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.

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.

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

Well, so far - there has been no point to responding. As an attempt to educate you, it has so far proven an entirely fruitless endeavour. But I could not have known that going in. I couldn't have known that you are unable to grasp the concept of freedom as a political ideal - without immediately devolving to some sort of ultra left wing subjectivism.

I don't subscribe to subjectivist philosophies myself, for I see very little virtue and much danger in doing so. Objective reality exists and we are able to establish valid knowledge of reality by scientific method. So no, everything is not an ideal.

Freedom is a political ideal; a principle - and starting point for thought about how to build a successful and humane civilisation. That supposed freedom is traded for social goods, like like law and order, the enforcement of contracts, and national defence - provided for by taxation. Hence, it's an ideal in that freedom is never fully realised, yet is still valued.

That so, your question is not valid. Freedom has never existed. In reality - absolute freedom is anarchy, and anarchy soon devolves into slavery, for slavery - not freedom, is the natural condition of man.

Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

Few seem to understand freedom requires responsibility.

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

cp, what's with the attitude? This is just a friendly conversation.

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. 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...

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

Freedom seems to be more of a sense you get (despite the laws). Sometimes the laws say one thing and the street another (an example being the American Constitution during slavery). Other times, the laws are quite rigid (drug laws in the some part of the U.S. were basically ignored during the 60's/70's)

I think anyway you slice it, governments all over the world have used the pandemic to orchestrate a massive power-grab. Hopefully, people will push back in order to re-gain some of their lost freedoms in the coming months/years. .

cp, what's with the attitude? — synthesis

What attitude? I'm thinking that's projection on your part.

This is just a friendly conversation. — synthesis

We'll see!

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. 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?

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

Why do you imagine I would want to do that? My manner may be abrasive, but my intent is to educate people, that they are able to understand my philosophically and politically justified plan to save Western civilisation from a crisis of unsustainability. You don't even seem to understand why freedom is a good thing!

This is just a friendly conversation.
— synthesis

We'll see! — counterpunch

THAT attitude.

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

You have no idea how comforting it is to know that somebody cares... :)

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

What did they teach me at school? Are you really asking me what they taught me at school? You've got to be kidding.

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?

Lesson one for you should be the realization that it's all BS. And even if your the best BS-er on the planet, it's still only grade A-1 BS. Or do you believe you have some kind of portal to The Truth? Or perhaps you believe that all things intellectual undergo constant change except for cp, as he has figured out how to pontificate The Absolute Truth.

That must be it.

THAT attitude. — synthesis

Oh, right - you mean my determination to attempt always, to speak the truth, rather than blow smoke up your arse? That's why the friendliness, or otherwise - of this conversation is undetermined. It's irrelevant to me whether we are friends - but apparently, you will seek to accommodate other's views, like you did when - failing to understand the concept of freedom as a political ideal, assumed I'm dealing in ultra subjectivist - nothing is true, everything is an ideal, baloney!

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

Clearly, they didn't teach you about rhetorical questions. Or freedom. Or science!

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 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.

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"

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

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.

If you reject absolutes, this might suggest that you (and everybody else) find sustenance in the relative.

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

You know what I think? You don't even know what you think!

The poison is moral relativism, not intellectual relativism, in general.

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.

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?

If you reject absolutes, this might suggest that you (and everybody else) find sustenance in the relative. — synthesis

Lots of suggestions; none of them good ones.

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.

The poison is moral relativism, not intellectual relativism, in general. — synthesis

In terms of wrong - that's brilliant.

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 recognise 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.

Total freedom is absolute chaos.

Freedom is the state of being unrestricted.

You can be more restricted than others, or less restricted. But everyone is restricted. The material world is restricted.

You can only enjoy complete freedom if you remove all restrictions. But restrictions play a part in keeping things cohesive. Remove all restrictions, and the system disintegrates.

Some say their god is freedom itself. Complete freedom of will, and omnipotence. Dangerous combination.

This is why it gives others a headache to define freedom. If it leads to chaos and destruction... then it is bad, and Freedom is so sacrosanct in their minds, that they are incapable of comprehending or imagining or accepting that freedom in its purest form is bad.

