|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: True Freedom | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
I have not experienced true freedom once, in my life. I have been under something that seems free, that people tell me is free, that schools teach is free, that media forces onto me as free. Should I have to settle for such freedom? For the seemingly free? For "the best that there is yet", for systems that are designed to keep me thinking that I am truly free? For propaganda, and wars all centered on essentially maintaining our "free" system, the "free" way of things. If I was to be truly free, things would be different.
We wouldn't need leaders, leaders like Bismarck, Napolean, Bush, Hitler, and Charlemagne. We wouldn't need leaders and the games they play with our lives, like chess. I wouldn't be less than a pawn in this absurdity, far less than what a pawn would mean to the leader. A simple person, a simple student, someone without any influence globally on my own situation, and the situation of those that I know. To be free, the games that leaders conduct globally would have to be eradicated. Because until then, we would be stuck in the system, stuck at the bottom of it, into a hierarchy filled with others born into position, and unable to change it at all. To be free, governments themselves would have to be stopped, we could not have groups of potential leaders, powerful people at the head of decision making for our own well-being. We would have to control it. There would be no democratic voting, because voting is a less than fruitful experience, ending in a choice for the better of the 2, or 3, or 400, leaders and groups. The better of, is not the best, the best is when one controls his or her own destiny totally. There would be no need for these out-dated systems. There would be no towns. There would be no cities. There would be no counties. There would be no countries. There would be only the earth, as it is. There would be no borders to decide the strongest, or superior of systems. No borders to control where we go, what we see, or who we talk with. No borders to increase "Nationalism", which in turn means that there would be no feelings for the extension of power on a scale that effects millions in other places in the world. No maps with areas carved into them to control everything that we are, and do, to classify all of humanity, limiting the freedom to be truly oneself and not to be called an American, a Frenchman, or a German. There would be no societies, used as platforms to endorse and promote the ideas of a few brilliant people and to subjugate others to the ideas of these few. Freedom in this sense would entail the thinking of oneself, and to be seperate from the ideas of others if he or she wanted. But in societies which subcribe to governments, and economic systems, we are tied to these ideas, and are destined to be never truly free. True freedom would also mean that there would be no economic systems, because there would be no need for money, no need for primitive currencies to buy and sell, all of which limits the freedoms of the people, forced to use the system constructed or be a hopeless starving wanderer. There would be no occupations, no jobs, no pre-destined purposes, which never never never are what anybody ever thought for themselves to do with their lives. There would not be systems to give people things to do, to keep people from realizing the absurdity of this existance, to keep people trapped in their secure daily lives of money, and of family. To make sure that noone realizes that there is no meaningful purpose, no individuals must give up on the established way of things. Because once one knows that we are here in this abyss of existance and without clear purpose, one realizes that there are no purposes of any merit, or value. Because there is nothing that we can do that means anything because there are no standards. There is no guideline, there are no rules. All there is, is existing, and to wonder for what, and why, and to not know. Then people begin to know that there is only one path that makes any sense. The path to transcendance, to true freedom. And then one realizes that all of the existance that everyone else is in, that all the silly humans participate in, the existance of societies, and of governments, and of power, and of money, is the worst reality that could be realized. Because it seperates one from all of it. It makes recluses, people who can't socialize with others on mindless levels of small talk about sports, and business. It makes people commit suicide, and it makes truly intelligent individuals. It makes people want true freedom, but realize that it's not even worth it, because we will die in this existance, this place of mental torment, of no meaning. Where people take occupations to have false purpose rather than no purpose at all. Albert Camus' summation of life for many in the Sisyphus myth, where one finds purpose in meaningless tasks such as jobs, or occupations within an economy, that although Sisyphus pushes the rock up the hill for it to fall again, which is absurd (as are all jobs) he finds purpose in the task. This is as most humans behave, to find purpose in business, and in science, and in mathematics, in teaching, in anything, as meaningless as it all is, because these jobs do not matter, and they have no value. Many simply go through the system because they have not realized that their entire existance has been without meaning. Or they don't want to, and close their minds to ideas about the meaning of life, and the purpose of humanity's existance. This thread started with "true freedom", but I feel that true freedom only exists outside what we see in the physical world, and is only present within our minds. Freedom is in transcending what is real, as did Siddhartha, and Christ. The only valid purpose that one can speak of, a purpose with any meaning at all is a purpose that Christ spoke of, to love the rest of your kind in this absurd existance. Because there is nothing else that is good and righteous to live for. Let us seek this freedom called truth, for nothing in this existance can ever be meaningful except for knowing why. Knowing why we are here, and why we exist. That's true freedom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
great idea and what not, just not very practical.
