Meaning of Freedom...

[mohsen]

freedom is a social matter and obviously it should have boundaries, and those boundaries are defined by the societies which have different religions and agenda, so there can't be one meaning of freedom and you can't export one's meaning to another.
Now the irony is that western powers use this term "freedom" as an excuse to oppress other cultures and politics of other countries in absolute paradox to what they claim, "freedom".

 

[bozorgmehr]

Wow, angry!

Those are good things you said. My questions were not to antagonize you, but to bring thoughtfulness to this.

As I have seen time and again, our people still have not understood, that the freedom they are talking about has its roots in Western construct of freedom. Zoroastrianism despite its other good aspects, had nothing to do with freedom or what we consider as freedom today. Neither does Islam, Christianity or for that matter any other religion.

You left out the answer to my most important and critical question which was about Western concept of freedom and how it started its life. As always instead of thinking, anger takes over us. Maybe from time to time, it would be better to put that anger in a jar next to the "ground cumin".

But I guess, we want the fruits without the labor. That's why then this happens: 'Nice breasts' Cologne sex attack 'immigrant' suspects carried sinister translation notes | World | News | Daily Express

Touche!!!! You are right. That was an angry tone. You have my sincere apologies. I'm usually a little edgy because of work. But that's no excuse!

And of course I agree with you. The modern definition of freedom, like most modern things, is a Western construct. And I don't know if this has anything to do with what you said. But in my view the source of the idea itself, has no bearing on the validity of it. Again, sorry if I misread what you were implying.

And I think the genesis of the western concept of freedom can be found in sort of the same experience as we've gone through and the same questions that have arisen from it recently. How can we be happier and more fulfilled, living as unuque individuals, in a society of people? That's my own sum of the basic principles of it. But I would love to hear your take on it.

And no more angry tone, I promise...

 

[BordoEnes]

Interesting question.

I'm from Hong Kong, which is considered "free". And I travel a lot to Mainland China, which is considered "not free". And I've traveled extensively all over the world.

Yet I don't notice any real difference in terms of "freedom"? In both places, I can basically do whatever I want, and say whatever I want, as long as I'm not committing crimes or attacking other people.

Talk ill about the Communist goverment, lets see if you will be still free then.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Talk ill about the Communist goverment, lets see if you will be still free then.

You obviously have not been to China or talked to anyone there.

People talk shit about the Government ALL the time. Hell one of my friends is the most anti-government person you'll ever know, and nobody even cares.

Here, for you: F*ck the Chinese government! Now call the government with my IP address, and make sure to record what they say in response.

I've made it pretty clear from my time here, that I think Communism is completely stupid, impractical, and completely divorced from reality. I am a pragmatist, I believe in what works, not fairy tales.

 

[BordoEnes]

You obviously have not been to China or talked to anyone there.

People talk shit about the Government ALL the time. Hell one of my friends is the most anti-government person you'll ever know, and nobody even cares.

Here, for you: F*ck the Chinese government! Now call the government with my IP address, and make sure to record what they say in response.

I've made it pretty clear from my time here, that I think Communism is completely stupid, impractical, and completely divorced from reality. I am a pragmatist, I believe in what works, not fairy tales.

Well ofcourse on a personal level everybody talks smack, nothing new. The question is what the goverment will do if you are open about it(blogs, vlogs, social media and etc).

Though its good to know you share my hatred for commie goverments

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Well ofcourse on a personal level everybody talks smack, nothing new. The question is what the goverment will do if you are open about it(blogs, vlogs, social media and etc).

Though its good to know you share my hatred for commie goverments

I am open about it, I'm a politically active person. So are my friends.

I've always maintained Communism is stupid. It's a fairy tale that kills people. The Red guards during the Cultural Revolution in China were basically the same as the extremist terrorists of today (or even worse).

However I do not believe that the current Chinese government is "Communist" in anything but name, luckily for us.

 

[Pangu]

"Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without." This statement came from the movie The Matrix. How many people have absolute freedom in choosing what they want in life & how to go about it? Everyone has to conform to societal norms & structure one way or another, but is that enough freedom for you?

 

[BordoEnes]

I am open about it, I'm a politically active person. So are my friends.

I've always maintained Communism is stupid. It's a fairy tale that kills people. The Red guards during the Cultural Revolution in China were basically the same as the extremist terrorists of today (or even worse).

However I do not believe that the current Chinese government is "Communist" in anything but name, luckily for us.

Communism is good in theory and really extremely(and i cant stress this enough) bad in practice. So i completely agree with you, its a freaking fairy tale.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Communism is good in theory and really extremely(and i cant stress this enough) bad in practice. So i completely agree with you, its a freaking fairy tale.

I don't even think it's good in theory.

It was never realistic from the beginning. Karl Marx probably just ate some hallucinogenic mushrooms that day, had a nightmare, and then wrote it down.

