The philosophy of freedom

Cypress

"Cypress you motherfucking whore!"
About 1000 B.C., the Indian Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita set forth a dual idea of freedom defined in two senses.Both meanings are contained in the word swaraj. Philosophers conceived of swaraj in a strict political sense of rule over one’s own land. Swaraj was also understood in a spiritual or psychological sense of rule over one’s soul or self. This second meaning should be taken to understand that through self-knowledge, one acquires freedom from ignorance, illusion, and fear. Therefore, one was unfree if obsessed with money or possessions. The Bhagavad Gita says that the truly free person acts without craving. The highest level of consciousness is learning that our being is at one with all beings, and spiritual liberation comes from unity with all beings. Understanding of unity brings liberation from alienation, divisiveness, and fear. The freest person sees all beings in himself, and himself in all beings.

In ancient Greece, the liberal/external idea of freedom is the key to what Pericles and most Greeks thought of freedom. In the writings of Greek historian Thucydides about the Peloponnesian war, the funeral oration of Pericles expounds the Athenian democracy of the 5th century B.C. In contrast to oppressive states of Sparta, Athenians were free and tolerant in their public and private lives. Pericles called the city “the apostle of freedom and an education to all of Greece.” Athens was the first democratic system at all and could claim a direct democracy whose citizens had a high level of involvement in public affairs.

The third view of freedom was the Christian view. This form of freedom depended on knowledge of a moral or spiritual truth, which was a religious truth. This truth led to freedom from sin, ignorance, and fear.

The problem John Stuart Mill sought to remedy was the attempt by society to force individuals to conform to a code of conduct that might be irrational. His solution was to preserve and enlarge the realm of individual freedom. Mill’s goal is to determine the limit beyond which the interference of collective opinion with individual independence cannot be legitimate. In his view, an individual’s freedom can be restricted only for the sake of preventing injury to another. Among the freedoms that Mill wanted to ensure were freedom of thought, opinion, conscience, and eccentric preferences.



^^ source credit: Dennis Dalton, political philosopher, Colombia University
 
About 1000 B.C., the Indian Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita set forth a dual idea of freedom defined in two senses.Both meanings are contained in the word swaraj. Philosophers conceived of swaraj in a strict political sense of rule over one’s own land. Swaraj was also understood in a spiritual or psychological sense of rule over one’s soul or self. This second meaning should be taken to understand that through self-knowledge, one acquires freedom from ignorance, illusion, and fear. Therefore, one was unfree if obsessed with money or possessions. The Bhagavad Gita says that the truly free person acts without craving. The highest level of consciousness is learning that our being is at one with all beings, and spiritual liberation comes from unity with all beings. Understanding of unity brings liberation from alienation, divisiveness, and fear. The freest person sees all beings in himself, and himself in all beings.

In ancient Greece, the liberal/external idea of freedom is the key to what Pericles and most Greeks thought of freedom. In the writings of Greek historian Thucydides about the Peloponnesian war, the funeral oration of Pericles expounds the Athenian democracy of the 5th century B.C. In contrast to oppressive states of Sparta, Athenians were free and tolerant in their public and private lives. Pericles called the city “the apostle of freedom and an education to all of Greece.” Athens was the first democratic system at all and could claim a direct democracy whose citizens had a high level of involvement in public affairs.

The third view of freedom was the Christian view. This form of freedom depended on knowledge of a moral or spiritual truth, which was a religious truth. This truth led to freedom from sin, ignorance, and fear.

The problem John Stuart Mill sought to remedy was the attempt by society to force individuals to conform to a code of conduct that might be irrational. His solution was to preserve and enlarge the realm of individual freedom. Mill’s goal is to determine the limit beyond which the interference of collective opinion with individual independence cannot be legitimate. In his view, an individual’s freedom can be restricted only for the sake of preventing injury to another. Among the freedoms that Mill wanted to ensure were freedom of thought, opinion, conscience, and eccentric preferences.



^^ source credit: Dennis Dalton, political philosopher, Colombia University

The sad thing is there is no longer freedom of thought, opinion or conscience.
 
The sad thing is there is no longer freedom of thought, opinion or conscience.

I don't agree.

Freedom is a slippery word we throw around without ever really thinking about what it means.


I should have included FDR's formulation of freedom - the four freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear,freedom from want.
 
I don't agree.

Freedom is a slippery word we throw around without ever really thinking about what it means.


