[Philosophy] The independence paradox

[cicatrix]

I see no paradox here. We're not independent, we are (some of us, at least) products of the society which calls itself 'the society of independent individuals'. We can think of ourselves as independent, but we are not. We follow the rules, we obey the laws and we accept what they tell us 'the moral standards' are. Since the earliest childhood we learn what is good and what is bad, what is acceptable and what is not. By the time we are grownups an independent thought is a rarity on the brink of extinction. I'm not suggesting that this is essentially a bad thing. Such herd instincts help us to survive and be acceptable by the rest of the 'herd'. So, when someone says, I'm an independent person, what EXACTLY does it mean? It can mean 'I am an egoistic and selfish person' (which does not make him independent) or it can mean 'I live by the moral standards of my own choosing' (a very rare occurrence).

The former case is not even worth to be discussed. The latter is a bit more interesting one. Such a statement obviously can come in conflict with 'the moral standards' of the herd. The next question - what would that 'independent' person do facing such a conflict? Usually nothing. What independence we are talking about? Independence from WHAT?

[Bill Phil]

I think that independence comes from having freedom. And there's no limit for freedom, bar the freedom of other beings. To make it worth, you need equal division... Or if one will to let the other have it.

Original question: just do it. After all, he's POW, no ?

But for some to have freedom, others must give it up. I call it the Freedom Paradox.

[Darnok]

But for some to have freedom, others must give it up. I call it the Freedom Paradox.

Example please.

[Ethanadams]

Your trapped in aroma the only way for you to get out is to stab your brother to death or your brother stabs you to death would you do it

or a more extreme version your in a cage to get out your have to strangle 10 pregnate women or kill yourself and the women are freed

Edited April 14, 2015 by Ethanadams

[Darnok]

Your trapped in aroma the only way for you to get out is to stab your brother to death or your brother stabs you to death would you do it

or a more extreme version your in a cage to get out your have to strangle 10 pregnate women or kill yourself and the women are freed

In examples you posted I am slave locked in cage and fighting for my life... same as other people in there, so any decisions in those scenarios are not decisions of free man, but a slaves.

You can't take away freedom from slave, because he have none.

To have freedom paradox first you have to describe scenario with a free man, not with a slave

[Bill Phil]

In examples you posted I am slave locked in cage and fighting for my life... same as other people in there, so any decisions in those scenarios are not decisions of free man, but a slaves.

You can't take away freedom from slave, because he have none.

To have freedom paradox first you have to describe scenario with a free man, not with a slave

To prevent people from destroying your freedom you must destroy them.

[Darnok]

To prevent people from destroying your freedom you must destroy them.

What? I am still waiting for examples of this paradox you said.

[Bill Phil]

What? I am still waiting for examples of this paradox you said.

It's a well known fact. You don't need examples. And I wasn't providing one.

Do you seriously believe freedom is what everyone claims? It's no where near that. It has to be fought for.

[Darnok]

It's a well known fact. You don't need examples. And I wasn't providing one.

Do you seriously believe freedom is what everyone claims? It's no where near that. It has to be fought for.

So your only argument is like

Maybe you can write your definition of freedom to make it clearer?

[xcorps]

Example please.

First, you have to accept that freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want without consequence. You do not like in a bubble.

Second, you gain freedom through constraint.

Third, you sacrifice much more freedom to your own desires than through any vehicle of societal norms.

[Stargate525]

You've met no one who wishes to be independent of the collective? Well, I guess I'm the first you'll meet.

The paradox is: Your lifelong goal of independence is the greatest thing for you, yet also the worst. To be an individual is to be normal. To wish someone individuality is to integrate them into the collective. To be unique is to just be another person.

And I would posit that you don't want to be free of ALL collectives, merely one you perceive yourself to be in. You are a member of the collective of your nation, of your region, of your town, and of this website, at the very least. You want to be in at least one of those. Ergo, you do not wish true independence.

You're not providing definitions of any of these things, and your argument is flawed:

-What is 'your goal of independence' and why is that great?

-This 'paradox' would only arise in a society which values independence. Totalitarian states, and essentially any society before the postmodern era does not have this problem.

-There is a difference between independence and individuality. I can be free and still exercise my freedom to conform.

-Everyone is unique. There are millions of variables to account for that go into a person, from their upbringing to their residence to the genetic abnormalities they carry. It's like taking an orange, an apple, and a banana, putting them together, and declaring that they're all 'just fruit.'

[Darnok]

First, you have to accept that freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want without consequence. You do not like in a bubble.

No I don't have to accept your definition, since I am free man And you are confusing freedom with anarchy.

In anarchy you can do whatever you want to, in freedom you have single rule "your freedoms ends where my begins".

That means you can't restrict my beliefs, views etc, only I am, as individual, responsible to shaping my views and even entire group can't force me to change it

Of course today in most western countries we can't have freedom, because of small groups that loves to foist their views.

