Meaning of Freedom...

[Talwar e Pakistan]

I know it may sound like a silly question. But I think it's a dead serious issue for all of us to think about. It seems like everybody says they want freedom. From communists, to Islamists, to Monarchists, to MEK and everything in between, everybody is fighting for freedom!!! We've been fighting for it since before the constitutional revolution. Fighting for freedom against the British and Russian encroachment, fighting for freedom against internal repression and lack of accountability, fighting for freedom from American interference, fighting for the freedom to wear hejab, fighting for freedom not to wear the hejab, fighting for freedom against monarchical tyranny, fighting for freedom against religious tyranny, and on and on and on.... And yet today, we are still unable to practice and express some of the most basic and inherent human actions and thoughts in Iran?

What are your views on freedom? Is human inherently free? Should he be? Is there such a thing as absolute freedom? If so, how is it exercised? If not, what are the constraints? And who/what should decide the confines of freedom? If we go by the argument that we all want freedom, is it possible to agree on a definition of relative freedom that incorporates as much freedom as possible? Or should the reverse be true?

What do you think?

If you want free go to a forest and live off the land. Society requires rules and regulations - that means limiting your 'freedom'.

 

[Madali]

If our age needs a title, it should be called The Era of Jargons.

We use words because it sounds good without ever thinking about it. This is a good thread and its relevant to this forum based on how much it comes up in political discussions.

Which is why I think in most serious political debates, it should be removed. It is a word that means nothing in the usual context with use it in.

Ultimate freedom is not something any society has ever approved of. The minute we have a society, we have limits of freedom. The limits of freedom is good because we can function together.

Other words that obscure the conversation are words like "human right", " democracy", and so on. Words that have so much baggage with our, that I think two people need to first understand what they mean by the word before they can have a discussion.

 

[Kharral]

I know it may sound like a silly question. But I think it's a dead serious issue for all of us to think about. It seems like everybody says they want freedom. From communists, to Islamists, to Monarchists, to MEK and everything in between, everybody is fighting for freedom!!! We've been fighting for it since before the constitutional revolution. Fighting for freedom against the British and Russian encroachment, fighting for freedom against internal repression and lack of accountability, fighting for freedom from American interference, fighting for the freedom to wear hejab, fighting for freedom not to wear the hejab, fighting for freedom against monarchical tyranny, fighting for freedom against religious tyranny, and on and on and on.... And yet today, we are still unable to practice and express some of the most basic and inherent human actions and thoughts in Iran?

What are your views on freedom? Is human inherently free? Should he be? Is there such a thing as absolute freedom? If so, how is it exercised? If not, what are the constraints? And who/what should decide the confines of freedom? If we go by the argument that we all want freedom, is it possible to agree on a definition of relative freedom that incorporates as much freedom as possible? Or should the reverse be true?

What do you think?

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Freedom is a relative term. Its understanding & meaning differs from society to society. its a very vague term.
As long as one man's or society's privilege or right doesn't infringe or deny another man or society their right then it's fine.

If you are asking this question because you think an enlightened society is relatively more free then you are wrong my friend. ( that's what I am getting from your question. I am sorry if that's not the point )

In a mild example You could end up in a jail or get banned for driving a car without a license or insurance for that matter in UK where as you probably would get away with it in Pakistan & your ability to drive perfectly fine wouldnt matter. Now which one is more free ??

In a severe example Societies & individuals can be as enlightened as any human could possibly be for their age yet defend their right to own slaves. In fact it's always been those societies & classes who have enjoyed relatively more 'freedom' ( rights ) that have caused other human beings more pain & misery.

USA is supposed to be the most free society on earth & North Korea the least free. Yet the destruction & misery (the basic denial of human self respect & dignity being the direct result ) caused by the former is a million times more than the later.

For me the far more important thing is human dignity. The struggle for human dignity is incumbent upon each & every one of us especially those who are denied this GOD given right.

Many a people through out history have rallied around the cause of freedom ( which is a pretty vague & often misleading term especially if used by dishonest people to rally a large number of people ) but neglected the cause of Human dignity & self respect. Take my country for instance we got independence but we are no where close to getting the Dignity that the freedom should have entailed for us. Even though it's a far more measure able & identifiable entity.

