7 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

I just wanted to point out the fact that when people complain about freedom and justice, they don't see the real cause of their discontent

You can only speak for yourself. You don’t appear to know what motivates other people, or what makes them “tick”

1 hour ago, raphaelh42 said:

People in my life don't make me feel weak with their money and help though, I'm wondering what made you think that

It was definitely this part:

10 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

I meant I believe that if you can eat and stay warm only thanks to money, or by being given from others, then you are weak

You actually said this is what you meant, so I'm not sure why you don't recognize the words.

1 hour ago, raphaelh42 said:

It's true I don't like people a lot, I think it's because I find almost nothing in common with people

And yet you keep coming to this website and engaging in extended conversations with us on a vast range of issues and interests. Odd.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

And yet you keep coming to this website and engaging in extended conversations with us on a vast range of issues and interests. Odd.

I was thinking similar thoughts. OTOH, mad respect to someone living naked and with no tools, yet able to build a computer and network connection without interacting with any people.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

I was thinking similar thoughts. OTOH, mad respect to someone living naked and with no tools, yet able to build a computer and network connection without interacting with any people.

Even on reality shows like Alone, the contestants enjoy challenging themselves and braving the wild by themselves for only so long. They all end up malnourished and craving human contact, and they start out with about 10 pieces of kit to help out. Humans were never made to be alone.

The more people who live together, the more rules we need to survive, but one person alone will still have rules to follow. Even by myself, I'd impose them. Don't pee in the river, or at least upstream from where I camp. Don't make a bunch of noise so I don't scare game away. Never camp right next to the river in case of flooding.

In fact, I'd argue that being alone actually means less freedom to do what you want. A person alone may be able to do many things they couldn't do with a bunch of people around, but they also CAN'T do many things they could do if there was a bunch of people around. Even simple things, like guarding your food from nighttime predators, become a nightmare without help from others.

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The more people who live together, the more rules we need to survive, but one person alone will still have rules to follow. Even by myself, I'd impose them. Don't pee in the river, or at least upstream from where I camp. Don't make a bunch of noise so I don't scare game away. Never camp right next to the river in case of flooding.

I was thinking about that. I think there’s a distinction between “good/bad idea” rules that nature dictates and the rules that we impose on each other.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

I was thinking about that. I think there’s a distinction between “good/bad idea” rules that nature dictates and the rules that we impose on each other.

Indeed, at what point do the rules slide us towards a dystopian society?

And would we be able to tell when we cross the event horizon?

I know I go on and on about a BNW (brave new world) a lot, but imagine that story with a competent AI robotics program, instead of a genetics program; would that society, with all the advantages, be dystopian?

Edited December 21, 2025Dec 21 by dimreepr

On 12/15/2025 at 7:11 PM, raphaelh42 said:

I've read only the 1st post and would like to say something that i believe will hurt some people because they wouldn't want to accept it's true

^ I told you, now you are angry and you attack me because you don't want to accept that when you guys complain about freedom, it's just because the governments' rules don't match your liking, and you don't want to go live in the wild neither

You can't do without the government infrastructures, you don't want to learn to do without it, yet you still complain about not being free because of their rules

On 12/21/2025 at 12:31 AM, Phi for All said:

You actually said this is what you meant, so I'm not sure why you don't recognize the words.

I forgot what you was talking about, sorry

On 12/21/2025 at 1:07 AM, TheVat said:

And yet you keep coming to this website and engaging in extended conversations with us on a vast range of issues and interests. Odd.

I said almost nothing in common with people

We have in common interest to science, you guys are not random people I see when i go out

On 12/21/2025 at 2:28 AM, swansont said:

I was thinking similar thoughts. OTOH, mad respect to someone living naked and with no tools, yet able to build a computer and network connection without interacting with any people.

