|
|
#1 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
Do you have the means to choose freely?
Freedom should be considered not as an abstract concept on the general level but as an empirical choice of the individual at each moment of decision making. Freedom is a matter of means and end. We always seek freedom as an end but we make decisions in life that can constantly erode our freedom because we constantly diminish our means needed to remain free. Essentially sapiens are neither good nor evil, neither greedy nor altruistic, but a contradiction. This constant contradiction forces a constant search for new solutions, which in turn create new contradictions. We can answer these contradictions in a regressive manner or in a progressive manner. Humans are like the dog chasing its tail. It cannot capture its tail but it can occasionally catch it but immediately loses it and must take up the chase once again. This is what Fromm means when he says we are a contradiction. Regression to animal existence is one answer to the quest to transcend separateness. Wo/man can try to eliminate that which makes her human but also tortures her; s/he can discard reason and self-consciousness. What is noteworthy here is that if everybody does it, it ain’t fiction; anything everyone does is reality, even if it is a virtual reality. For most people, reason and reality is nothing more than public consensus. “One never ‘loses one’s mind’ when nobody else’s mind differs from one’s own.” Regression to our animal form of instinctual behavior happens when we replace our lost animal instincts with our own fully developed symbolic instincts; we can then program our self to uncritically follow these culturally formed instincts without further consideration. “It is important for our problem to recognize that, aside from the extreme cases, each individual and each group of individuals can at a given time regress to the most irrational and destructive orientations and also progress toward the enlightened and progressive orientation.” Hitler’s Germany is an example of regression to the most irrational and destructive orientations. This leads us to the nature of freedom in human possibilities. Fromm considers that the comprehension of freedom is impossible when we think of it as a group experience. To speak of freedom of man in general, rather than of the individual, we are lead into abstractions that make the problem insoluble. What are the mechanics of freedom for the individual? I am a retired engineer and it is easier for me to think in such terms as mechanics, energy, momentum, force, and objects; I also think that we all have an ‘intuitive feel’ for the meaning of such parameters. Mechanics is the science of force acting upon bodies. Newton furnished us with a means for comprehending the force of gravity and how that force of gravity controlled the motion of the planets and of the all bodies in the universe. QM (Quantum Mechanics) furnishes us with the means for comprehending the forces acting upon the objects within the world of the atom. It might be useful to apply some of this same knowledge when we examine the nature of freedom. We have an intuitive ‘feel’ for the things that make up the science of mechanics. Such things as mass (weight), velocity, momentum, energy, and force are day-to-day stuff for us; these parameters make up our intuition of our world. For example, we like to drive SUVs because they have great mass and thus great momentum and thus when we hit a little car we, with our great momentum, will go unhurt while we barrel over the little guy. Freedom is about human choice. The forces influencing choice are both conscious and unconscious. Our conscious forces include character and reason. Our unconscious forces include emotion and the feelings engendered by emotion. But, whether the choice and subsequent action is controlled by conscious or unconscious forces, the fact remains: the choice results in action, which is dictated by reason or by irrational passions. Spinoza, the founder of modern psychology, considers that the individual’s freedom is a matter of ‘adequate ideas’, which are based on the comprehension “and acceptance of reality and which determine actions securing the fullest development of the individual’s psychic and mental unfolding…When ruled by passions, man is in bondage; when by reason, he is free.” Wo/man is constantly bombarded by egocentric and sociocentric forces that drive us to commit acts that are not in our self-interest. “The freedom of choice where determinism or indeterminism is involved is always the freedom to choose the better as against the worse—and better or worse always is understood in reference to the basic moral question of life—that between progressing or regressing, between love and hate, between independence and dependence. Freedom is nothing other than the capacity to follow the voice of reason, of health, of well-being, of conscience, against the voices of irrational passions.” Me and Fromm think that “most people fail in the art of living not because they are inherently bad or so without will that they cannot live a better life; they fail because they do not wake up and see where they stand at the fork in the road and have to decide.” Most people fail because they do not recognize the nature of momentum that accumulates with each decision we make in life. We constantly face the fork in the road to decision making and each decision builds a momentum toward bad momentum, good momentum, or better momentum. The character we build step by step through out our life creates the momentum favoring decisions that are bad or good. Life is a chain of causality wherein we take the baby-steps that finally lead us to the point that we haven’t the momentum and force necessary to be free men and woman but have become robot-like when facing the decisions we must make. Parents and teachers recognize that character is destiny. Each baby-step taken throughout our life places another bit of momentum toward a matrix of character traits that will make it possible for us to make free choices later in life or places us in circumstances whereby we haven’t the strength of momentum to be free from the determination into which our character traits have lead us. What is character? Character is the network of habits that permeate all the intentional acts of an individual. I am not using the word habit in the way we often do, as a technical ability existing apart from our wishes. These habits are an intimate and fundamental part of our selves. They are representations of our will. They rule our will, working in a coordinated way they dominate our way of acting. These habits are the results of repeated, intelligently controlled, actions. Quotes from “The Heart of Man” by Erich Fromm Questions for discussion Freedom should be considered not as an abstract concept on the general level but as an empirical choice of the individual at each moment of decision making. Do you agree? Freedom is a matter of means and end. Does this make sense to you? Can you be free today to choose but not free to choose tomorrow? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
