Reply With QuoteI hope that is sarcastic, Sylux.
EDIT: +++ No, really. I really, really, hope that's sarcastic.
DAMN YOU YOU DAMN DIRTY QUAKERS/BUDDHISTS/HINDUS/MENNONITES!!Originally Posted by Sylux
EDIT: Laws are evil? It's evil for me to tell you not to kill someone? That's a riot.
I hope that is sarcastic, Sylux.
EDIT: +++ No, really. I really, really, hope that's sarcastic.
Last edited by CypressDahlia; 05-25-2011 at 09:13 PM.
Slow down cowboy, I never said all law was bad, it works well for controlling the idiot masses. Let me quote myself on how I think about law:
A good symbol for that sort of thing is the idea of the rebel against overwhelming force: Prometheus, Lucifer, etc.Each social more is a fetter, of which the individual who wishes to be truly free must rid himself. The greater the taboo [or law!] one breaks, the more one has succeeded in ridding oneself of fetters. If one has violated all taboos, and now reclaims both 'taboo' and 'more' as irrelevant to one's will, then the individual is at last truly free, ruled only by his will. Before true freedom is possible, one must have broken all fetters - of respect for life, of non-exposure to 'dangerous elements', even of regard for those one loves. When I have total control over how I exercise my emotion and my reason, I am altogether - Promethean.
Those who submit to control deserve to be controlled. Those who rebel against control are worthy of freedom.
EDIT: See here. Post-conventional morality based on individualism appears identical to pre-conventional morality at first glance but is actually rather more sophisticated. On Kohlberg's scale, I'm at least a level 6. I may be pushing the boundaries of his hypothetical level 7.
Last edited by Delphinus; 05-26-2011 at 06:20 PM.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
So essentially, "the more you offend and injure people, the more free you are." Honestly, now.
Am I not free, despite the fact that I //choose// not to break the law? Is that not my prerogative? Besides, why do I need to "prove" my freedom to anyone? Isn't it stupid for "freedom"--which, by that definition, is just a general lack of standards--to have a standard?
I rebel against your standard for freedom by refusing to meet it. Ultimately, I am more free than even your quote proposes.
The idea is not to actually offend or injure people persay, that's not the desired end result. The desired end result is considering nothing relevant but what I want and the best means of obtaining that end result. If that means sending your reputation to hell, then - considering the cost of sacrificing your reputation - so be it. The ultimate end is just to live by one's own principles and wants regardless of what those around you want. Fairly sure that living by your own principles regardless of circumstances is not just freedom but aggressive freedom. Injuring people is just a means of desensitising oneself to breaking free from the pointless and arbitrary taboos of society. I'm socialised not to steal - that's a restriction. Stealing frequently will help me overcome the socially-ingrained fear of that act.
And your objection to having a 'standard' for freedom is petulant. If I'm unrestrained, I'm free. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain cell.
And yes, you are free. Everyone is free, absolutely free; but to take full advantage of that freedom one must first realise the unimportance of codes and laws. Liberating oneself from mental servitude is just as necessary as not being under the yoke of a master to be free.
If you don't acknowledge your mental freedom, you're a very pretty songbird tweeting fruitlessly in a cage of moral codes.
GO TO TVTROPES
^ The desired end state.In pursuit of a goal they have no limits, inhibitions, or fear. Nothing chains them or holds them back. You cannot make them flinch or falter. They cannot be intimidated, blackmailed, coerced, or otherwise convinced to back off from achieving their goal. There is no sacrifice they are unwilling to make or principle they are unwilling to compromise.
Last edited by Delphinus; 05-26-2011 at 07:32 PM.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
Okay, then everyone is free. This is somewhat of a change from your morality and ethics argument, where you said everyone who is law abiding or moralistic is enslaved. I'm willing to accept this new outlook as, theoretically, it's true, according to the most basic definition of "freedom". Whether or not it would work in application: highly debatable.
And what I meant by the 'standard' thing was: the quote insists that there is some rite of passage or something for someone to be "truly free". Why should that quote decide what it is that makes me free? Why do I have to follow its requirements? Isn't that subjugating yourself to its standards? And, thus, you are following an impression given to you by someone else, therefore you are not free.
Nope. The only standard for freedom is a lack of restriction (that's the definition of 'negative freedom' and in a sense of 'positive freedom' as well): to capitalise on one's physical and intellectual freedoms, one must remove the restrictions of moral codes that check one from exercising one's freedom to the fullest. If I want sex but don't believe in extra-marital sex, then my moral code is restricting me from exercising my freedom: I'm sacrificing my needs and wants before some philosophical spectre.
It's no change of position, it's just stating it differently. Granted everyone is always free to do as they will, but fixed morals (unchosen ones) impede the fulfilling of my wishes and replace them with synthetic replicas for me to serve. Instead of sex I proselytise; instead of deep thought I pray; instead of surgery I absolve myself to God. Et cetera.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
Staples of religion can be found in atheistic individuals as something inlaid in them essentially since birth. I, personally, am completely free. All things that are illegal I do not wish to do because they simply feel wrong to me to do them, with the exception of murder (and sometimes rape), but I really don't have the means to achieve that as a minor anyway. However, I can respect your will to be free, Delphinus. If you want to murder, Del, I think you should be able to do it. If you want to rape, I think you should be able to do it (since you probably are able to do it, as you must know the importance of physical fitness and probably implement it in some small way into your daily life). I've really been on Del's side since age 13, and I've definitely been on his side for the past 8-14 months. His unpopular opinion of Anarchism as a(n) (anti)governmental practice has been one of mine as well for those definite months.
Yes, Delphinus, that is the textbook definition of freedom. What I meant is: who gets to decide what "true freedom" is? As long as you're doing what you want, it's freedom, no? Why would I have to break moral codes when my decision is to follow them? Wouldn't I be more 'free' if I follow my own decision rather than obey the standards set by some author or philosopher? In the end, it's all relative.
And Sylux, speaking in all practicality, the control you so detest is what guarantees the freedoms of the average citizen. You do realize that, right? So your beliefs, in theory, are fine (by the most basic reasoning), but they're entirely inapplicable to society.
Oh, I know. There's only one person in this world keeping me from actually believing in Anarchism as a system that would benefit me. Yeah, I just see a lot more personally intrinsically meaningful benefits in a life partner than the ability to kill and rape whomever I please when physically unmatched.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks