HOW MUCH FREEDOM?
acar
a stubborn bitch. Instead reality tells humans: "If you don't do as I
say, I'll smack you." Mother Nature gives us an insatiable desire for
freedom but then puts all of us in a cage; and proceeds to whisper in
everyone's ears: "Take charge." In so doing Nature makes ideoogical
absolutism impractical and forces pragmatism down our throats. In
order to survive and thrive within the cage we will need to make some
compromises.
Inductive reasoning tells us that the need for freedom is inherent in
the identity of the human species. But it similarly tells us that the
tendency for individual domination of others is also in the identity
of the species. And then, as if that were not enough of a conflict,
along comes the social instinct. Freedom, domination, dependency --
that is the Devil's trifecta of natural, inherent, systemic
contradictions.
Lower animals have no choice in the matter. Their species survives or
not, thrives or not depending on how those attributes, along with many
others, interact to keep the individual alive at least until it mates.
The developmental success of surviving animal species is strongly
suggestive of the fact that there must be in the surviving species a
native, inherent beneficial balance between those mutually
contradictory and potentially destructive attributes.
With the advent of reason and its corollary - the choosing faculty -
the human individual, while exhibiting the same inter-contradictory
tendencies (a need for freedom, a need for domination and a need for
coexistence) has a much greater ability to control the mix.
(Or so we think. A few decades ago free will was taken for granted as
a faculty that is dispensed in equal amounts to all humans with the
implication of equal responsibility from each. We have since learned
that all brains are not created equal, leading one to speculate that
brain chemistry is as individually specific as fingerprints or DNA. As
we learn more about brain chemistry it will become necessary to revise
our moral theories. But I digress.)
The above mentioned Devil's trifecta manifests in humans immediately
at birth. Only the sacrifice and generosity of others who are eager to
provide the dependency needs, keep the subject alive. But the need for
freedom, the need for domination (selfishness) and the need for
support from others continue to express until, by the use of reason
and through a process that we variously call experience or maturation,
humans learn to coexist beneficially by modulating their greed and
their voracious appetite for absolute freedom. In the human adult the
reasoning faculty looks for ways in which dependency can be addressed
while satisfying, to whatever extent is consistent with the social
imperative, the innate pressures of greed and of the need for
freedom.
If freedom is to exist in a social setting, the enormous diversity of
individual requirements prohibits the control of one person's actions
by another person. But absolute freedom can still be salvaged in the
realm of thought. Therefore freedom is inconsistent with ideological
absolutism. If greed is to be allowed beneficial expression there must
be recognition of individual rights. If inter-dependency is
acknowledged in the face of independence and greed, there must be a
government.
Considering the above it should be very clear that the natural
function of government is to manage all the issues of human inter-
dependence with minimal restriction of other natural impulses that are
in conflict with inter-dependence. By the use of reason through self-
disciplining compromises, potentially conflicting impulses can be made
to work synergistically. The value for value trade system is not the
solution because it offers no way to estimate the value of
intangibles. Even a fact based value system turns over the ultimate
assessment of value to the subjectivity of the seller.
Of the many forms of government with which the human race has
experimented, only democracy, when supplemented by a Bill of Rights,
addresses the conflicting identity issues of the human species.
Because there is no perfect way to reconcile the individual's need for
independence along with his inherited need for control, with his
equally innate need for coexistence, the principles of compromise and
pragmatism must be at the core of any successful formula for
government. Enter democracy. Democracy is an attempt to strike a
balance between individualism and collectivism. As such it is as
frustrating to radical individualist ideologues as it is to radical
collectivist ideologues, neither of which can logically be regarded as
supporters of democracy. But despite its glaring shortcomings, many of
which are perceived but plenty of which are objectively real, it is
more successful than other known forms of government.
Majority rule and a representative government are a compromise between
the conflicting imperatives of individual freedom and social co-
existence. Properly understood, the American system of government
addresses through compromise the issues of social inter-dependence
without infringing on individual freedoms beyond the extent that those
freedoms are protected by the Bill of Rights.
Democracy is based on usefulness, not principle. The principle of
individual freedom and the principle of egoism MUST be violated to
whatever extent becomes consistent with inter-dependence. Therefore
all differences of opinion among supporters of democracy must be
quantitative, (as pertains to a pragmatic solution) not qualitative
(as would pertain to a `principled' solution). Compromise and
consensus as applied to government are the epochal discoveries of
democracy. Fascism, communism, socialism, Objectivism, libertarianism,
Anarchism, asceticism and all forms of absolutism are inconsistent
with a democratic philosophy. However supporters of such ideologies,
and even enemies of democracy are FULLY entitled to be part of a
democratic society and to peacefully promote their ideologies, because
democracy is not about ideological purity, but about finding ways to
survive and prosper as individuals and as a species in an atmosphere
of freedom of thought and freedom of non-violent action. The necessary
limits of individual freedoms are still the subject of experimentation
in the great laboratory of the American society.
Chris Cathcart
[...]
You're definitely a thoughtful person, acar, but you still don't know
jackshit about Objectivism It's already fortified from critiques such
as yours, precisely by being so inductive and embracing the widest
context.
Jim Klein
the whole thing in detail; half a paragraph should be sufficient.
