Can Freedom Limit Us?

[Liberty4life]

these days we have full freedom of choice according to the laws of many countries, we can do wot ever we like, but some actions like stealing is something for wot we take responsibilities when caught redhanded, and we get punished, thats a example of good limitation, if there is nothing against stealing, well then we have example of bad freedom, mass stealing will occur and society will progress much slower, in all democratic countries everyone has right to vote if they want too, so thats a example of good freedom, if voting is limited becoz of gender, then thats an example of bad limitation, so we have 4 sorts:

[list=1]
[*]good freedom
[*]bad freedom
[*]good limitation
[*]bad limitation
[/list]

so.. limitations and freedoms.. are sort of opposite to each other, if ya have freedom to do something then ya arent limited (permitted) for not doing it

but... some good freedoms in mine opinion can actually hurt us and some bad limitations can actually help us, well.. depending on individual

for example freedom of choice, when we need to pick something, we can pick anything, and out of all possibilities we usually dont know wot to pick, it depends on individual person will he pick something asap, will he take long time to pick something, will he pick something then change his mind, will he pick something to find out later that he doesnt likes it and then suffer becoz of it, or maybe number of choices will paralyze him so he picks nothing, in here its clear that the more we limit freedom of choice, the more will be limited number of possible choices... so limitations can actually guide individual person to make choice, instead of not making it, and if rules are pretty good he will most of time pick right choice out of which he will be almost always on gain, but limiting freedom of choice is considered bad limitation, and limiting it is an unrealistic example i would say, but that doesnt matters, it is the point in it that matters

its said that human can do anything, so can we? we are limited to walk on ground we cant fly by our nature, we need airplanes for that, this is example of limitation for which we found relative solution, then we have limitation of our time on this world, we have our need for food, water, air, etc we cant live outside those conditions, are all those good or bad limitations for us? if its said that we can achieve anything, are we capable of breaking those limitations eternally or can we just find temporal solutions for them and then count those temporal solutions as achieving impossible, we have fact that humans can achieve anything, fact that humans need water to survive, means that its impossible for us to live without it, and to be able to achieve anything means we can achieve impossible..... but its not logical that we can live without water, or that we can live forever

in here achieving anything represents total freedom and our limited time on this world represents total limitation

which is stronger? which is right one?

if temporal solutions for those total limitations are considered as achieving anything, which logically doesnt looks right, then total limitation is end across which we cant go, then we dont have total freedom in its full meaning

if we can go over those limitations then we can truly achieve anything, and go to infinity, but then we dont have total limitation in its full meaning

but theoretically there is no limit for both or there is end but we cant see it, its out of our imagination
which ever case it is, limitations and freedoms... balance each other in a way... and idk how to explain this thing further.. i would say that theirs balance doesnt allows us to see is there end or is it infinite, but then we have balance of limitation and freedom again as our limitation, or at least it is limitation at this moment, maybe at some other time it wont be limitation, but for now it is, and we have thoughts that are both correct but they oppose each other...

meaning that human in same time can achieve everything and nothing

any more thoughts on this?

[awiiya]

There is a french film that has the following line:

"Am I unhappy because I am not free, or am I not free because I am unhappy?"

This idea of freedom and it's connection is fairly basic to human society. The reason that there are "good" limitations and "bad" limitations is only because the ones that are good are the ones that agree with your own personal sense of morality and the ones that are bad are the ones that conflict with said personal morality.

In truth, however, what does absolute freedom cause? It is of course only hypothetical because never can such a thing exist. However, I might argue that in a vacuum of limitations, a person is happy, and truly happy, because they are free to discover what limits them internally, rather than constantly struggling with the bonds of external limitations.

A tragedy of freedom is that we often limit ourselves or perceive there to be limitations when there are none. I am not saying that physical and true issues that prevent us from fulfilling our full potential do not exist, for of course we see them on the news everyday, but I've noticed a fair number of people who are so caught up with this idea of judgment and rules that they implement more strict rules than actually exist. They are trapped not by society and its laws, but by their interpretation of it, and that's horrifically sad.

This is a great discussion to bring up. Does anybody have thoughts on freedom and limits?

Awi

[Azrael Dark]

Your thoughts remind me of the ideas presented in the book, [i]Brave New World, [/i]by Adulous Huxley. Should pick it up sometime. It's a good read.

[Malaikat Maut]

[quote name='Liberty4life' date='08 December 2009 - 02:51 PM' timestamp='1260301870' post='49459']
for example freedom of choice, when we need to pick something, we can pick anything, and out of all possibilities we usually dont know wot to pick, it depends on individual person will he pick something asap, will he take long time to pick something, will he pick something then change his mind, will he pick something to find out later that he doesnt likes it and then suffer becoz of it, or maybe number of choices will paralyze him so he picks nothing, in here its clear that the more we limit freedom of choice, the more will be limited number of possible choices... so limitations can actually guide individual person to make choice, instead of not making it, and if rules are pretty good he will most of time pick right choice out of which he will be almost always on gain, but limiting freedom of choice is considered bad limitation, and limiting it is an unrealistic example i would say, but that doesnt matters, it is the point in it that matters[/quote]
This is something I've thought a great deal about, mostly in the context of American culture and social ideology. The problem with any regulation that limits or removes freedom is that it also removes individual responsibility. If we each maintain unhindered freedom of choice, than we have only ourselves to blame or praise for the outcome of those choices. However, if choice is limited or regulated than the result is a dissociation between cause and effect, action and response, behavior and consequence. For instance, consider the manner in which our (American) Electoral College system breeds complacent voters, or how social reforms (welfare, social security, etc.) may contribute to financial irresponsibility.

