Talk:Freedom (philosophy)

message: I want to rename this article Freedom (Philosophy)the choice to go to 
Freedom (political) or Freedom (philosophy) before seeing this page.
This page is too postmodern for me, and I would gamble most people looking for info on freedom
are thinking about politics not existentialist France. In american english, and I would be willing to bet the same of the UK because of the shared legal tradition of the US and UK the first meaning of freedom is in the Natural law sense.
SO I am going to have it go to the  freedom (disambiguation) site first.Mrdthree 15:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MOVING freedom article for disambiguation

message: Whence came "Economic freedom means having more choices due to being wealthy"?  The only way I've ever seen "economic freedom" used as an established phrase is to mean the absence of strictures on how people or organizations can (or must) use their money, as with taxes or labor laws.  I suppose that "having a range of choices because you've got a lot of money" could also be a logical interpretation of the phrase, but that meaning comes just from putting the two words together, not from an actual definition established in a field of study. You could also say that a "free radical" is a person with unorthodox beliefs or practices who is free from restrictions, but doing so ignores the established meaning in chemistry.  I'm changing the Economic freedom entry. Mr. Billion 07:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Freedom 

message: I've started a new section. Please note that although there is a slight redundancy with interwiki, there will be some languages that don't have their wikipedia yet, and therefore i think that it's appropriate to have this section. Please post your reasoning if you think otherwise before simply deleting. Beta m (talk)
:I disagree. This sort of thing is more appropriate for Wiktionary than for a Wikipedia article. I am moving the information there. — Ливай | ☺ 03:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word in other languages 

message: this is not the true freedom, like we have in america.  if you dont like it you can get out!
:There's freedom in America? I've lived there, and visited many states, and I saw no freedom.
This whole page is about french existentialist notions of freedom. There needs to be a disambiguation page: Freedom(political) Freedom(existential). Mrdthree 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: The following was added:
:In the art practice and theory of Davor Dzalto, freedom is taken as a basic feature of both the personal existence of human being and art production.
If we want a section on freedom in art, it should be more comprehensive than referring to just one artist. Anyone want to take this up? Hgilbert 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art 

message: I have excised the following paragraph from the introduction, as it appears to be a somewhat confusing, and in part tautologous (or at least mere definition):
:Freedom can mean an attribute of man and his will. Freedom can mean the condition for rights enabled by natural or positive law, but also of duty. However, an action is a personal experience, so carrying out a deliberate action cannot be summed up to rights and duties. These two levels of human existence - an attribute of man or the condition for enabled rights - are not necessarily compatible. One can establish that judicial liberties are in place, but reality (in our actions) and essence (in our conception) of our liberty are missing.
If it should be there, please rewrite more clearly. 
In my opinion, the whole article could use quite a bit of extension and clarification... Hgilbert 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freedom is one of those ideas that everyone knows about but no one can state it less than 3000 words.  How about this definition, "Freedom is a lack of barriers". Terryeo 17:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction: paragraph excised 

message: The exercise of freedom is limited to acts which advance it.  Bondage is to freedom as theft is to work.
Jumping off a cliff without safety devices kills the person.  Freedom is lost by acts which harm self, therefore such acts are no more acts of freedom than the practice of slavery.  Transporting a car into the side of a mountain is not transportation from the time that collision is unavoidable, because the car loses the ability to be transported at that instant.
Said in another way, as acts which harm freedom are executed freedom is limited or disappears.  If such acts were of freedom, then the commission of those types of acts alone would quickly lead to the annhilation of freedom, and those acts would no longer be possible.  Only the advancement of freedom (through acts of freedom) enable anti-freedom (through acts which attack freedom), even as theft is only enabled by productivity and of itself must quickly perish.
Of course, freedom must fight anti-freedom in order to survive, even as workers must fight thieves for their survival.  It is just as rightly noted then that productivity encompasses everything which adds to the ability to work effectively.  The exercise of productivity is limited to acts which advance it.
--Landen99 13:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on: Freedom encompasses everything which adds to that ability 

