From an objective point of view, freedom is impossible to prove. From a subjective perspective we have, as humans, a perception, a feeling like if we have freedom. Both perspectives are exposed to criticism. So, I think the best question is not asking if we are free, but how deal with this condition of not knowing. I think the best way is to act as if freedom exists. Moreover, you can notice that, even assuming that freedom does not exist, this assumption does not have as a result anarchy or random behaviour: we can say that the mechanisms that manage our behaviour push us, drive us to behave as if we were free even after assuming that we are not.
Think about this: assume that you are just a machine. Assume that, as a consequence, you will decide to behave in a selfish way. This means that deciding to be selfish was not a free choice. If freedom does not exist, even the assumption that it does not exist should be considered a product of our being machines. This means that we have no way to know if freedom exists, because, if it doesn't exist we have no way to be aware of its non existence. Consciousness implies freedom and we don't know if either of the two exists. So, let's behave as if we were free, remembering that it is just an instrumental assumption.

I think the best way is to act as if freedom exists. — Angelo Cannata

Freedom clearly exists because slaves have escaped their bondage. The question I am interested in answering is not whether or not freedom exists but whether or not the conditions that give rise to liberty or slavery are in some way out of our control. Should mankind be praised for it's virtues and also at the same time receive condemnation for our vices? Should our vices and our virtues receive the credit and blame for our successes and failures or should we attribute these things to something like causality? Is life what we make it or are we the products of our experiences and therefore shaped and molded by life?

You seem contradictory: you said that "freedom clearly exists", but you also wrote "Is our liberty the product or effect of causes we don’t control?" and a lot of other questions that essentially ask if freedom exists.

Would you mind defining freedom? Do you view it as synonymous with freewill? I Think of freedom as the absence of bondage.

You seem contradictory — Angelo Cannata

I apologize If I come across as peddling contradictions. I can assure you that is not my intention. To be honest I didn't really understand your arguments. I did make an effort to read and reread your writing.

400
Can wars be avoided? — Average

A war is a large scale expression of natural aggression. We can imagine that energy being redirected, but you're asking if we have the power to do that.

So far, we haven't demonstrated that ability, though we have tried three times. The UN is the third iteration of that effort, and it has failed.

In order to succeed, there would have to be a long enough period of peace to allow nations to disarm. I don't think we can engineer those conditions. It's not up to us.

Your questions and the fact that this a philosophy forum made me think that you were talking about freewill. But now I can't understand what kind of answer you expect: a sociological answer? A historical one? Maybe psychological? I don't think that any of these three disciplines are able to give you an answer. So, what kind of discussion would you like to open?

So long as the state grows freedom and liberty doesn’t. Our political sort in life will invariably be decided upon its whim and fancy.

So long as the state grows freedom and liberty doesn’t. Our political sort in life will invariably be decided upon its whim and fancy. — NOS4A2

Interesting that you think of the state as having whims and fancies.

I was just reading an article that speculated that the reason the human brain shrank in size 3000 years ago is the advent of collective intelligence.

As labor began to specialize, the individual has a smaller piece of the survival pie to manage, so brains were able to shrink to take less energy.

In other words, individually, we're stupider than our ancestors, but we have collective power they didn't have.

Plus, since this would be a physiological change, we're presently bound to it.

We have to have large, organized societies because that's what we're adapted to.

Right, we can store information in books rather than in our brains. I’m not sure what that has to do with politics.

The state isn’t an organized society. The state is the organization of political power and exploitation within a society.

The state isn’t an organized society. The state is the organization of political power and exploitation within a society. — NOS4A2

Sure. Did we already do a thread on what a state is? Don't want to derail.

Fair enough.

Are we the authors of our fate? — Average

Largely yes.

Are our forms of government, such as monarchy, generated necessarily by forces outside of our control or are we able to write history? — Average

I don’t see what one has to do with the other. But governments are created by people, and history is written by people.

Our current form of government — in the US anyway, but elsewhere too — is an oligarchy. More specifically, plutocracy. Even more specifically, corporatocracy. None of this is inevitable.

None of this is inevitable. — Xtrix

What reasoning lead you to this conclusion?

What reasoning lead you to this conclusion? — Average

Well…

governments are created by people, — Xtrix

They’re not inevitable. We have choices. We can create democracies and plutocracies and tyrannies. To argue these are somehow inevitable is odd indeed— but if you believe it you’re welcome.

governments are created by people, and history is written by people. — Xtrix

I agree but the question I'm interested in answering is a bit different. I'm wondering whether or not we can make and unmake governments whenever we see fit. I'm asking can we make any form of government we desire whenever we desire or if our desires are somewhat irrelevant?

Can wars be avoided? Can revolutions be avoided? — Average

Absolutely!!!

They are avoided all the time.

But what is an avoided war? Peace. What is an avoided revolution? Political stability.

We cannot see counterfactuals or the "what if" alternative history, we just have the decisions and the events that were made and happened. It doesn't make sense for us otherwise: if there's an alternative reality, we don't notice it.

January 6th is a perfect example of this.

What if you would have had someone else than the inept narcissist as Trump, but simply people that would have gone all the way with the autocoup? I think a man like general Flynn would have gone through it and not hesitated and really followed his idea of the army confiscation the election machines. He would know that once you do it, either you get all the power in the World or you get a small jail cell. But Flynn didn't coordinate an autocoup. You just had a mesmerized Trump looking at his TV when his supporters stormed the Capital. Hence no "American Revolution" happened that day.

