. If the sciences, arts and education were made possible by the labour of an underclass deprived of all pleasures, and that underclass gave itself over to self-indulgence, the society would collapse very quickly. If the uncultured, toiling majority never tasted of pleasure at all, while the cultured minority produced nothing, the society would certainly be heading for a bloodbath. If a few people at a time took a break from productive endeavours to indulge themselves and then returned to work, the society would be fine.

Furthermore, would creating purely a hedonistic, pleasure seeking society have negative effects on the progress of humanity ? — simplyG

What progress of humanity? If circumstances were such that nature provided the necessities and everyone could indulge in sensual pleasure - assuming the pleasures indulged in were not sadistic or destructive - people would do no harm and they would never be banished from Eden. In fact, isn't that why Christians curb their mundane desires, so they can end up in Heaven?