Freedom: escape from oneself, find oneself or neither?

[Diavolo]

What is Freedom?

According to what I understand, from a Lacanian perspective, freedom is accepting the inevitable. For Viktor Frankl, freedom lies in the way someone reacts to a situation internally. Something similar to the stoic way. The notion that one generates by believing that she/he has found him/herself is confused with a plateau on which momentary identity rests.

What is freedom for?
Can you be free from or free for?

[majintween]

Freedom is whatever makes you feel like you're not restricted anymore, imo. It's all up to whoever is seeking it and for what reason.

[Diavolo]

The funny thing is that when one disassociates fom something, one is immediately linked to another condition. Therefore, freedom "to do or not to do" or "freedom of something" must be conceived. In the first case, we speak of a freedom to be or not to be (as an entity) and in the second case as the rupture between the subject and a repressive condition, which when dissolved puts the subject under another condition (immediately subjugates it ). Hence the Lacanian idea that freedom is to accept the condition that ends up being inevitable

Edited July 7, 2021 by Diavolo

[Trappernicus]

I remember a story regarding freedom and losing what makes us more than what we want to be.

A student told his uni lecturer that he need to take time out from studies. Essentially he want to go off and find himself.

The lecturer asked how exactly the student planned on achieving this wonder goal.

The student explained he planned on slowly removing all the layers that have been dragging him down and affecting their ability to feel they knew who they were.

The lecturer thought about this for a moment in deep thought and asked the student a simple question.

”What if after searching yourself and peeling away all the layers you discover you’re an onion?”

[Diavolo]

Nice point. From a Heideggerian perspective, instead of layers, Heidegger thought reality as a process in which the being is always falling. Every bottom we hit, is not definitive. Culture is a bottom, for example. If we keep digging, we will discover a new abyss to fall in. Is not the center of the onion a state of the being; a confort zone? Not in a peyorative way. A confort zone constituted as a meaning for life: the discovery and acceptance of the unavoidable.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Diavolo

[Trappernicus]

18 hours ago, Diavolo said:

Nice point. From a Heideggerian perspective, instead of layers, Heidegger thought reality as a process in which the being is always falling. Every bottom we hit, is not definitive. Culture is a bottom, for example. If we keep digging, we will discover a new abyss to fall in. Is not the center of the onion a state of the being; a confort zone? Not in a peyorative way. A confort zone constituted as a meaning for life: the discovery and acceptance of the unavoidable.

Perhaps the centre is a comfort zone of the centre stays in place and the layers are added overtime. But if the centre is replaced by a new centre and the first is pushed outwards, it would constantly be in transition and hardly comfortable.

What about Plato’s Cave. Where reality is created and submission to it i# developed over time?

[Diavolo]

It sounds interesting and I like it. Perhaps that initial center, which is subsequently displaced, constitutes the experience that Plato's first man-boy had when he was fascinated by reality, which forced him to think and interpret reality by creating allegories. That is, layers, as you say. Over time, that first thick layer, an accumulation of allegories, gave way to paganism according to T. Carlyle. And, following the same process, paganism mutated into the cult of the hero. The cult of the hero gave way to democracy and other instances until we reached our current stage. The point here is that, as Nietzsche says, there are no truths, but interpretations. What does that mean? That we can only aspire to touch the changing dermis of nature through interpretations; allegories and theories, which are adequate to advocate in favor of our survival, but that does not mean that we have managed to immerse ourselves with the truth: what nature is in itself. The more we peel off layers, the more we realize that there is no natural order of anything: the given order is 1 of many possible and that each one was installed due to a victorious will to power. Perhaps, freedom is to finish accepting such a will or to fight against it. I don't know if it is possible to ignore it. The most honest thing one can do, could it be freedom?

[Trappernicus]

As I was reading your reply such as the lines "paganism mutated into the cult of the hero" and "the hero gave way to democracy ... until we reached our current stage" reminded me of Nietzsche and his stages of development. Whom you touched upon. I personally will take exception to Nietzsche statement that there are "no truths". If I place my hand into flame I will burn myself. This is an inherent cause and effect where the heat will burn and there's no denying this fact. There are other such truths that may be used. Though perhaps some truths are more subjective than objective. More trusted than proven. Perhaps these truths are spiritualist in nature.

Your next line "which are adequate to advocate in favour of our survival" and "does not mean that we have managed to immerse ourselves with the truth" I would like to take in two parts. If we consider Darwin's theory of the Survival of the Fittest our we to assume truth favours the most suitable to survive? Or can any truth be applied to both the fit and the unfit for survival? As to immersing ourselves with 'truth' would we first need to agree that there is a 'truth' and that in our fragile limited human existence we are able to fulling understand it to the extent of being aware of our full emersion in it? Or would our limited physical body stop us from ever fulling coming to terms with what either truth or reality is?