Using a computer is not required to survive, unlike eating and staying warm

Ah you thought i pretended I build a pc and i live alone in the woods?... anyway

---

Ok i'm done reading what you sent to me, i don't want to spend no more energy for people who lie to themselves and refuse to understand what i said about where the real freedom is

12 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

Ok i'm done reading what you sent to me, i don't want to spend no more energy for people who lie to themselves and refuse to understand what i said about where the real freedom is

Sure, blame it on others, rather than considering the possibility that you aren’t being clear or that what you feel is subjective opinion and not some objective truth.

On 12/20/2025 at 7:00 AM, raphaelh42 said:

I don't understand what you want/wanted to ask me exactly...

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this thread. It’s okay. We can move on.

I suspect it’s not certain human rules from which you want freedom, but instead certain humans in your life. If so, then I’m sorry to hear that and wish you well.

23 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

Ok i'm done reading what you sent to me, i don't want to spend no more energy for people who lie to themselves and refuse to understand what i said about where the real freedom is

OK, I'll bite, what are the coordinates?

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

OK, I'll bite, what are the coordinates

Here you go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninhabited_island

Note that some have no fresh water, or forbidding climates. Pack extra socks.

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

Here you go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninhabited_island

Note that some have no fresh water, or forbidding climates. Pack extra socks.

Thanks but no thanks.

TBH I can't think of worse prison sentence 'life with no possibility of cheese'... 😉

Just a word to the wise-arse @raphaelh42 , we aren't born free from our family, turtles are but most of them die; a child has to obey the rules, an adult understands why... 😉

Seeing this article in The Guardian today, prompted me to think about aspects of freedom where the worst aspects of human nature are grossly amplified....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/18/polymarket-gamblers-threaten-israeli-journalist-missile-strike-wager

While I want the Internet to be as free as possible, I would also see it as a public good if behavior like this were cracked down on, and countries coming together to restrict online gambling. I mean, let's face it: a lot of restrictive laws only exist because of rotten apples like these. Such laws don't affect most of us, and it reminds those they do affect that maximum freedom is only achieved when people can police themselves. When you fail to restrain your worst impulses, then the consequence is that others will step in and do so, usually in a very unpleasant way. If that consequence is not there, then the wolves will gradually take over.

On 12/21/2025 at 7:16 AM, Phi for All said:

In fact, I'd argue that being alone actually means less freedom to do what you want. A person alone may be able to do many things they couldn't do with a bunch of people around, but they also CAN'T do many things they could do if there was a bunch of people around. Even simple things, like guarding your food from nighttime predators, become a nightmare without help from others.

I completely agree with you on this. Freedom is one of the most misunderstood ideas in modern society. If I wanted to be a free man, I could abandon society entirely and live alone in some distant land. But then I would spend more of my life worrying about survival than actually enjoying that freedom. I would likely devote most of my time to finding or growing food, whereas in society I can use that time to think, do mathematics, or even watch football. Freedom is meaningful only when one has the time and resources to exercise it. Things like refraining from peeing by the side of the road are small sacrifices we make that do not meaningfully affect our broader conception of freedom.

6 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

I completely agree with you on this. Freedom is one of the most misunderstood ideas in modern society. If I wanted to be a free man, I could abandon society entirely and live alone in some distant land. But then I would spend more of my life worrying about survival than actually enjoying that freedom. I would likely devote most of my time to finding or growing food, whereas in society I can use that time to think, do mathematics, or even watch football. Freedom is meaningful only when one has the time and resources to exercise it. Things like refraining from peeing by the side of the road are small sacrifices we make that do not meaningfully affect our broader conception of freedom.

Have you ever wondered if your sense of freedom, is correct or just another rabbit hole we flee to as an excuse to misunderstand, a reason we hold dear?

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Have you ever wondered if your sense of freedom, is correct or just another rabbit hole we flee to as an excuse to misunderstand, a reason we hold dear?