Government ownership of everything? Classless society? No private ownership, not even of the clothes I am wearing? That is just completely unnatural, and goes against the fundamentals of human nature since the beginning of time.

Private ownership is natural. Buying and selling things for profit is natural. Communism is unnatural. It was probably designed for a different species, it was never going to work with human beings.

 

[bozorgmehr]

"Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without." This statement came from the movie The Matrix. How many people have absolute freedom in choosing what they want in life & how to go about it? Everyone has to conform to societal norms & structure one way or another, but is that enough freedom for you?

I'm not sure whether absolute freedom exists. But I'm absolutely sure freedom exists. The social conditioning argument is one that I come across with a lot of my own compatriots. The flaw in that, of course, is that those same social norms and structures have been decided in an act of free will, by other individuals. So somebody, somewhere, at some point has exercised free will. Now whether individuals forming a given society choose to follow those norms and structures being pushed down on them either by a ruling power or widespread consensus, is anohter act of free will. And there are plenty of historical precedence for individuals and collections of individuals defying those norms and structures, and in turn creating new ones. Now that doesn't mean there's no cost or consequence associated with how we exercise our free will. But the freedom to choose always exists. Whether we see it or not.

freedom is a social matter and obviously it should have boundaries, and those boundaries are defined by the societies which have different religions and agenda, so there can't be one meaning of freedom and you can't export one's meaning to another.
Now the irony is that western powers use this term "freedom" as an excuse to oppress other cultures and politics of other countries in absolute paradox to what they claim, "freedom".

Mohsen jan, do you believe that man was created free, or was he made to be subservient to others? And in the case of the latter, who was he made subservient to? Who should define the boundaries of our freedom? Who gets the right to tell others what they can or cannot do? And based on what criteria?

 

[bozorgmehr]

@Daneshmand , I wasnt trying to imply that the modern notion of freedom was a Zoroastrian invention. But I think it's widely agreed that the lack of belief in predestination and the idea of man's inherent free will were clearly enshrined in Zarathushtra's teachings and even in later Zoroastrian tradition. Theres a good article at The Zoroastrian Doctrine of the Freedom of the Will - (The
Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies - CAIS)© that may be worth having a look at.

Yasna 31.9-12

9- 'Thine was Armaiti (Harmony and genius of the earth), Thine was the Shaper of the cow, [4]
the Wisdom of the Spirit, when Thou, Ahura Mazdah, gavest to her the way,
to depend either upon the husbandman or upon him who is not a husbandman. [5]

10- Then of these twain she chose for herself the cattle-raising husbandman,
the furtherer of Good Thought, as righteous lord ".[6]
nor does the one who is not a husbandman share in a good report even though he strive for it.

11- Since Thou, O Mazdah, in the beginning didst shape [i.e. create] our beings and Consciences (Religion or Self, personified in plural), and our intelligences through Thine own thought, since Thou maddest life clothed with a body, since Thou maddest deeds and teachings whereby according to his will one may express his beliefs --

12- Therefore lifts up his voice [alike] either the false speaker or the true speaker,
he that knows or he that knows not, according to his heart and thought;
[but] Armaiti, following ever after with the Spirit, inquires where faltering may be.'

From the Denkart:

‘In the world man is [23] having-free-will (azato-kam)[24] Therefore occurs the Avestan name ahvo-i ast-omand (i.e. avhu astvant), “life which has a body,” the Zand [i.e. explanation] of which (is) “a lord having a body” (xatai-I tanu-omand)[25]; and the decision of a lord (is) the lordship of a man having free will in the purposing and performing of his own will.[26] Wherefore in the rest of the world-creation there are not such (angon) lords of their own will as the lord man, except God even alone. Nor is there, in this life, purposing like the purposing of man among those who have a body, with the exception of the spiritual God; and in regard to this, the spiritual God (is) a lord not having a body.[27] And the maker having free will (is) the Creator Ormazd; and the free will ship is the lord ship which (is) in man with regard to accepting (or) not accepting, according to his wi1l, those things which (are) virtues and vices; and the cause is the Creator who has free will….[28]

There were also a few yasnas about Zarathushtra's daughter having the free will to choose her mate. In general the concept of free will is very much implied all over the gathas.

 

[mohsen]

Mohsen jan, do you believe that man was created free, or was he made to be subservient to others?

freedom can and should be divided into two categories, personal and social. as for the first one, you are free to choose everything, yet warned that you would face the consequences after death. here subject is authority rather than freedom, and you will only answer to God. to make it brief, your freedom in this world isn't absolute, but rather an exam.

but as soon as one becomes two, your mind forces you to respect a series of rules to make your social life possible. here boundaries is a need which your life depends on it, you can't rub me and I can't kill you. so this is your mind who ceases your freedom for a greater good of social life. here your religious beliefs or direct religious orders shapes those social rues.

