Freedom truth and thinking
The only thing that’s indisputable about the idea of freedom is that it’s always in dispute.
And the same applies to freethinking too. It’s a word with a lot of history: in the eighteenth century, certain dissident protestants liked to refer to themselves as ‘free-thinkers’ – but they were roundly rebuked and ridiculed, and not without reason. They flattered themselves absurdly, according to their critics. (There was a very funny satire on them by Bishop Berkeley, for instance: he thought that their confidence that they represented freethinking only proved that they knew nothing either about freedom or about thinking.) But I had better rein in this historical hobbyhorse, or at least save it for a later outing. The essantial point remains: you do not prove that you are free by saying or thinking that you are.
The funny thing about freedom is that you may think you’re free when others think you’re not; and indeed you may think you’re being deprived of freedom when others think you are being granted it. But that does not mean that freedom is a matter of subjective opinion: quite the reverse – if it were, then there would be nothing to argue about. And argument is at the heart of freedom: without it, there would be no such thing. Indeed argument may in the end convince you that you were wrong about your own freedom. Perhaps you were wrong to think you entered your marriage freely, for example: far from being a free spirit, you were really the abject slave of hot passion or deadly convention. Or alternatively, perhaps your parents were really preserving your freedom when they stopped you marrying the boy next door, however much you raged against their tyranny at the time.
At first sight, it may seem that freedom means doing what you like and following your every whim. But you do not need to think about it very long to realise that iit nvolves something more: something like reason, responsibility, even truth. Freedom is like love: it can be tough, even hard. And that is why – with all due respect to some commenters on this blog – respecting someone’s freedom may mean questioning what they’re saying, especially when they claim that they are acting in a spirit of freedom. And of course it works the other way too: if you want to be free, then you have to welcome it when other people criticise what you are saying. (Of course if they rage at you irrelevantly or unintelligently then that is a different matter; but even then, you have to wonder if they may not have a point after all.)
Do you mind if I don't link up to every comment that I'm replying to here? I'm grateful for them all and I'm trying to respond to them all, in my way.
So how do you create a society where we are all free? If we remove the subjective view of freedom, then are we also removing the individuals responsibility: as the objective view will now govern their actions and remove the need to make subjective decisions in a responsible manner? Anyone who fails to meet the objective view of freedom will be labeled criminal or dissident or....
Clearly we can't just have the individual sense of freedom either as this is not altruistic, so some bridge between the subjective and objective must be created. I suppose this is the part where democracy arrived? Democracy is still just a system, and some would say -especially now- a bad one at that. Non proportional representation isn't equal to anyone on the disproportionate end, and is it not true that equality is necessary for freedom to survive?
I don't think it's possible to remove the subjective component from freedom: why so many murderers, rapists and bankers? So I propose that freedom must still originate from within. But what exactly is it that we are trying to be free from? Sometimes I suspect myself, iff true, thats for me to deal with and no one else!
Law, its enforcement and judgement are the tools we use to mould this freedom (not being ironic). Do we question either ourselves or our systems enough to ensure that this freedom is a given? If history teaches us anything, isn't it that we have short memories and are easily distracted.
Resistance is the opposition to freedom: now that is ironic.
Free thinking heh? - I think the only thing that's free in Zimbabwe only the moment is 'thinking' and that's only as long as you don't think out loud.
Here in the west we take it for granted that we can almost say what we like - and on a sunday morning stand up in Hyde Park even and sprout our gospel according to free thinking.
But how easily we discourse and also forget the lack of free thinking and free speech in large parts of the globe - Russia and its' domains, China of course; North Korea; the South Americas; Cuba; Iran; Palestine etc etc
Let's spare a thought as we free think easily here, about our brothers and sisters who sometimes don't even dare to free think. It don't come easy to them!
Our free thoughts are with your brothers and sisters!
Nobody is really free, we all live within a social contract with the state and other members of society.
I suppose the nearest one could come to being totally free would be to live mainly apart, in the wilderness but then you would lose out on some of the advantages of trading with society.