If I understand your question correctly, I believe it concerns the subject of free will and for personal reasons, I prefer not to engage with that topic right now. That being said, I think we all recognize that freedom and free will, though closely related, are still distinct notions. Oftentimes, people conflate the two. I see freedom as largely external. It is a condition in which choices are available and we can act on them (regardless of whether those choices are truly our own). A society that provides maximal opportunities for an individual or group is therefore a society with the most freedom. By this measure, I can say with certainty that I have far more freedom than a prisoner because I lack the external constraints they face. In this context, questions about free will do not affect the reality of practical freedom.

16 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

If I wanted to be a free man, I could abandon society entirely and live alone in some distant land. But then I would spend more of my life worrying about survival than actually enjoying that freedom.

But what of those who occupied that garden of Eden before you? Or those who would seek to displace you from it? What of their freedom? Biology has shown us that vacant, habitable niches are highly unstable. The occupant has to first fight for it and then defend it.

... or rely on some external agency to sacrifice some of their freedom to defend yours.

16 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

I would likely devote most of my time to finding or growing food,

So freedom only counts if it doesn't involve invasion, self-defence, gardening, or cooking? What about constructing shelter? Collecting firewood? Water and sanitation? Health care?

... perhaps that external agency would sacrifice more of their own precious freedom to supply you with some or all of these also?

16 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

whereas in society I can use that time to think, do mathematics, or even watch football. Freedom is meaningful only when one has the time and resources to exercise it.

But it seems to me a) you have no inclination to repay that external agency (which we can call 'society') for the freedoms they have given away in order to create yours; and b) I cannot distinguish your use of the word 'freedom' from the general usage of the word 'comfort'.

2 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

A society that provides maximal opportunities for an individual or group is therefore a society with the most freedom.

If that particular individual or group have chosen to sub-contract out responsibility for the vast majority of significant life choices to an external agency in return for:

2 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

By this measure, I can say with certainty that I have far more freedom than a prisoner because I lack the external constraints they face.

... the copious free time and resources of a (not entirely metaphorical) prison cell.

Your post reminded me that after 50 years thinking about it off and on, I still can't decide between Sartre and Camus on this.

In short, Sartre’s answer would not be a fixed goal, but a task:

... to continually define oneself through free, responsible action in a meaningless universe, through communication, political involvement, and commitment to others. ie. to be a constructive, adult participant in society.

Camus’ “purpose” would not be to define oneself, but to experience life intensely, lucidly, and defiantly—like Sisyphus, who finds contentment in endlessly pushing his rock. (or performing mathematical feats in his prison cell).

Neither of these exercises in freedom are the safe and comfortable options. They both come with serious responsibilities.

15 hours ago, DavidWahl said:

If I understand your question correctly, I believe it concerns the subject of free will and for personal reasons, I prefer not to engage with that topic right now. That being said, I think we all recognize that freedom and free will, though closely related, are still distinct notions. Oftentimes, people conflate the two. I see freedom as largely external. It is a condition in which choices are available and we can act on them (regardless of whether those choices are truly our own). A society that provides maximal opportunities for an individual or group is therefore a society with the most freedom. By this measure, I can say with certainty that I have far more freedom than a prisoner because I lack the external constraints they face. In this context, questions about free will do not affect the reality of practical freedom.

What about your own self imposed lack of freedom?

The reality of freedom in this context is conflating freedom of movement with the freedom to have a guilt free normal nights sleep.

Convicts on the run have been reported as being relieved to having been caught, bc they no longer have to face the worry of constantly being hyper-vigilant in every waking moment.

12 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

In short, Sartre’s answer would not be a fixed goal, but a task:

... to continually define oneself through free, responsible action in a meaningless universe, through communication, political involvement, and commitment to others. ie. to be a constructive, adult participant in society.

Camus’ “purpose” would not be to define oneself, but to experience life intensely, lucidly, and defiantly—like Sisyphus, who finds contentment in endlessly pushing his rock. (or performing mathematical feats in his prison cell).

Neither of these exercises in freedom are the safe and comfortable options. They both come with serious responsibilities.

Most of us don't inhabit the extremes of these thought's, bc we don't want the responsibility.