And in the case of the latter, who was he made subservient to? Who should define the boundaries of our freedom? Who gets the right to tell others what they can or cannot do? And based on what criteria?

best manual is those of the creator!

 

[rahi2357]

Real freedom is GTA
Real life lacks a retry button .

 

[Daneshmand]

@Daneshmand , I wasnt trying to imply that the modern notion of freedom was a Zoroastrian invention. But I think it's widely agreed that the lack of belief in predestination and the idea of man's inherent free will were clearly enshrined in Zarathushtra's teachings and even in later Zoroastrian tradition. Theres a good article at The Zoroastrian Doctrine of the Freedom of the Will - (The
Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies - CAIS)© that may be worth having a look at.

Yasna 31.9-12

9- 'Thine was Armaiti (Harmony and genius of the earth), Thine was the Shaper of the cow, [4]
the Wisdom of the Spirit, when Thou, Ahura Mazdah, gavest to her the way,
to depend either upon the husbandman or upon him who is not a husbandman. [5]

10- Then of these twain she chose for herself the cattle-raising husbandman,
the furtherer of Good Thought, as righteous lord ".[6]
nor does the one who is not a husbandman share in a good report even though he strive for it.

11- Since Thou, O Mazdah, in the beginning didst shape [i.e. create] our beings and Consciences (Religion or Self, personified in plural), and our intelligences through Thine own thought, since Thou maddest life clothed with a body, since Thou maddest deeds and teachings whereby according to his will one may express his beliefs --

12- Therefore lifts up his voice [alike] either the false speaker or the true speaker,
he that knows or he that knows not, according to his heart and thought;
[but] Armaiti, following ever after with the Spirit, inquires where faltering may be.'

From the Denkart:

‘In the world man is [23] having-free-will (azato-kam)[24] Therefore occurs the Avestan name ahvo-i ast-omand (i.e. avhu astvant), “life which has a body,” the Zand [i.e. explanation] of which (is) “a lord having a body” (xatai-I tanu-omand)[25]; and the decision of a lord (is) the lordship of a man having free will in the purposing and performing of his own will.[26] Wherefore in the rest of the world-creation there are not such (angon) lords of their own will as the lord man, except God even alone. Nor is there, in this life, purposing like the purposing of man among those who have a body, with the exception of the spiritual God; and in regard to this, the spiritual God (is) a lord not having a body.[27] And the maker having free will (is) the Creator Ormazd; and the free will ship is the lord ship which (is) in man with regard to accepting (or) not accepting, according to his wi1l, those things which (are) virtues and vices; and the cause is the Creator who has free will….[28]

There were also a few yasnas about Zarathushtra's daughter having the free will to choose her mate. In general the concept of free will is very much implied all over the gathas.

Amazing. So let's not think for ourselves and just bring a theoretical monograph written from perspective of Western philosophy analyzing a part of our culture and "prove" that "we have always been free".

I don't know, when will we learn, if ever.

Again you did not answer my question, about what you know about "freedom" in context of Western philosophy and its history. My bet is probably next to nothing. Our problem is we want things which we do not deserve or worse, we do not even understand. And when pointed out, that we have a long long long way to go, not only in practical terms but in just theoretical understanding of those things, then we become angry. Then we become agitated.

This is from your own monograph:

"... Ormazd and Ahriman, or the ancient Persian God and Devil, are represented as in perpetual conflict. Yet, while these two antagonistic principles, which struggle for the mastery of the soul of man, are primeval and coeval in the universe, they are not coeternal, because Ormazd will triumph in the end and Ahriman will be annihilated forever. Man will help in bringing about this victory...

Man is Ormazd's own creature and belongs by birthright to the kingdom of good. But God has created him as a free agent, endowed with the power to choose, of his own volition, between that which is right and that which is wrong.....Every good deed that man does increases the power of good; every evil he commits augments the kingdom of evil. His weight thrown in either scale turns the balance in that direction. Hence man ought to choose the good and support the hosts of heaven in the struggle to conquer the legions of hell, thus bringing about the millennium, at which time the Saoshyant, or Savior, will appear, the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment will take place, 'the good kingdom, the wished-for kingdom'

Responsibility accordingly rests upon man, and, because of his freedom of choice, he will be held to strict accountability hereafter ..."

I don't see much choice in that. Maybe you do without actually thinking about what is being said. Read carefully what is being said up there, God loses and man will be punished. That is your choice. The moment your choice is tied with punishment, the concept of "free will" in Western context goes out of the window.

Do you think Nietzsche wrote the "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" for fun? Do you think his purpose, was making fun of Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism? Do you think he wanted to make fun of Iranians and their history?

Do you think Nietzsche had gone mad?

And this from his "The Madman":

"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers....."

Do you even realize what I am saying here? Do you understand why Nietzsche had to bring Zartosht back to life and make him tell humanity that "God is dead"?

 

[Daneshmand]

And no more angry tone, I promise...

It's ok. We have a long way to go. A very long way.