How do you define Freedom? When something is "freely chosen" what are the characteristics of

[patrice]

that decision?

[panader0]

1. Being able to do whatever you want

as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

[patrice]

4. How does one identify what one "wants"?

[Democracyinkind]

2. a traditional definition would include stuff like

autonomy, being adequately informed, absence of coercion and a general ability to make distinctions on reasonable grounds.

But I suspect you're a philosopher or something, and want to point out that such definitions are but elaborate sophistry?

If so.
Hit me.

[patrice]

7. I don't think I would meet some people's definition of a "philosopher", although

there are stories in my Family about me asking "odd" questions as early as 6 years old, but I suspect that that is a relatively organic tendency in more children than we usually recognize, one that is usually quashed by ChurchCo.

I think we are in general agreement on the definition that you have provided. The part that I am curious about its social dimensions is "ability to make distinctions on reasonable grounds". Wondering how that works for others.

[Democracyinkind]

10. Well... exactly.. I'm not a philosopher either

although I have some formal education on that topic. And I totally see your point - I mean a majority of people voted for Hitler in 1933. (I wannad to write the Bush example, but I'm not that convinced about the "majority" thing anymore (2000&2004))

A drastic consequential aspect of that question would be: Should there be an Intelligence minimum in order to have voting rights (In most countries there are), that go beyond the traditional requirements for citizenry (most countries have not, I couldn't think of any that has).

I believe in such a minimum, but mine is met almost entirely by the reading and writing ability test - I wouldn't know how to define it any narrower - even if the consequence is people voting for crooks based on lies.

Was that the direction you wanted the argument to go?

[patrice]

15. Pretty much. As you say then, Intelligence as a corelate of the ability to discern and, thus,

to be making a free decision, i.e. an inherent characteristic of "Democracy" (the worst form of government there is, except for all others, according to my Libertarian spouse).

Intelligence is a VERY rough corelate though!!! All sorts of factors there, the degree to which it is applied for one, and even persons of relatively "low" intelligence can use what they have to its max (if they so WILL) and, thus, decide as freely as it is possible for them to do so.

Just brainstorming here . . . .

more later.

:hi: Welcome to DU, Democracyinkind! :hi:

Have fun!

[Democracyinkind]

18. Yeah, intelligence is a real clusterfuck

... thanks for the welcome .. I'm rather positively surprised to walk into a philosophical discussion at such an early stage of my writing here ...

There is an endless potential for debate around these concepts... What should a required level political intelligence be?
Would we be talking about IQ levels solely? Or would emotional intelligence, such as detecting when someone is bullshitting you, be required too?
I'm just really afraid of narrowing these things down. I believe myself to be sufficiently informed to vote, but somehow I know I'm joking myself. Maybe such a discussion should also include the question of whether we even can be significantly informed on political matters in these times. When everyone has a hidden agenda, when the very structures of the democratic process become invisible, is my vote really that much more informed than that of a hypothetical mongrel?

And what does "rational" mean in a political sense? -.- Would we be talking about political machinations, or about genuinely rational processes of decision?

Somehow the aspect of "being sufficiently informed" really ties into this subject of what a rational requirement for voting could be.

[gratuitous]

3. And is a "free choice" always "freely chosen"?

For example, some young guy or gal signs up for the military, deceived by stories of honor, freedom and duty. After two years or six years or decades after separation, they're called back for more bloodshed and violence. The 18-year-old who "freely" signed up has become 25 or 45 or 55, and has a much different take on the world and what constitutes service to the country.

[patrice]

8. That one definitely comes to mind. Also, Marriage and Economic decisions. . .

I rarely use "absolutes" but I'm wondering if there is EVER anything such as "too free" on a personal/individual level.

It seems obvious what the limitations on "freedom" are for groups, no absolutes there, but I have been speculating about whether individuated freedom should ever be less than absolute, because (now please don't accuse me of sophistry here because of the apparent contradiction, but . . . ) absolute individual freedom would also, rightly/truly or wrongly/falsely free one from the notion of "freedom". For what that could cost one, and others, there's a bit of a Risk there.

[NOW tense]

5. Freedom is

to be able to make a decision without fear.

[patrice]

9. I like this for its "elegance". Just for fun . . .

Let's talk about fear, just a little: it's factors/sources . . . ?

[Democracyinkind]

13. My sociology textbook says that

man's greatest fear is to be tipped on the shoulder from out of the dark.
So they suggest fear has something to do with predictability and unwelcome surprises.
Maybe because the textbook is authored by a man it omits the concept of trust, which seems to be required for any sensible discussion of fear.

One could say that we fear that which we can't trust.
And some people might want to make a distinction between "rational fears" and "irrational fears" - a distinction which is prominently figured in a book I like very much : The culture of fear by Barry Glassner.

[NOW tense]

16. Fear

Fear is a negative reaction to what does not feel right. Neither fear or worry can exist in the present tense. Fear is based upon our learned experience, perceived and actual. Worry is based in the future, for lack of confidence that things will not work. Putting your mind in both of these negative places leads to failure.