|
One of my teachers once described it in this way, "you can do absolutely anything you choose to in this life as long as you don't mind the consequences that follow." In this sense, using your freedom in a way that brings problematic consequences will limit your ability to use your freedom for another action and each time you try to resist the consequences that must follow the consequences enlarge. So yes, we can be free to choose and not be free to choose tomorrow in the sense that your actions will be restricted. However, if you consider your ability to do as you wish you can say that you always have the ability to freely choose what you do because even if you are in jail you have the freedom to choose to beat a guard with as much force as you choose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
The degree of freedom of choice is a function of the momentum you have built before the choice is to be made. You develop character throughout your life and your character determines what your momentun is , if it is bad momentum then you lose your freedom because you haven't the force to overcome bad momentum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
That would be a fine way of putting it, if your motions were actually your own. There are different kinds of "bad momentum" of course. Some are self-confirming while others are self denying. Murder is, as you posted about in another topic, often somewhat self confiriming. Repression, on the other hand, of any sort a person learned through poor socialization, is self denying. Repression however seems to serve the effect of damaging the individual while increasing general social cohesion, whether it's simply repression of ego, of confidence, of things of that nature, or repression of violence which in turn as we have discussed could be considered an act of self confirmation.
By the way, this is all very pretty sounding but it's more poetry than sense. You would do well to learn to take this kind of thinking, as with most kinds of thinking, much less seriously. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 244
|
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
At a point in time we have a situation. The situation is a result of many things. Some of those things are a result of decisions we have made in the past some of those things are matters over which we have no control.
The question is ‘can I at this time make a choice between doing something rational or irrational’. It seems obvious to me that I do have that choice and the power that I have to make a rational choice is greatly determined by my character. It is greatly determined by what my decisions have been in the past. We are speaking about a chain of means and ends. At anyone time do we have the means to make a rational choice or are we so controlled by our irrational choices in the past as to have little will power to act rationally in this particular moment. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1
|
If sombody knew where evry single subatomic particle in the universe was at any given moment and could compute an infinite amount of data instantaneously then they could figure out evrything that would hapen in the future however you run into circular logic when you consider that somone would have to know what was inside their mind but that would change the second they realized it. Therefore I come to this conclusion: The future is predetermined but canot be figured out. If you try to do this you will go insane and probably die so just live like a normal person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 244
|
Quote:
I would say, "Don't live normally, live interestingly."
__________________
Last edited by Could_Strife007; 03-26-2007 at 03:36 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | ||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
For instance, when we look at history we can call things like slavery, like religious inquisitions, and like the holocaust insane, and in terms of some sort of objective reality, they are. Even if you want to get nitpicky and say that nuetrality entails not putting a value judegement on the act of murder, in any form, the basis of people's assumptions that let them murder without remorse were provably, objectively false. Jews are not subhuman. The german's are not the master race. Inbreeding does not lead to superpowers. In fact, multiracial breeding actually strengthens the offspring, on a genetic and on a greater biological level. Relative to perception, however, these actions are perfectly sane, which just goes to show how flawed human perception is capable of being. We reason from a specific set of details to a general conclusion, but we can only reason with the details we know. Flaws in reason arise from improper analysis caused by lack of pertinent information, but any attempt to put off analysis until all details are known cannot be done, so we are always working with incomplete information. I propose that the difference between rational and irrational cannot be known if we accept even this modest skeptics argument. However, it is likely that we can know at least a nominally sound difference between Rational and Arational. If a person acts on instinct without thought this is an absence of rationality, but not neccessarily a presence of anything in violation of reason or rationality. Quote:
Of course the question here is how much of an overlap is there between thought and being? If the overlap is perfect then this type of observation would certainly have radical effects on one's being, but it would not eliminate all properties contained therein. Last edited by Kilroy_x; 03-25-2007 at 11:51 PM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
Kilroy
