|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted May 27, 2010 07:48 AM |
|
|
Yes, like I write:
Quote:
It's focusing not on who's coerced, but who coerces, and assumes non-living materials can't coerce.
So I understood correct. Which mean it's a focus on who coerces, not who's coerced. Eventhough no one chooses (because lack of knowledge) to harm someone, it does not mean someone won't be harmed.
If a rock slides down the mountain and traps me in, I'm being coerced to stay there, I don't have the freedom to move around freely.
Intention matters in relation to rehabilitation, not in relation to preventing the 'crime'.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 08:13 AM |
|
|
Yes, now read the post again so that everything under the coerse thing is not useless.
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 08:26 AM |
|
|
This
Quote:
When I am not being coerced, I am free.
is what I critisize.
My example. Freedom depends on your ability to interact with the world around you, through senses, memory, thought and most of all will, we
control out body and are able to react with the world, the environment.
To be free to do something, requires of you to have such an ability to act, it doesn't matter if it's something sentient or not that takes away that ability, when said ability is gone, you're not free.
It can be extended to the environment as well. A body only gives you freedom to the degree of what the environment does not limit. A rock slide that traps you under it limits the usefulness of the body in that situation and thereby limit your freedom.
You can be not coerced by the definition of said word set up by Mvass and still not be free at all, unless you want to define free in a, to me, very odd way, that has nothing to do with the opportunities a person has.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 08:31 AM |
|
|
Ohforf:
Quote:
no one chooses (because lack of knowledge) to harm someone
Untrue. Taxation always harms the people being taxed. Of course, if those taxes are spent well, then the benefit is returned, but considering how many things the government does wrong, that is not the case. Also, many people think coercion actually is for the good of the people being coerced - just look at drug laws. But it's still coercion.
Quote:
If a rock slides down the mountain and traps me in, I'm being coerced to stay there, I don't have the freedom to move around freely.
You're confusing two different meanings of freedom - physical freedom and freedom in the political sense. In the first sense, gravity is also a coercive force, then. But it doesn't have any relevance here. Freedom in the political sense means no one will stop me from doing something. The rock isn't stopping me - it's just there. There has to be a choice for it to be coercion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 08:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
no one chooses (because lack of knowledge) to harm someone
Untrue. Taxation always harms the people being taxed. Of course, if those taxes are spent well, then the benefit is returned, but considering how many things the government does wrong, that is not the case. Also, many people think coercion actually is for the good of the people being coerced - just look at drug laws. But it's still coercion.
Though I agree with both of your examples, taxation and drug laws are oppressing as people have no choice in the matter (you can't just say, you don't want to be part of the state, and be like another country in their eyes). I can't see how your reply is consistent to what I wrote. I wrote that you can have your freedom limited without it being intentional. Which was a point I thought needed to be made clear after you wrote only sentient beings can coerce and also wrote that if you aren't coerced you're free.
Quote:
Quote:
If a rock slides down the mountain and traps me in, I'm being coerced to stay there, I don't have the freedom to move around freely.
You're confusing two different meanings of freedom - physical freedom and freedom in the political sense. In the first sense, gravity is also a coercive force, then. But it doesn't have any relevance here. Freedom in the political sense means no one will stop me from doing something. The rock isn't stopping me - it's just there. There has to be a choice for it to be coercion.
Sure gravity is a coercive force if you want to do anything it prevents. Freedom only guaranteed from other persons intentions are rather useless, because then you can be extremely reduced and still, by said definition be free. Focus on the person who's being limited, not the person who limits, or you'll end up in a ton of problematic zones.
And yes the rock stops you, because you want to do something and it hinders you. Heck if it's moving, you just want to stand there, but it's going to push you away then.
Anything that stops you from doing what you want is coercive, see now I focused on the one who's being coerced, not what coerces.
The technology and the ressources available in the present moment defines the freedom of interaction with the environment.
In short, what defines how free you are is not whom or what coerces you, but the current levels of ressources and technology that gives you your opportunities. When being able to make things impossible, you're not only going to focus on other sentient beings not able to reduce eachother, but the same with events of chaotic origin (like the butterfly that produces the hurricane).