Fitz: As A US Latin who has Cuban and Spanish Blood, I would like to thank you for your comments about Cuba and South America. I have more on Cuba in Pods and Blogs at 大象传媒 Five Live.
For the Rest of the Freethinking Community, I want to share with you an article I wrote on the night that Castro turned over power to his brother [31-VII-2006].I call it "The Morning After, Maybe". I dedicate this to everyone in the Freethinking Blog.
Gagan Thapa [a participant of the Nepal Revolt of 2006] wrote that "a Nation writes its own autobiography through the action and inaction of its citizens".
In 1976, the Spanish Pop Group called Laredo released an album of Jose Marti [the Father of Cuban Independence] Poetry. This Album became a Movie [in the Independent Sphere]. I still remember the section of the film where there was darkness and a woman in chains, and then the sun rose, the chains disappeared, and people were happy.
In 1972, Maureen Mc Govern thought allowed about "The Morning After".
All of these thoughts come on the night of the 31st of July 2006 when Castro announces that he is transferring [temporarily] the reins of power to his brother. While many celebrate, it must be remembered that Cuba remains a Police State and that Raul Castro is worst that his brother.
Are we as a Nation ready for Liberty or are we condemned to follow the verses of another Spanish Pop Song recorded by Los 3 Sudamericanos in 1968 that states: "Nobody knows the springtime".
Freedom and Liberty are not acquired by voting every four or five years [many societies do that]. Freedom and Liberty is not a Candy that can be bought in a Candy Store.
Freedom and Liberty is a responsability, a lifestyle based on love, tolerance, mutual respect. Freedom and Liberty is the ability to control your destiny without an excessive state or person interfering with your choices. According to Jose Marti, Being Educated and Cultured is Freedom and Liberty [something that the US Mainstream Media does not understand].
Freedom and Liberty does not arrive with a click of the hand. Freedom and Liberty is Like Marriage, it has to be worked and improved constantly or it will whither away like a seasonal flower.
Freedom and Liberty is the ability to learn from the mistakes of the past.
Are we as a member of the human race willing to fulfill the requirements to enjoy Freedom and Liberty? Only time will tell.
I hope the Freethinking Blogs would read this article. I also grant permission for anyone to quote my article or to spread it if they like it.
To the Moderators, I am NOT promoting anything. I am only sharing my views of Freedom and Liberty to the Freethinking Blog.
What is so great about freedom anyway ? ... would the homeless,the hungry in our world or the 3rd world rather have a higher quality of living under a dictator / police state ?
ahhhhhhhh, got you there eh eh eh, mr free thinking dude
Interesting debate.
I think Jonathan makes a really important point about the notion of 'thinking we are free' when
others think we are not-
- and freedom carrying a huge responsibility with it.
But I agree with Richard 'some bridge between the subjective and objective must be created'.
What about the internet?
How will it effect our notion of freedom?
The very thing I love about it - no censorship, information quickly & 'freely' being passed-
is also the thing I hate about it.
If one has violent or devient tendencies/fantasies one is usually
required to keep them in check.
(apart from if you're in the army, like)
A society has systems which require us to adhere to, we learn what is acceptable behaviour and our conscience usually does the rest in 'keeping us in check'.
In cyber-space one is allowed to give voice to one's demons at will and then lo & behold....
....deviancies are suddenly normalised. (Hey? It's not just me wanting to do really wierd stuff) We find like-minded people and an outlet.
we are free to share and explore our darkest thoughts till our heart's content. Without censor.
I know that this has always happened (history tells us this)but usually there's a 'moral majority' who try to contain/curtail it.
But I'm interested to hear thoughts on whether the 'freedom' offered us by technology will have, in the future, a negative impact on our psyche.
Ok, digital freedom:
Sir Tim Burners-Lee's orignal concept of the internet goes like this: The internet is a network that transmits data. Note the full stop. The network is independant of the data and deos not given one hoot about it. Its function is to provide free and equal access to information.
