Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

BWhite · 2004-11-17 14:02:13

In "European Dream" one of the stronger points (in an uneven and not always cogent book) is a section on how US-ians and EU-ians might define the word "freedom" in very different ways.

Rivkin says Americans cannot conceive of freedom without a strong component of autonomy. The ability to be alone, independent of others.

He also says Europeans are more likely to conceive of freedom as arising from a web of social relationships that allow us to accomplish things we cannot do alone.

Thoughts?

How would you define freedom?

Emerson, Whitman and to a lesser extent Thoreau may be relevant here.

clark · 2004-11-17 14:13:10

As a blade of grass.

Freedom, to me, is to do as much, or as little, as I would have someone else have the opportunity to do.

Palomar · 2004-11-17 15:02:41

Rivkin says Americans cannot conceive of freedom without a strong component of autonomy. The ability to be alone, independent of others.
He also says Europeans are more likely to conceive of freedom as arising from a web of social relationships that allow us to accomplish things we cannot do alone.

*But keep in mind that the European nations are geographically much smaller than the U.S. and they're each others' next-door neighbors. As we all know, some of them are bordered entirely by other European nations. To an extent they're "required" to get along and are more dependent upon one another.

Can't help this analogy and I'm sorry if it offends some, but it reminds me of the Brady Bunch episode where Greg got to have his own private room upstairs and the rest of the siblings had to continue sharing a room (Marcia had to wait another year...)

We're Greg, I guess. We've got "our own room," and plenty of it.

Geographical circumstances are different, and societal values reflect that IMO.

--Cindy

P.S.: Whoops...to answer the question: I define freedom as the ability to live one's life however one chooses, with as little direct and deliberate interference as possible from others.

BWhite · 2004-11-17 15:11:32

Rivkin says Americans cannot conceive of freedom without a strong component of autonomy. The ability to be alone, independent of others.
He also says Europeans are more likely to conceive of freedom as arising from a web of social relationships that allow us to accomplish things we cannot do alone.
*But keep in mind that the European nations are geographically much smaller than the U.S. and they're each others' next-door neighbors. As we all know, some of them are bordered entirely by other European nations. To an extent they're "required" to get a long and are more dependent on one another.
Can't help this analogy and I'm sorry if it offends some, but it reminds me of the Brady Bunch episode where Greg got to have his own private room upstairs and the rest of the siblings had to continue sharing a room (Marcia had to wait another year...)
We're Greg, I guess. We've got "our own room," and plenty of it.
Geographical circumstances are different, and societal values reflect that IMO.
--Cindy
P.S.: Whoops...to answer the question: I define freedom as the ability to live one's life however one chooses, with as little direct and deliberate interference as possible from others.

Cindy, that is pretty much what Rivkin says.

European cities are far more dense than American cities yet the inhabitants seem to get along just fine. Centuries ago, living outside the city walls was just daft.

Great way to get eaten by bears or bandits.

Huddle together for safety like the fish that tries to be in the exact middle of the school.

= = =

Now, might it be possible that GWB's way of talking at 'Yurp simply goes in one ear and out the other because our way of using words and their way of using words is simply different?

BWhite · 2004-11-17 15:13:36

P.S.: Whoops...to answer the question: I define freedom as the ability to live one's life however one chooses, with as little direct and deliberate interference as possible from others.

Yet can " I " even exist without " others " to define who I am?

Describe what or who "Cindy" is without making comparisons to "others" - - IMHO this cannot be done. My very existence depends upon relationships to define who I am.

We seek to be "free" from others yet we cannot exist without others.

clark · 2004-11-17 15:15:22

Yet can " I " even exist without " others " to define who I am?

no.

America and Britian are two common countries seperated by the same language [or words to that effect]. Winston Churchill.

John Creighton · 2004-11-17 15:15:27

I think there may be some confusion between state freedom and individual freedom.

clark · 2004-11-17 15:16:36

Yet can " I " even exist without " others " to define who I am?

You are, therefore I am?

BWhite · 2004-11-17 15:18:21

Maybe its all an illusion, but lets set that aside for now.

The boundaries of "my self" are marked by the signs that proclaim that the territory beyond belongs to "your self"

Therefore, your boundaries define my boundaries and vice versa.

clark · 2004-11-17 15:20:41

LOL!

Anthropomorphize some bacteria...

Aren't we the end result of anthropomorphized bacteria?

Gennaro · 2004-11-17 15:26:29

He also says Europeans are more likely to conceive of freedom as arising from a web of social relationships that allow us to accomplish things we cannot do alone.

I'm not sure what to answer since I'm not sure what Rivkin is after.
Got any context for it?

Rivkin says Americans cannot conceive of freedom without a strong component of autonomy. The ability to be alone, independent of others.