On Nov 8, 12:56 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
> Of the many forms of government with which the human race has
> experimented, only democracy, when supplemented by a Bill of Rights,
> addresses
That's an interesting historical note, and I think it's right.
Now try to figure out why, cuz you ain't even close.
> the conflicting identity issues of the human species.
Try to understand this. On matters of fact, which is
the identity of things (and non-things, all existents),
THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS CONFLICTING
IDENTITY.
Get it? The very utterance is oxymoronic, its
imagined referent nonexistent.
Oh, are you talking about our perception of our
identity and our conflicts with that? Well no, you
aren't----your whole essay is supposed to be
some factual evidence of an extant conflict.
> Because there is no perfect way to
> reconcile the individual's need for
> independence along with his inherited
> need for control,
What the fuck are you talking about? Maybe we
are as we are, and too many people listen to
imbeciles like you and get convinced that there's
some "conflicting identity" that needs to be
addressed.
And figured out, right? By profound thinkers, I'm sure.
jk
acar
>
> What the fuck are you talking about? Maybe we
> are as we are, and too many people listen to
> imbeciles like you and get convinced that there's
> some "conflicting identity" that needs to be
> addressed.
>
> And figured out, right? By profound thinkers, I'm sure.
>
.
.
.
Jim Klein
> All opinions are welcome, Jim. Thank you for yours.
"Help me. Please. I have a need to be controlled."
That's an instantiation of your silly words. Sound about
right to you?
Or does it sound like an otherwise rational being, being
led down the wrong road?
jk
Gordon Sollars
> Maybe we
> are as we are, and too many people listen to
> imbeciles like you and get convinced that there's
> some "conflicting identity" that needs to be
> addressed.
>
> And figured out, right? By profound thinkers, I'm sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia
--
Gordon
Jim Klein
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia
Interesting; thanks. I'm not sure why you enter it here, though.
Are you suggesting that we engage akrasia because of this
underlying "conflicting identity" of our souls?
I think the article offered other, more believable, reasons.
What I really enjoyed was the "Ego Depletion" article, to
remind me why I stay away from so much of this. It's like
the old "hard rock/hard work" bullshit. While I have no doubt
that the data is accurate regarding the test that was
mentioned, it's a rather far-flung conclusion that therefore
the "ego is depleted," like a fuel tank.
But that's probably what's being taught, no doubt as
"proven fact," by those who use that study.
jk
Gordon Sollars
> On Nov 16, 1:22 pm, Gordon Sollars <gsoll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia
>
> Interesting; thanks. I'm not sure why you enter it here, though.
>
> Are you suggesting that we engage akrasia because of this
> underlying "conflicting identity" of our souls?
I am offering no suggestions, myself, but "conflicting identities" could
be one way of understanding it. Of course, these identities do not
conflict with themselves, but with each other.
--
Gordon
Gordon Sollars
> On Nov 16, 1:22 pm, Gordon Sollars <gsoll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia
>
> Interesting; thanks. I'm not sure why you enter it here, though.
> Are you suggesting that we engage akrasia because of this
> underlying "conflicting identity" of our souls?
I meant to add to the last post that you might want to google "george
ainslie" or "hyperbolic discounting". It seems that evolution has given
us only a cut-rate form of rationality.
--
Gordon
Chris Cathcart
> I meant to add to the last post that you might want to google "george
> ainslie" or "hyperbolic discounting". It seems that evolution has given
> us only a cut-rate form of rationality.
I just incorporated your statement into a blog posting:
http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com/2008/11/epistemic-noise-and-our-hardware.html
acar
> Jim Klein wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 1:22 pm, Gordon Sollars <gsoll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
Jim's original reply reminded me of a recent post by Fred and both of
them are reminiscent of a Gilda Radner character who would carry on at
great length ranting against something that she has misunderstood. To
her credit she would end with "Never mind". In Jim's case the problem
is not my syntax. What is difficult to understand about "conflicting
identity issues"? "Conflicting identity" is an obvious oxymoron, but
conflicting issues as part of an identity is not rocket science. If
there are not confilcting issues in the human identity, why is he so
angry at me? Because one of us is not human? He?
Jim Klein
>What is difficult to understand about "conflicting
> identity issues"? "Conflicting identity" is an obvious oxymoron, but
> conflicting issues as part of an identity is not rocket science.
"Oh, are you talking about our perception of our
identity and our conflicts with that? Well no, you
aren't----your whole essay is supposed to be
some factual evidence of an extant conflict."
jk
Jim Klein
> If
> there are not confilcting issues in the human identity, why is he so
> angry at me?
So far, in all this time, I've seen nothing from you that would be
worth my anger.
Cathcart, I'm angry at...or as close as I get to what you mean
by "anger." For me, there's got to be a needless loss of value,
combined with intent, to reach that level...and even then it's
not anger in the usual sense. I can't afford that kind of anger.
If you ever come up with anything of value philosophically,
then maybe something could happen that I'll be angry at
you too!
For now, I see nothing but waste of bandwidth from you,
useful only insofar as it repeats some of the tired bullshit
that's infected the world. But in fairness, I should add that
I don't read you that closely, so maybe there's a needle of
something useful in that haystack. Sorry---maybe if you
write something brief and fresh, I could change my
judgment.
jk