As you may expect I will take exception to your line "we realize that there is no natural order of anything". As a Christian I have a belief that there is a natural order to the Universe and to Life as we marginally experience it. Which brings me to your last sentence "The most honest thing one can do, could it be freedom?". Do we ultimately have freedom of choice or are our days and lives predestined? Do we understand what Karma and the existential questions that haunt our dreams are founded on? The more answers we seem to arrive at the more questions seem to be created to fill the void that once was our curiosity. 🦊

[Diavolo]

On 7/11/2021 at 1:33 AM, Trappernicus said:

As I was reading your reply such as the lines "paganism mutated into the cult of the hero" and "the hero gave way to democracy ... until we reached our current stage" reminded me of Nietzsche and his stages of development. Whom you touched upon. I personally will take exception to Nietzsche statement that there are "no truths". If I place my hand into flame I will burn myself. This is an inherent cause and effect where the heat will burn and there's no denying this fact. There are other such truths that may be used. Though perhaps some truths are more subjective than objective. More trusted than proven. Perhaps these truths are spiritualist in nature.

Your next line "which are adequate to advocate in favour of our survival" and "does not mean that we have managed to immerse ourselves with the truth" I would like to take in two parts. If we consider Darwin's theory of the Survival of the Fittest our we to assume truth favours the most suitable to survive? Or can any truth be applied to both the fit and the unfit for survival? As to immersing ourselves with 'truth' would we first need to agree that there is a 'truth' and that in our fragile limited human existence we are able to fulling understand it to the extent of being aware of our full emersion in it? Or would our limited physical body stop us from ever fulling coming to terms with what either truth or reality is?

As you may expect I will take exception to your line "we realize that there is no natural order of anything". As a Christian I have a belief that there is a natural order to the Universe and to Life as we marginally experience it. Which brings me to your last sentence "The most honest thing one can do, could it be freedom?". Do we ultimately have freedom of choice or are our days and lives predestined? Do we understand what Karma and the existential questions that haunt our dreams are founded on? The more answers we seem to arrive at the more questions seem to be created to fill the void that once was our curiosity. 🦊

Can you believe that I barely read your answer? Sorry for the delay.

When you say: "heat will burn and there's no denying this fact", you are speaking of truth by correspondence, proposed by Aristotle and that has been retouched by the Utilitarians, which has to do with saying that what it Is is what it is and that what is not is what is not. The non-existence of Truth, with a capital letter, to which Nietzsche refers is metaphysical. For this, he makes a whole critique of morals and religion in his book called "Aurora". One possible argument put forward is to advocate the lack of goodness of God, who prefers to remain hidden rather than show himself so that we stop killing ourselves in the name of the Truth. Another possible argument is that we fall into the error of believing we know the nature of what surrounds us simply by having given each element a name; of having converted objects into words, and that by knowing the word we fall into the error of believing that we know the object itself, but we may go to the opposite direction instead.

As for the universal order, for the believers of the Christian god, it must be of an ethical nature because the absence of meaning is unbearable for them, the structure on which they govern their life loses solidity. There are more those who act guided by the bribery of heaven than by conviction. Believing that the universe needs to have a cause is just that: believing. Faith or belief in itself is not evidence of a factual order. The belief in an ethic of the universe can appeal to further ethnocentric interpretations, since nihilists have the same need to believe that there is no order in the universe and, therefore, there are clashes of egos

[Diavolo]

I forgot to mention that freedom may be the way we interpret the world and how we react towards it, since even the words that we use don't belong to us, we belong to them. Words condition the structure of our thoughts and beliefs. Words we're before we are born and will prevail after our demise. We were not free to choose to be born, we did not choose our family, not our economic system, and not our language. We only can develop interpretations

What do you truly created by yourself; from the void? All was given. 

[Trappernicus]

"believing we know the nature of what surrounds us simply by having given each element a name;" It seems so natural to humans to give things 'a name' so we can relate to them. We also tend to Anthropomorphise objects. As what we experience through our senses and our emotions are easier to come to terms with. So for e the concept of converting "objects into words" has little relativity without the reason for doing so. That being to make the object relatable. Though from a Christian perspective we understand the power of the word. A belief that is also held in many other religions. As the world was formed by the 'word of God".

"the absence of meaning is unbearable" is perhaps an oxymoron at best. As even the absence of something becomes something. To say there is no meaning is to come to understand that the lack of meaning gives the subject meaning. Add to this " the structure on which they govern their life loses solidity." and we find that even science is coming to terms that there are quarks and other odd things that work at levels they can't see let alone comprehend. So these quantum elements that are part of the structure of the universe are also not art of it. They slip seamelesly from existing to not existing without effort. Some have come to call them the "God Particle".

