The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We live in a physical world, of physical properties. The physical world is ruled by physical laws. Humans are physical beings, therefore we can never experience freedom.
Ta-da!
Ta-da!
Page:
Nicely put in that long post FFF, or EP, or whatever you like to be called now. It's really impossible to be free, because if there was total freedom it would be possible to do two contradictory things, which is impossible.
I'm free....
(to the good looking ones, otherwise it's £50...)
(to the good looking ones, otherwise it's £50...)
You are all wrong!
Freedom is being able to have a coffee in my mug whenever I want.
That is freedom.
Yes arguably we could never be free if we are governed by the "laws" of physics. However, they are only defined as laws because we can not overcome them.
One dictionary definition of freedom is facility of doing anything. Now I can not do anything. Hence I can not be free. But another definition is liberty. Which means I can be free.
It is an endless loop of an argument. To be free (excluding the laws of physics here, I will just use freedom of choice) I would have to be able to do what I want. But in doing that, by being able to kill someone if I want, then they are not free. The fact that I am alive just now means that someone never killed me. They made a choice, not me, so I could not be totally free.
However most peoples concept of freedom is freedom of choice, in what party to vote for, religion to follow, team to support etc. In that sense we need boundaries and constraints to guarantee taht we do not infringe upon the rights of others.
One thing to remember, is that the mind is completely free. It has an unmeasurable capacity to learn, to experience new things, to imagine whatever it wants. In my mind I can fly. I have complete freedom.
To exercise my freedom, I might just make myself a coffee.
Freedom is being able to have a coffee in my mug whenever I want.
That is freedom.
Yes arguably we could never be free if we are governed by the "laws" of physics. However, they are only defined as laws because we can not overcome them.
One dictionary definition of freedom is facility of doing anything. Now I can not do anything. Hence I can not be free. But another definition is liberty. Which means I can be free.
It is an endless loop of an argument. To be free (excluding the laws of physics here, I will just use freedom of choice) I would have to be able to do what I want. But in doing that, by being able to kill someone if I want, then they are not free. The fact that I am alive just now means that someone never killed me. They made a choice, not me, so I could not be totally free.
However most peoples concept of freedom is freedom of choice, in what party to vote for, religion to follow, team to support etc. In that sense we need boundaries and constraints to guarantee taht we do not infringe upon the rights of others.
One thing to remember, is that the mind is completely free. It has an unmeasurable capacity to learn, to experience new things, to imagine whatever it wants. In my mind I can fly. I have complete freedom.
To exercise my freedom, I might just make myself a coffee.
If we were all free, then the universe would to totally pointless and probably realise so. Then implode casually.
Ethereal Paladin wrote:
> Think on this:
> If everyone was truely, ultimately free, then would there be any
> killing? If no physical rules apply to anyone, nor of time and space,
> it would be impossible to kill anyone - they're not limited to the
> body they inhabite.
> Tricky one.
Presumably, using this definition of freedom, it would be impossible for more than one individual to be truely free.
The definition requires absolute power to do anything, including taking actions which prevent others doing particular things.
It also requires nobody can prevent you doing any particular thing.
So two individuals can't have 'true freedom', or we'd have a paradox - can stop you doing anything vs can't stop me doing anything.
Immovable object and irresistable force - style.
> Think on this:
> If everyone was truely, ultimately free, then would there be any
> killing? If no physical rules apply to anyone, nor of time and space,
> it would be impossible to kill anyone - they're not limited to the
> body they inhabite.
> Tricky one.
Presumably, using this definition of freedom, it would be impossible for more than one individual to be truely free.
The definition requires absolute power to do anything, including taking actions which prevent others doing particular things.
It also requires nobody can prevent you doing any particular thing.
So two individuals can't have 'true freedom', or we'd have a paradox - can stop you doing anything vs can't stop me doing anything.
Immovable object and irresistable force - style.
I wasn't on about freedoms.
I was on about freedom - the one and only freedom, when nothing of any scale can hinder you doing what you want. You can travel the universe in no time, or even negative time, you can create worlds, destory worlds you can do ANYTHING. This is the meaning of free.
I was simply defining freedom - pure freedom to do anything with no laws (social, physical or otherwise) to stop you. That's what freedom is. That's what it means. There is no other forms of ture freedom.
