BiboLan Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the term "Freedom" is defined as "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action." But Ayn Rand said "Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction." Wouldn't the penalty of unconsciousness be a constraint in choice? Like a slave have the choice of working or not working, and his constraint are the punishments from his owner, and a man have the choice of focusing his mind and not, and the constraint would be destruction. Obviously Slaves are not completely free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 The word freedom can be used in various ways. So, when you ask "can man have complete freedom", you'll need to be more clear about what you're asking. If you're asking if men can design a system where they do not have to abide by the arbitrary dictates of other men; then yes, such a system is possible. If you're asking if man can jump naked off the Empire State Building to the sidewalk below and live, just because he wishes to live, then no, he can't. But you probably knew that already. Did I misunderstand your question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiboLan Posted February 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 I guess I am arguing that a man can not have complete freedom if freedom meant "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.", but then again it is possible that complete freedom is not needed in a rational society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 When one uses a concept, one is using a shortcut. It is a necessary shortcut -- to aid thinking -- but a shortcut nevertheless. Look, for a moment at what freedom stands for (i.e. look at what facets of reality one refers to when one thinks of freedom). Not the definition, but the things out there in reality (the specific types of relationships or the specific attributes that one is calling "freedom". Let's take your example, and assume that their are two sub-aspects: lack of political coercion and the lack of a need to follow the laws of reality. If you want to call both these things by the name "freedom", that's fine...then you can say: we don't have complete freedom. And, you'd be right. But... by saying that, you're simply using a shorthand form of saying: man can be free of coercion from other men, but man has to obey the laws of reality. Nothing more than that is being stated; nothing less. This calls for an analogy, but I can't think of a really good one. Will post again if I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 It may help to focus on the exact wording: "Man is free to choose". In contrast, animals are not free to choose. The libertarian concept of "freedom" suffers exactly from the confusion of choice versus realization -- man is not free to will himself across the universe instantly, not because of coersive constraints on choice, but because of the fact that wishing does not override reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.