For a 12 to 18 years period from the age of 6 to our mid twenties we have lived constantly in an educational system wherein we seldom if ever learned to function intellectually independent of outside direction. We have never learned how to learn! How is it possible for such an individual to develop the internal processes (bootstrap) that allow him or her to become an independent critically self-conscious thinker? Bootstrap is defined as: designed to function independently of outside direction—capable of using one internal function or process to control another. Like the PC setting in front of us we seem to have an automatic default position. Our default position is ‘reject’ when encountering any idea that does not fit in our already learned patterns and algorithms. Somehow the individual must find a way to change that default position from ‘reject’ to ‘examine critically’. Of course—how do we every not reject this message? These following definitions come from: http://www.criticalthinking.org/reso...glossary.shtml critical listening: A mode of monitoring how we are listening so as to maximize our accurate understanding of what another person is saying. By understanding the logic of human communication-that everything spoken expresses point of view, uses some ideas and not others, has implications, etc.-critical thinkers can listen so as to enter sympathetically and analytically into the perspective of others. See critical speaking, critical reading, critical writing, elements of thought, intellectual empathy. critical person: One who has mastered a range of intellectual skills and abilities. If that person generally uses those skills to advance his or her own selfish interests, that person is a critical thinker only in a weak or qualified sense. If that person generally uses those skills fairmindedly, entering empathically into the points of view of others, he or she is a critical thinker in the strong or fullest sense. See critical thinking. critical reading: Critical reading is an active, intellectually engaged process in which the reader participates in an inner dialogue with the writer. Most people read uncritically and so miss some part of what is expressed while distorting other parts. A critical reader realizes the way in which reading, by its very nature, means entering into a point of view other than our own, the point of view of the writer. A critical reader actively looks for assumptions, key concepts and ideas, reasons and justifications, supporting examples, parallel experiences, implications and consequences, and any other structural features of the written text, to interpret and assess it accurately and fairly. See elements of thought. critical society: A society which rewards adherence to the values of critical thinking and hence does not use indoctrination and inculcation as basic modes of learning (rewards reflective questioning, intellectual independence, and reasoned dissent). Socrates is not the only thinker to imagine a society in which independent critical thought became embodied in the concrete day-to-day lives of individuals; William Graham Sumner, North America's distinguished anthropologist, explicitly formulated the ideal: The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators and are never deceived by dithyrambic oratory. They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens. (Folkways, 1906) Until critical habits of thought pervade our society, however, there will be a tendency for schools as social institutions to transmit the prevailing world view more or less uncritically, to transmit it as reality, not as a picture of reality. Education for critical thinking, then, requires that the school or classroom become a microcosm of a critical society. See didactic instruction, dialogical instruction, intellectual virtues, knowledge. critical thinking: 1) Disciplined, self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thinking. 2) Thinking that displays mastery of intellectual skills and abilities. 3) The art of thinking about your thinking while you are thinking in order to make your thinking better: more clear, more accurate, or more defensible. Critical thinking can be distinguished into two forms: "selfish" or "sophistic", on the one hand, and "fairminded", on the other. In thinking critically we use our command of the elements of thinking to adjust our thinking successfully to the logical demands of a type or mode of thinking. See critical person, critical society, critical reading, critical listening, critical writing, perfections of thought, elements of thought, domains of thought, intellectual virtues. critical writing: To express ourselves in language requires that we arrange our ideas in some relationships to each other. When accuracy and truth are at issue, then we must understand what our thesis is, how we can support it, how we can elaborate it to make it intelligible to others, what objections can be raised to it from other points of view, what the limitations are to our point of view, and so forth. Disciplined writing requires disciplined thinking; disciplined thinking is achieved through disciplined writing. See critical listening, critical reading, logic of language. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Um... k. Critical thinking is good, and a neccessary first step towards the possibility of understanding. However, even with independent critical thinking we have no guarentees that the perspectives we latch on to are rooted in reality. Critical thinking, rational, and formal logical analysis can only tell us so much. Logic tells us if statements are well formed, if they are valid given the correctness of the assumption made. More broadly, rational and critical thinking allow us to observe reality and make our own desisions about what to assume as truth about our environment and as a result what to factor into our calculations of what truth is.
The problem is, these observations are made through a lense which we do not know the quality of, and as a result of both variance in perception and the unknown quality of human perception we are left at a loss when trying to compare any two perspectives in terms of absolute correspondence to reality, because we are working the system inside out; from ourselves internally as part of reality to an attempt to understand reality itself. We do not have access to the objective nature of the world against which we could weigh perspectives soundness. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
Kilroy
CT is about good judgment. Our judgmental ability determines what we are and will become. The better prepared we are to make good judgments the more closely we will be aligned with reality and thus we will make fewer mistakes. There is bad judgment, good judgment, and better judgment. Comprehending the knowledge, skills, and attitude learned by studying CT will provide better judgment. CT is philosophy light. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In your mind, and it scares me.
Age: 28
Posts: 311
|
We all are given free will, it is what seperates us from animals, we have souls. Our freedom may be limited by the law, but we still can make the decision either way, our consiquences may be severe, though. We have the ability to choose, from the smallest thing like what you will have for breakfast, to the outcome of your desicions on your life. To put this as plainly as possible, you may choose, but do your best to choose wisely. We are human, so we are gifted to choose our paths, we just must do our best to think of consiquinces first before we act.
__________________
There are nO suBliminal mEssages in mY foruM signaturE |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
Magnum
Well said. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | ||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|