So, as the original post stated, we can never be truely free. Nothing can ever be truely free because they or it are govened by the rules of space and time AND the rules set by the community. True freedom is a impossible goal.
I never mentioned right or wrong, good or bad or morals. If you put these restrictions on freedom, then it's no longer freedom.
Saying 'you can do whatever you want - you're free. But don't kill anyone. And don't leave the country. And don't pass the speed of light' is totally contradictory of what freedom is.
The actual true and ultimate freedom, that is.
The only way to alter this definition of freedom is by way of people's personalities and atitudes. With pure freedom, some may cure and heal and create and develop. Others may kill and mutate, destroy and conquer.
If you're totally free, then the only thing (invisible, physical etc) that can affect what you do is your own personality and the restrictions of the human mind.
But I very much doubt the human mind can comprehend true freedom - the ability to do anything you could ever think of, the rules of time and space no longer apply to you. That is freedom. If you have it, only you can decide what is right and wrong.
Think on this:
If everyone was truely, ultimately free, then would there be any killing? If no physical rules apply to anyone, nor of time and space, it would be impossible to kill anyone - they're not limited to the body they inhabite.
Tricky one.
If everyone were free like this - you're right - it would be total anarchy. Without a set of rules on any scale, people would go mad and we'd probably rip the universe apart. Even though it's rules would no longer apply to anyone.
But this fact does not alter the definition of pure freedom not one bit.
I was on about freedom - the one and only freedom, when nothing of any scale can hinder you doing what you want. You can travel the universe in no time, or even negative time, you can create worlds, destory worlds you can do ANYTHING. This is the meaning of free.
I was simply defining freedom - pure freedom to do anything with no laws (social, physical or otherwise) to stop you. That's what freedom is. That's what it means. There is no other forms of ture freedom.
So, as the original post stated, we can never be truely free. Nothing can ever be truely free because they or it are govened by the rules of space and time AND the rules set by the community. True freedom is a impossible goal.
I never mentioned right or wrong, good or bad or morals. If you put these restrictions on freedom, then it's no longer freedom.
Saying 'you can do whatever you want - you're free. But don't kill anyone. And don't leave the country. And don't pass the speed of light' is totally contradictory of what freedom is.
The actual true and ultimate freedom, that is.
The only way to alter this definition of freedom is by way of people's personalities and atitudes. With pure freedom, some may cure and heal and create and develop. Others may kill and mutate, destroy and conquer.
If you're totally free, then the only thing (invisible, physical etc) that can affect what you do is your own personality and the restrictions of the human mind.
But I very much doubt the human mind can comprehend true freedom - the ability to do anything you could ever think of, the rules of time and space no longer apply to you. That is freedom. If you have it, only you can decide what is right and wrong.
Think on this:
If everyone was truely, ultimately free, then would there be any killing? If no physical rules apply to anyone, nor of time and space, it would be impossible to kill anyone - they're not limited to the body they inhabite.
Tricky one.
If everyone were free like this - you're right - it would be total anarchy. Without a set of rules on any scale, people would go mad and we'd probably rip the universe apart. Even though it's rules would no longer apply to anyone.
But this fact does not alter the definition of pure freedom not one bit.
Blank wrote:
> You mean that they should have the right to live without fear.
> But that's a pretty useless example, because fear is almost your
> choice - no one has imposed the actual fear, they may have threatened
> you, but they haven't implanted the fear. That was you (not you
> personally, I mean the person being threatened).
That last line, funniest thing I've read all day. Don't know why. :^)
> You mean that they should have the right to live without fear.
> But that's a pretty useless example, because fear is almost your
> choice - no one has imposed the actual fear, they may have threatened
> you, but they haven't implanted the fear. That was you (not you
> personally, I mean the person being threatened).
That last line, funniest thing I've read all day. Don't know why. :^)
HALO Fan wrote:
> All I would add is that restrictions to freedom, such as laws, are
> there to protect other freedoms.
Heh. When I was writing the last post I originally put 'freedoms' instead of 'wellbeing'.
Only I wasn't sure whether it was accurate, so I took the cop-out and used a non-comittal word.
:^)
Back in my human rights module last semester we looked at the division of rights into classes called 'rights' (freedoms to do stuff) and 'claim rights' (freedoms(?) not to have stuff done to you).
Stop me if I'm wrong, but all you guys seem to be arguing over is whether you'd consider claim rights to be freedoms or not, which in turn is based only on the particulars of how you define the concept of freedom.
