|
|
Freedom as I see it.
|
Freedom and Chaos - the right balance. |
Humans commonly accept freedom limits in cases, where more important interest is threatened. First example, road traffic rules.
The Chaos on tight road couldn't pay off, so dividing the road on two and assign one way for each lane is OK for most people. That's an example of something, that I call "good rule". Every rule, by definition, reduces freedom. But "good rules" are rules, that are commonly acceptable, because they simply pay off. Let's stay here for a moment and go further with road traffic example.
Speed limit is not commonly acceptable. Why? Because it's not obviously reducing the Chaos! People feel, that at specific moment driving 10 mph above limit changes nothing but the risk. And taking risks is matter of individual perception, imagination, mood, experience and state-of-mind. So, that's not "good rule", as far as there is no easy process of acknowledgement by average human being. At this moment we do not have no better rule for potential impact of the traffic speed, so we may call it "neccesity rule".
So we have two groups of rules: "good" and "neccesity". What about remaining rules? Yes, remaining rules are "bad rules". Think about them: they limit the freedom and increase the Chaos. Most of law rules are "bad rules" as far, as they contain hypothesis.
"Hypothesis" when a rule works means "not always", "not evident for all", "what do they mean?", "it's nothing for me I think" or so.
The right balance is, to identify all "good rules", to eliminate "bad rules" and to discuss "neccesity rules", in order to become as free, as it's possible. |
|
Zmieniony ( 24.03.2009. )
|
|
|
How the philosophy is spreading across people? |
As I was thinking, whether to spread my thoughts to you or not, I had a brainwave. Of course, the religion, sect, party, mass meetings - all this is the know-how, effective and proven throughout ages.
Even the Internet is nothing challenging, because philosophies are spread neither by dialogue nor communication, but usually by one-way evangelization. In that means, the Internet is only medium, worse than tv or radio. Why worse? Because it's more free than others, because it contains more Chaos, because ideas might be proven in seconds, because the communication between Subjects is not only easy, but as well common.
|
|
Humans are social animals, that's sure. The common need of having a family, children, friends; to be accepted in workplace and so on - that's enough.
But, very, very often people need groups for defining themselves. Communities grouped around such epmty concepts like religion, nation, race or political party are used for the reference point for people, who are not enough insolent to say straight: I am a human. Not catholic, white American supporting democratic party, but simply human.
In fact, groups are traps for intelligent people, as they abandon partially thinking leaving it to "common idea". My private guru, Kurt Vonnegut called it 'granfallon'.
Talking about someone else 'he's communist' works alike. The reason? Humans cannot understand anything without models. Creating models for complicated structures is very hard and needs a lot of time, just imagine theory of relativity or computer processor's structure. But creating models of a human being is complicated ditto. So, people instead of creating good model, they shorten the way and call somebody as a group member - and that's all folks.
Attending groups pays off. Classyfying people simplifies communication. First limits your external freedom, second reduces internal one. |
|
Zmieniony ( 24.03.2009. )
|
|
|
Why people want to 'infect' others with ideas? |
It's quite simple.
Primarily because of money. Limiting the individual freedom is a way for doing the money in many cases.
If somebody is telling you about idea he want you to join, always try to find, who's the beneficiary of that. Even if consider charity.
I don't want to infect you. I want to share my thoughts about the freedom. Most of us have our own history to fullfill, days remaining to spend and our own acceptable balance of freedom, safety and chaos. |
|
Zmieniony ( 18.03.2009. )
|
|
|
What the word 'freedom' means? |
|
First of all we have to define the Subject.
Of course, we talk about human being. Every human being means: different cultures, races, social classes, sex, ages, environment, epoch.
The whole definition is the goal of this work indeed. Right now we can advance only theses.
Let's try to forget here Kant, Hume, Locke and others. We pass over inner and outer freedom, political and trade appearances. Instead of complicating known models and philosophies of past ages we'll stay focused on simple meaning of the word, even if no simple definition is manageable. And finally we try to put the Human in the centre of all.
One of the first use of the word comes from sumerian phrase Ama-gi, that literally translated means "return to mother".
Accordingly to english etymology it means "to love".
In roman languages there's one word constructed from "liberty", which word in english relates mainly to social and politcal meanings of the freedom. Ethymology of the "liberty" leads to roman "liber", that in plural means "children".
German and Greek etymology says nothing more. "return to mother", "children", "to love"? Is there any common denominator? Certainly, yes. Keep reading! |
|
Zmieniony ( 24.03.2009. )
|
|
| | «« start « poprz. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 nast. » koniec »»
| | Pozycje :: 55 - 60 z 60 |
|
