Few people I have spoken to can tell me what freedom actually is in any coherent form and I certainly don't have a robust conception of it. I know Americans seem to be very fond of the term, but I am sure it is understood differently (and not just across Liberal/Conservative lines). — Tom Storm
I agree that it is very hard to define freedom, but it's really easy to tell when you've lost it. — synthesis
cp, what's the point of responding if you don't think it's a valid question? My response to you was basically suggesting that when it comes down to it, is anything valid? It is easy to disprove anything when dealing with an intellectual framework where all things are relative and constantly changing. — synthesis
Freedom is a political ideal; a principle - and starting point for thought about how to build a successful and humane civilization. That supposed freedom is traded for social goods, like like law and order, the enforcement of contracts, and national defense - provided for by taxation. Hence, it's an ideal in that freedom is never fully realized, yet is still valued. — counterpunch
I agree that it is very hard to define freedom, but it's really easy to tell when you've lost it.
— synthesis
Hmm - I'm not so sure. Obvious examples like restrictions on movement or religious freedom, sure. Hong Kong today versus 1999, certainly. However some of this is subtle stuff. People don't always make connections and some freedoms are lost via stealth and there's the fact that some people might not see a given issue presented as a question of freedom - COVID mask wearing, for instance. — Tom Storm
cp, what's with the attitude? — synthesis
This is just a friendly conversation. — synthesis
Freedom is all kinds of things to all kinds of people. Personally, it is something within, but that wasn't the point of this thread. The freedom I was referencing was generic. And suggesting that freedom doesn't really exist seems quite subjective to my eye. Of course absolute freedom does not exist but then again, absolute anything does not exist either, unless you wish to consider, The Absolute, where everything "exists" in the void. — synthesis
But, if I recall, you're not into that sort of thing. If it were your thing (and if you understand how thinking works), you could trash every thought ever made on this site. It's not very difficult. Cognition and language is a system that obeys rules like any other system, so once you figure it out... — synthesis
THAT attitude.This is just a friendly conversation.
— synthesis
We'll see! — counterpunch
Freedom is all kinds of things to all kinds of people. Personally, it is something within, but that wasn't the point of this thread. The freedom I was referencing was generic. And suggesting that freedom doesn't really exist seems quite subjective to my eye. Of course absolute freedom does not exist but then again, absolute anything does not exist either, unless you wish to consider, The Absolute, where everything "exists" in the void.
— synthesis
Freedom is not all kinds of things in political theory; and it's in those terms I'm seeking to educate you. You need it. — counterpunch
Your subjectivist, relativist, politically correct approach to things - I can only assume is what seeps in to fill the void of ignorance, because it doesn't make sense in political theory terms. How do you not understand freedom as a political ideal? What did they teach you at school? We're you brought up in a cult or something? — counterpunch
THAT attitude. — synthesis
What did they teach me at school? Are you really asking me what they taught me at school? You've got to be kidding. — synthesis
cp, you seem like a pretty bright guy (as do most here), but you have no clue what's beyond your attempts to intellectualize whatever truths you seems to hold. Do you really believe that what you put forth is in any sense real? — synthesis
That must be it. — synthesis
The notion that human beings have no access to reality (primarily owing to the fact that all things intellectual are in constant flux) might just suggest that what you believe is real can easily be deconstructed (as can all things knowable) and vanish into thin air.That could be a rhetorical question; but it isn't. So yes, I do believe that what I put forth is grounded in the real. The absolute truth? No! I specifically reject approaches that imply absolutes. — counterpunch
That must be it.
— synthesis
Well, it isn't - and therein lies the problem. I know what you think...
"But how little it is now understood can be gauged from the procedure of the moral reformer who, after saying that “good” means “what we are conditioned to like” goes on cheerfully to consider whether it might be “better” that we should be conditioned to like something else. What in Heaven’s name does he mean by “better”?"
CS Lewis "Poison of Subjectivism" — counterpunch
The notion that human beings have no access to reality (primarily owing to the fact that all things intellectual are in constant flux) might just suggest that what you believe is real can easily be deconstructed (as can all things knowable) and vanish into thin air. — synthesis
If you reject absolutes, this might suggest that you (and everybody else) find sustenance in the relative. — synthesis
You know what I think? You don't even know what you think! — synthesis
The poison is moral relativism, not intellectual relativism, in general. — synthesis
All knowledge constantly changes due to the constantly changing factors which give rise to it. Since even the simplest of things is given birth by an infinite number of factors/events preceding, you are telling me that you understand not only simple things but highly complex ones, as well? This is the arrogance of man. — synthesis
The notion that human beings have no access to reality (primarily owing to the fact that all things intellectual are in constant flux) might just suggest that what you believe is real can easily be deconstructed (as can all things knowable) and vanish into thin air.
— synthesis
Okay, deconstruct my knowledge claim that water is two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen! Deconstruct the bacterial theory of disease - such that it is relative to the claim that evil spirits cause disease! Deconstruct the second law of thermodynamics; the simplest implication of which is that heat energy is transferred from the hotter body to the cooler body. Should be easy right? — counterpunch
You know what I think? You don't even know what you think!
— synthesis
Perhaps I am not as articulate as I think I am, because I don't know how you constantly miss my meaning. I try to speak plainly. I deliberately try not to use philosophical jargon - in part because such terms come loaded with baggage, but also because I try to express ideas in the simplest possible terms. — counterpunch
The poison is moral relativism, not intellectual relativism, in general.
— synthesis
In terms of wrong - that's brilliant. — counterpunch
All knowledge constantly changes due to the constantly changing factors which give rise to it. Since even the simplest of things is given birth by an infinite number of factors/events preceding, you are telling me that you understand not only simple things but highly complex ones, as well? This is the arrogance of man.
— synthesis
No. That's not what I'm saying at all. For example, I claim it is true that life evolved; but I recognize that doesn't explain how life came to exist in the first place. It's an intriguing question, but not one I claim to answer, because I don't claim to have access to absolute truth. Does that mean life did not evolve? The evidence that life evolved is overwhelming. I can reasonably claim to know that it is true; not least because any alternate explanation, like the skeptical doubt that we may all be brains in jars being fed sensory data we mistake for reality - poses far bigger questions than accepting evolution as an apparent fact. — counterpunch
Piece of cake...
Do you really believe that in 50, 100, 1000 years from now that our conception of any of the sciences will still be the same? If you have studied science in the least, you would have to know that scientific knowledge is exploding, a process that will leave all current concepts completely vacuous much sooner than we believe possible. — synthesis
Yes, I do believe that in 50, 100, 1000 years from now the second law of thermodynamics, evolution, the bacterial theory of disease, h2O, will be h20 - because that is the nature of the truths uncovered by science, and that's why they matter. They were true 50, 100, 1000 years ago whether we knew it or not because that is the nature of the reality we inhabit. It is real, causal - and we need to observe, and act responsibly with regard to, true knowledge of reality/Creation. Personally, I'm agnostic. — counterpunch
Please don't make the mistake of believing the era we live in is somehow special — synthesis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.