you want to get rid of cities?society? move back to the barter system? but that last part, sounds quite platonic.an ideal freedom, and this freedom we have. your defintion of freedom also seems to be quite a bit different, more idealistic, than the one we currently have. I tend to follow the jefferonian ideal of freedom--liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness. As to purpose. Most of life is fake. But everyonce in a while, you might just find, there is something that IS meaningful, that isn't a waste of time. Not a blown up, exageratted purpose, but a real one. And christ and siddhartha aren't the only ones to find life's purpose. And the purpose they had (love, as far as I can discern) isn't the only real purpose in life. It's hard to explain, and I probably can't give an example--I can't right now. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1267 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I find no truer words written. How eloquent, how true.
Sartre and Smullyan founded libertarianism. That man is by definition: free. Smullyan provides an excellent example in his work Is God a Taoist putting words to God. quote: Man is inherently free but man is subject to environment.When I say environment I mean everything that influences a human being. Examples of environment are: culture one is born into, religion of one's parents, whether one is born in an urban or rural area or somewhere in between, born into a third world culture, the values/morals of one's society, taboos of one's society, one's economic status(upper,middle,lower working class) etc etc... There are many, many more. One may become a hard determinist through thinking on their envvironment and how they have been shaped by their environment to be for a fitting example: a militant fundamentalist christian. I am a libertarian along with Jean-Paul Sartre and Ray Smullyan. One can overcome one's environment. That is beautiful. This is rarely done, in fact it is almost never done. But through reasoning one's existence it can be achieved. I am on the other extreme but this view gives me hope in this "absurd abyss of existence"(Camus). Edited by -messenjah of one, : typo in the second or third sentence Edited by -messenjah of one, : typo, again Edited by -messenjah of one, : arrogance Edited by -messenjah of one, : A trivial point Edited by -messenjah of one, : arrogance Edited by -messenjah of one, : arrogance
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1267 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: That's John Locke, enlightenment thinker
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
As to purpose. Most of life is fake. But everyonce in a while, you might just find, there is something that IS meaningful, that isn't a waste of time. Not a blown up, exageratted purpose, but a real one. And christ and siddhartha aren't the only ones to find life's purpose. And the purpose they had (love, as far as I can discern) isn't the only real purpose in life. It's hard to explain, and I probably can't give an example--I can't right now. I would agree with this. There are people, I think, who have purposes that are innate. This is not to say that they fulfill them--but they know them when they see them. And perhaps the greatest moment in one's life is when one achieves--even in a small way--an innate purpose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
technically, no.
Locke isliberty, equality, property. or wait, is it life, liberty, happiness?damn, I'm confused now. probably the latter. no wonder I failed the AP government test. oh, and that should read jeffersonian, not jefferonian.(at my own silly mistake) All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1267 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
No Jefferson without Locke. (add emphasis after sentence here)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
right, and no Locke without Descarte.
had to be opposition, somewhere, right? (unless I've my history wrong, and Descarte came after Locke, but I don't think so) at any rate, definetely no Humes without Locke, and no Kant without Humes. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1267 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Jefferson is ghosting Locke. That is a fact. It's good, I'm just nitpicking.
Descartes gave support for the mind, I think therefore I am, I don't see the correlation oyu described between him and Locke, not to be a petty person. In chat anglagard said Spinoza before Locke, is that who you are looking for? If not educate me on why youu chose Descartes? Edited by -messenjah of one, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I'm not sure if I contested that fact (may have been accidentally implies).
But jefferson is more than just a rewrite of Locke. He's almost like the American da Vince. And Locke, while a good thinker, was no da Vinci. ah, who cares. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1267 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
For whatever it's worth: Jefferson reminds me of Che.
Possibly very inaccurate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
You took the american ap?
That's cool, me too. I did ok on it, got a 3. Average I guess. My brother likes arguing about trivial things like jefferson and locke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: That's not freedom, that's men in power attempting to give just enough to satisfy the masses, while a government of wealthy elites, like the founding fathers hold power. I agree that your definition of freedom is good. It is just not good enough. Why settle for less, you know?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
got a 2. I think I confused plebiscite with refereundum, which really screwed up one of my essays. been a while since I took it, though.
dude, locke and jefferson ain't trivial. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024