/philosophy/ -Is there anything you feel as if people NEED to know in order to be free people?People seem to have latched into the idea that only thing that they need to be free is not to have chains in their hands, but other groups, such as the old medieval liberal art

Name
Email
Subject	REC STOP
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
Flag*	open flag menu
* = required field	[▶Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf Max filesize is16 MB. Max image dimensions are15000 x15000. You may upload5 per post.

File: 49030a85162dd3d⋯.jpg (85.67 KB,600x627,200:209,Psyops.jpg)

Anonymous 03/16/17 (Thu) 23:43:14 47d19c No.5059

Is there anything you feel as if people NEED to know in order to be free people?

People seem to have latched into the idea that only thing that they need to be free is not to have chains in their hands, but other groups, such as the old medieval liberal arts, believed that you needed knowledge of grammar, logic and rhetoric to be a free man(amongst four other things, but that's just arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy).

I was just curious, is there someone else who has any strong opinions on this? I am really curious about any other philosopher who has spoken out, since it seems like a important topic.

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 03/22/17 (Wed) 15:07:35 47d19c No.5064

File: b8bd29d99bfba80⋯.jpg (125.93 KB,480x608,15:19,1470977992232.jpg)

Cynicism and existencialism both focus pretty strongly on this, with varying degrees of cheap cop-out answers and the more subsantial ones have been mocked into being considered "egdy". But the (very superficial summary) goes something like:

Cynicism: The goal of life is eudaimonia and mental clarity or lucidity (ἁτυφια) - freedom from smoke (τύφος) which signified ignorance, mindlessness, folly, and conceit.

Kierkgarrd: We can only be truly free in God (his arguments are pretty decent but I can't help feel he just found a "cheat" freedom because there is nowhere to go from there, therefore there is no choice and only in the whole immutable perfection there is freedom)

Sartre: Your freedom lies in your choices no matter how deterministicaly confined they are (existing as a mammal and thus having chemical feelings for instance), even a man coerced has the option to face his inevitable demise should he truly chose it, therefore man is always as free as he can be yet blames all else for his choice and finds comfort in being unfree, this is what he means by acting in bad faith.

Nietzsche: pretty much pic related with a more tangible resolution, man is free when his will is absolute. Like a dancing childlike god-quasar. So pretty much after we defeat the anti-spirals and take on pretty much the universe itself, but even he admitted that we would pretty much just be dust in the wind because it would be impossible even if all mankind nutted up to it let alone if we are all normies by nature (disputable).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Anonymous 03/22/17 (Wed) 15:33:02 47d19c No.5065

>>5059

And for your first question, I would say that people should think there are two kinds of freedom, to be free from and to be free in.

Think about buddhist abnegation as in to be free from this world and desires (Will>will).

Think about a little kid in a toy store he owns, he can play with whatever he likes. (will>Will)

It even applies to reason, when you are humbled by not knowing something although you learned (Will>will), when you get a theory down and it seems you have sucessfuly studied the natural (will>Will)

So man can be free in varying degrees and different ways, but can only be absolutely free when (will=Will), which is only feasible when man is an adaptable platform, ever evolving, ever optimizing, never content until the very epitome is achieved. So I think we'll just end up creating a fucking sentient being to do it because we are too busy sending outraged tweets and starving to death.

tl;dr: Just do your best and tell people to do it as well, it's the least and the most we can do.Or make a rogue AI, it's all the same in the end.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.