What is freedom?

antibuddha

Does that mean that the laws of physics are not within our minds?
You can see laws of physics walking in the street? Or smell them? Or touch them?

0 Replies

val wrote:

To me, freedom is the possibility of choice between different alternatives.But to reach that freedom we must have the possibility of develop our personality in order to be able to choose. That is the role of education (in school and at home).

Spendius is wrong. Anarchy is the absolute absence of freedom.

Hmmm.. I'd strongly agree with Val's first comment here but I disagree with the last one.

Anarchy is complete freedom albeit, without any responsibility.

IMO, the two curbs on freedom are responsibility (where we limit our choices ourselves) and society (where others, through law or custom, limit our choices).

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

I have the ability to control my mind and my body. This is true freedom. Most of the chains that bind us are within our own mind. As are most of the "freedoms" we believe we possess. Freedoms, restrictions, government, laws and crime are all illusions that exist within our own mind. The only true laws that bind us are the laws of physics.

We are bound by laws of life too... life and physics coexist. For instance instinct may alter the way physics react but in physics it is called inertia not instinct. They are both very different things and they both affect the way things are and how they change.

Also a person can control their mind and do what they want to do but when their freedom becomes another persons prison then it is often not freedom at all but ego and self lust. Freedom is free within reason for all. When freedom is relegated to only a few then it is just another form of oppression. Freedom can be the greatest illusion, but freedom is also a real and tangent thing.

0 Replies

val wrote:

antibuddha

Does that mean that the laws of physics are not within our minds?
You can see laws of physics walking in the street? Or smell them? Or touch them?

Yes.

I see them every day I walk in the street.

I smell the air reacting with the surface area of my morning cup of tea (we're out of coffee).

I touch, with them as the majestic force of electric repulsion makes contact between the electrons of my hand and those of the object I "touch".

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

val wrote:
antibuddha

Does that mean that the laws of physics are not within our minds?
You can see laws of physics walking in the street? Or smell them? Or touch them?

Yes.

I see them every day I walk in the street.

I smell the air reacting with the surface area of my morning cup of tea (we're out of coffee).

I touch, with them as the majestic force of electric repulsion makes contact between the electrons of my hand and those of the object I "touch".

buddha can you "touch" freedom?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

buddha can you "touch" freedom?

No.

0 Replies

With freedom comes responsibility.
In this case freedom is talking about the ability to do things.

0 Replies

antibuddha

Sorry, but I disagree.
You have an olfactive sensation. You have a tactile sensation. That's all.

Saying that you smell the air with the surface area of your cup of tea is a conception you make, not the olfactive sensation. And this because you learned that there is something named tea with some special characteristics; then, you associate the olfactive sensation to tea.

When you touch something with your hand, all you have is a sensation in your hand - your nervous systhem. In fact, that sensation can be produced by direct stimulation of your nervous system, even if you are not touching anything.
Any relations you establish between your tactile sensation and the thing are concepts.

0 Replies

Freedom is a sixties pop song,
Freedom is my right to pick my favorite brand of fabric softener.

0 Replies

val wrote:

Any relations you establish between your tactile sensation and the thing are concepts.

As I mentioned in ontologically real, don't confuse the medium with the message. That my perception of the universe is conceptual only does not mean that the universe does not exist. That the "laws of physics" are a set of concepts in my head doesn't mean that there isn't a code of behaviour to which all matter and energy adhere. I use the english words (and concepts) because they are all I have, yet rest assured that I am referring to the actual entity, not the concept.

Perhaps my concepts are not entirely accurate representations of the actual entities, but the things to which they apply most likely exist. Unless you wish to descend into absolute nihilism it's pretty essential to assume that the universe exists.

0 Replies

antibuddha

I didn't say that concepts have no correspondance to perceived things. After all, scientific theories do work. Deseases are cured, men were on the moon, I have a microwave Smile

.
The problem is the nature of that correspondance. During more than one thousand years Aristotle's Physics worked. Newton physics worked well, including his conception of an absolute space and time. Modern physics work well, until now. In 100 or 200 years a new physic will surely work well.
What I mean by this, is the fact that even science laws are interpretations of our human experience. Saying that science laws express an objective reality, independant of our human experience, sounds to me like a metaphysical assumption, like the idea of God, or Soul. And this is the worst danger for science: to be used as a new religion.

0 Replies

val wrote:

Saying that science laws express an objective reality

Val mate, as I said in my other post (I think. To be honest I'm getting confused between this and another thread in which you and I are debating similar themes).

I'm NOT refering to the human written laws of physics that aristotle newton et al wrote, but the actual objective laws from which they were observed. These exist yet we are (largely) ignorant of what precisely they are, we attempt to observe them yet our observed versions are subjective rather than objective, conceptual rather than actual.

0 Replies

antibuddha

Then my question is: how do you know the existence of objective laws? By mystical intuition?

0 Replies

val wrote:

antibuddha. Then my question is: how do you know the existence of objective laws? By mystical intuition?

By sanity, assumption and axiom. All accepted parts of logical reasoning.

It's quite simple. Philosophy is all well and good but there comes a point where you've got to stop questioning and accept something as a starting point. One would be quite insane if we didn't accept that the universe is consistant and predictable.

Besides, it's pretty impossible to deduce anything if there's no constistancy thus if "nothing is predictable" is your base axiom you really can't build any philosophy upon it thus making it a rather pointless assumption to make.

No proof. But assuming anything else would get us nowhere.

Welcome to the fine art of assumption.

(p.s. if you study logic you will find out that logic, reasoning and philosophy is impossible without basing them upon unproven assumptions named axioms. I'd suggest reading about the matter if you are trying to go as far back in base philosophy as "what is objective and what is subjective". Apologies to anyone already familiar with this concept.)

0 Replies

antibuddha

Yes, we have to accept something as a starting point.
Yes, the universe is consistant. We can understand it.
Yes, if nothing is predictable we can't build any phylosophical theory.
And yes, most philosophical theories are impossible without axioms.

I didn't ask you to give any proof: I asked only how could you reach the knowledge of something that, by definition, is beyond any possible human experience.
So:
I accept as starting point our human experience.
As axiom that all objects of our knowledge must be within our experience conditions.
The universe MUST be consistant, given it's adequacy to us, to all the possible conditions of our human experience.
Since we experience things in relation, since one of our experience conditions is time, we must racionally establish causal relations between events (but that doesn't mean that all events are predictable).

0 Replies

Freedom doesn't exist today! It's just a matter of how 'controlled' you are. Anyone in any country not imprisoned is named as a 'free' man. However, even these free men cannot fight for their children, they cannot speak their minds, they cannot even celebrate their religions without being afraid of critiscism, violent interuption and/or imprisonment!

0 Replies

Wales rules

Don't you think you are exaggerating things?
After all, you are "speaking your mind". And I don't believe that in Wales you can't celebrate your religion without fear of imprisonment or violent interuption.
Can you be more specific about the situations you mencioned?

0 Replies

I guess I did get slightly carried away. I meant that people these days can't say anything without it being racist, sexist, or politically incorrect! And you mis-spelled menTioned.

0 Replies

wales rules

Thanks for the correction.

I see what you mean. I don't like the "politically correct". Why call a black man an "afro american" or a white man a "caucasian"? Why the fear of saying "black"? Because those people "politically correct" think that black, as skin pigmentation, is shameful! They are racists of the worst kind, the kind that doesn't even admit it.

0 Replies

Exactly, however I must point out to you that they now consider it racist to say afro-american!

0 Replies

What is freedom?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know