[quote]its said that human can do anything, so can we? we are limited to walk on ground we cant fly by our nature, we need airplanes for that, this is example of limitation for which we found relative solution, then we have limitation of our time on this world, we have our need for food, water, air, etc we cant live outside those conditions, are all those good or bad limitations for us? if its said that we can achieve anything, are we capable of breaking those limitations eternally or can we just find temporal solutions for them and then count those temporal solutions as achieving impossible, we have fact that humans can achieve anything, fact that humans need water to survive, means that its impossible for us to live without it, and to be able to achieve anything means we can achieve impossible..... but its not logical that we can live without water, or that we can live forever[/quote]
You've moved from the context of social limitations to actual physical limitations. Everyone is bound to exist within our physical universe, and therefore to abide by the laws that govern it. Planes don't fly in opposition to physical law...they fly because of it. From this perspective, no limitation has been removed. I've always evaluated arguments of free will with the assumption that physical law provides guidelines that simply can not be removed, and I see no reason to do otherwise.

[quote]if temporal solutions for those total limitations are considered as achieving anything, which logically doesnt looks right, then total limitation is end across which we cant go, then we dont have total freedom in its full meaning...

...meaning that human in same time can achieve everything and nothing[/quote]
This depends entirely on what you consider to be an "achievement". The underlying argument would be for purpose, which, plain and simple, doesn't exist in a universe with no designer. If we have a designer, and therefore a greater purpose than mere perpetuation of our species, I suppose the next logical step would be to debate the existence of free will vs. the logical limitations of it. If we don't have a true purpose, we achieve nothing of meaning regardless of freedom or limitation. Even in immortality or infinity, the hollow achievements of our existence would be entirely self serving.

[Kafuuka]

The agony of choice. I have once read a very funny thought experiment on it:
Suppose you have a donkey that is equally thirsty as he is hungry. To the left at 10 meters is a pond and to the right at 10 meters is a batch of hay (or whatever donkeys like to eat). ie there is no logical way to decide whether the donkey should first have a drink or go for a bite and thus he will be unable to decide until he dies.
It has been proposed that instead of choosing to either first have a drink, or eat first, a third option is available: decide to do something random.

If one is truly without limits, that includes knowing whether an optimal solution exists or that a coin toss is needed and the problem of choice will not occur. Ironically you will never actually choose something because omniscience will put you on a deterministic path. If you accept that thought, then it is clear that a minimum of restriction is needed to ensure a positive amount of freedom exists for a one-person universe. For multiple people it is easier to see, since the freedom of person A is limited by that of person B.


[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='09 December 2009 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1260368490' post='49506']
This is something I've thought a great deal about, mostly in the context of American culture and social ideology. The problem with any regulation that limits or removes freedom is that it also removes individual responsibility. If we each maintain unhindered freedom of choice, than we have only ourselves to blame or praise for the outcome of those choices. However, if choice is limited or regulated than the result is a dissociation between cause and effect, action and response, behavior and consequence. For instance, consider the manner in which our (American) Electoral College system breeds complacent voters, or how social reforms (welfare, social security, etc.) may contribute to financial irresponsibility. [/quote]
Even if it will be horribly off-topic, it must be said that the current economic crisis is the result of capitalist reforms leading to financial irresponsibility of those who owned large amounts of money. After 1929 laws were imposed upon banks to prevent a similar crash and these laws have been circumvented by constructions involving insurance companies. The crash has also been quite accurately predicted by people from various disciplines (historians, physicist and economists to name some). (When asked if the prediction would change the behavior of people and thus nullify itself, a professor answered: "One word: Greed")

[quote]in all democratic countries everyone has right to vote if they want too[/quote]
Actually in Belgium you have the duty to vote and not voting is considered a severe crime, for which you can be sentenced to prison (I doubt it ever happens though).

[Malaikat Maut]

[quote name='Kafuuka' date='09 December 2009 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1260379633' post='49513']
The agony of choice. I have once read a very funny thought experiment on it:
Suppose you have a donkey that is equally thirsty as he is hungry. To the left at 10 meters is a pond and to the right at 10 meters is a batch of hay (or whatever donkeys like to eat). ie there is no logical way to decide whether the donkey should first have a drink or go for a bite and thus he will be unable to decide until he dies.
It has been proposed that instead of choosing to either first have a drink, or eat first, a third option is available: decide to do something random.

