telepathy guidelines [expired]

[benzyme]

the beauty of the psychedelic experience reflects one of my signature quotes...or both.

 

[Солярис]

thoughtsunthought

 

[anrchy]

I myself have nothing to offer in the way of philosophy, but I would ask that you expand on this topic some more rather than let the post die. I like reading things I don't fully understand. It's like squinting to see something too far away. You can't quite make it out in its entirety, but the more you see the more you know what you are seeing.

 

[Солярис]

thoughtsunthought

 

[anrchy]

I'll have to check that link out when I get to a computer. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Солярис]

thoughtsunthought

 

[polytrip]

Freethinking is non-directional. Freedom knows no 'right and wrong'.
'Wrong' is a barrier to freedom.

I think that instead of morality being at odds with the concept of freedom, it rather is the very source of it: 'freedom' will always contradict itself in some ways. When you look at anti-cartel legislation for instance, you can clearly see that the (negative)freedom of entrepeneurs is being sacrificed for the sake of (positive) freedom of customers, clients, etc. The adjective 'free' is enough to make a philosophical problem out of something that is not in any way ambiguous by itself, like the will or the market.

In other words: 'freedom' is something that in itself doesn´t realy exist. The concept of freedom is an invented concept. I think it´s morality that forces us to create such a concept: i want to feel safe among other human beings, so it´s reasonable to want to have some set of rules, and also to expect other people to want the same thing. But how could i expect other people to follow a rule that would be too much of a burden for me to follow myself? So there the concept of freedom arises, as we want rules that would offer protection on the one hand. But we also want to be as least restricted as possible by these very rules. Not just for our own sake, but also because we cannot expect others to voluntarily agree with a rule that we wouldn´t want to follow ourselves....so without the concept of 'freedom', the whole project of living peacefully toghether could very well fail before it even has started.

If we want there to be rules that people voluntarily and completely out of themselves will adhere to, then we should want the equilibrium that the rule would impose on society to be generating as much utility as possible in the broadest sense of the word: the protection these rules would offer would be as big as possible and the restrictions imposed on us to be as small as possible. So it would, when we have just rules, not be possible to get MORE security without it undermining the net utility gained from our 'peacefull' society, and it would not be possible to get LESS restrictions without that undermining security to the point where net utility would also be harmed either.

I think morality wants the choice for any specific kind of freedom (as i think freedom naturally contradicts itself and is therefore invented by choosing one type of liberty over another) to be the sort of freedom that contradicts itself as little as possible and that is as usefull to us as possible. In the case of anti-cartel legislation, this is also clearly the case, because the net-benefit derived from the type of freedom it supports yields more utility to society than the type of freedom it restricts.

In fact, anti-cartel legislation, a form of government interference in the workings of the market, is actually VERY much in line with Adam Smith´s doctrine of the 'invisible hand', wich is often misunderstood as a pledge for egoism. Here, government interference is actually supporting Smiths´ invisible hand.

 

[Солярис]

thoughtsunthought

 

[a1pha]

Forgive me for quoting her; I know most of you vomit at the sight of her words:

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
-Ayn Rand

 

[AluminumFoilRobots]

So the von Wright quote sent me on a little journey... his Myth of Progress jumped out at me.
I think it's a bit funny, how in the modern western world there are philosophers writing articles about "progress" as a myth, when that is really a gut understanding that I think is indicative of being really awake. Progress is indeed the key myth of what is called "Civilization" which is of course our effort to create an artificial environment around ourselves. It's what is propping this whole thing up, why else then pursue this way of life if things are not "getting better".
No one is any happier because of Civilization and its "progress" and there are grisly examples of this happing daily around the world. Modern technological civilization has fared the worst of all, genocide upon genocide, such extreme disparities in wealth between the people's of the earth, with so much of the earth's "wealth" (a concept the empire created) is funneled away from her people and into the economies of the Imperial nations. Even in those countries at the top of 21st century (another invention) civilization are no happier for it. This is a particularly sad example of what modern life does to people...

It just makes me wonder... is the title of this thread ironic?

 

[polytrip]

If this statement were read as a metaphor:

Here, government interference is actually supporting Smiths´ invisible hand.

Would the freedom shown in your expression be relevant to the title of this thread?

I think so, since especially the freedom a market needs in order for the invisible hand to do it's job has been misunderstood badly and in that way been a barrier to progres. Ayn rand has already been quoted here. Her interpretation of what freedom means and especiallly her interpretation of the invisible hand, is definately mistaken. As an influencial political thinker, she has been promoting the idea that egoism is what fuels the economy. Not only is that line of thinking directly responsible for the economic crisis that has emerged since 2008, but by doing so it has turned the concept of freedom into a hollow term: these days, if a politician says that he will defend freedom, you can bet your ass that he is planning to strip you from all your basic civil rights. In many ways the concept of freedom has been turned into it's exact opposite: the liberty to rob others of their freedom.

 

[Солярис]

thoughtsunthought

 

[brokin]

Freedom, as I see it in it's strictest form is complete self-dependence.
Absolutely no outsider ideas,rules, views.

Freedom I think means your own observation on how the world works no science no religion...no people.
You can't be truly free when you are born in a society.If you are in a group your "primordial freedom" is being taken on a daily basis.

Cooperation means finding a middle ground, losing some of your freedom and receiving some freedom for the greater good, for progress.

It sure sounds bad, but the word is being misused looking at it's true TRUE meaning.

In a society the problem arrives when people continuously give their freedom towards the greater good, while other continuously receive freedom.When this happens it's quite easy and natural for the receiver to take control.

Is language the tool of the devil? ^_^
It may be as without it the maintenance of true freedom wouldn't even be a problem.



I will just stop right here until I don't drive myself in a hole with all these.

 

[Солярис]

thoughtsunthought

 

[Michal_R]

Concepts like "freedom", "justice", "society" etc. will always arouse interest, discussion and dispute, which is - I believe - a good thing in itself.

However, as I.Kant taught us, we can never explore these ideas "in themselves" - they are simply noble ideas, not things out there. They are not finite things that could easily be subordinated to our reason and/or language. We can tell others what we think about them, but we can never tell others what/how exactly they "really" are. They are ideas to be fought for, not things to be told what/how they "really" are.

So... having discussions about "freedom" etc is definitely a good thing, and I like it

 

[Солярис]

Сам заварил кашу, сам и расхлёбывай.

 

[a1pha]

thoughtsunthought

Why did you just delete all the posts? This thread makes even less sense now. :thumb_dow

 

[Icon]

dang, i missed the expiration date... the ruins of this thread looked good.

 

[Michal_R]

My impression is that "Солярис" likes to make fun of people, not only by expressing himself/herself in an intentionally unintelligible way. I don´t know his/her reasons for retrospectively deleting all his/her posts, but it is a form of practice which prevents any good discussion. It destroys any discussion at (an unknown) will :thumb_dow

 

[AluminumFoilRobots]

bah humbug