I will agree that some are motivated by "the bribery of heaven than by conviction" or even motivated by the fear of hell. But in both cases the end result would still be the same. If we take for granted that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and we take the next step and decide to accept that to enter this Hdeaven one must accept Jesus the Christ as the Son of God along with the terms and conditions attached; we would than end up respectively in either oiut come based on this legal premise. Regardless of our  human foibles and earthly considerations that motivated our decission.

 

I find our converstion boarding on one of "Belief vs Counter Belief" I'd like to list some considerations"

Nhilism
For the Nihlist: If nihilists's believe that there is no order in the universe and nothing is permananet; then woukd they need to fear death as they would experience nothing?
For the Christians: If Christians are wrong and nothing exist after death; do they have anything to fear asd they won't experience their mistake after death?
For the Recarnationists: If they are wrong and nothing exist after death; do they have anything to fear asd they won't experience their mistake after death?

Christianity
For the Christian: If Christianity is correct and there is a judgement day as well as heven and hell: Will their choide be more important than their motivation?
For the Nhilist: If Christianity is correct and there is a judgement day as well as heven and hell: Will the awarenes of such a situtation become painfully real?
For the Reincarnationalist: If Christianity is correct and there is a judgement day as well as heven and hell: Will the awarenes of such a situtation become painfully real?

Reincarnationalism
For the Christian, Nhilist and Reincarnationalist: No point of reference may be available as they each would be reborn without memories or their previous life.

 

When ypu suggest that "freedom may be the way we interpret the world and how we react towards it" I would ask you; is freedom a vehicle or a destination? We earlier talked on what makes each of us who we are. Layers vs saturation? Do we evolve by the addition of layers of influences? Or do we slowly become saturated with the influence? For me, in either case, we end up accepting the limited understanding that freedom is deemed the removal of human and social limitations as to what we can do and achie ve. Yet this may not be the end of what freedom truly is. Freedom could also be the ability to bend time, reshape matter, fly freely and do the concievably impossible. Much like the Christian concept of God. Whom could be deemed the perfect example of being totally free.

 

I must confess that I'm not certain as to the meaning of your sentence "What do you truly created by yourself; from the void? All was given.". But I can respond to the last part. From ther void, all was given may need some work. Other than the mysterious God atams scientist seem to agree that for matter to exist there needs to be matter. Or some form of energy that can create the matter needed. This energy may be God.

I came across this interesting video. I look forward to your considered feedback.

 

[Diavolo]

9 hours ago, Trappernicus said:

"believing we know the nature of what surrounds us simply by having given each element a name;" It seems so natural to humans to give things 'a name' so we can relate to them. We also tend to Anthropomorphise objects. As what we experience through our senses and our emotions are easier to come to terms with. So for e the concept of converting "objects into words" has little relativity without the reason for doing so. That being to make the object relatable. Though from a Christian perspective we understand the power of the word. A belief that is also held in many other religions. As the world was formed by the 'word of God".

"the absence of meaning is unbearable" is perhaps an oxymoron at best. As even the absence of something becomes something. To say there is no meaning is to come to understand that the lack of meaning gives the subject meaning. Add to this " the structure on which they govern their life loses solidity." and we find that even science is coming to terms that there are quarks and other odd things that work at levels they can't see let alone comprehend. So these quantum elements that are part of the structure of the universe are also not art of it. They slip seamelesly from existing to not existing without effort. Some have come to call them the "God Particle".

I will agree that some are motivated by "the bribery of heaven than by conviction" or even motivated by the fear of hell. But in both cases the end result would still be the same. If we take for granted that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and we take the next step and decide to accept that to enter this Hdeaven one must accept Jesus the Christ as the Son of God along with the terms and conditions attached; we would than end up respectively in either oiut come based on this legal premise. Regardless of our  human foibles and earthly considerations that motivated our decission.

 

I find our converstion boarding on one of "Belief vs Counter Belief" I'd like to list some considerations"

Nhilism
For the Nihlist: If nihilists's believe that there is no order in the universe and nothing is permananet; then woukd they need to fear death as they would experience nothing?
For the Christians: If Christians are wrong and nothing exist after death; do they have anything to fear asd they won't experience their mistake after death?
For the Recarnationists: If they are wrong and nothing exist after death; do they have anything to fear asd they won't experience their mistake after death?

Christianity
For the Christian: If Christianity is correct and there is a judgement day as well as heven and hell: Will their choide be more important than their motivation?
For the Nhilist: If Christianity is correct and there is a judgement day as well as heven and hell: Will the awarenes of such a situtation become painfully real?
For the Reincarnationalist: If Christianity is correct and there is a judgement day as well as heven and hell: Will the awarenes of such a situtation become painfully real?

