GameBanshee Forums

It's an oft-used word. Many of us bandy it about without really thinking. In the US, it is a particularly loaded term.

But how do *you* really define freedom? Is it the ability to feel you can practice your political and religious beliefs without fear of repression? Is it being able to fill basic needs such as adequate shelter, food and clothing? Is it the option of traveling wherever you want whenever you want? Is it the opportunity to pursue any education and/or career path you so choose? Is it being free of debt or obligation? Is it the right to individual will and self-determination? Is it complete freedom from poverty, or at the other extreme, is it the right to make as much money as possible regardless of who is trampled in the process?

Or maybe it's a combination of things. If so, which do you consider to be most important?

And where does the role of government fit into the equation? Sometimes government protects freedoms, sometimes it limits or prohibits them.



I'm still thinking about this myself, so I'll write up my own reply to all of that a bit later.

Ahhh, freedom. What an impossible and boundlessly interesting topic

I was seriously considering making a similar thread earlier, because I'm thinking about it a lot lately and trying to find answers, which is a giant quest.

People smack eachother in the face with freedom like it's a big fish nowadays. Freedom to defend yourself, freedom to act silly, freedom to dismiss another person's freedom, freedom to buy a hotdog. It's a dangerous place, freedom in a debate.

Freedom to me is a reason to live and to be human. It's a goal to find your freedom.

Freedom is to think about freedom. Freedom is to be allowed to find different answers.

2+2=4 but sometimes it's 5, sometimes 3, and sometimes all at the same time. Freedom is to think or reason about it and decide for yourself. That's freedom, I think, now... May think differently about that next month.

My conception's a bit dark...

For me, 'real', or to be more precise 'absolute, freedom lies in oblivion (note small o), the cessation of one's own existence. I was going to say death, but the jury's been out for a while on whether death and oblivion are the same thing.

Pardon the short/indistinct reply, I went to a friend's friend's 18th last night and am shrugging off pretty much the worst hangover I've ever had today. Tequila and vodka shots do not mix well...

Freedom, to me, is the right to practice your beliefs without any fear of repression, as long as your beliefs don't infringe upon another person's right. But, there must be limits as well. In my opinion, the reason I say this is because freedom can be abused, just like anything else in existence. Some will use it to attack someone else's belief, some will use it to justify their wrongdoing and other examples.

This is as far as I can say, since I'm not a man of many words.

I agree with lythium but find numbers too abstract so I'll use elephants instead

[quote="lythium]2+2=4 but sometimes it's 5"]

Elephants are gray but sometimes they're pink and sometimes orange, and sometimes all at the same time. Freedom is to think or reason about it and decide for yourself.

e: Freedom is apparently found in lysergic acid.

@Vicsun

Vicsun wrote:Elephants are gray but sometimes they're pink and sometimes orange, and sometimes all at the same time. Freedom is to think or reason about it and decide for yourself.

...and this personalized truth will set you free... from any reason

@DW

But how do *you* really define freedom? Is it the ability to feel you can practice your political and religious beliefs without fear of repression? Is it being able to fill basic needs such as adequate shelter, food and clothing? Is it the option of traveling wherever you want whenever you want? Is it the opportunity to pursue any education and/or career path you so choose? Is it being free of debt or obligation? Is it the right to individual will and self-determination? Is it complete freedom from poverty, or at the other extreme, is it the right to make as much money as possible regardless of who is trampled in the process?

Or maybe it's a combination of things. If so, which do you consider to be most important?

You are talking about basic human needs and conventional liberties determined by culture. Our choices are limited by laws, customs, religion, and common sense. And the circumstances. When you are starving or suffocating, you don’t care much about philosophy.
Even a fulfillment of basic needs can be constructive/destructive. For example, if you fulfill your need for security, your freedom to travel might be limited. If you fulfill your need to eat chocolate (basic need #1 if you ask me), you might find out that your need to wear that flattering outfit is frustrated.
The "inner" freedom of thought is limited by our experience, dogmatic narrow-mindedness, education, cultural background, and "whathaveye". We all live in the Plato's Cave.
So, there is no real freedom.
BUT... Since you ask what I consider to be most important for myself... and my basic needs are somewhat fulfilled (except need #1)...
The most important is freedom to leave the Cave. But it is difficult.

Boy, the 10 000 dollar question! First I shall tell you what I believe, then what I think.