If you want to avoid such kind of misunderstandings, you should have written something like:
I know when someone is intentionally limiting me in what I want, if that not happens, then no one [person] will stop me from doing what I want.
I added intentionally, because you wrote sentient. Though it should be noted one can never know intentions (like you can never differ lie and be wrong, which in general means if someone says you lie, they're being personal, if they say you're wrong, they're actually commenting on what's being said). Rather it's about risk to society on that matter.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 09:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't see how your reply is consistent to what I wrote.
Quote:
no one chooses (because lack of knowledge) to harm someone
Which just isn't true. And now that I think about it, criminals are an even better example of such people.
Quote:
Freedom only guaranteed from other persons intentions are rather useless, because then you can be extremely reduced and still, by said definition be free.
No, this is the only useful definition of freedom. Freedom means not being prevented by other people. It does not mean being able to do something. Opportunity =/= freedom. Coercion is fundamentally an act. Nature cannot act.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 09:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
no one chooses (because lack of knowledge) to harm someone
Which just isn't true. And now that I think about it, criminals are an even better example of such people.
Then you probably misunderstood the sentence. Here is the entire thing:
Quote:
Eventhough no one chooses (because lack of knowledge) to harm someone, it does not mean someone won't be harmed.
It does not mean everyone doesn't choose, it means the group of people who doesn't choose.
Quote:
Quote:
Freedom only guaranteed from other persons intentions are rather useless, because then you can be extremely reduced and still, by said definition be free.
No, this is the only useful definition of freedom. Freedom means not being prevented by other people. It does not mean being able to do something. Opportunity =/= freedom.
So unintentional damage to your possibilities turning you from your current state into a state of purely observation on some mental plane is nothing that should be aimed to be prevented? You're just as free in both occassions?
We have different definitions of freedom, of coercion [and no I don't think coercion depends on someone to act upon you, it depends on one being coerced to do something they do not want, thereby the coerciveness. What someone wants does not depend on who it's in relation to], and that's of course fine enough, but I honestly don't think many people you respond to have the same definitions as you, meaning to be clear, it'd probably be adviceable if you'd define your words upon using them.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 10:07 AM |
|
|
Freedom, as described here, doesn't exist. If there ARE other people they will always prevent each other from things. Any kind of society is founded on a - ideally voluntary - sacrifice of individual "freedom". This can be voluntary only at the foundation of society; after that society is bound to keep to it, whether the members want it or not, and while "regulations" may be changed, this isn't going to happen every second.
Moreover certain "freedoms" are mutually exclusive. Abolishing slavery, for example, is fine for everyone that MIGHT made a slave against their will otherwise, but it's preventing the freedom to take slave and thbe freedom to become a slave willingly.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 10:17 AM |
|
|
@JJ
I completely disagree with you, but I'm not certain if I'm much interested in the debate, so please don't be offended if I don't reply, if you reply to me.
At any time the ressources and technology isn't sufficient for limitless freedom, as I use the term, it doesn't exist, but it doesn't mean it's impossible to obtain, as ressources and technology improves.
Also it is no justification that ones forefathers agreed on being part of a given group of people to then force said persons children to do the same.
Freedoms only becomes mutually exclusive depending on the ressources and technology present. It's a matter of perspective.
Just take your example. You can have a slave, without anyone being your slave, because from your perspective it's a slave.
Just to take an obvious, yet not complete, example from today (and not complete because ressources and technology isn't sufficient): computers.
It does of course depend on how you define a slave, but no matter what, it'll always be possible to make it so that from the person in questions perspective, said person do have slaves, without from anyone elses perspective being said slave.
That's one of the beauties of a world where perspective is reality. Where we can't know for sure if there's any absolute reality. Where we can't truely know anything else than that we (oneself) exists. Where we are ourself, and have our random means to interact with the reality present to our perspective.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 10:22 AM |
|
|
It has nothing to do with resources and technology.