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

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.

Nobody can imagine what science will look like 50 years from now, yet 500. Humanity is in its infancy in terms of knowledge.

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

Articulation is not your issue, arrogance is.

It is not what you (believe) you know which is important, but instead, what you know that you cannot know that means everything (and I get the paradox).[/quote]

The poison is moral relativism, not intellectual relativism, in general.
— synthesis

In terms of wrong - that's brilliant. — counterpunch

You can cling on to your objective-ness all you want, but until you replace the interface with something other than your humanity, you will exist in the relative world of illusion, delusion, and disillusion.

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

Well, just for fun, let's say man knows .00000001% of what there is to know (and that's being quite generous). Does this body of knowledge give you (or any of us) the ability to determine anything at all?

The best we can do is simply observe (with clarity) and remain in the flow. Once our conceptualization kicks-in, intellectual insanity ensues as we transform what is actually taking place into our version of reality, one that literally creates and sustains our personal hell on Earth.

Total freedom is absolute chaos. — god must be atheist

That's only thinking.

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.

Is there anybody there? Is this thing on? Is it just me? :(

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. All we know about things will be deposited into the waste-bin of history similar to those who trod this planet before us.

I agree with you that the truth is what it is (and there certainly is truth) but whether man will ever be able to access such is doubtful due to all kinds of difficulties and limitations (including the notion that we do not exist [intellectually] in the present). Our languages are woefully inadequate as are pretty much everything else we are involved with at this point.

The good news is that we can transcend the mundane and simply be. It's a wonderful alternative for those who are willing to cease banging their heads against the wall. Life is pretty darn good if you accept it on its own terms.

I believe that a prosperous and sustainable future is possible, from where we are, by accepting science is true as common ground, and further I believe that acting on that basis would work to promote a better future. That's not an unreasonable belief. The first implication; I would suggest follows from a scientific understanding of reality is that we need to exploit the vast heat energy of the earth on a massive scale to continue to grow into the future. We need to meet our energy needs, and can exceed them drawing from that virtually limitless source of concentrated clean power - and we can use that power to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability very much in our favour. Canada is mistaken, carbon tax this stop that, have less pay more is the wrong approach. Windmills will never meet our needs. We need the energy to spend to support continued growth; and given that energy the sky is not the limit!

@synthesis.

Please don't make the mistake of believing the era we live in is somehow special — synthesis

If you look back at the quote by counterpunch you were responding to, you’ll notice he was speaking of the distant both past and future, thus not making the present “special” at all.

Enjoyed the conversation as well as your point of view. And I wouldn't worry too much about the energy situation. Energy is everywhere after all. As long as some incentive remains, there will be many seeking cleaner and more efficient methods to power our way into the future...

I'd like to start to believe that's true but efforts so far look almost deliberately feeble. To my mind, if we want to keep using fossil fuels, and we do - or rather, don't want compound the costs of sustainability with having to scrap all that technological infrastructure, then we need the energy to extract carbon from the atmosphere. That energy is available from the almost limitless heat energy of the earth; massive base load clean power, two three times current demand soon. The technology to extract carbon by the megatonne exists. As does the technology to desalinate and irrigate, recycle. It's just all very energy intensive.

So too, is mining energy intensive - and it follows logically that greater concentrations of minerals are mined first, and that over time, it requires a greater amount of energy to process larger amounts of ore to produce the same, or more quantities of refined metals. It's inevitable, and it's an inevitability we can and must off-set by producing and using clean "magma" energy - such that would imply a sectoral approach to switching over consistent with a scientifically rational view of how to proceed to apply this energy! It need not be in direct competition with fossil fuels - much good could be done quite besides, and even to clean up the pollution of technologies we continue to use regardless! Freedom!

This is a supply side problem being treated as a consumption issue. Resources are in fact, a consequence of the energy available to create them. Vastly more clean energy would give us vastly more choice and more time. It is technologically conceivable. It would work, and is the minimal necessary disruption to the way things are that is consistent with a sustainable future. It is, in terms of a scientific understanding of reality the single most fundamental thing we could do to do most good. It's right there in the physics. Energy and entropy. Page 1.