Talk:Freedom (philosophy)

MOVING freedom article for disambiguation
I want to rename this article Freedom (Philosophy)the choice to go to Freedom (political) or Freedom (philosophy) before seeing this page. This page is too postmodern for me, and I would gamble most people looking for info on freedom are thinking about politics not existentialist France. In american english, and I would be willing to bet the same of the UK because of the shared legal tradition of the US and UK the first meaning of freedom is in the Natural law sense. SO I am going to have it go to the freedom (disambiguation) site first.Mrdthree 15:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there is no such thing as freedom as it is defined by most people and doctrines. We are by our nature finite beings after all life is a limited business. Furthermore our very physical form defines what we popularly think of as freedom hence rights which usually include basic human needs food, clothing,and shelter etc. Some people use freedom as a weapon to justify there actions. The arguement that we here in America have more freedoms than other countries is used to smother any dissention or criticism of American policy and as a false moral highground from which to attack other peoples, for Many people will say "That someone died so that we could have freedom of speech now shutup and if you still have reservations maybe you should leave the country." I'lle bet every idealogue in the world uses this type of rationale to counter any free-thinking. Freedom is not a thing. Freedom is not provided to someone by an external source such as a government or another person. It is a state of being, a condition that a few seek all their lives and most avoid at all costs. Freedom is linked to the awareness of truth or reality. People are often delusional perceiving things that are not there. If one is not aware how is it possible for them to take full advantage of their liberties,let alone even survive on the most basic level. Freedom is defined in relation to other people or society. If there is a landslide or a flood people don't say "Oh I'm being oppressed by this natural phenomina." but if a person or a society is responsible then there is resentment and even violence. The biggest problem with freedom most of us wouldnt know what to do with it even if we realized it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.23.234 (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic Freedom
Whence came "Economic freedom means having more choices due to being wealthy"? The only way I've ever seen "economic freedom" used as an established phrase is to mean the absence of strictures on how people or organizations can (or must) use their money, as with taxes or labor laws. I suppose that "having a range of choices because you've got a lot of money" could also be a logical interpretation of the phrase, but that meaning comes just from putting the two words together, not from an actual definition established in a field of study. You could also say that a "free radical" is a person with unorthodox beliefs or practices who is free from restrictions, but doing so ignores the established meaning in chemistry. I'm changing the Economic freedom entry. Mr. Billion 07:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Word in other languages
I've started a new section. Please note that although there is a slight redundancy with interwiki, there will be some languages that don't have their wikipedia yet, and therefore i think that it's appropriate to have this section. Please post your reasoning if you think otherwise before simply deleting. Beta m (talk)
 * I disagree. This sort of thing is more appropriate for Wiktionary than for a Wikipedia article. I am moving the information there. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 03:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link removal
I've removed the external link to the Lincoln organization website. Ask any libertarian whether he thinks Lincoln supported freedom. For NPOV, removal seems to make the most sense (as opposed to adding another link to a page showing how destructive to freedom his policies were). Paul Bonneau

Neutrality
this is not the true freedom, like we have in america. if you dont like it you can get out!
 * There's freedom in America? I've lived there, and visited many states, and I saw no freedom.

This whole page is about french existentialist notions of freedom. There needs to be a disambiguation page: Freedom(political) Freedom(existential). Mrdthree 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

''this is not the true freedom, like we have in america. if you dont like it you can get out!''

People like this should not be editing encyclopedia articles. Evrenosogullari 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
I was rather disappointed to not see the quote Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose (Janis Joplin ) but I suppose that is something of a back handed salute and possibly considered NPOV. Your thoughts? JohnCub 14:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, there should obviously not be a litany of quotes in an introductory article. A small number of pithy quotes ensures that the article is both taut and well rounded. I think there are too many quotes as is. Perhaps you could add that quote to Wikiquote?

There are certainly too many quotes, and some of them are not as wise or beautiful as others. I nominate for deletion the quotes by: Alan Dean Foster, Barbara Hall, Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider, George Orwell, Pope John Paul II, Ayn Rand (first quote).

Art
The following was added:
 * In the art practice and theory of Davor Dzalto, freedom is taken as a basic feature of both the personal existence of human being and art production.

