Freedom? There is no such thing as it! just think of the llamas people, the llamas! Yes i know it sounds strange but think of the llama who is standing by the cliff, the sheperd yells “come here bill, come bill” and the llama has to come… if there was such thing as freedom then the llama, instead of listening the llama would turn, yet he would not be paying attention because free llamas are stuck up and have big egos and he would fall off the cliff. See this is the society we live in, im not prejudice against llamas or anything but this is an easy way for me to say it. Now think of the llamas who arent stuck up, the thing about them is that they spend all there time knowing they are better than everyone else and end up showing that they two aree stuck up and end up running through a campers fire, catching afire and dropping off a cliff. see that is freedom, that my freinds is FREEDOM! Now i leave you with this? will you be the llama or the shepard? will you live the life of being chained to a wall, or life of jumping off the cliff, without having to know, its basically a lose, lose situation but get over it
Umm… there’s already a topic like this, chris…
and it’s somewhat more coherrant
i know for some reason it makes new ones when i click reply and im not clicking new topic or post new topic
— I have a book that discusses this very thing (Philosophy: the basics 3rd edition by Nigel Warburton pp80-82). In the section on Politics he contrasts negative and positive freedom. Negative freedom is defined as the absence of coercion, positive freedom is defined as the ability to exercise control over your own life for your own self-realization (under this definition a drug addict would not be genuinely free).
— I personally prefer positive freedom. There are positive points to both, however… I look forward to your comments.
— Ronald Reagan said " We can not afford the Government it would take to protect us from ourselves."
But your precious “positive freedom” would be worthless without “negative freedom”. What use is there to be able to, say, buy plenty of food if you are prevented from eating? What use is there in being able to obtain everything you need to live if you are prevented by coercive force from doing things that, for you, make life worthwhile–be it your unfettered artistic expression, your living on your own for yourself, totally self-sufficient, or whatever else you value?
What you refer to as “negative freedom” is infinitely more important than that “positive freedom”.
What use is not being restricted by law if you’re starving to death because you can’t find a job? How can you realise yourself if you’re forced to work sixteen hours a day every day or live in the streets? It cuts both ways.
I take it you are pointing to the fact that there is no absolute freedom, but there is either more or less depending on who you are. Thats interesting. I would say that life is about compromise because when you pay close attention you realise that you have to play both of these roles you have described as existing in life.
— I agree with Kurt that both are necessary, but that does little to preclude choosing one version in a system to be predominant over the other one. Looked at in one sense one is saying “no” and the other replies, “yes”, which is the very essence of morality.
In life you are going to hear plenty of “no’s” and plenty of “yes’s”, I am not sure you have a point here. If we were omnipotent and only received “yes’s”, life would be rather boring and most likely challengeless.
You may be right. My thesis probably belongs in the political arena. My yes shall respond to your no. back to the original post. Not everyone uses their hard-won freedom to jump off cliffs. Some save people from hunger, some write novels, some break the four minute mile. I think the thesis that freedom doesn’t exist is untenable. Freedom is what separates the sheep from the llamas that jump off the cliff, it’ll make or break you.