Reincarnationalism
For the Christian, Nhilist and Reincarnationalist: No point of reference may be available as they each would be reborn without memories or their previous life.

 

When ypu suggest that "freedom may be the way we interpret the world and how we react towards it" I would ask you; is freedom a vehicle or a destination? We earlier talked on what makes each of us who we are. Layers vs saturation? Do we evolve by the addition of layers of influences? Or do we slowly become saturated with the influence? For me, in either case, we end up accepting the limited understanding that freedom is deemed the removal of human and social limitations as to what we can do and achie ve. Yet this may not be the end of what freedom truly is. Freedom could also be the ability to bend time, reshape matter, fly freely and do the concievably impossible. Much like the Christian concept of God. Whom could be deemed the perfect example of being totally free.

 

I must confess that I'm not certain as to the meaning of your sentence "What do you truly created by yourself; from the void? All was given.". But I can respond to the last part. From ther void, all was given may need some work. Other than the mysterious God atams scientist seem to agree that for matter to exist there needs to be matter. Or some form of energy that can create the matter needed. This energy may be God.

I came across this interesting video. I look forward to your considered feedback.

 

"It seems natural to humans to give things a name so we can relate to them"

What is natural? Here I only see the normalization of an unquestioned order. If there is something characteristic in the way that nature operates, it is that it always changes form: constant change or the non-static. The unnatural, passed for naturalized, is the institutionalization of a perspective frozen in time; Believing that what corresponds to the material world will always work the same.

Regarding the use of the Word, naming a person or a relatable object does not mean making it knowable  I'll give you an example: giving you my name makes me more relatable to your person because it helps you to identify me in your world, but the fact that you have access to my name, and articulation of arbitrary letters, does not give you access to my intimacy. In the same way, the word does not have access to the intimacy of any object identified by any name. The word is powerful within its lexical domain, but not in the phenomenal one. If we didn't have a word for the rain, it would still rain. Believers are therefore only based on the bible, which means Book because it is based on letters, which pose as facts within their literary universe.

Now, the absence of meaning as something intolerable, why is it an oxymoron? An oxymoron is a sentence that within its content contradicts itself. I think you are confused because to speak of an oxymoron is, for example, when it is said that nothing is nothing; there it is being said that nothing IS, therefore it can't exist not. Nothingness cannot be explained by the word. At the beginning of this topic, I mentioned that when someone frees himself from a condition, the subject is not floating but is immediately abducted by another condition, although that condition may be the absence of the previous one. That is not an oxymoron, I stress.

About the lack of solidity, I refer to the inability to determine an objective for existence, a "for what" (destruction of a previous moral). I am not talking about the intangible of matter.

Regarding the issue of the final judgment, why can't this be a Ragnarok or action of Shiva? What if Christians are wrong? I mean, Christianity is one more religion among hundreds.
Believing in a final judgment is like betting on a horse race or that a rugby team will win. If the bettor errs in his prediction, he loses his money (or time). If it is a jackpot, he will be rewarded. In the long run, betting on a final judgment is still believing in the bribery of heaven, in this case, the bribery of non-punishment. Here I see nothing but fear of contradicting a tyrannical power for fear of suffering; to his conditioned goodness.

The problem is not God, but the metaphor within which the Christian god flourishes: that it is the Only truth. This is the violence of monotheism: denying other Truths. This fundamentalist principle has disabled or stagnant the talk of political issues for wanting to continue to focus on metaphysical questions, which solve nothing.

About freedom, I doubt it's manipulating space and time. Under the duress of the inquisition, Galileo was forced to say that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun. The church can manipulate interpretations of the physical world at its convenience. Similarly, capitalism has denied global warming to continue operating. Scientists can be coerced to modify a material structure and are not free from this. Freedom, I think, continues to be the ability to see the cosmos beyond the ideological heritages that have inoculated us or adopt the former not out of fear of retaliation, but because the advantage that this brings is consciously accepted.

This talk is not about believing or not in god. I can agree with Spinoza's version of God. This talk is about what Freedom is.

Based on the video, since many of your arguments are based on science, why not consider the Hard Problem of consciousness? Neurology does not know if it comes from a physical process (synapse) or if it originates from an immaterial world; Unfit for this universe. Assuming a God unrelated to the laws of this universe is only possible through faith; of an unverifiable metaphysics, but at the same time born of a brain: an organ of which the pastor himself doubts. That is an oxymoron. Also because religion hides behind the bible; within a lexical domain, which was the product of various brains. Not to mention emotions, for that neuroscience also has an answer.

Is it the freedom to use faith and then science when it is suitable?