If we want a section on freedom in art, it should be more comprehensive than referring to just one artist. Anyone want to take this up? Hgilbert 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Brave new world predicted
Wikipedia is Big Brother, you sit there editing the past to conform to what is commonly assumed to be correct, you've started the end of human civilisation and freedom! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.31.9.88 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother would establish what is assumed to be correct without allowing us to have a word in it. Big Brother would force the establishment of its version of history and would bind its citizens to those views. In Wikipedia, its citizens establish the perception of truth as generally established by history and no person is forced to accept any version or perception. Big Brother watches the actions of all its citizens for conformity to its philosophy, but here the citizens watch what it said for conformity to their understandings of truth. Human civilization is too big and stubborn to be "brainwashed," by any single source; we tend to only accept our perspectives of reality regardless of all other factors. Therefore, even if Wikipedia tried to police our thoughts on its own website, which is its right, but not its philosophy, people are naturally far too pride and resistant to allow it to indoctrinate them. I suggest that you just enjoy this project and the successes of it. Even add your own positive, inspiring, and unique wisdom, knowledge, and other contributions to it, if you feel so inclined. --Landen99 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But prepare to have it deleted. ¬_¬ -Wunderbear

Introduction: paragraph excised
I have excised the following paragraph from the introduction, as it appears to be a somewhat confusing, and in part tautologous (or at least mere definition):
 * Freedom can mean an attribute of man and his will. Freedom can mean the condition for rights enabled by natural or positive law, but also of duty. However, an action is a personal experience, so carrying out a deliberate action cannot be summed up to rights and duties. These two levels of human existence - an attribute of man or the condition for enabled rights - are not necessarily compatible. One can establish that judicial liberties are in place, but reality (in our actions) and essence (in our conception) of our liberty are missing.

If it should be there, please rewrite more clearly.

In my opinion, the whole article could use quite a bit of extension and clarification... Hgilbert 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

With great respect, I think that this article was better before your recent edits, for two primary reasons. Firstly, point form inclusion (in the Inner autonomy section) is not the best format for an encyclopedia, and secondly the paragraph that you deleted is a long standing one which makes good sense. I did not immediately reinstate it, because I am seeking other opinions, but unless there is consensus otherwise, it should be reverted. I would ask others to please advise. Thank you.


 * Freedom is one of those ideas that everyone knows about but no one can state it less than 3000 words. How about this definition, "Freedom is a lack of barriers". Terryeo 17:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "Hindery" section from the intro (diff). Aside from the oddity of referencing a specific chapter of one author's work in the introduction to such a broad and general topic as "freedom", but the notability of the "frameworks" is not asserted, and indeed the concepts don't seem to be referenced further in the article. If indeed these are in wide enough use in scholarly discussion of freedom to warrant inclusion in the article I'm sure someone can make the additions, but since the text was added by an anon IP from Arizona State U (where Professor Hindery is currently affiliated), I suspect this may just have been an overly appreciative admirer of his work.

Also, the laundry list in the "Usage" section seems a little unencyclopedic. I removed one that made me laugh out loud (about weekends), but some of the others read a little like blog definitions (the relationship one, for instance), while a couple seem to be valid examples of the usage of "freedom", but in senses other than the "(philosophy)" orientation (the "software" and "physics" examples, for instance). Comments, anyone? - David Oberst 20:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on: Freedom encompasses everything which adds to that ability
The exercise of freedom is limited to acts which advance it. Bondage is to freedom as theft is to work.

Jumping off a cliff without safety devices kills the person. Freedom is lost by acts which harm self, therefore such acts are no more acts of freedom than the practice of slavery. Transporting a car into the side of a mountain is not transportation from the time that collision is unavoidable, because the car loses the ability to be transported at that instant.

Said in another way, as acts which harm freedom are executed freedom is limited or disappears. If such acts were of freedom, then the commission of those types of acts alone would quickly lead to the annhilation of freedom, and those acts would no longer be possible. Only the advancement of freedom (through acts of freedom) enable anti-freedom (through acts which attack freedom), even as theft is only enabled by productivity and of itself must quickly perish.

Of course, freedom must fight anti-freedom in order to survive, even as workers must fight thieves for their survival. It is just as rightly noted then that productivity encompasses everything which adds to the ability to work effectively. The exercise of productivity is limited to acts which advance it. --Landen99 13:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If free acts can create acts which attack freedom, why cannot free acts themselves destroy freedom, just as an act of Will could destroy that Will? Furthermore, the man that enslaves another, is he not acting freely? By stating that the "exercise of                 freedom is limited to acts which advance it" means that I am not free when i decide upon a brand of ice cream, or choose one branch of study over another because such acts do not ADVANCE freedom, they participate in it.

With respect, I think that you take freedom to be some kind of metaphysical construct, or a transcendental even. Phenomenally, isn't freedom more like the description for the framework in which humans act and choose?

Simple thought
Wouldn't the first paragraph be clearer if it just was simply put as "Freedom is the ability to act without restraint."?

