The philosophy of freedom

[domer76]

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 Tao also references the truly free person as one who acts without craving or an obsession for material possessions. One will always be a captive to those. There is never “enough”. I can never understand a man like Trump, who has to have gold everything, his name stamped on Towers, the need to crush anyone in his way.

Power is much the same way. We see it in our politicians every day. And Trump, obviously, covets power more than most.

In a supposed free society, we all have to give up some freedoms for that society to thrive. That’s because humans are imperfect and don’t always do the right thing. If they did, there would be no need for all the laws and regulations we have on the books.

These days, we have one side screaming “it’s my right!”, “you’re taking away my rights!”… We should be talking about our responsibilities to one another rather than “my rights”. After all, the Bill of Rights was nothing more than an add on to the Constitution, a political tool, to help get the Constitution ratified. Nothing endowed by any creator. Just another legislative action. Some are still relevant today, some are not.

As a reasonable person and a reasoning person, I still have full freedom of thought, of speech, of expression, of assembly, on and on. Why? Because I’m not willing to engage in such outrageous behavior as to threaten or harm another individual or associate with people who do.

 

[domer76]

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.

Right wing rhetoric. Fail. Only conspiracists fall for that BS.

 

[Cypress]

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?

I've read the Bhagavad-Gita, and I appreciate it's wisdom about a type of freedom through self knowledge.

You mentioned property as the highest form of freedom. And whether you realized it or not that comes from John Locke. And Locke's formulation of freedom had a lot more to it than property. And in the 18th century lexicon even his use of property wasn't just a description of the physical, but included intellectual property like ideas and I individual conscience.

I have a feeling Republicans throw around the concept of property being the highest form of freedom without realizing where the concept came from of what it means

 

[Cypress]

Facebook cancels REGULAR meetings with govt after judges ruling.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...souri-biden-judge-censorship-ruling-analysis/

Your article says the government canceled it's meetings with Facebook to discuss election interference presumably by foreign entities.

That's not a violation of the first amendment.

 

[Cypress]

The Tao also references the truly free person as one who acts without craving or an obsession for material possessions. One will always be a captive to those. There is never “enough”. I can never understand a man like Trump, who has to have gold everything, his name stamped on Towers, the need to crush anyone in his way.

Power is much the same way. We see it in our politicians every day. And Trump, obviously, covets power more than most.

In a supposed free society, we all have to give up some freedoms for that society to thrive. That’s because humans are imperfect and don’t always do the right thing. If they did, there would be no need for all the laws and regulations we have on the books.

These days, we have one side screaming “it’s my right!”, “you’re taking away my rights!”… We should be talking about our responsibilities to one another rather than “my rights”. After all, the Bill of Rights was nothing more than an add on to the Constitution, a political tool, to help get the Constitution ratified. Nothing endowed by any creator. Just another legislative action. Some are still relevant today, some are not.

As a reasonable person and a reasoning person, I still have full freedom of thought, of speech, of expression, of assembly, on and on. Why? Because I’m not willing to engage in such outrageous behavior as to threaten or harm another individual or associate with people who do.

The Daodejing covers a lot of the same ground the Bhagavad-Gita does, although there are substantial differences between them as well. Jesus taught his disciples that possession and wealth were a form of slavery, a trap really.

So while MAGA tends to think owning an acre of rural land and owning some AK-47s is the highest form of freedom, there seems to be a long standing intellectual and religious tradition going back to the axial age that possession and property are an illusion that do not translate to real freedom.

 

[domer76]

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.

Private property is not a freedom. Just the opposite. A possession that diminishes your true freedom.

Your so-called private property automatically and immediately becomes that of someone else with your last breath. You own nothing. You merely rent it for a very brief period of time.

 

[domer76]

The Daodejing covers a lot of the same ground the Bhagavad-Gita does, although there are substantial differences between them as well. Jesus taught his disciples that possession and wealth were a form of slavery, a trap really.

So while MAGA tends to think owning an acre of rural land and owning some AK-47s is the highest form of freedom, there seems to be a long standing tradition going back to the axial age that possession and property are an illusion that do not translate to real freedom.

When you get down to it, one really owns nothing. We just rent things for the very short time we’re on this planet.

George Carlin had a great bit on owning shit and having too much shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Right wing rhetoric. Fail. Only conspiracists fall for that BS.

I realize you are but a drone, programmed by your Reich to spew idiocy.

Yet still I must ask, exactly what in my post was a "conspiracy?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've read the Bhagavad-Gita,

No you haven't.

You may have read parts of it, but not in it's entirety, as it is unreadable.

and I appreciate it's wisdom about a type of freedom through self knowledge.

