Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Freedom
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Received" data-source="post: 68686546" data-attributes="member: 1597"><p>Whether we're talking about liberty, freedom, etc., I can only understand the terms in two different ways. The first is freedom (or liberty) in the sense of <em>freedom from constraints</em>, the most obvious of which are physical constraints but can also include psychological constraints (e.g., the freedom to not be verbally abused). This type of freedom is the easy freedom, "the soul's right to breathe", the freedom of unbuttoning yourself.</p><p></p><p>The other freedom is freedom of the will, which is the hard freedom, because free will always works against what's immediate or easy; free will is realized in whatever doesn't just happen automatically. In this sense a person is most free when he does the most difficult but right thing, such as standing up against his friends and taking a stand.</p><p></p><p>Kierkegaard said that people demand freedom of speech as compensation for the freedom of thought which they rarely use. Freedom of speech is (often) the first type of freedom: freedom from constraints against what you want to say. Freedom of thought, however, is the second type of freedom, because thinking is hard, and so involves going against the grain of immediacy via your will.</p><p></p><p>So it's totally possible that people are free in one sense and unfree in another. We see this in America all over the place: people who dissolve in wrath at the idea of taking away any physical or psychological constraint (e.g., discrimination), but never use their wills to move beyond their basic backdrift state of sensationalism and superficiality. </p><p></p><p>What this means is that it's possible that one type of freedom (the easy type) can "spoil" a person by buffering them against using the hard, will-based type of freedom that comes with being a self. If you give a person everything he wants, even if this comes packaged with really noble principles (such as pushing against hate speech), it's much easier for him to exist without really needing to <em>become</em> something, because all basic needs and comfort are provided. This is why people who really suffer with continuity are often (far from always) the people who have a strong backbone of selfhood, because suffering requires that you push against the grain with your will or else are defeated.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Received, post: 68686546, member: 1597"] Whether we're talking about liberty, freedom, etc., I can only understand the terms in two different ways. The first is freedom (or liberty) in the sense of [I]freedom from constraints[/I], the most obvious of which are physical constraints but can also include psychological constraints (e.g., the freedom to not be verbally abused). This type of freedom is the easy freedom, "the soul's right to breathe", the freedom of unbuttoning yourself. The other freedom is freedom of the will, which is the hard freedom, because free will always works against what's immediate or easy; free will is realized in whatever doesn't just happen automatically. In this sense a person is most free when he does the most difficult but right thing, such as standing up against his friends and taking a stand. Kierkegaard said that people demand freedom of speech as compensation for the freedom of thought which they rarely use. Freedom of speech is (often) the first type of freedom: freedom from constraints against what you want to say. Freedom of thought, however, is the second type of freedom, because thinking is hard, and so involves going against the grain of immediacy via your will. So it's totally possible that people are free in one sense and unfree in another. We see this in America all over the place: people who dissolve in wrath at the idea of taking away any physical or psychological constraint (e.g., discrimination), but never use their wills to move beyond their basic backdrift state of sensationalism and superficiality. What this means is that it's possible that one type of freedom (the easy type) can "spoil" a person by buffering them against using the hard, will-based type of freedom that comes with being a self. If you give a person everything he wants, even if this comes packaged with really noble principles (such as pushing against hate speech), it's much easier for him to exist without really needing to [I]become[/I] something, because all basic needs and comfort are provided. This is why people who really suffer with continuity are often (far from always) the people who have a strong backbone of selfhood, because suffering requires that you push against the grain with your will or else are defeated. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Freedom
Top
Bottom