Second, you gain freedom through constraint.

Wait what? Freedom is given to you in second you are born. Unless you are enslaved by some religions that force you to believe you have to obey or they are going to use stones.

[Xannari Ferrows]

And I would posit that you don't want to be free of ALL collectives, merely one you perceive yourself to be in. You are a member of the collective of your nation, of your region, of your town, and of this website, at the very least. You want to be in at least one of those. Ergo, you do not wish true independence.

I beg to differ. Being on this website does not put me in the collective. I am still an individual within here, but I'm being blurred by the other thousands of users here, so it's too hard to come up with a single definition for everyone. Because of this, a single, broad definition is given to everyone to abide by. While a lot of people respect that, I don't. I want to feel like an individual on this site, as I'm sure a ton of people do.

You're not providing definitions of any of these things, and your argument is flawed

So my opinion is wrong? This isn't an attack, just my stance.

-There is a difference between independence and individuality.

Independent - Free of the collective. Different, or not part of the group mind.

Individual - To make voluntary decisions for ones' self. To not be influenced by others.

I don't see the contradictory here. These are the definitions I am using [of course, slightly put into my own words.

Let's just agree to disagree, alright?

[xcorps]

No I don't have to accept your definition, since I am free man And you are confusing freedom with anarchy.

In anarchy you can do whatever you want to, in freedom you have single rule "your freedoms ends where my begins".

That means you can't restrict my beliefs, views etc, only I am, as individual, responsible to shaping my views and even entire group can't force me to change it

Of course today in most western countries we can't have freedom, because of small groups that loves to foist their views.

Wait what? Freedom is given to you in second you are born. Unless you are enslaved by some religions that force you to believe you have to obey or they are going to use stones.

You are seriously confused about natural rights and freedom.

Read Locke. Maybe Mises And Hobbes.

Edited April 14, 2015 by xcorps

[Stargate525]

You are seriously confused about natural rights and freedom.

Read Locke. Maybe Mises And Hobbes.

^ This! This whole argument sounds like a postmodern sort of... thing. I'd also recommend some St. Augustine.

[Bill Phil]

No I don't have to accept your definition, since I am free man And you are confusing freedom with anarchy.

In anarchy you can do whatever you want to, in freedom you have single rule "your freedoms ends where my begins".

That means you can't restrict my beliefs, views etc, only I am, as individual, responsible to shaping my views and even entire group can't force me to change it

Of course today in most western countries we can't have freedom, because of small groups that loves to foist their views.

Wait what? Freedom is given to you in second you are born. Unless you are enslaved by some religions that force you to believe you have to obey or they are going to use stones.

There isn't one kind of freedom. There are many types of freedom.

The most common one in the Free World is the Freedom to Accept One's Consequences. Basically, you're responsible for what you do.

Freedom is earned. Someone generations ago managed to earn freedom for many generations, yours included.

[Xannari Ferrows]

To be unique is to just be another person. To admit to normality is to be different. That which is normal wishes of difference, and can be easily made to believe it is. That which acknowledges its' normality has done something no normal one has done before.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you make the clothes you are wearing? Did you grow the food you eat? Did you build the house you live in? The computer you typed that post from...did you make it? Did you without aid learn to speak, read, and write?

You are not refusing to be a part of it. Not even close.

Wow, I didn't see this until now.

That's not what we were even talking about. We were discussing thought. I don't mind that I got my resources from the collective. If I don't think like them, I'm not a part of them.

[RainDreamer]

Do we have individual freewill, basically.

[Bill Phil]

That is debatable. You react to situations based off of previous experiences. Your experiences change, but you still base everything off of them. So your free will is limited to a few choices.

And uniqueness is normal, so not a single person is unique, because everyone is unique.

[windows_x_seven]

Kerbal Philosophy Program, is that you?

[Xannari Ferrows]

Kerbal Philosophy Program, is that you?

Why yes. Yes it is. Please help yourself to the various assorted sweets sitting on the dining table. But first, a question: How do you know the sweets are really there?

[magnemoe]

According to the laws of warfare you can't kill him. You can voice your concern about wanting to, but you can't. And that voice is YOURS.

Plus, I would want to be the better person and help the enemy.

A bit off topic: I think the Freedom paradox is more interesting. Some have to give up their freedom so others can have it.

This, note that the officer might agree with you but he can not give that order as it would been an far worse crime and the officer face the risk that you rater report him for this.

More practical, you should know that the officer would tell you, if you wanted to kill the enemy you should have done at once at some distance claiming you did not know he was injured and unarmed and it would be very hard to take you for it.

Most laws exist for an reason: reason to not kill enemies who will surrender is twofold. First the enemy will do the same back, secondly enemies will then rather fight to their dead than surrender if outgunned. An more brutal war also make the peace after the war harder to manage.