[baldguy]

6. Freedom is just another word for "nothing left to lose".

Freedom means you have the right to tell people what they don't want to hear.


Also a substitute for "French" in any context.

[patrice]

12. I'll go with the French connection as long as we are Liberated from guillotines too.

P.S. You get my prize for Heart for the Bobby McGee reference. I can honestly say that, though my own life took an entirely "opposite" path, I loved Janis Joplin.

[The Straight Story]

11. Freedom means not having fundies (of any stripe) telling me what I can do, who I can do it with

being able to speak my mind without fear of imprisonment or death, and using all that freedom to put people in jail who want to take away my freedom/safety/belongings.

It also means a lot of beer. Can't have freedom without beer.

[patrice]

20. There is an organic Reason why brewing is one of the oldest Arts there is!

One of my brothers is entirely devoted to it: Brewing and Friends.

I live in a Fundie hot-bed; significant consequences for expressing your mind publicly around here!!!

:puke: All in the name of "love" :puke:

I'm working on freeing myself from them; the hang up is that I fear that means that I must "accept" them. Not! there yet, but . . .

Om namah Shivayah!

[derby378]

14. I remember reading someone's analysis on an EST seminar...

The trainer, it seems, was trying to convey the notion that you do not have to rationalize the choices you make in life - you choose them because that's how you roll, which implies that you have the freedom and self-determination to do so. After this one woman was asked over and over to explain why she chose vanilla ice cream over other flavors without dragging any external stimuli or prejudices into it, she finally said, "I choose vanilla because I choose vanilla!" Which was apparently good enough for the trainer.

[patrice]

17. If you think about the organic decision-making networks that we're talking about here,

some decisions are going to be characterized by relatively high valences throughout the depth and breadth of the network, relatively strong impulses in relatively extensive patterns, others relatively low energy in relatively limited nets, and then every degree/permutation between between the two extremes.

That's a little over-simplified, but it is the general concept.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Nothing is purely "freely chosen,"

The conditions we face and the very notion of a choice are given to us.

[patrice]

22. Truly said. You can only seek the highest degree possible under given conditions, which INCLUDE

biological and social histories that make true randomness nearly impossible, or, if possible, not very functional.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. Randomness is just an order we're not used to

;-)

(with apologies to Henri Bergson)

[patrice]

27. Yep. I should have said "functional".

A different drummer, who can speak our language, but we don't evern recognize the drummer, let alone speak its "language", or, if we do, we tend to call it "god" and all that pertains to that.

[stillcool]

21. There are always choices..

some are bad and worse, and they all have consequences. I think freedom is a state of mind, like happiness. After all, we supply our own chains that bind us.

[Democracyinkind]

23. Utah Phillips ...

used to give this definition, derived from someone I forgot at the moment...

" Freedom is the degree to which you push back when someone tries to take it from you "

I very much like that recursive definition. Kinda brings out the sense that freedom is predominantly a phenomenon, not a concept.

[patrice]

24. Oh Yes! Oh yes! A phenomenal process. Indeed! or should I say "In deed."

It's a "doing", an event, your event. Thank you for this. :hug: . . . not an object.

And it would include even when that "someone" trying to take it from you is you, i.e. when you try to take it from yourself, or give up on it.

It's that recursiveness that's bugging me lately, because it implies that the process would also lead to, under certain circumstances to be discerened by You, "giving up on 'not giving up'", so absolute personal freedom, though RISKY!!!, is desirable to the degree to which it is actually a process that frees.

[Democracyinkind]

25. I totally dig that ... Interpreting freedom in terms of a process

... is enlightening even if no one ever encroaches on your rights... Exactly because it implies ones ability to have an internal discourse on what freedom really means in a phenomenological sense.

And I really like your pointing out how that process can include a conflict of freedom within oneself. The degree to which you push back is the degree to which you apply your personal meaning of freedom, a philosophical minded person could say. In deed (how witty of you...)

[patrice]

28. It also gives meaning to what we refer to as "responsibility".

If the whole thing is always objectified and externalized, responsibility is always mitigated by ___________, other things out of my control. You're always waiting for _______________, so you can be "responsible" for what happens.

I think more about process lately, but getting over the habit of objectification requires constant reminding oneself what it is that you are doing, and there are some things that I DO cling to.

[Democracyinkind]

29. Responsibility is dead, or so I heard.

What you wrote reminds me of Pierre Bourdieu's concept of "objectify the objectifying subject".
"You", in that sense, is a pretty wide subject :-)

[Raymond Budelman]

30. Freedom

Freedom is a right, not (contrary to what many believe) a privilege!

[GeorgeGist]

31. Sanity

[Kip Humphrey]

32. Freedom means I consciously create my life the way I want it to be because

I will otherwise create it anyway whether it is the way I want it to be (A part of my sig line below).