Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Nihilism and concrete freedom

Re: Nihilism and concrete freedom
July 06, 2009, 08:11:27 AM
I know what you said - it's short-sighted. Nature imposes limitations. Whether you choose to call them limitations or not doesn't change simple reality, just as a retard is a retard whether he prefers to be be called retard, moron, idiot, mentally handicapped, or differently abled. Gravity keeps you from floating off into sapce. Your body requires oxygen to function longer than a few minutes. Your eyes require time to adjust when going between dark and bright areas. These are limitations, and they are real.

Human nature: birth, eat, breathe, shit, fuck, die. Anything else is a social decision. This includes the emergence of concepts such as freedom. The idea that "taking" someone's freedom (which is impossible anyway, or there never would have been any rebellions) makes him something less than a human being is ludicrous - a human being according to your personal standards, maybe, but from an objective standpoint, it's a human being so long as the genes match. You might want to consider formulating a demarcation between the world as it is, and the world as you want it to be. There's obviously a difference between the two.

Finally, I don't hate my contemporaries... I do think a lot of people are idiotic, and it's a shame that unrestricted breeding has made them so, but that's no reason for me to despair about it. If anything, they provide me with a source of amusement while I tend to more important things than complaining about the state of the world.

Re: Nihilism and concrete freedom
July 06, 2009, 09:03:55 PM

Please explain to me what allpowerfulness is.

Yes man is at least an animal but you donít realize that caged animals are less then that wich they were when they were free.

If human nature is birth-eat-breath-etc then you should stop right now. Donít think anymore. Dont create. Anything. Cause that just proves thatís something more to human nature. I ll call you then a human being and will call it even right? Everything good and bad in human nature derives especially from things above those mentioned by you. Even your beliveing in a concept concerning freedom and nihilism deny that definition. I donít deny that there are people forgetting their simple instincts, that think of themselves (and their species) in flattering terms just to feel good about themselves. This is not the case with freedom. You think that you kept in a cage, not being able to  act, shall just be able to think ad infinitum ? Do you really imagine yourself just thinking and standing like a plant? without free speech and expressing your thoughts, without freedom of action your thoughts themselves shall degenerate, diminish and in the end die and along with them your so called anti-concrete freedom. I agree that there are monks  and mistics, but these individuals are exceptions, they are those who distinctly deny the speciesí basic characteristics to exercise their will their beliefs their thoughts. And that proves my point exactly. Nihilism itself in history needed to act, to have a social impact to exist.

Prove me (and everybody else) that the genes are sufficient and let me chek your genes after years of encarceration? Ok? Time in witch you are ďfreeĒ to think at everything you want. The genes shall maybe be the same after that, but  you easily imagine that you wont be a person anymore. A mass of dehumanized may be a romantic picture perfectly fited for extreme arts, but artistic expression is not ďtruthĒ ( Nietzsche anyone?) (Dont just take anythink that comes from science as "objective", especially when meditating at such an hm....slippery and delicate notion as human nature).

I stated that you cant slice freedom, you cant have less or more freedom. Any degree in freedom means that freedom is just not freedom. you didnít brought any good reason against that.

Your concept of freedom implies that thinking is selfsuficient and opposed to human action.


Re: Nihilism and concrete freedom
July 07, 2009, 08:28:21 PM
What I'm trying to say, more or less, is that there really is no such thing as "freedom."  There is simply the given SITUATION and your ABILITY to adapt to, circumvent, or operate within that situation.

Re: Nihilism and concrete freedom
July 08, 2009, 01:19:54 AM
What I'm trying to say, more or less, is that there really is no such thing as "freedom."  There is simply the given SITUATION and your ABILITY to adapt to, circumvent, or operate within that situation.

I completely agree.

"Freedom" is a vague, vague term that implies you can be whatever you want to be -- but you are limited by biological ability and circumstance.

Further, this is a relative universe. You cannot exercise "freedom," or any ability, without having something to exercise it on. "I am free from want" and "I am free from obligation."

Jim's point, which is a 7th level Zen master comment for a metal forum in 2009, is that you cannot separate yourself from the world -- "freedom" -- but require the world to have a challenge, and then and only then have the ability to let your imagination run "free" to make a choice and act on it.

Modern people like to talk about "freedom" because it is our religion. We are free, we beat those who would obligate us, now we are free, and no one bothers to define that term. But real freedom includes freedom from freedom itself -- a non-neurotic, self joining with world, clarity of action.

Re: Nihilism and concrete freedom
July 08, 2009, 09:36:28 AM
The observation that our biological state is not the one of a god is evidently true. The statement about the concept of freedom is about your vision about it.  "Freedom is vague": what is this telling you about the actual nowadays freedom?

If the universe is relative then your thoughts being part of this universe are relative too so this statement of the universe being relative it s also relative.

Re: Nihilism and concrete freedom
July 08, 2009, 05:11:19 PM
The observation that our biological state is not the one of a god is evidently true. The statement about the concept of freedom is about your vision about it.  "Freedom is vague": what is this telling you about the actual nowadays freedom?

It's telling me that, without an explicit context -- without explicating from what one is free -- the word is utterly useless in any time period. It's currently being used by advocates of the post-Enlightenment paradigm symbolically, but without any conceptual referent for the symbol to represent. It's a euphemism for, "Consume, reproduce, repeat. Tolerate everyone who doesn't interfere with this modus operandi, and forget about anything that might distinguish you from them in any way that isn't superficial, for real differences could create tension, which is immediately unpleasant. As a part of the lowest-common-denominator collective, you are free -- free to consume and gratify your ego without any external purpose."

Quote
If the universe is relative then your thoughts being part of this universe are relative too so this statement of the universe being relative it s also relative.

This is a misuse of deductive reasoning. Is gravity relative in the sense that it only applies to particular areas of the universe, or in the sense that how it bends spacetime is determined by mass? Principles are universal; manifestations are relative.

Re: Nihilism and concrete freedom
July 08, 2009, 09:22:17 PM
@Detrater

As well as it's the case with other concepts,freedom is used and abused. but that tells something important especially about the era, and secondly about the concept/ideea itself. This is a common mistake, to refute the concept by understanding it in reaction to it's abusive use by others. I see the "mind" freedom as the only "real" freedom as a contra-reaction to the nowadays (at least) ideea of freedom. Both abusive. Both wrong.

 "Principles are universal" - well like the principles of logic? then the universe is not relative, being relative only in manifestations of principles. the original statement falls apart anyway. The eventual relativity of the universe cant be used as an excuse, if here in this "particular area of the universe" logic aplies as necessary to statements about concepts (i'm ruling out artistic statements :)) ) then using relativity to deny them is ... wrong? Wouldnt you agree? We dont discuss the concept of freedom for some strange parallel universe or whatever...