If one is truly without limits, that includes knowing whether an optimal solution exists or that a coin toss is needed and the problem of choice will not occur. Ironically you will never actually choose something because omniscience will put you on a deterministic path. If you accept that thought, then it is clear that a minimum of restriction is needed to ensure a positive amount of freedom exists for a one-person universe. For multiple people it is easier to see, since the freedom of person A is limited by that of person B.[/quote]

It's an interesting thought, but one that I feel is impractical. We have limits. Physical law and logic still govern the universe...I believe that even God, while beyond physical law, operates within the confines of logic. Most beings will survive a great deal longer with no food than with no water. The donkey's rational decision would be to drink first and eat after, though I understand you're attempt to remove such guides in the analogy.


[quote]Even if it will be horribly off-topic, it must be said that the current economic crisis is the result of capitalist reforms leading to financial irresponsibility of those who owned large amounts of money. After 1929 laws were imposed upon banks to prevent a similar crash and these laws have been circumvented by constructions involving insurance companies. The crash has also been quite accurately predicted by people from various disciplines (historians, physicist and economists to name some). (When asked if the prediction would change the behavior of people and thus nullify itself, a professor answered: "One word: Greed")[/quote]
Replied via PM.

[Liberty4life]

i must say that if we have limitations upon us, even then we cant blame them for stopping us, again we are the ones to blame becoz we didnt rebelled against them, also ya didnt quite understood wot i wanted to say in end of mine post... and point was we dont know which one is correct, does creator exists, does start and end exist or are they 2 infinities, there is nothing that can FULLY prove one of those dilemmas, meaning that all options are possible

as for why i moved to physical limitations... lets have a look at it for a little, we humans by our nature have social freedoms, but as other things we are limited by physical laws, laws of world.. principals, we are limited by them, so when we do something wrong we see it, we cant pass over that limit, that allows us to learn and understand how world works, those things are proven facts, while on other hand our morality is our thing, by freedom of choice we can do anything, for a bit lets forget about man made laws, so atm we have just ethical questions, is there god and such, every ethical question becomes in the end dilemma between many options, ethical questions doesnt end with answer, it ends if there is god and we are members of this religion then we do as they say, if we are members of other religion then we to something else, if there is no god then we can do wot we want, so it falls down on our subjective mind to do as we believe since we cant know by our objective mind which one is true, there is always option that there is creator and that there isnt creator, in short all this means we dont know if other world exists and if it does we dont know how we will pass over to it, but in this world we have just physical laws while those "divine" laws arent defined and fall down to our belief, thats why in here come man made laws, since everyone would have different belief, one could believe that there is no god and that he can do wot he pleases, so man made laws are limitations set by community so that community can prosper and doesnt get sabotaged by individuals

[Kafuuka]

Most, if not all, ethics are an extension of 'treat others like you want them to treat you'. It makes perfect sense regardless of religion, for it is an equal trade, while the alternative is the will of the strongest. This is also why anarchy is the least stable state, it will collapse into dictatorship (or evolve into democracy, but less likely). And do so very quickly: as soon as people in an anarchic state realize this fact, plans will be forged and carried out.

@Malaikat: then put fries on the left side and the hamburger on the right, and bury the toy from the happy meal somewhere out of sight!

[Liberty4life]

well i agree partially, but i see ya havent understood me, if there is no god, then everyone can do wot he wants, but for stability of development of community ppl made laws, one can go against them, or even group or even big majority of ppl and make anarchy in that case, which will then develop into dictatorship or democracy depending who is "stronger" as ya said, but if it was in start that one individual who wants to rebel who doesnt cares and is fully capable to do that, nothing stops him to rise anarchy and establish dictatorship and do as he pleases as long as he can control key elements that will keep him in that position of power, and yeah mine point in here that dictator is unethical towards "must obey crowd" while he does everything needed remain in power like taking good care of military which will in return be loyal to him in any situation, so... "treat others how ya want them to treat ya" cant be quite applied in here, and also.. lets say ya have to kill someone innocent in order to save your big family from miserable life which allows ya barely to have something to eat, wot would ya do? so killing innocent man isnt ethical, and i guess that goal doesnt justifies means, i guess that many would act unethically, but mine both guesses could be wrong, mine point in here is that ethics doesnt say much, from mine point of view, if we dont count man made laws there is nothing to stop that person from murdering other one, ethics wont stop him, and if nobody knows who is murderer and there are no laws even family or friends of murdered person wont be able to revenge that death, so in here treat others like ya want them to treat ya doesnt applies, so murderer got away even if it still unethical to kill person and not get caught, if we remove religion and man made laws, one can do wot he wants as long as he has community or majority of community supporting him, why would they support him for doing something bad? becoz he is making them more good than bad, for example napoleon, he did many great things for his ppl, then he lead them to war, many got killed but france expanded, became very powerful, got big market, fame, it developed quickly, ppl got wot they wanted, later he got stopped by outer factors (meaning not inside his state), when other countries saw how much bad things he can do to them, they crushed him together, they were stronger, so as long as affected community does cares wot ya are doing or even is supporting ya, ya can obviously do wot ya want, becoz they will have more use of your actions than harm

so in mine opinion ethics is meaningless by itself, but ethic is foundation for man made laws, which are "enforced", so thats only good side of ethics, but if god exists then ethics get bigger meaning