I don't believe there is any difference here. Maybe we value the pretensions of the individual less and the needs of the community more. At least if we take Kant seriously?

BWhite · 2004-11-17 15:34:05

Maybe we value the pretensions of the individual less and the needs of the community more.

IMHO this is exactly what he is saying.

My more extreme rightist Americans (devotees of Ayn Rand?) will deny that the community deserves any consideration whatsoever.

A position which is so wrong headed as to be laughable, yet is commonplace in my country.

Palomar · 2004-11-17 15:44:24

P.S.: Whoops...to answer the question: I define freedom as the ability to live one's life however one chooses, with as little direct and deliberate interference as possible from others.
Yet can " I " even exist without " others " to define who I am?
Describe what or who "Cindy" is without making comparisons to "others" - - IMHO this cannot be done. My very existence depends upon relationships to define who I am.
We seek to be "free" from others yet we cannot exist without others.

*Yes Bill, I see this point. Of course we are dependent upon one another to define ourselves and etc. My own life has been greatly enhanced via the more extensive interaction with others which as an adult I've been able to have as compared to being extremely sheltered in my childhood home which picked my friends and censored the books I read, etc., etc. However -- the desire to be an autonomous individual is what fueled my seeking out others (increased sociability), experiences, etc.

My more extreme rightist Americans (devotees of Ayn Rand?) will deny that the community deserves any consideration whatsoever.

*It's a balancing act, IMO. Society needs the individual and the individual needs society. (I don't consider myself a devotee of Ayn Rand, btw).

Also, IMO it's important to realize that society can be unjust, cruel and even canabalistic. It would also stagnate without the driving force of more individually-minded persons breaking up the status quo from time to time.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2004-11-17 15:46:21

My more extreme rightist Americans (devotees of Ayn Rand?) will deny that the community deserves any consideration whatsoever.

This is very interesting. "Rightist" in Europeish, at least traditionally, is of the exact opposite opinion. In a world without God and no traditional social order to promote (if not earlier, this got shattered in WWI), if we look carefully (which admittedly, many do not), there is substantially no difference between European Conservatism and Socialism. An aesthethic taste perhaps - Conservatives like royalty, Socialists like party secretaries. The difference is rather measured to what extent Socialism is afflicted by a leftist metaphysic.
"Right" as in Ayn Rand, Neo-Liberals and Libertarianism (admittedly adopted by every west European establishment "right-wing" party), is fundamentally extreme left according to this traditional way of thinking. Provided of course, you draw it to its logical conclusions.

BWhite · 2004-11-17 16:17:35

Remember this: the Swiss have won the America's Cup and the world's best golfer is black, etc. . .

George W. Bush is not "Right" to anyone who has read history.

He is following a voice from God. In America, followers of Milton Friedman are considered right or conservative.

State supported monopoly is "free enterprise"

= = =

One commentator has described Bush and the neo-cons as "Mao-ist" meaning theory overrules experience and common sense. The dismantling of Iraq's civil service is an example. The textbooks say a small bureaucracy is better so we fire all the Iraqi bureaucrats.

I read a very funny article (sad funny) about how automobile traffic laws in Baghdad are completely screwed up. The civil service has been terminated meaning no automobile registations. Therefore stolen Mercedes and BMWs from all over Europe are sold in Iraq for big profits.

Like I said, American policy in Iraq is "Mao-ist" - - follow the theory not the facts.

= = =

Labels are dangerous in America as my people read far too little history. I read history, enough to know that you and DomPanic (and others) have read far more history than me.

:;):

BWhite · 2004-11-17 16:25:24

However -- the desire to be an autonomous individual is what fueled my seeking out others (increased sociability), experiences, etc.

A noble motivation, yet ultimately Quixotic as it can never be fully achieved. We are simultaneously "one and many" and a balance is all that can ever be achieved.

And you cannot prevent others from "controlling" you unless you acquire the means to control them. Which they will resist.

Read the official US defense policy documents. We seek to be so very powerful that no other nation can influence us. On anything.

DonPanic · 2004-11-17 17:13:03

LO
In France, we don't speak about "Freedom" which is more a feeling than facts but about freedoms.
And freedoms are antagonistic.
My freedom stops when your's begin, like territories.

We saw Clinton-Levinsky affair as some incredible US surrealistic nightmare.
In France, nobody is allowed to poke his nose in what's happening in your privacy. Love affairs between adults is none of anybody's business. Nobody has ever been condemned for having smoke a joint in his home. French houses mostly have walls all around.

Private freedom is opposable to Press Liberty. In France, if a news paper publishes details of one's private life, or even one's photography without consent, the news paper will be severely condemned, maybe seized, and have to pay huge allowances.