But hell of a chance to make an autocoup.

Hence no "American Revolution" happened that day. — ssu

Coup attempts are usually tried a second time. The planning is taking place now.

Coup attempts are usually tried a second time. The planning is taking place now. — Jackson

But the crucial "strategic surprise" is lost now, fortunately.

The best time is always the first time. A huge majority of people simply won't understand what is happening and will have the "deer in the headlights" moment. They will just think that it cannot be happening, that people have gone insane.

But afterwards once they notice it can be possible, it response is totally different.

Yes, it's an interesting question of how much we can learn from near misses, close calls and events that barely were avoided.

I'm wondering whether or not we can make and unmake governments whenever we see fit. I'm asking can we make any form of government we desire whenever we desire or if our desires are somewhat irrelevant? — Average

I really can’t give a definitive answer, but for me I think we can choose to create a government we want, which is based on all kinds of things — values, beliefs, desires, etc. Doesn’t happen over night, or even whenever we see fit, but it’s possible. The evidence seems everywhere. What’s the alternative?

The best time is always the first time. — ssu

Not really. Now Trump has the entire GOP behind him.

If human beings cannot take full responsibility for their own freedom, their partial control over reality they will be forced to act on conditioned instincts. Putin WANTS more RESOURCES, be they land or any element of industry. Instead of just creating a more productive economy, he thinks war will resolve the deprivation of Russian production (and the tentative trade supply).

I am not saying I know exactly what Putin wants, or what the condition of the Russian economy is, but I do have some understanding of Human Nature and its relations to economics and human relations.

If we say there is no choice, we walk blindly into the future. Realizing we are repeating the same choices made by human beings in the past, is to learn of human freedom, to repeat or not repeat the historical themes of war.

There are so many other ways to correct economic failures, to create or stifle economic abundance. But Putin didn't and doesn't seem to care about making due with what "he has" nor what the current global economy has to offer. Its quite sad.

The evidence seems everywhere — Xtrix

What evidence are you referring to?

I think we can choose to create a government we want — Xtrix

I don't think that fatalism or determinism exclude the possibility of obtaining what we desire in certain situation. Instead it might argue that our desires are created by certain conditions instead of being purely the product of our particular wills. Also even if we can create governments that we desire it might still be the case that the universe provides us with the opportunity to do so. In other words favorable circumstances make it possible to do what we want and likewise unfavorable circumstances might make it impossible. This would mean that our particular wills are only part of the picture but fortunate and unfortunate events have some influence as well.

I see fatalism as the belief that no matter what you do, a given outcome will, like it or not, occur. So, it matters not how many choices you're given, all of 'em have the same result.

If the fatalism were true, it would be both liberating and frustrating at the same time. The upside, we could do whatever pleases us because our actions are pointless and the downside, bad events are unpreventable.

Why would someone be a fatalist? Is there any evidence that supports such a belief?

The story of Oedipus Rex comes to mind. The king (the dad) tried to obviate a prophecy and yet the steps he took made the prediction come true. Had he not done anything, the same would've happened. The king was helpless - he was in zugzwang to use a chess terminology (all moves ended in defeat).

Why would someone be a fatalist? Is there any evidence that supports such a belief? — Agent Smith

No one chooses the historical moment or the place or family or culture-language/s or social class in which one is born. No one chooses their ancestry, ethnicity, color, sex(uality), talents, limitations, handicaps. No one chooses their desires or disgusts or cognitive biases. No one chooses the natural disasters they suffer or diseases which afflict them. No one chooses psychopathy or mental illness or to become suicidal. No one chooses accidents or black/white swans that happen to them. No one chooses never-decreasing entropy (e.g. "the arrow of time") or aging or forgetting. So much of what one is and becomes one cannot choose – this is fate – the hand one is dealt (in a game, and with rules, one does not choose) played with sorrow or with joy: choose! Futility (what you call "fatalism") or amor fati? No one chooses even to face this choice! :fire:

No one chooses the historical moment or the place or family or culture-language/s or social class in which one is born. No one chooses their ancestry, ethnicity, color, sex(uality), talents, limitations, handicaps. No one chooses their desires or disgusts or cognitive biases. No one chooses the natural disasters they suffer or diseases that afflict them. No one chooses psychopathy or mental illness or to become suicidal. No one chooses accidents or black/white swans that happen to them. No one chooses never-decreasing entropy (e.g. "the arrow of time") or aging or forgetting. So much of what one is and becomes one cannot choose – this is fate – the hand one is dealt (in a game, and with rules, one does not choose) played with sorrow or with joy: choose! Futility (what you call "fatalism") or amor fati? No one chooses even to face this choice — 180 Proof

Danke for the reply. In my view fatalism isn't the same as determinism.

1. Fatalism: If there's a choice A or B, both A and B lead to C. What you choose has no bearing on the outcome.

2. Determinism: If A or B are the options, A leads to C and B leads to D as consequences. You'll make a choice but this choice is determined by events prior to and outside your sphere of influence.

And what you call "fatalism" I call futilitariansm.

And what you call "fatalism" I call futilitariansm. — 180 Proof

I see. :up:

If fatalism is justified, what adjustments would you make to your weltanschauung? Wouldn't it be better to just lie in bed and relax all your life? After all, nothing you can/will do affects what happens. We're, in essence, helpless (we're not in charge) and also liberated (we may do whatever we want).

If fatalism is justified ... — Agent Smith

My point is , it''s not "justified".

:brow:

If fatalism is justified... — Agent Smith