I agree. The following:

''Freedom is a many-faceted, positive term encompassing the ability to act consciously, in a well-balanced manner and with self control in a given constructive direction. '' is very silly and untrue. Freedom is not at all a positive term. Freedom leaves a person to decide what is right and what is wrong - acting in a well-balanced manner has absolutely no attatchement to freedom. In fact, its often the opposite when a person is free to act how they would like.

--Evrenosogullari 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Freedom is the ability to act with restrain and grew out of it. Knowing what is attachment and able to leave it. Knowing what is lust and able to forgive it. Knowing what is anger and able to calm it. That is freedom(philosophy).

Needs more America. --66.192.186.101 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Even that United States of America as of 2008 is the best country in the world, this article is surely biased pro_USA Toki1998 (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about freedom in philosophy; the above discussion belongs to Political freedom. Hgilbert (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Forms of freedom
The section on forms of freedom was a seemingly arbitrary collection. Many of the aspects listed belong properly to the Political freedom page. I have radically simplified the list and eliminated the political entries; if people want to build it out from here, feel free to do so. Hgilbert (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The ontology of Freedom
I added the ontology of freedom, to put it into a more metaphysic perspective. I’m a strong advocate of dualism, and hope to have described why there is no difference between, determinism, and materialism. But it would be good if people could ad to this paragraph. Personally I think that the ontology of Freedom is the only important part of the philosophy of freedom. Many of the paragrafs abouve is not philosophy ad all, but rather, the history of ideas conserning freedom. user:rphb 12:04, 10 november 2008 Centrel European Time. Unfortunately for you, saying that determinism rules out any subjective experience of freedom is oversimplifying. It only implies that there is no objective reality behind the experience making a choice, not that we do not in fact experience it or that is not a reality to our senses (biology). It is only the behavior of atoms that is determined (and that not completely, see uncertainty principle). Do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your vitalistic mysticism. Freedom in philosophy also is about ethics, eg right to greedom, and epistemology, as in awareness of free choice, not just ontology, much less your dualism, I urge you not to oversimplify24.184.234.24 (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)LeucineZipper

If
If I can't swear here or say anything I want to then I am not free. Correction, I am free, but in a world and on a website that isn't. It seems to me the world that isn't free and the people that aren't or curtail my freedom are the problem. As Rousseau said, "Man is born free but everywhere is in chains". I would add that some people chain themselves up voluntarily and attempt to chain others too. Why am I subject to others ignorance, limitations and vested interests? Perhaps anarchy is the answer...hmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.7.9 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are free to swear here if you want. There is no filter or automated censor. However, it is important to remember that we are likewise free to revert your edits. Since the majority of the users on Wikipedia are trying to make a quality encyclopedia, there are probably enough users out there to revert most of the low quality edits (e.g. frivolous cursing). I can see how you might confuse these reversions with "chains" inhibiting your freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.229.166 (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Freedom v Liberty
Hi fellows, my native language having only one word for 'Freedom' and 'Liberty', I cannot perceive the nuance between the two: But the two concept seem to differ slightly each other for English-speakers. Is that right? Is 'Liberty' the area of 'Freedom' as restricted by the 'Rights' of others over their own 'Liberties'? Note: I also think it should be explained the nuance between 'Freedom' and 'Anarchy' (and 'Jungle' perhaps too?) for documenting the last 'If' contribution just here above. ;-) Unfortunately I feel too weak in this philosophical topic to propose any addition otherwise I would have loved to. Cheers. -- Silwilhith (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Freedom is the right to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(philosophy)
 * Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

This article is horrible
A while back I removed links from lede of the article on Rights to here, because of the horrible quality of this article.

First of all, the grammar is simply atrocious right from the start ("Freedom in philosophy is the human value or situation to act according to one's will without being held up by the power of others.") and only gets worse ("The modern science view admit in the physical processes whether deteminism or indeterminism, while in biologic ones are the indeterministic the more important."), to the point that it's not even clear what is being stated half the time.

Furthermore this article can't seem to decide whether it's a disambiguation page (made doubly worse by the fact that there already is a Freedom disambiguation page) or a substantial article, and if the latter, what exactly its scope is. Is this about freedom of the will? About freedom from external influences (political, social, economic, etc)? What?

I think any well-cited material from this article should be moved into either Political freedom, Economic freedom, or Free will, and this page redirected back to Freedom simpliciter. I'm going to make some improvements to that disambiguation page right now (which shares some of the faults with this page), and then if nobody objects I'll disburse this article's redeemable content to the appropriate pages and redirect it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)