I should have included FDR's formulation of freedom - the four freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear,freedom from want.

Well I have heard people say you are free to say what you like but not the consequences of saying it. That may be true but the consequences have the effect of reducing ones freedom and willingness to speak. The effect is the same regardless of the reasons.

The last 2 from FDR make no sense whatsoever. How about freedom of association? Can the govt morally demand me to do business I don't want to do business with? Some people certainly think so.
 
Well I have heard people say you are free to say what you like but not the consequences of saying it. That may be true but the consequences have the effect of reducing ones freedom and willingness to speak. The effect is the same regardless of the reasons.

The last 2 from FDR make no sense whatsoever. How about freedom of association? Can the govt morally demand me to do business I don't want to do business with? Some people certainly think so.

Bigots are generally free to say anything they want, short of threats of violence.

Other people have the freedom to decide for themselves if they want to be friends with that person, work with them, or invite them to social gatherings.

Freedom isn't a one way street who's highest goal is to make sure that a bigot's coworkers will still go to lunch with him.

Freedom is a two way street
 
Bigots are generally free to say anything they want, short of threats of violence.

Other people have the freedom to decide for themselves if they want to be friends with that person, work with them, or invite them to social gatherings.

Freedom isn't a one way street who's highest goal is to make sure that a bigot's coworkers will still go to lunch with him.

Freedom is a two way street

As do thugs who demand others accept their positions.

You didnt answer the question, can the govt justly and morally require someone to do business with people they don't want to do business with?

You're be hard pressed to convince me freedom is a two way street
 
About 1000 B.C., the Indian Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita set forth a dual idea of freedom defined in two senses.Both meanings are contained in the word swaraj. Philosophers conceived of swaraj in a strict political sense of rule over one’s own land. Swaraj was also understood in a spiritual or psychological sense of rule over one’s soul or self. This second meaning should be taken to understand that through self-knowledge, one acquires freedom from ignorance, illusion, and fear. Therefore, one was unfree if obsessed with money or possessions. The Bhagavad Gita says that the truly free person acts without craving. The highest level of consciousness is learning that our being is at one with all beings, and spiritual liberation comes from unity with all beings. Understanding of unity brings liberation from alienation, divisiveness, and fear. The freest person sees all beings in himself, and himself in all beings.

In ancient Greece, the liberal/external idea of freedom is the key to what Pericles and most Greeks thought of freedom. In the writings of Greek historian Thucydides about the Peloponnesian war, the funeral oration of Pericles expounds the Athenian democracy of the 5th century B.C. In contrast to oppressive states of Sparta, Athenians were free and tolerant in their public and private lives. Pericles called the city “the apostle of freedom and an education to all of Greece.” Athens was the first democratic system at all and could claim a direct democracy whose citizens had a high level of involvement in public affairs.

The third view of freedom was the Christian view. This form of freedom depended on knowledge of a moral or spiritual truth, which was a religious truth. This truth led to freedom from sin, ignorance, and fear.

The problem John Stuart Mill sought to remedy was the attempt by society to force individuals to conform to a code of conduct that might be irrational. His solution was to preserve and enlarge the realm of individual freedom. Mill’s goal is to determine the limit beyond which the interference of collective opinion with individual independence cannot be legitimate. In his view, an individual’s freedom can be restricted only for the sake of preventing injury to another. Among the freedoms that Mill wanted to ensure were freedom of thought, opinion, conscience, and eccentric preferences.



^^ source credit: Dennis Dalton, political philosopher, Colombia University

Yet you support the democrat party, which is anathema to each and every form or expression of freedom.

The Upanishads elucidated an absolute truth - freedom is private property rights. Without the right to own and control one's home and lands, there can be no other freedom.
 
Yet you support the democrat party, which is anathema to each and every form or expression of freedom.

The Upanishads elucidated an absolute truth - freedom is private property rights. Without the right to own and control one's home and lands, there can be no other freedom.

It's amazing they say, my body my choice until it came to the death stab. They claim to love free speech until you "misgender" one of them. It's all leftist double speak.
 
It's amazing they say, my body my choice until it came to the death stab. They claim to love free speech until you "misgender" one of them. It's all leftist double speak.

We currently have 19 people under indictment for speech. A judge so corrupt and contemptuous of the Bill of Rights and the fundamental precepts of liberty is presiding and did not immediately dismiss this as an affront to the 1st Amendment.

The OP is good - well stated by Dr. Dalton. It just rings ironic when posted by one who supports tyranny.
 