Palomar · 2004-11-17 17:14:54

*After trying to find the best way to phrase this seemingly delicate question, here goes:

How do we maintain sociability/socialism towards other nations while heeding the wisdom of the U.S. Founding Fathers to stay home and mind our own business? ???

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-11-17 17:23:56

*After trying to find the best way to phrase this seemingly delicate question, here goes:
How do we maintain sociability/socialism towards other nations while heeding the wisdom of the U.S. Founding Fathers to stay home and mind our own business? ???
--Cindy

Maybe by truly staying home and actually minding our own business?

DonPanic · 2004-11-17 17:29:59

LO

Read the official US defense policy documents. We seek to be so very powerful that no other nation can influence us. On anything.

Be serious ???
Translated in good current english, that simply means :
"We seek to be so very powerful that we can fold any other nation to our will, any of our wills"

BWhite · 2004-11-17 17:34:27

Here is the official document.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf]h … sc/nss.pdf

Please google for yourself to be certain I have not been "trolled" - - I will look for quotes

= = =

Read the opening letter from President Bush in the above document. How we define the word "freedom" becomes rather important. The meaning of the letter can change 180 degrees depending on how we choose to understand "what freedom is"

BWhite · 2004-11-17 17:43:51

LO
Read the official US defense policy documents. We seek to be so very powerful that no other nation can influence us. On anything.
Be serious ???
Translated in good current english, that simply means :
"We seek to be so very powerful that we can fold any other nation to our will, any of our wills"

See page 14 (of the pdf file):

"We will build a world of justice. . .''

To escape the world of coercion. No more balance of power in world affairs. Perfect justice shall prevail.

Yet who defines "justice" and chooses the guardians?

= = =

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2000 … .html]Full spectrum dominance

google this phrase to verify other elements.

http://www.dtic.mil/jointvision/]JointVisoin 2020

Palomar · 2004-11-17 19:56:36

*After trying to find the best way to phrase this seemingly delicate question, here goes:
How do we maintain sociability/socialism towards other nations while heeding the wisdom of the U.S. Founding Fathers to stay home and mind our own business? ???
--Cindy
Maybe by truly staying home and actually minding our own business?

*Then won't we be accused of being anti-social and isolationist? ???

--Cindy

[Recall the South Koreans: They scream epithets at us, burn our flag, etc...UNTIL North Korea threatens them (again) and then we're the wonderful rich Uncle Sam who should help them. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too...it's not just us].

BWhite · 2004-11-17 20:00:46

*After trying to find the best way to phrase this seemingly delicate question, here goes:
How do we maintain sociability/socialism towards other nations while heeding the wisdom of the U.S. Founding Fathers to stay home and mind our own business? ???
--Cindy
Maybe by truly staying home and actually minding our own business?
*Then won't we be accused of being anti-social and isolationist? ???
--Cindy
[Recall the South Koreans: They scream epithets at us, burn our flag, etc...UNTIL North Korea threatens them (again) and then we're the wonderful rich Uncle Sam who should help them. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too...it's not just us].

Actually Korea is forging new stronger ties with Moscow. And a unified democratic Korea almost certainly will be a nuclear power.

And if China and Russia intervene to protect South Korea from North Korean nukes, they will have two new best friends and we will not be one of them.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-17 21:48:31

*After trying to find the best way to phrase this seemingly delicate question, here goes:
How do we maintain sociability/socialism towards other nations while heeding the wisdom of the U.S. Founding Fathers to stay home and mind our own business? ???
--Cindy

One can only consider this when you view it in the light of being asked to intervene for others behalf but only when asked.
Ex. would be Kuwait or what was considered the gulf war but in the end they stopped once the goal was achieved for that nations leaders. But that is not the case with the Iraq that we are currently involved in but that can not be changed now for it is past that point.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-17 14:02:13

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#2 2004-11-17 14:13:10

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#3 2004-11-17 15:02:41

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#4 2004-11-17 15:11:32

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#5 2004-11-17 15:13:36

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#6 2004-11-17 15:15:22

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#7 2004-11-17 15:15:27

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#8 2004-11-17 15:16:36

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#9 2004-11-17 15:18:21

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#10 2004-11-17 15:20:41

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#11 2004-11-17 15:26:29

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#12 2004-11-17 15:34:05

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#13 2004-11-17 15:44:24

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#14 2004-11-17 15:46:21

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#15 2004-11-17 16:17:35

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#16 2004-11-17 16:25:24

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#17 2004-11-17 17:13:03

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#18 2004-11-17 17:14:54

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#19 2004-11-17 17:23:56

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#20 2004-11-17 17:29:59

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#21 2004-11-17 17:34:27

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#22 2004-11-17 17:43:51

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#23 2004-11-17 19:56:36

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#24 2004-11-17 20:00:46

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

#25 2004-11-17 21:48:31

Re: Define "freedom" - Words and their meanings matter

Board footer