I am presently halfway through Vico's New Science, a charming book, if you ever get a chance to read it. Dated, perhaps, but I find it hard not to find statements such as these especially pithy:

"People first sense what is necessary, then consider what is useful, next attend to comfort, later delight in pleasures, soon grow dissolute in luxury, and finally go mad squandering their estates."

The big question is, as society gets more and more permissive, is it always a good thing that people are left to indulge in all the new wants and desires that may arise as one set is gratified and gives way to another?

Freedom without autonomy is just basically doing what one should have done anyway, with or without a fancy word for it. Autonomy, i.e. making one's own laws, is characteristic of aristocracies. In fact, I would go so far as to say that no one can really own anything properly while governed by laws that are subject to some kind of legislative organ. In modern countries, the State owns all land, and people are granted use of that land according to the laws. The modern concept of national sovereignty is a hidden proof of that.

However, though technically not aristocrats, people can be in possession of more or less exclusive privileges; that same privilege given to someone else, the position of the former is naturally devalued. A concrete example would be modern mass education: over the last fifty years or so, it has been extended to virtually everyone; yet, ironically, over the same period education has come to signify something quite rudimentary, in which reading, writing and algebra are not even included anymore. Likewise, travelling as it is practised by the general public is now some kind of institutionalized recreation. Religion, in all the various forms as it is allegedly practised in the West today is as devoid of any real spirituality as it has ever been. People have their fifteen minutes of fame on MTV or Big Brother; as a consequence we have no real heroes, Goethe and Beethoven are replaced by different variants of Everyman.

So is this a good thing? Socrates says that the majority are neither capable of the greatest goods nor the greatest evils. It is probable that most people are really only harming themselves whilst practising "their freedom," in which case I could not care less. But it is equally possible that a less effeminate nation, such as the Russians or Chinese, simply move in and take over the whole shop, while we are "squandering our estates." History tells us again and again that it is not the most sophisticated peoples that prevail. In that case, our "freedom" would be very little worth, and our delicate sensibilities only a burden.

Interesting choice of topic, DW.

It is impossible to avoid generalities in a discussion such as this one, so with that out of the way, here is what I think and feel about "Freedom."

Freedom can be defined as a lack of restraints upon an individual or a society...the ability to pursue one's own agenda in life without being presecuted by others for doing so. What I find interesting is this: in order to engineer a setting wherein such a thing is possible, individual freedoms must be curtailed to a certain degree. So truly we see two definitions of freedom then: one commonly shared in a moralistic sort of society which in reality involves restraint, and another belonging to an amoral outlook which observes no inhibitions whatsoever. Going out on a limb, I imagine most of us here think of the former as opposed to the latter. That is, in any case, the concept of freedom prevalent in the Western world.

Typically our thoughts gravitate towards governmental control when we think of freedom. To a degree that is where my own dwell, but to be perfectly honest there must be some form of oversight in a society if we wish to strive for equality amongst peers. One social/economic group must be prevented from predating upon another...to include the entity of oversight itself, i.e. the government. Limits must be in place and observed if such a thing is to work. Rarely does that actually occur, since all parties involved in a "free" society must share a vested interest in preserving the freedoms of the whole.

It is possible, looking over the course of human history, to see how extremes in societies lead to their downfall. Free markets with no controls in place lead to monopolies and oppressed consumers. Over-regulated markets under strict governmental control lead to...well, something very similar to the polar opposite. Extremism of all brands...from anarchy to dictatorships, from governments who brutally oppress religion amongst their citizens to those who are in fact a religion themselves...is the biggest enemy of humanity. Extremes erode societies and lead to their demise, and it is for this reason a balance between freedom and control must be sought after, maintained, and sometimes fought for.

It applies on a very personal level as well. Imagine how very few friends you would have if you exercised wanton hedonism, doing whatever you liked, whenever you liked, to whomever you liked. You would end up with more enemies than allies. The same would apply if you projected some stern, harsh code upon yourself, your family and your friends. People would avoid you like the bubonic plague. An old saying applies here, I think: there's a time to laugh, and a time to cry. I'm free to do whatever I want, but sometimes I just shouldn't. There has to be restraint if we wish to get along with others.

So freedom, for me anyway, is a loaded concept. It involves respecting boundaries, and refusing to cross those lines out of respect for a common good. While it is possible to imagine such a society where balance exists, reality tells us it just isn't possible.