Talk:Freedom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to me that a careless attempt at the definition of the word belongs at the bottum, before the philosophy/politics split. I would add that, even though I'm somewhat new to wikipedia, the slapping the removal of anyone's definition with the comment "overbearing paternalism" is not that respectful. Perhaps the person that did so was referring not to the attempt at defining the word, but the comment that followed about cultural concepts. Still. Having said that, I sapose you all are retarts. But the starting point probably should be: let's do our best to begin to explain the word as if we were defining it for someone who has never heard it. That definition is my best attempt so far. i.e. "Freedom is the absence of restraints upon our ability to think and act. (Except those restraints that are of natural cause.)" Whether or not that's a working definition, I do believe a definition in the article is called for. Passaggio 13:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

[[[[Being exposed to the two traditions, I am unable to decide which one covers best the definition.How we define freedom itself depends upon various factors - culture, education, environment and individuals own understanding. However, let us see how the French definition reads into English.I admit, this falls beyond my area of specialisation and could possibly be literal in places

Freedom is the sense of acting according to one's own will without being restrained by the power of anyone else.It is defined

negatively as : the absence from submission,servitude,constraint exercised by someone else.

positively as: the autonomy and spontaniety of a rational being;the voluntary human behaviours are based on freedom and qualified as Free

This notion is seen as an abstract and normative value of the human actions and at the same time like a solid reality.These two perspectives are interwoven in many ways and could lead to errors of categorisation.There are, therefore, numerous confusions that can arise with respect to the term Freedom.So,it is necessary to distinguish the different sense of this word.

The Freedom could be taken as an attribute of the Human Being, of his will and be the condition of natural and positive rights, but also his duties;the effective realisation of the voluntary acts has a dimension that could not be possible without the later.These two ideas of Human existence are not necessarily compatible.For example, the existence of Legal Freedoms can be felt, while its reality (existence in our acts) and its essence (its conception that we have) poses problems.

The first point could be addressed in a Socio-Political research; the second point constitutes its metaphysical base and particularly the Philosophical understanding of Freedom.This article is divided into two parts to facilitate this understanding.The first part covers the Philosophical aspects - treating the metaphysical notions of Freedom and the second part - the Sociological aspects.However one should keep in mind that the two aspects are interrelated.]]]]

[edit] An odd definition

"Freedom (philosophy), the ability to act consciously, in a well-balanced manner and with self control in a given constructive direction"

I don't think this is a terribly useful summary of freedom. The article itself is hopelessly vague and disorganized, so I can't be sure what precisely "philosophical freedom" is, but I think that this summary is very biased.

Does freedom have to be carried out in a "well-balanced manner"? Well, no--one might argue that it's better and safer when it's balanced, but any attempt to force it to be balanced is, in fact, anti-freedom.

Does freedom imply self-control? There is always the possibility of "freedom from oneself" or "from one's desires", I suppose, but then there's always "freedom from worry/restraint/paranoia." Self-control, while often a good idea from a practical point of view, isn't an inherent part of freedom.

Does freedom have to be constructive? No. Perhaps in specific circumstances--for example, by being "constructive" i.e. getting and holding down a good job you will have greater financial freedom, but as a general rule... no, freedom does not have to be constructive.

The whole summary almost reads like a Protestant's (or maybe a Confucian's) idea of freedom. Sorry, but "acting responsibly and constructively" isn't the only type of freedom out there. Anarchy can be a type of freedom. Hedonism can be a type of freedom. Chuck Palahniuk frequently discusses a philosophical freedom that is the exact opposite of the kind mentioned here--the freedom to be destructive, irresponsible, and above all the freedom to fuck up and fail.

I'm not sure how to rewrite the summary to encompass all of these differing concepts of philosophical freedom. The only thing they have in common is, well, freedom from *something* (be it yourself or society or whatever) but the summary needs to be more than just a tautology. I think that nothing is better than completely biased BS, so for now I've simply deleted the summary. --Lode Runner 06:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)