As do thugs who demand others accept their positions.

You didnt answer the question, can the govt justly and morally require someone to do business with people they don't want to do business with?

You're be hard pressed to convince me freedom is a two way street

If civil rights are violated the government and the courts are an option for redress.


Freedom of association is a fundamental type of freedom too.

If someone if giggling and openly agreeing with Trump that we need to keep people from shit hole places in Africa out of America, people have a right to decide if they want to associate with that person.
 
If civil rights are violated the government and the courts are an option for redress.


Freedom of association is a fundamental type of freedom too.

If someone if giggling and openly agreeing with Trump that we need to keep people from shit hole places in Africa out of America, people have a right to decide if they want to associate with that person.

So the rights of some people outweigh the rights of other people?

Fundamental maybe but ignored definitely

I agree but that is not what happens. What's happens is the thugs demand they be silenced. Not the same at all.
 
Yet you support the democrat party, which is anathema to each and every form or expression of freedom.
Mindless political propaganda.

The Upanishads elucidated an absolute truth - freedom is private property rights. Without the right to own and control one's home and lands, there can be no other freedom.
You're plagiarizing John Locke and Mills , but they were talking about freedom being a more than just property. And even their use of the term property extended beyond the mere physical realm of land parcels to include one's mind, ideas, and individual conscience.
 
So the rights of some people outweigh the rights of other people?

Fundamental maybe but ignored definitely

I agree but that is not what happens. What's happens is the thugs demand they be silenced. Not the same at all.

No. Civil rights laws protect everyone. If you didn't know that, Fox should have explained Bakke vs. University of California to it's audience.

Government isn't silencing anyone. First amendment doesn't apply to busnesses or individuals. You are not entitled to keep your job, your friends, or to get dates with chicks if any of them find your attitude and statements obnoxious or offensive.

Freedom of association is just as much a freedom as freedom of speech
 
Mindless political propaganda.


You're plagiarizing John Locke and Mills , but they were talking about freedom being a more than just property. And even their use of the term property extended beyond the mere physical realm of land parcels to include one's mind, ideas, and individual conscience.

ROFL

I am repeating what and agreeing with what YOU cut and pasted.

About 1000 B.C., the Indian Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita set forth a dual idea of freedom defined in two senses.Both meanings are contained in the word swaraj. Philosophers conceived of swaraj in a strict political sense of rule over one’s own land.

Did you fail to read what you posted?
 
No. Civil rights laws protect everyone. If you didn't know that, Fox should have explained Bakke vs. University of California to it's audience.

Government isn't silencing anyone. First amendment doesn't apply to busnesses or individual. You are not entitled to keep your job, your friends, or to get dates with chicks if any of them find your attitude and statements obnoxious or offensive.

Freedom of association is just as much a freedom as freedom of speech

No they don't. I don't watch Fox never have never will.

The govt sure does silence people. If I run a business the govt has no moral or just reasons to demand who I do business with any more than they can demand who I allow into my house.
 
No they don't. I don't watch Fox never have never will.

The govt sure does silence people. If I run a business the govt has no moral or just reasons to demand who I do business with any more than they can demand who I allow into my house.

Cite a specific example of the government currently silencing anyone in violation of the first amendment, and please provide a link to a reputable news source confirming it.
 
Cite a specific example of the government currently silencing anyone in violation of the first amendment, and please provide a link to a reputable news source confirming it.

Govt working with social media platforms to shut down content deemed "misinformation". I noticed that content deemed "misinformation" NEVER contradicted the approved narrative.

Oh yes the old "reputable news source" routine. What page of the playbook is that from? Let me guess YOU decide what's "reputable" and whats not, am I right? Oh course I am.
 
Govt working with social media platforms to shut down content deemed "misinformation". I noticed that content deemed "misinformation" NEVER contradicted the approved narrative.

Oh yes the old "reputable news source" routine. What page of the playbook is that from? Let me guess YOU decide what's "reputable" and whats not, am I right? Oh course I am.

You can't blame the government for Twitter filtering content. That's a corporate decision. The government can request Twitter to filter Kremlin disinformation operations, but they can't force Twitter to do it
 
You can't blame the government for Twitter filtering content. That's a corporate decision. The government can request Twitter to filter Kremlin disinformation operations, but they can't force Twitter to do it

Nice try. That post gets a D+ as it lack any real effort or originality
 
Back
Top