You mentioned property as the highest form of freedom. And whether you realized it or not that comes from John Locke. And Locke's formulation of freedom had a lot more to it than property. And in the 18th century lexicon even his use of property wasn't just a description of the physical, but included intellectual property like ideas and I individual conscience.

I have a feeling Republicans throw around the concept of property being the highest form of freedom without realizing where the concept came from of what it means

You apparently fail to grasp that the Upanishads predate Locke by some 3000 years.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Private property is not a freedom. Just the opposite. A possession that diminishes your true freedom.

ROFL

That which you own really owns you, grass toker...

In fairness, at one point I was enamored with Lao Tzu. But then I grew up, stopped smoking pot, and eventually got too old for Kung Fu.

Your so-called private property automatically and immediately becomes that of someone else with your last breath. You own nothing. You merely rent it for a very brief period of time.

Utterly false, and utterly ignorant. The ability to bequeath is the ultimate illustration of ownership.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

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

I'll stick to my signature's definition.

People obsess on these theoretical concepts rather than concentrating on the ONLY thing that matters--
living comfortably and well.

 

[domer76]

I realize you are but a drone, programmed by your Reich to spew idiocy.

Yet still I must ask, exactly what in my post was a "conspiracy?"

The free speech bullshit. That’s what is spewed on your right wing conspiracy sites. Complete and utter horse shit.

 

[domer76]

ROFL

That which you own really owns you, grass toker...

In fairness, at one point I was enamored with Lao Tzu. But then I grew up, stopped smoking pot, and eventually got too old for Kung Fu.



Utterly false, and utterly ignorant. The ability to bequeath is the ultimate illustration of ownership.

I’m talking about YOUR possessions, you fucking idiot. Not your heirs. If you’re lucky, half the shit you “own” will go into the dumpster or end up at Good Will.

I know fucktards like you, and especially your cult leader Trump, need shit for personal validation. It’s your right!

Take a look at the Pale Blue Dot, shitstain, and try to reflect on what that means. It means that you and all that shit you think you have a right to is not even as significant as a wart on a gnats ass.

 

[Cypress]

I'll stick to my signature's definition.

People obsess on these theoretical concepts rather than concentrating on the ONLY thing that matters--
living comfortably and well.

There are people who live materially comfortably and well in Pakistan, Russia, Myanmar so it seems to me there is something more than that.

 

[domer76]

I'll stick to my signature's definition.

People obsess on these theoretical concepts rather than concentrating on the ONLY thing that matters--
living comfortably and well.

I’m very comfortable with how I’m living now. And doing so quite well.

I doubt very much a person like Trump or anyone else needing the things he thinks he does to achieve happiness would be satisfied with my existence.

 

[Cypress]

No you haven't.

You may have read parts of it, but not in it's entirety, as it is unreadable.

Bhagavad-Gita is a short little book that can be easily read in an afternoon, and it is effortless to acquire an annotated and footnoted copy of it in which scholarly experts can explain the content to you in contemporary English.

You are probably thinking of the Mahabharata, which is an enormous tome.

You apparently fail to grasp that the Upanishads predate Locke by some 3000 years.

About 2500 plus or minus. But you made two separate points. One about a classical Hindu text.

And one about property and freedom, which you may believe was your own original thought, but came down to you from Locke by cultural osmosis.

 

[Cypress]

I’m very comfortable with how I’m living now. And doing so quite well.

I doubt very much a person like Trump or anyone else needing the things he thinks he does to achieve happiness would be satisfied with my existence.

If one's primary goal in life is material possession and property, they are only living a half life. That is setting the bar so low it barely clears the floor.

 

[IBDaMann]

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.

Once again, you unnecessarily chop your own argument off at the knees by injecting a false example. Trump never said that, so no one can be "agreeing with Trump" on that point ... thus you render your argument FALSE. Stupid.

If your threads are not total wastes of bandwidth right out of the starting gate, you make sure to convert them into complete wastes before reaching the first turn.

 

[IBDaMann]

If one's primary goal in life is material possession and property, they are only living a half life. That is setting the bar so low it barely clears the floor.

Here you are trying to dishonestly inject your own Marxist whining and mischaracterizations into the historical positions of others. Stupid. Nobody said that you can't enjoy things in life without "lowering the bar". Stop whining.

The OP could/should have been two lines, comparing ancient Hindu takes on "swaraj" to the different Libertarian understandings of "freedom" today, from private ownership and free markets to being secure in one's person and peace of mind. Instead, you wasted a lot of bandwidth confusing the topic rather than clarifying anything. I don't think you even understand the topic, believing that only a small group of "philosophers" had these understandings of "swaraj" as opposed to the entire general population. Are you aware that "swaraj" was a common word?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

There are people who live materially comfortably and well in Pakistan, Russia, Myanmar so it seems to me there is something more than that.

But does it seem that way to them?