It's only about how people deal with each other.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 10:34 AM |
|
|
Yes that really makes me see the light.
Statement + Statement. Not really useful for me to be honest.
Here are some thoughts: People, defined as consciouss beings from their own perspective, and actions from other peoples perspective.
With technology to use ressources for the given purpose and sufficient ressources for said purpose, you can create a world where everyone gets what they want, without limiting anyone in the process. Simply because of the first part, you can't see who're people from anything, but their actions, and you can't know if the reality for you is reality for others. These combined makes it possible for any kind of contradiction of peoples freedom due to how people choose to deal with eachother to be solved.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 10:46 AM |
|
|
Statements that begin with a big IF make no sense: IF a pre-defined thing will be possible in some future time, then... IF technology can do this and that... IF we can live in some virtul reality...
If, if, if.
If we'd live forever, that might be interesting.
We don't, however, so "if" is irrelevant.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 10:57 AM |
|
|
So where is the 'if' exactly, where is your doubt, and then let's talk about that.
The point is, you claim impossible, at least as I read it here:
Quote:
Freedom, as described here, doesn't exist. If there ARE other people they will always prevent each other from things.
As you both claim something doesn't exist and that your reasoning behind will always be true.
Any 'if' that you cannot disregard shows that a statement of impossibility is not sufficient justified. Unlikely would be more fitting and need to be justified how unlikely.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 11:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
With technology to use ressources for the given purpose and sufficient ressources for said purpose, you can create a world where everyone gets what they want, without limiting anyone in the process.
Look at this sentence. It's a claim (you can create a world), based on an IF (IF technology exists to use stuff for the purpose) and nother IF (IF there are sufficient resources), ending in another claim (without limiting anyone).
Completely hypothetical.
Whereas I said:
Quote:
Any kind of society is founded on a - ideally voluntary - sacrifice of individual "freedom".
"If" that sentence is true, it proves that there can be no complete freedom within a society, that is, as soon as two or more people are living together in something like a community.
Correct, there is an IF involved - if that sentence is true -, but obviously this sentence is supported by history. EVERY human society we know of fits this description - and in fact it not only fits the description, it is virtually the definition of society. You might say, that the existance of one other person is already limiting my freedom, because I can't stand wherever that other person stands, without violating that other person's freedom to keep standing where they stand.
Since no human is ever alone - or even truly wants to be alone -, it follows that coplete freedom is an illusion, that is based on the ability - yet again - to imagine things tha have nothing to do with reality. There is only relatve freedom, and that in turn depends on how you see it.
You could for example ask for "dependencies": How dependent are people in our sociey from machines, for example, from energy, from technology, from TV, from drugs, love, sex, money you name it.
And in which way are dependencies limiting "freedom", if they limit it at all. Is it a question of subjective feeling? How may crutches do we lean on to transport the idea of "freedom"? And how free would you be in a world based exclusively on the use of technology and resources?
Rhetorical questions, mind you.
Anyway, he idea of "freedom" is doubtful in its theoretic abstracion and complex in practical life; it's yet another word with pliable meaning, that sounds good for everyone, which is mainly because everyone is imagining something different there - which is what makes it so attractive in the first place.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 12:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
With technology to use ressources for the given purpose and sufficient ressources for said purpose, you can create a world where everyone gets what they want, without limiting anyone in the process.
Look at this sentence. It's a claim (you can create a world), based on an IF (IF technology exists to use stuff for the purpose) and nother IF (IF there are sufficient resources), ending in another claim (without limiting anyone).
That's typically how it works. Claim followed by argument. Anything anyone ever can come up with is always base to some assumptions. It means, what makes something impossible is the system upon it.
The way ressources and technology are defined, these provide exactly what's required to overcome the problem of a given system.
About the statement you decided to quote. As I see it, it goes like this:
If A then A.
So if A then A
Quote:
You might say, that the existance of one other person is already limiting my freedom, because I can't stand wherever that other person stands, without violating that other person's freedom to keep standing where they stand.
I'm not going to come up with ways of which to show that what you see as an impossibility is possible, as it's an infinite process.