Any authority is by default a barrier.
So as long as your Government doesn't undermine your dignity & self respect then be contend with it but struggle when it denies you that.

Don't get in to the folly of comparing your society to west or for that matter east as all that glitters isn't always Gold & specially those who call you to rally for the cause of freedom.

Trust me the freer we get the less human we become.

 

[Madali]

Trust me the freer we get the less human we become.

Good line.

 

[bozorgmehr]

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 jan, you didn't deserve to become the subject of my sarcasm. You had very little to do with it. I slipped up. I understand your disappointement with me. I'm sorry. I would hope that you could overlook this and we that we get passed it.

With that said, I think you're reading way more into what I wrote, than there was. I clearly stated that the modern notion of freedom was a western construct. I don't see how suggesting an article implies not thinking for oneself. I only quoted parts of the Gathas and the Dinkard, which are more or less the same whichever source you use. I did not say or remotely suggest that Iranians 'have always been free'. I only said that among ancient traditions, to my knowledge Zoroastrianism was the only one that recognized man's inherent free will. And I still believe that to be a fair statement.

And honestly, I don't pretend to know the play on characters Nietzsche intended, when he chose Zarathushtra as the allegorical device in his works. I would be very grateful if you shared your views on that. But what I intended by this discussion was to have a 1st person dialogue about the meaning, definition and implications of inherent freedom in our lives. Not from a 3rd person perspective and not as a review of existing scholarly works.

And the same goes with the evolution of the modern notion of freedom. As much as it is fascinating and instructive to learn about the causes and the experience that led to the Western idea of freedom, it is not a necessity. The same as it is not a necessity to know about the evolution of the automobile, in order to use it.

This discussion is about your views on the matter and your own perspective on it, as you understand it. Not a repeat of what others may or may not have said. Now if others have contributed to your views, that's fantastic! But I'm only interested in them so far as they relate to you.

I hope you don't think I'm telling you what to do or trying to control the flow of disucssion here. You are welcome to come in with whatever points you deem necessary. I'm just explaining what I intended with this discussion here.

 

[bozorgmehr]

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.

Mohsen jan, on what basis do you divide it into two categories? Are you sure there's such a clear division between the personal and the social? What if what I consider personal is social to you? And who gets to decide which is which? And based on what criteria?

best manual is those of the creator!

Does that mean we should be forced to follow the manual of the creator? What happens when people have disagreements on the interpretation of the same manual? Should they be free to do so?

If you want free go to a forest and live off the land. Society requires rules and regulations - that means limiting your 'freedom'.

Sounds reasonable. But let me ask you this. If you freely choose not to do something, does that mean you're not free to do it anymore?

If our age needs a title, it should be called The Era of Jargons.

We use words because it sounds good without ever thinking about it. This is a good thread and its relevant to this forum based on how much it comes up in political discussions.

Which is why I think in most serious political debates, it should be removed. It is a word that means nothing in the usual context with use it in.

Ultimate freedom is not something any society has ever approved of. The minute we have a society, we have limits of freedom. The limits of freedom is good because we can function together.

Other words that obscure the conversation are words like "human right", " democracy", and so on. Words that have so much baggage with our, that I think two people need to first understand what they mean by the word before they can have a discussion.

I agree with you. I think we should spend time thinking about this and try to create a general consensus of what the concept is, before throwing it around. Otherwise, as you said, it's just a word.

Regarding the limitations of freedom within a society, I have the same question for you as Talwar. Just because we choose to behave in a certain way in society, does it mean we're inherently not free to behave differently? Or is there no choice and we're forced?

 

[raptor22]

If you're afraid to practice freedom then you don't deserve it as simple as it but you are free to do whatever your heart desires as far as your freedom doesn't violate other people freedom .... and that's the boundary btw order and chaos.

 

[bozorgmehr]

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Freedom is a relative term. Its understanding & meaning differs from society to society. its a very vague term.
As long as one man's or society's privilege or right doesn't infringe or deny another man or society their right then it's fine.