And when you put it like that, it doesn't seem like such an important argument...
> All I would add is that restrictions to freedom, such as laws, are
> there to protect other freedoms.
Heh. When I was writing the last post I originally put 'freedoms' instead of 'wellbeing'.
Only I wasn't sure whether it was accurate, so I took the cop-out and used a non-comittal word.
:^)
Back in my human rights module last semester we looked at the division of rights into classes called 'rights' (freedoms to do stuff) and 'claim rights' (freedoms(?) not to have stuff done to you).
Stop me if I'm wrong, but all you guys seem to be arguing over is whether you'd consider claim rights to be freedoms or not, which in turn is based only on the particulars of how you define the concept of freedom.
And when you put it like that, it doesn't seem like such an important argument...
Sodding government making decisions for us...
HALO Fan wrote:
> Why can't you see that a freedom as you define it, with no boundaries
> or restrictions, simply destroys other freedoms instead ?
It doesn't. Complete and total freedom. Except it cannot exist.
> Under your idea of 'freedom' I can kill someone for any reason, and
> nothing in law says that is wrong. Yet, shouldn't the victim have had
> the freedom to live without fear of such a crime ?
Now I know why you can't understand - you're confusing freedom with rights. You mean that they should have the right to live without fear. But that's a pretty useless example, because fear is almost your choice - no one has imposed the actual fear, they may have threatened you, but they haven't implanted the fear. That was you (not you personally, I mean the person being threatened). You have freedom to ignore it, to take it to heart, to run away, to stay put, to morph into a rat, to disintergrate and reintergrate etc etc.
Freedom can't destroy other freedoms, because I'm talking of one and only one freedom. Which is complete freedom.
> I can steal, I can
> do anything, and nothing in your 'freedom' can say I'm wrong. You
> could argue that such actions as wanton crime would cause the
> perpetrator to be hunted down by a mob, but then that's removing the
> perpetrators freedom to a trial, and the justice system, and how could
> there be such a mob when there would be, under Blank's freedom, no
> boundaries to define wrongdoing anyway ?
I don't believe in boundaries to wrongdoing. It's all human thoughts, actions and subjective opinions. There is no "right" and "wrong" to the universe. Things happen. No bad and good things, just different things.
> Morals ? Well they don't exist under the freedom you define, as the
> morality of a society is what places the boundaries on freedom, and
> establishes them.
Like I've said, morals are meaningless, as are rights. And also like I've said, you can't put a boundary on freedom. "Ethereal Paladin"'s post offers a clear and concise explanaion of why.
> Why can't you see that a freedom as you define it, with no boundaries
> or restrictions, simply destroys other freedoms instead ?
It doesn't. Complete and total freedom. Except it cannot exist.
> Under your idea of 'freedom' I can kill someone for any reason, and
> nothing in law says that is wrong. Yet, shouldn't the victim have had
> the freedom to live without fear of such a crime ?
Now I know why you can't understand - you're confusing freedom with rights. You mean that they should have the right to live without fear. But that's a pretty useless example, because fear is almost your choice - no one has imposed the actual fear, they may have threatened you, but they haven't implanted the fear. That was you (not you personally, I mean the person being threatened). You have freedom to ignore it, to take it to heart, to run away, to stay put, to morph into a rat, to disintergrate and reintergrate etc etc.
Freedom can't destroy other freedoms, because I'm talking of one and only one freedom. Which is complete freedom.
> I can steal, I can
> do anything, and nothing in your 'freedom' can say I'm wrong. You
> could argue that such actions as wanton crime would cause the
> perpetrator to be hunted down by a mob, but then that's removing the
> perpetrators freedom to a trial, and the justice system, and how could
> there be such a mob when there would be, under Blank's freedom, no
> boundaries to define wrongdoing anyway ?
I don't believe in boundaries to wrongdoing. It's all human thoughts, actions and subjective opinions. There is no "right" and "wrong" to the universe. Things happen. No bad and good things, just different things.
> Morals ? Well they don't exist under the freedom you define, as the
> morality of a society is what places the boundaries on freedom, and
> establishes them.
Like I've said, morals are meaningless, as are rights. And also like I've said, you can't put a boundary on freedom. "Ethereal Paladin"'s post offers a clear and concise explanaion of why.
Page: