17
   

What Do You Need To Be Free?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 11:52 am
@Closedeye,
Closedeye wrote:
"what do you need to be free?"
cIt depends on what you interpret freedom to be. and freedom from what?
I believe all human beings seek a way to achieve freedom from suffering.
So from that perspective i would aswer you, Freedom is the absense of suffering.

The absense of suffering is another word for, nothing left to lose.
So, according to u,
the Rockefellers and the Trumps are suffering because thay have a lot left to lose ??????????



0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 08:13 pm

critism
0 Replies
 
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 10:12 am
@William,
In order to say what is or is not about anything, one must know the definition of a thing. One should ssee this in Set Theory, where it is known that there is two and only two methods of constructing a set, enumeration and definition. Definition determines class membership, and thus, in the Universal, determines the principles of predication. So, Define the self.
The mind is that environmental acquisition system which must acquire experiences and from those abstract forms applicable to human behavior so as to produce human will that maintains and promotes the life of the body.

Therefore, we need right experience, and right mental abilities.

Perception determines conception, conception determines willl.

Freedom is often used as an ellipses, freedom is free to will, not freedom of expression, or freedom from will.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 10:59 pm
First we need to demonstrate conclusively that we have or can have free will. I'm not convinced. Until that happens, I don't see how the question of freedom and even pertain.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 01:05 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
First we need to demonstrate conclusively that we have or can have free will. I'm not convinced.
Until that happens, I don't see how the question of freedom and even pertain.
"Pertain" to WHAT ??
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 01:11 am
@OmSigDAVID,
My bad. "obtain"
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 09:53 am
@FBM,
"Pertain" to the subject which rationally imposes it...or is "obtained" by the subject who gives it form, I suppose...
0 Replies
 
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 09:58 am
@FBM,
You mean you must define "will". Plato made the distinction in Gorgias. Human action is divided between doing what one pleases and doing what one wills.

One is based upon emotion, the other rationality. Since the human mind has a very specific function, will is defined as a product of that function.
That function was once put into a puzzle to test the function itself. The name of the Beast 666. It was written that one man would solve that problem.
The solution is actually easy. "To make one's coming and going so as to make the past into the future and bring the future to pass." It is actually based on the fact that we learn by experience in order to predict the results of our behavior so that we maintain and promote the life of the body. The Beast 666 is the Spirit of Truth. A more complete explanation is to be found in Language and Experience posted in the internet archive.

It naturally follows that the true leaders in the field of human freedom are not those who sacrifice their bodies on the battle field, but sacrifice their mind to understanding.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 07:52 am
OK, let me try this: We're only really free if we have the ability to act acausally. That is, produce an uncaused cause. I have yet to run into an example of that, but I'm willing to entertain/examine candidates.
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 08:10 am
@FBM,
You cannot define the term in such a manner as to violate the definiti0n of an environmental acquisition system of a living organism. i.e. language is not different from language- and the function of language is defined under the function of the human mind, which is an environmental acquisition system.
We are responsible for causal actions, otherwise, the only free person is one that is brain dead.

One thing these four agree upon, definition, Plato, Aristotle, Scripture--will is a specific product of the human mind-rationality. Until one is rational, they have no will. Thus, free will can only mean not freedom from will, which any brain dead person is in such a state, but free to will.

So, depending upon your understanding, to say a person has free will is either derision or a compliment.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 09:08 am
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

You cannot define the term in such a manner as to violate the definiti0n of an environmental acquisition system of a living organism.


Why not? What is an "environmental acquisition system"? How is an enviroment 'acquired'?

Quote:
i.e. language is not different from language-


A is not not A. Tautology. OK. What does this contribute to the discussion, exactly?

Quote:
and the function of language is defined under the function of the human mind, which is an environmental acquisition system.


"defined under the function of". What does that mean? Now I know what your definition of an "environmental acquisition system" is, though. Mind. How does the mind "acquire" the enviroment?

Quote:
We are responsible for causal actions, otherwise, the only free person is one that is brain dead.


Gimme a minute to smoke a cigarette and work that connection out.


Nope. Didn't help. How did you get from point A to point B there?

Quote:
One thing these four agree upon, definition, Plato, Aristotle, Scripture--


Hang on. Why should I/we believe in the inerrancy of any of those? Definition is convention, Plato and Aristotle (connection unclear in the first place) were not omniscient, as evidenced by their numerous mistaken conclusions and beliefs (examples provided upon request), and Scripture? Whose? Which? Srsly. In this day and age, you still believe in Bronze Age superstition and fairy tale rubbish designed to control the credulous masses? Please fast-forward to the present century, if you don't mind.

Quote:
will is a specific product of the human mind-rationality.


Unsupported bald assertion, but never mind. I'm getting the picture.

Quote:
Until one is rational, they have no will.


So...no one is morally responsible for an irrational act. Cool. I'm going to smoke crack, get blistered, rape a nun and walk free. Thanks for the heads-up, dood. Until now, I'd been holding back. Silly me.

Quote:
Thus, free will can only mean not freedom from will,


Did somebody say it was?

Quote:
which any brain dead person is in such a state,


*cough*

Quote:
but free to will.


Which puts us right back where we started. Progress = 0.

Quote:
So, depending upon your understanding, to say a person has free will is either derision or a compliment.


You have free will. Figure it out.
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 09:44 am
@FBM,
You wear the cliche that since you were unable to comprehend simple English, that I am the idiot well. Looks nice on you.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 09:48 am
@NoOne phil,
I've been teaching English at university level for 12 years. I'm gradually becoming more confident in my reading comprehension level. Jibberish is hard to translate. Maybe I just need more training.
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 09:51 am
@FBM,
Maybe you do. That is why I post Language Theory, started by a few ancient Greeks, but forgotten in history due to the lack of intelligence, free on the internet archive.
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=johnclark8659&sort=-publicdate
There is also free audio-books from other sources I have done which will familiarize you with my useage of terms.

I devoted my time to eliminating your kind of teacher.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 06:28 pm
@NoOne phil,
Yeah, I had a stroll through the offerings there. I'll just have to give that a pass, thanks. I'm also currently a grad student in Philosophy, and I'm studying the ancient Greeks, too. I don't want to get that sort of 'information' mixed up with what I'm taught in class.

Cheers, and good luck eliminating 'my kind'. Buh-bye.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 01:26:32