If you are asking this question because you think an enlightened society is relatively more free then you are wrong my friend. ( that's what I am getting from your question. I am sorry if that's not the point )

In a mild example You could end up in a jail or get banned for driving a car without a license or insurance for that matter in UK where as you probably would get away with it in Pakistan & your ability to drive perfectly fine wouldnt matter. Now which one is more free ??

In a severe example Societies & individuals can be as enlightened as any human could possibly be for their age yet defend their right to own slaves. In fact it's always been those societies & classes who have enjoyed relatively more 'freedom' ( rights ) that have caused other human beings more pain & misery.

USA is supposed to be the most free society on earth & North Korea the least free. Yet the destruction & misery (the basic denial of human self respect & dignity being the direct result ) caused by the former is a million times more than the later.

For me the far more important thing is human dignity. The struggle for human dignity is incumbent upon each & every one of us especially those who are denied this GOD given right.

Many a people through out history have rallied around the cause of freedom ( which is a pretty vague & often misleading term especially if used by dishonest people to rally a large number of people ) but neglected the cause of Human dignity & self respect. Take my country for instance we got independence but we are no where close to getting the Dignity that the freedom should have entailed for us. Even though it's a far more measure able & identifiable entity.

Any authority is by default a barrier.
So as long as your Government doesn't undermine your dignity & self respect then be contend with it but struggle when it denies you that.

Don't get in to the folly of comparing your society to west or for that matter east as all that glitters isn't always Gold & specially those who call you to rally for the cause of freedom.

Trust me the freer we get the less human we become.

Dear Kharral, I"m not sure if a lot of the things that you say have any bearing on the degree of our inherent freedom. I agree with you on the importance of dignity. But does our perception of dignity or lack thereof change our inherent freedom to thinhk or act, let's say about the indignity to which we were subjected to?

Other questions: Do we have a choice on whether to live in a society or not? And if so, do we then lose our inherent freedom to interpret and act upon the restrictions you mentioned, once we live in a society?

To your last sentence, do you believe we're becoming more free as we go? Do you believe the degree of one's inherent freedom has changed throughout man's existence? Or do you believe it's our perspective and definition of it that has changed?

If you're afraid to practice freedom then you don't deserve it as simple as it but you are free to do whatever your heart desires as far as your freedom doesn't violate other people freedom .... and that's the boundary btw order and chaos.

So are we not free to violate other people's freedom? Is there some kind of unbreachable barrier when you reach other people's freedom? If I wish to attempt to intimidate somebody weaker that myself to do favors for me that they wouldn't normally do, am I not able to do it? Am I not free to have chaos, if I choose to? Do we have the freedom to do all those things and make those choices, if we want to?

 

[Madali]

Regarding the limitations of freedom within a society, I have the same question for you as Talwar. Just because we choose to behave in a certain way in society, does it mean we're inherently not free to behave differently? Or is there no choice and we're forced?

Well, if you think about it too deeply, we see how complicated it is. For example, I dress in a certain way when I go to a funeral. I don't wear colored tshirts, shorts, and sneakers. But I am "free" to dress however I want to, right? But the norms in society, or I could say, the consequences of if I wear that is not desirable, therefore I go to a funeral wearing "funeral accepted clothes". Therefore, the question we have to ask ourselves is, am I not free to dress however I want in a funeral?

 

[raptor22]

So are we not free to violate other people's freedom? Is there some kind of unbreachable barrier when you reach other people's freedom? If I wish to attempt to intimidate somebody weaker that myself to do favors for me that they wouldn't normally do, am I not able to do it? Am I not free to have chaos, if I choose to? Do we have the freedom to do all those things and make those choices, if we want to?

That unbreakable barrier is nothing but ethic .... without that freedom is condemned to be doomed to failure ... mankind should realize that freedom without morality and professional conduct has no value whatsoever ...
You are free to enjoy your cup of chaos as every single individual does but what would happen if they intertwine ? then it would be the battle of wills ...

 

[bozorgmehr]

Well, if you think about it too deeply, we see how complicated it is. For example, I dress in a certain way when I go to a funeral. I don't wear colored tshirts, shorts, and sneakers. But I am "free" to dress however I want to, right? But the norms in society, or I could say, the consequences of if I wear that is not desirable, therefore I go to a funeral wearing "funeral accepted clothes". Therefore, the question we have to ask ourselves is, am I not free to dress however I want in a funeral?