Thanks Tim -and I mean that- he gave us freedom, served it up on a plate, and we have gorged ourselves suitably for such a thin species. Sadly Tim is now engaged in a battle with envy over its control. Powers are afoot that want to make our network a system of varying degrees of 'Quality of Service' - the 'Quality' part being dependant on how much your willing to pay. By this definition, the concept of internet freedom will be destroyed.
Esther warns us, and rightly so, that with freedom comes responsibility; that in general the moral view wins over -but we except that the darkness occasionally bubbles to the surface. So the fear is that this freedom, displayed for all to see on the net, will impact negatively on our collective Human psyche.
I think that as we have done so in our physical societies, we will introduce suitable legislative checks and balances that reflect the moral majority view into our digital society. I don't think that we have too much to fear from this, and that this will be positive. As I stated earlier the threat to digital freedom comes from corporations.
Then there is the fear that, exposure to stimuli X results in behaviour Y. I can't find evidence to support this claim. Furthermore if it were true then we would have to pare away an awfull lot of society and I'm not willing to make that trade, are you?.
The things that are impacting negatively on my psyche follow: Poverty, War, Famine, Ignorance, and the general lack of beauty. But that's just me, and I'm a bit like that.
Thanks Roberto -will check out your suggestions.
I have been watching a lot on Cuba lately. A beautiful little country with a fun loving peoples.(and great cigars of course that come at a price)
But in every beautiful country with fun loving people there are those who don't want fun and freedom - they seem to have a passion to rule and feel power.
And not to be underestimated. I recently watched a doco on the Assasination of Kennedy, that's how far the need to rule and feel power from Cuba extended.
Who was it who said " the price of democracy is eternal vigilance" wasn't churchill was it?
Yes easy to knock democracy when you're basking in the warm glow of it all and watching those who are not; long distance on TV!
we can even send money to them long distance and that makes us feel better too! But how much are we really prepared to fight for it on our own soil and in helping others.
Well in UK the stats on those who vote each election tell a sorry story. Give the Cubans the free vote and see how many turn out to the polls!
""But I'm interested to hear thoughts on whether the 'freedom' offered us by technology will have, in the future, a negative impact on our psyche""
I think you first need to define 'psyche' some people don't believe in it at all and others have differing meanings. That's why the discussion often becomes circular (we don't define ourselves first) become circular!
But on a simpler note:
""What about the internet?
How will it effect our notion of freedom?
The very thing I love about it - no censorship, information quickly & 'freely' being passed-""
not so really - the internet will only function in reality with people pushing buttons etc. I believe there is a direct correlation between the 'freedom of the internet' and the 'state of the nation'
As each nation becomes less free and more totalitarian so does it's internet if it has one at all.
No censorship of the interenet in China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Tibet etc etc hardly.
And whilst defining psyche how about defining censorship?
Yes I agree the internet as a function of data transfer has minimal censorship (moderators are a form of censorship) but there is tonnes of censorship at the giving and recieving end.
What effects will it have in the future on our psyche? - depends who's controlling the psyche surely
I think Reagan once responded to a question about the difference with the USA and USSR by saying 'well, in the USA, if you don't like it, you can leave'.
now,that is freedom :)
I don't see why we expect something completely new (if we do) because this is like having a slowed down version, via the passing of notes, of a conversation: the difference being that global distance becomes no object, and we're selected in a different way than all going into the same pub on the same night. We could say that "talking was the first internet".
And isn't "weirdness" already here too? Hitchcock's Frenzy and real events that people relish talking about come to mind. Pub conversations aren't moderated!
I remember people around me laughing at the point in the Silence of the Lambs where he tries to hide his point. (I don't think I could stand living in one of these moral countries where there's intolerance in the air.)
Ah Peter "love is in the air" as the famous song goes but Intolerance - YES that too - plenty of intolerance all over the world never mind moral countries and I would think that Mr Bush would consider that USA is a very moral country at the moment under his rule and perhaps UK too with Tony and even Australia with Howard.