[Wallygator]

I suggest everyone watch "The Trap" by Adam Curtis. A 3 part documentary on freedom.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Wallygator

[Fel]

You know, people have intertwined individualism with democracy, pushing a notion that a democratic nation would be more individualist than a totalitarian nation... but is this actually so?

Only a few days ago we had people abandoning their individual differences to push a common goal, people adopted changes that the mob said to. They changed avatars, they changed sigs, they trended hashtags... and they accomplished a goal. Look closely here, a small action by an individual is likely to go unnoticed; one person changing his/her avatar, another changing her/his sig; but individuals do not accomplish anything. Groups do, groups tell the individual what to think, what to do, how to act, and the individual willingly does it. Groups mold the individual into an automaton, a puppet that acts to the need of the group. And groups, can strip away the morality of an individual and leave behind someone who no longer adheres to what is accepted as right and wrong.

Anyone familiar with the stanford prison studies would know that it was a social psychology experiment to study prison life by having students pretend to be inmates and guards. The people selected were normal everyday people, they chose to participate, they knew what to expect going in... yet four days into the study this happens

No longer was this a chant or a count, disorganized and full of fun, as we saw on the first day. It was marked by its conformity, by its compliance,by its absolute unison. It was as if a single voice was saying, "819 is bad." Or like a million Hitler Jugend chanting "Heil Hitler" in a torchlight rally. Imagine how he felt: I said, "OK, let's leave." Through his tears he said to me, "No, I can't leave." He could not leave because the others had labeled him a bad prisoner. Even though he was feeling sick, he was willing to go back into that prison to prove that he was not a bad prisoner.

College students, within four days, had lost all sense of who they are... of their individualism, and adopted a new identity. Prisoners... really sadistic prisoners that would torment a poor boy who was feeling sick. To mock his illness in unison, to shame him.

What happened to the individual? Perhaps it needed a reminder of what freedom was.

We did see one final act of rebellion. Prisoner #416 was newly admitted on Wednesday as one of our stand-bys. He tried to cope with the situation by refusing to eat, by going on an eating strike. Here was a last futile attempt of a prisoner to assert his individuality by refusing to eat. The guards tried, but they couldn't get him to do so. Here was a chance for the other prisoners to reorganize and solidify behind this new act of rebellion. What did they do? How did the guards handle this [...] They began to punish his cell mates if he wouldn't eat,and finally they even threatened to cut off Thursday night visiting hours, an hour before the visitors came, if #416 didn't eat. The prisoners then exploded, not against the guards for this arbitrary rule, but against #416, screaming at him, cursing him, telling him he had to eat, that they weren't going to be inconvenienced by his stupid act of defiance. The guards then took #416 and put him in the hole, solitary, for three hours, although their own rule stated one hour was the limit. Still he refused. At this point he should have become a hero to the other prisoners. But what was he? He had become a trouble-maker. And so, the head guard on that shift gave the prisoners a choice. They could have #416 come out of solitary if they were willing to give up some little thing of their own -- their blanket. Or, if they refused to give that up, #416 would be left in solitary all night. What do you think they chose?

It seems, the individual didn't want freedom. We're talking only 5 days in; 5 days and the individual succumbed to the group. And only 3 days from the initial riots and rebellions. Revealed in later transcripts, #416 was actually a radical who believed the experiment to be a secret government study in controlling and suppressing radicals; he wanted to expose it; he came in there screaming "for freedom"... he left daunted, meek, having fallen in line and become one with the group.

How quickly humans are willing to shed the individual is astonishing; and more so how very wrong we are when we believe a democracy prevents the corrosion of the individual. Look at all these groups we have, advocating for what they believe in, amassing, are they made up of individuals, or is the group an individual of its own, swaying its members into performing actions that benefit it.

Can you honestly say you agree, 100%, with whatever political affiliation you take? And can you also say, 100%, that everything that the opposition wants is inherently bad. A group will seek to protect itself by shaming those who conflict with the shared ideology, even banishing or attacking them; freedom... the ideology of freedom, is different enough from the group to banish prisoner 416... what of the parties, what ideology is bad because of your individual thought... or bad simply because the group has instilled the belief into you.

[Xannari Ferrows]

... And can you also say, 100%, that everything that the opposition wants is inherently bad. A group will seek to protect itself by shaming those who conflict with the shared ideology, even banishing or attacking them;

Opposition is relative. Ally and opposition are labeled as good and bad. Villains and allies are marked as such on a different basis from reality. The side believe is right is right. The only time that this doesn't apply is if such goals of the group entail murder of the innocent. Germany thought so during WWI. They believed to be purifying the world of inferior beings. The truth is, they were rarely asked this question: Why are they inferior? What makes them anything less than you? Those who asked were never given a response, but were outright killed. It was impossible to answer, because, ultimately, it's not true. Superiority runs perpendicular to the undefined slope.

"Bad" is dependent on your definition.