Correct me if I'm wrong. But from what you're saying it sounds like you have choices at every step of the way, even in highly orchestrated and choreographed social events.

It sounds to me, that you just gave the boot to the concept of reduced inherent freedom in a social setting.

Yes, we are subjected to the consequences of our choices. But that does not negate our inherent freedom to choose. In fact, not 'suffering' the consequences of our choices, would cancel out the notion of our inherent freedom, in my view.

When we live in a society, we choose to temporarily behave in a certain way (according to the convention of the time and place), because we perceive that to be the most cost-effective option. But it doesn't mean we lose our freedom to do otherwise.

The point is, our freedom is always with us. In fact, I don't see how we could get rid of it. Adn we are always making choices... always.

The fact is that we've been conditioned to often mask our unpalatable choices, in order to make it easier to absolve ourselves of responsibility, and give in to the perception of inevitability. And that puts us in a helpless and victimized state. In my experience, one of the most popular phrases used by Iranians today is "I can't..." Well, we're not a nation of incapables. And it's not even true!

But if we consciously recognize all of our choices, or better yet, reevaluate even the ones we tend to eliminate off hand, tehn we arrive at events with a state of empowerment and willfulness. So that instead of saying "I can't...", we say "I don't want to..." so that we dont' shift responsibility for our choices/actions/lives to other people and circumstances... So that we're full participants in our own lives.... So that we can change/improve our lives, when we wish to....

 

[Madali]

Correct me if I'm wrong. But from what you're saying it sounds like you have choices at every step of the way, even in highly orchestrated and choreographed social events.

It sounds to me, that you just gave the boot to the concept of reduced inherent freedom in a social setting.

Yes, we are subjected to the consequences of our choices. But that does not negate our inherent freedom to choose. In fact, not 'suffering' the consequences of our choices, would cancel out the notion of our inherent freedom, in my view.

When we live in a society, we choose to temporarily behave in a certain way (according to the convention of the time and place), because we perceive that to be the most cost-effective option. But it doesn't mean we lose our freedom to do otherwise.

The point is, our freedom is always with us. In fact, I don't see how we could get rid of it. Adn we are always making choices... always.

The fact is that we've been conditioned to often mask our unpalatable choices, in order to make it easier to absolve ourselves of responsibility, and give in to the perception of inevitability. And that puts us in a helpless and victimized state. In my experience, one of the most popular phrases used by Iranians today is "I can't..." Well, we're not a nation of incapables. And it's not even true!

But if we consciously recognize all of our choices, or better yet, reevaluate even the ones we tend to eliminate off hand, tehn we arrive at events with a state of empowerment and willfulness. So that instead of saying "I can't...", we say "I don't want to..." so that we dont' shift responsibility for our choices/actions/lives to other people and circumstances... So that we're full participants in our own lives.... So that we can change/improve our lives, when we wish to....

If you think like that, then we always have "freedom". I am free to choose to walk around naked. I will obviously have to face the consequences of going to jail for my choice, but I am still" free" to choose the action, correct?

 

[bozorgmehr]

If you think like that, then we always have "freedom". I am free to choose to walk around naked. I will obviously have to face the consequences of going to jail for my choice, but I am still" free" to choose the action, correct?

Not everywhere you will be put in jail for walking around naked. But yeah, you are free to choose, and there are consequences that flow from our choices, be it walking around naked, eating 1 pound of sugar everyday, studying hard for school or refusing to sit in the back of the bus because you are black....

 

[Daneshmand]

Daneshmand jan, you didn't deserve to become the subject of my sarcasm. You had very little to do with it. I slipped up. I understand your disappointement with me. I'm sorry. I would hope that you could overlook this and we that we get passed it.

With that said, I think you're reading way more into what I wrote, than there was. I clearly stated that the modern notion of freedom was a western construct. I don't see how suggesting an article implies not thinking for oneself. I only quoted parts of the Gathas and the Dinkard, which are more or less the same whichever source you use. I did not say or remotely suggest that Iranians 'have always been free'. I only said that among ancient traditions, to my knowledge Zoroastrianism was the only one that recognized man's inherent free will. And I still believe that to be a fair statement.