message: Wouldn't the first paragraph be clearer if it just was simply put as "Freedom is the ability to act without restraint."?
I agree. The following: 
Freedom is a many-faceted, positive term encompassing the ability to act consciously, in a well-balanced manner and with self control in a given constructive direction.
''
is very silly and untrue. Freedom is not at all a positive term. Freedom leaves a person to decide what is right and what is wrong - acting in a well-balanced manner has absolutely no attatchement to freedom. In fact, its often the opposite when a person is free to act how they would like.
--Evrenosogullari 00:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about freedom in philosophy; the above discussion belongs to Political freedom. Hgilbert (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple thought

message: The section on forms of freedom was a seemingly arbitrary collection. Many of the aspects listed belong properly to the Political freedom page. I have radically simplified the list and eliminated the political entries; if people want to build it out from here, feel free to do so. Hgilbert (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forms of freedom 

message: I added the ontology of freedom, to put it into a more metaphysic perspective. I’m a strong advocate of dualism, and hope to have described why there is no difference between, determinism, and materialism. But it would be good if people could ad to this paragraph. Personally I think that the ontology of Freedom is the only important part of the philosophy of freedom. Many of the paragrafs abouve is not philosophy ad all, but rather, the history of ideas conserning freedom. 
user:rphb 12:04, 10 november 2008 Centrel European Time.
Unfortunately for you, saying that determinism rules out any subjective experience of freedom is oversimplifying. It only implies that there is no objective reality behind the experience making a choice, not that we do not in fact experience it or that is not a reality to our senses (biology). It is only the behavior of atoms that is determined (and that not completely, see uncertainty principle). Do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your vitalistic mysticism. Freedom in philosophy also is about ethics, eg right to greedom, and epistemology, as in awareness of free choice, not just ontology, much less your dualism, I urge you not to oversimplify24.184.234.24 (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The ontology of Freedom

message: If I can't swear here or say anything I want to then I am not free. Correction, I am free, but in a world and on a website that isn't. It seems to me the world that isn't free and the people that aren't or curtail my freedom are the problem. As Rousseau said, "Man is born free but everywhere is in chains". I would add that some people chain themselves up voluntarily and attempt to chain others too. Why am I subject to others ignorance, limitations and vested interests? Perhaps anarchy is the answer...hmmm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.7.9 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to swear here if you want. There is no filter or automated censor. However, it is important to remember that we are likewise free to revert your edits. Since the majority of the users on Wikipedia are trying to make a quality encyclopedia, there are probably enough users out there to revert most of the low quality edits (e.g. frivolous cursing). I can see how you might confuse these reversions with "chains" inhibiting your freedom.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.229.166 (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  If 

message: Hi fellows, my native language having only one word for 'Freedom' and 'Liberty', I cannot perceive the nuance between the two: 
*Freedom is the right to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(philosophy)
*Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty
But the two concept seem to differ slightly each other for English-speakers. Is that right?Is 'Liberty' the area of 'Freedom' as restricted by the 'Rights' of others over their own 'Liberties'?Note: I also think it should be explained the nuance between 'Freedom' and 'Anarchy' (and 'Jungle' perhaps too?) for documenting the last 'If' contribution just here above. ;-)Unfortunately I feel too weak in this philosophical topic to propose any addition otherwise I would have loved to. Cheers. -- Silwilhith (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom v Liberty 

message: A while back I removed links from lede of the article on Rights to here, because of the horrible quality of this article.
First of all, the grammar is simply atrocious right from the start ("Freedom in philosophy is the human value or situation to act according to one's will without being held up by the power of others.") and only gets worse ("The modern science view admit in the physical processes whether deteminism or indeterminism, while in biologic ones are the indeterministic the more important."), to the point that it's not even clear what is being stated half the time.
Furthermore this article can't seem to decide whether it's a disambiguation page (made doubly worse by the fact that there already is a Freedom disambiguation page) or a substantial article, and if the latter, what exactly its scope is. Is this about freedom of the will? About freedom from external influences (political, social, economic, etc)? What?
I think any well-cited material from this article should be moved into either Political freedom, Economic freedom, or Free will, and this page redirected back to Freedom simpliciter. I'm going to make some improvements to that disambiguation page right now (which shares some of the faults with this page), and then if nobody objects I'll disburse this article's redeemable content to the appropriate pages and redirect it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is horrible