About your current example, first point, you don't claim any perspective, rather a third person view, without considering if said person would ever had that perspective. If we assume there exist a kind of 'upper world' of which every action is no illusion, that whatever is observed there is reality, then one can still create some kind of protective system that works like a tunelling effect upon unwanted actions. Basicly letting two persons not only stand on the same spot, but one person know about the other, while the first doesn't, neither knows of eachother, or whatever they want.
Quote:
You could for example ask for "dependencies": How dependent are people in our sociey from machines, for example, from energy, from technology, from TV, from drugs, love, sex, money you name it.
And in which way are dependencies limiting "freedom", if they limit it at all.
Dependency of non-living things is not limiting freedom, it's just ways to interact with the world around us as much as our body, and what defines freedom is said ability. That is, to get what you want, depends on having the means to do so, again ressources and technology.
What limits freedom is dependency of other people, because you've no choice over that, again technology and ressources removes this dependency.
Quote:
Anyway, he idea of "freedom" is doubtful in its theoretic abstracion and complex in practical life; it's yet another word with pliable meaning, that sounds good for everyone, which is mainly because everyone is imagining something different there - which is what makes it so attractive in the first place.
Freedom is defined to get what you want. Therefore it's per defintion something everyone wants.
About the history aspect which I accidently deleted from the quotes, it's not, in my humble opinion, a proper argument, it's like saying that there's no quantum mechanics in the 18th hundreds, so there won't be in the 19th hundreds. If you want something I find historically relevant then it's that technology improves and we get better and better ways to use our ressources. Such a progress, without any limiting factors, which requires a certain speed, and without any upper limit defined through our imagination, then it's just a matter of time before we get sufficient technology and ressources.
Edit: The history thing, in my opinion, is like saying there have always been slaves, so slaves will always be. Or there have never been a reduction in polio, so it'll stay. We know what happened in both stories. [That is, because humans have been limiting eachothers freedom so far, it does not mean it'll continue like that forever].
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 12:41 PM |
|
|
For my understand of logic your post contains a lot of things I'd consider wrong. It seems we have a different basic understandingof logic, reason and sense,so I suppose a discssion makes no sense.
Quote:
Freedom is defined to get what you want.
That is kind of ... completely wrong. Even if it was true - which it isn't - no one was ever free, bcause it's not in the power of people to get what they want from other living beings. Being loved, for example.
But don't bother with an answer - we are too far apart here.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 12:52 PM |
|
|
You know, you could just have choosen not to answer in the first place. The 'comment + don't answer' reminds me about how someone else used to behave and to be honest it's not really useful.
About freedom, you started this discussion by claiming freedom as I understand it does not exist (or was it as mvass understands it? If so sorry for misunderstanding you). Yet freedom as I understand it was always about what you want (not be limited by anything in doing what you want).
You're of course welcome to have your own definition of freedom.
About your counterargument:
Quote:
no one was ever free, bcause it's not in the power of people to get what they want from other living beings. Being loved, for example.
Like I wrote earlier. There's a difference between you and everyone else in your perspective that you know you are yourself, but you only know everyone else through their actions. Through that perspective is what is reality for a given person, there's no impossibility in this.
It does of course require a process of clearly defined wants. Do you want to be with someone in despite of how they act? Do you just want someone there to give you the impression of love?
Since every perspective can be made through sufficient energy invested to the system and the 'know how' on how to do so, there's really no limit.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 01:20 PM |
|
|
|
While my point was indeed made against MVass and HIS defintion of freedom, I still disagree with you, and completely so. Your conclusions, assumptions, definitions and postulations have more holes than everything else - for me and my understanding of logic and reason, that is -, and I've learned the hard way, that it's imposible to bridge a gap, when it's too big.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 02:04 PM |
|
Edited by dimis at 14:55, 27 May 2010.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 03:53 PM |
|
|
For what it's worth, I've already done a sort of qualitative analysis of the Quality of Life index here at HC. You can find it here (about halfway down - you can't miss it).
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