And honestly, I don't pretend to know the play on characters Nietzsche intended, when he chose Zarathushtra as the allegorical device in his works. I would be very grateful if you shared your views on that. But what I intended by this discussion was to have a 1st person dialogue about the meaning, definition and implications of inherent freedom in our lives. Not from a 3rd person perspective and not as a review of existing scholarly works.

And the same goes with the evolution of the modern notion of freedom. As much as it is fascinating and instructive to learn about the causes and the experience that led to the Western idea of freedom, it is not a necessity. The same as it is not a necessity to know about the evolution of the automobile, in order to use it.

This discussion is about your views on the matter and your own perspective on it, as you understand it. Not a repeat of what others may or may not have said. Now if others have contributed to your views, that's fantastic! But I'm only interested in them so far as they relate to you.

I hope you don't think I'm telling you what to do or trying to control the flow of disucssion here. You are welcome to come in with whatever points you deem necessary. I'm just explaining what I intended with this discussion here.

Dear Bozorgmehr,

It is all ok and well. I greatly appreciate your apology and it only goes to show your caliber.

I think, quoting an article without saying something new oneself, does not come under the category of thinking, or in fact free will. But it is good that you accept that the prevalent view on free will is Western.

Zarathustra is not a device for Nietzsche. It is the subject and object of Nietzsche. The subject of his criticism and object of his ridicule. In Nietzsche's philosophy you can not be free or even happy, while being caught up in a cosmic battle between god and evil. In order to become free, you will have to overcome the Zarathustra's fundamental notion of good vs. bad and move beyond "good thought, good talk and good deed". Nietzsche says, you will have to become an Uberman not needing such guidance by anyone including god himself or his prophets.

And then some want to become free in Western sense and still cling to a bit of Zarathustra or a bit of Islam or even a bit of their local culture. This is not possible. And the fact, that we have not even yet come to terms with this impossibility, shows that we have not started to think for ourselves. We still delegate thinking to Zarathustra or "Gathas and the Dinkard" or other similar sonnat-hamon.. As such we should not even talk about freedom and democracy and many other things.

Often I observe, the people of third world countries from India to Iran and from Africa to Afghanistan, give examples of Western progress and freedom. They often compare themselves and what they have to Western people and what Western people have. And you know what is funny about that? The examples they give and the kind of life they aspire to have in imitation of West, is the very definition of Nietzsche's Last Man. I call this the greatest irony of our times. The third world wants to become the Last Man. And the Western world, which already has reached or is about to reach the epitome of some sort of Last Man, aspires to transcend beyond and overcome it, going to Uberman stage.

This is the difference, you have failed to see.

We should not even talk about freedom and democracy. In absence of thinking for ourselves, freedom and democracy (which Nietzsche by the way despised), should not be our concerns at all. Neither should our concerns be equality, human rights and other Western value constructs.

Hell, we should not even talk Nietzsche in the sense of following him. Or for that matter any other Western or Martian thinker.

And the same goes with the evolution of the modern notion of freedom. As much as it is fascinating and instructive to learn about the causes and the experience that led to the Western idea of freedom, it is not a necessity. The same as it is not a necessity to know about the evolution of the automobile, in order to use it.

Really?

I guess then, this ends the discussion here. Since, the prevalent, accepted and the only philosophy among even our elites seems to be eating the fruits of someone else's toil. Not only eating it, but devouring it. Not only feeling any shame about it but actually quite amazingly feeling entitled to it as well.

Wow and just wow.

We have a long way to go. Just as I have always suspected.

 

[Malik Alashter]

There is no such absolute freedom at all.

Freedom is a relative concept you are free to drink water and you are free to go out for a tour but you are not free laying or standing in the middle of a road but you should be free say your opinion you should be free practicing your thought

you are not free sleep with any woman even if she is ok with that you should be free to work the kind of work you prefer but who does.

Even in politics you are not free even in the most free nation you can't find that!!!! freedom in full means chaos who would like or allow chaos.

The best we would get is an agreement between the individuals of a nation or between the nation and it's " leaders ".