Paging the armchair philosophers

[Tarmacsurfer]

As I trundled home on the bus the other day and watched the people surrounding me hiding in their own little personal universes, clutching mobile phones tightly and avoiding all contact with those in their immediate vicinity (as we all know, speaking to a stranger is bad and will get us knifed, mugged or offered a werther's original and an inappropriate touch) I fell to thinking about how sadly disempowered we are as a nation.

Then something struck me about the whole nature of freedom. I've long believed that one of the major components of freedom is responsibility, something that almost no one seems to want in the UK these days but the item I'd over looked previously was an even more fundamental thing, if you are to be truly free then you must accept the consequences of your actions with no quibbling or remorse.

Working on this basis, how can any "civilised" society actually be free, as any action is judged by your peers and therefore personal moral and ethical codes are effectively redundant. Does this mean that the only society in existence with what the individuals perceive as perfect freedom would be something akin to a hive mind where any deviation from the norm would be unthinkable?
____________________
I'm immortal. Well, so far.

[Ariel Badger]

When i was younger I believed in Utopia and lived in three such places, Zimbabwe, Israel and the Soviet Union.
I now believe that civilisation can only evolve in a dystopic society.
____________________
Bikers make great organ donors, get 115 on your licence today.

[colin1]

[gmanxiii]

I've come to the conclusion that any sort of freedom is an illusion. You will always be bound by laws whether man made or natural.
____________________
I kills hondas

VFR400NC30 > ZZR600 > CBR600FX > CBR1000rr

[Fawbish]

The closest you could get to being "free" in a physical state, is to shrug off those man-made laws and go by your own rule. What we collectively know as criminals. Then, I suppose, there are levels of gang law. "You stabbed my blud I'll shank your mum" thing going on.

But even then, you're bound by natural laws.


I can't simply decided to explode upwards and soar through the clouds under my own power.

That would be true freedom.


So cheers, Mister Surfer, for ruining my day and reiterating the harsh reality that life, really is fuckin' shit.

And Gmanxiii. Speakin' the truth right there. For which I will also portion part of the blame to you, for ruining my ignorant concious.

I had it good today! I was plodding along pretty nicely. But no. Some people have to remind us that this life is the epitome of death. God.





SO. To sum up. We need superpowers. *nods*
____________________
"Oh....it looks like Average Joe's is forfeiting the match!" - "Yeah, its a risky strategy but lets see if it pays off for 'em Cotton."

[bazza]

Sturgeon's 2nd Law covers pretty much everything.
____________________
"That's it. You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college."
'98 Ducati 750SS, '08 Suzuki GSX650F ©2004-2014, Bazza's Harmless Banter

[Fawbish]

I reckon it needs to be adapted though.

More like 99% now.
____________________
"Oh....it looks like Average Joe's is forfeiting the match!" - "Yeah, its a risky strategy but lets see if it pays off for 'em Cotton."

[Mr Hammers]

To properly discuss freedom would mean establishing what kind of freedom we may or may not have.

For instance, i am free to go and stab my boss in the face. Explaining afterwards that it was purely in the interests of philosophical science won't stop me being carted away in a police van. So while i am physically free to do so, there will be consequences resulting in the lack of my physical freedom.

Then there's freedom in a societal sense (which is more to the point here). There are so many conditions associated with the many various levels of freedom that to have one stock answer that covers everything is impossible, so you would have to define what exactly 'freedom' is beforehand.

Talking in general terms means that almost every indicator of freedom can be refuted or argued for in equal measure.

I am free to say what i like about the government? Yes, i am.

I am free to say that we should kill Gordon Brown? Not anymore.

I think we have to accept that these days the word freedom can be applied to fewer and fewer situations in modern life, and not only that, but the benefits of losing certain freedoms are (supposedly) receiving other freedoms.

Taking a generally accepted view from a governmental perspective to demonstrate this point;

Why can't i rouse a rabble to march on Downing Street with the intention of killing Mr Brown?

Because that would mean i lived in a society where violence dictated who was in control. So the freedom of killing Brown is in given up in order that i can live in a 'civilised society'.

So, basically, the word freedom is steadily and inevitably losing it's meaning, and to really examine what freedom we do have is to try and untangle the many threads that make up the fabric of freedom before we can really understand what it means, and whether we have it.

And now back to Natasha in the studio....
____________________
A Guide To Powerbands

[SoND]

[Fawbish]

[Tarmacsurfer]

[The Shaggy D.A.]

[Kickstart]

Hi

Absolute freedom is not possible, as having such freedom would also mean everyone else was free to remove that freedom from an individual.

As such it is a balancing act (as mentioned earlier) of the freedoms of the individuals against the freedoms of the rest of the population.

Currently I think we are going far too far away from the freedoms of the individual.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[Itchy]

One kind of freedom still exists though in that you can jump off the transiberian express while it passes through siberia with a bow and some tools and live there, but you'd trade off the benefits of course of indentured society , ie medicine , electronics.


Though siberians and Mogolians who do this have been starving to death and freezing to death in winters recently on a news article I saw a few months ago as the winters get much harsher.
____________________
Spain 2008France 2007Big one 2009 We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will. In the end, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.

[hellkat]

*jumps up out of armchair and runs away*
You aint seen me, right.
____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[Fawbish]

[hellkat]

[hellkat]

Can I not be a raccoon please.
I'd rather be a skunk.

They have a certain amount more *flare* than raccoons.
____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[Hetzer]

a) The freedom to experience pleasure, so long as that experience does not significantly impinge upon the freedom of others to experience pleasure.

b) The freedom to help others experience pleasure, so long as that act does not significantly impinge upon the freedom of others to experience pleasure.

Anything that interferes with the above righteous endeavours is criminal nazi oppression. Welcome then to the Zanu-Labour Concentration Camp, where ban-culture reigns supreme.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"

[Moonie]

Sorry I didn't read all this, don't have time.

But surely, being free is about not caring what other people think, and therefore a small amount of the population has the opportunity to be free whilst the rest are there to judge them.

Of course there are many different kinds of freedom and that is one tiny bit, but I think it's pretty easy to acheive an ethical freedom for yourself.
____________________
Don't practice it until you get it right, practice it until you don't get it wrong.
Presenting the one and only Chinkmobile

[Tarmacsurfer]

[hellkat]

Probably my creed is similar.

But to what extent do we disregard that which may or may not be "harmful" to others.

For example, my occasional intense (but fortunately currently easily-repressible) desire to lop off heads of passing neighbours with an extremely sharp samurai sword may be seen to be harmful to their health, but surely it would not hurt, as they would not know their heads had been lopped off (til it was too late).

However, obviously the harmfulness I might inflict could be to their friends and families, who would feel the psychic pain of grief. But has this grief not been described as just the selfishness of those left behind when a loved one dies? So, in fact, I may not have inflicted that pain either, but they would have inflicted it upon themselves by selfishly grieving for the passing of their loved ones... who will have gone to a better place, and provided me with apparently harmless entertainment in the short term.

Or is my logic somewhat skewed here?


____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[prawny1]

[colin1]

[Mr Hammers]