No; intolerance knows no bounds or barriers or ideologies or countries I'm afraid. It comes from the second most common emotion in humans "fear"
Intolerance comes as a package with democracy; totaliterianism; despotism; communism and any other ism you may care to name.
the intolerance is built in the regimes are built up!
Free thinking - I have seen a plethora of topics posted with few definitions or ones that could be simply understood, but no matter, probably deliberate - why define when we can debate? Of course the board is moderated already, so there is the first freedom out of the window before we even start!
but can we really free think as humans?
My own definition tells me that we are "controlled [free]thinkers"
Why - because from the cradle to the grave we have and will continue to be controlled or manipulated in our thinking processes by, parents, siblings, family, teachers, mentors, politicians, priests and events - death, illness, falling in love, falling out of love, births, tragedies etc etc.
So our minds ( of the brain, in the brain, outside of the brain, let's leave that one for now) and forthcoming personalities are not totally free.
Each one of us comes to the board wtih all of these influences plus a few bags of prejudices, biases, greeds and fears. And am I really able to 'free think' about a topic when the original poster or 'personality' has already defined who she/he is in the scheme of things. Does this influence my ability to think freely about his/her topic without prejudice or bias.
So apart from a few enlightened souls on our planet, the likes perhaps of the Dali Llama or Mother Theresa, the rest of us come with equal rights, equal say, equal views and equal entitlements whether we call ourselves a philosopher, writer, playwright, author, or just plain 'joe blogs' the blogger, each of our statements count as equal - well at least in my book.
And lest I should sound prejudice or bias myself. I do think at the moment this is the best we can do and it's so much better that we can do it in a so called democracy where 'free speech' is usually respected and allowed. Even the Dali LLama isn't able to engage in 'free speech' in some parts of the globe, including his own country.
For me the ultimate stretches of 'free thinking' come with an enlightened mind and out of a world population of what 6-8 billion, there are only a handful of those minds around at the moment and you wouldn't get to your first quarter million counting them!
The great paradox of freedom is that one needs laws to ensure its preservation.
Personal responsibility for protecting the freedoms of others is necessary but insufficient so long as there are those who would abuse others.
The primary difficulty cultures have is deciding at which point the balance between freedom and government lies.
Jason Wites:
"What is so great about freedom anyway ? ... would the homeless,the hungry in our world or the 3rd world rather have a higher quality of living under a dictator / police state ?
ahhhhhhhh, got you there eh eh eh, mr free thinking dude"
You didn't get me! Only someone who has never had their freedom removed would say such an empty thing.
Esther Writes:
"If one has violent or devient tendencies/fantasies one is usually
required to keep them in check.
(apart from if you're in the army, like)"
Simply not fair, and something I must object against. I can only speak for the British Army and my own experience of it, but when I say discipline is successful in the Army I mean it. It is an order of magnitude more severe than the one operating in civilian society. In short I have seen soldiers punished more severely for not ironing their shirt to standard than I have seen rapist or murderers dealt with.
Try and be respectful of service please, we were serving you.
good point Jason, it never fails to amaze me that the poorest countries with the worst track record of human rights always make such great efforts to stop people leaving.
Must be something about being ashamed or frightened of what the leavers may say to the free world.
Or perhaps they just need workers to do their dirty deeds and if they said 'you can leave' there'd only be a handful left to actually do the dirty work!
Re Humble Opinions: can't follow link dead page. Please rectify.
May I ask where would we begin to think freely, who or what would seek the freedom, freedom from and for what?
It seems to me that whatever freedom we sought for our thinking would have to arise from some paradigm that did not necessitate free thinking i.e that could chose to be free to think or not to think. Perhaps that's it maybe free thinking really means free from thinking, is anybody free from thinking , I don't think so!
If we are not free from thinking we cannot be free thinkers; this seems true to me and if it is and we are to use truth as our guiding star then maybe we need to reframe the question.