Most of us are perfectly happy to be led down the path to a brave new world, by means of somer.

Aldous Huxley was sure that somer was an artificial god and so, much less potent; which sort of sits with Nietzche and his quest for a substitute to the god we've destroyed.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Most of us don't inhabit the extremes of these thought's, bc we don't want the responsibility.

Responsibility is thrust upon us whether we would wish it or not. The way things seem to be going, 'most of us' need to grow up before reality bites us on the bum.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Most of us are perfectly happy to be led down the path to a brave new world, by means of somera.

Some perhaps.

@DavidWahl 's definition of freedom is more the mediaeval utopian idealism of a Cockayne or Luilekkerland. I share some aspects of it myself to a certain extent. Who wouldn't want to live in a land where:

roasted pigs wander about with knives in their backs to make carving easy, where grilled geese fly directly into one's mouth, where cooked fish jump out of the water and land at one's feet. The weather is always mild, the wine flows freely, sex is readily available, and all people enjoy eternal youth.

It's an age old fantasy, still shared by many.

13 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Responsibility is thrust upon us whether we would wish it or not. The way things seem to be going, 'most of us' need to grow up before reality bites us on the bum.

Reality is thrust upon us whether we would wish it or not.

Growing up, to what standard before reality bites?

Responsibility is more a question of circumstances, for instance, when does your responsibility to protect your kids by not dying, out weighed by the needs of one of your five kids, in immediate danger?

14 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Some perhaps.

@DavidWahl 's definition of freedom is more the mediaeval utopian idealism of a Cockayne or Luilekkerland. I share some aspects of it myself to a certain extent. Who wouldn't want to live in a land where:

  Quote

roasted pigs wander about with knives in their backs to make carving easy, where grilled geese fly directly into one's mouth, where cooked fish jump out of the water and land at one's feet. The weather is always mild, the wine flows freely, sex is readily available, and all people enjoy eternal youth.

It's an age old fantasy, still shared by many.

I think this is more a question of free will than freedom, humans tend to be predisposed to a mystical, god shaped, dimension; how does a rational approach replace that fundamental need?

But now that we are free to laugh at the stupid, religious, people, we feel guilty every time we put on our lucky socks.

Edited Monday at 12:43 PM3 days by dimreepr

48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Responsibility is more a question of circumstances, for instance, when does your responsibility to protect your kids by not dying, out weighed by the needs of one of your five kids, in immediate danger?

A rather extreme and melodramatic example, but with the appropriate life insurance policy...

Kin altruism certainly shaped (or excused) many of the (free?) choices I made in my adult life; willingly accepting the responsibility of raising a brood of good little numerate atheists, well-equipped to fend for themselves in uncertain times.

Strangely, I found that adapting to meet the economic constraints imposed by family responsibility did not have to compromise my personal freedom. Quite the reverse. Which leads me to suspect that just as one defines one's own purpose in life, one can also define what freedoms one can indulge in. However, there are always trade-offs. No free lunches and all that.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I think this is more a question of free will than freedom, humans tend to be predisposed to a mystical, god shaped, dimension; how does a rational approach replace that fundamental need?

I'm rather bored by the free-will debate. Evolution has given me the very strong impression that my significant choices are made freely, and it suits me to accept that at face value if not as an article of faith then at least by Occam's Razor. The principle of personal responsibility for one's actions seems a lot more useful.

I'm going to call your 'mystical, god-shaped dimension' Luilekkerland; declare that there's nothing fundamental about it (it's just a childish fantasy); and leave Darwin to decide who made the best evolutionary choice: the priest or the engineer.

The Epstein files are full of those weak-willed enough to be lured into Luilekkerland.

Reality has now bitten a few of them on the bum. (Looking at you, Andy Mount-Battenburg)

Edited Monday at 02:37 PM3 days by sethoflagos

21 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

A rather extreme and melodramatic example, but with the appropriate life insurance policy...

Kin altruism certainly shaped (or excused) many of the (free?) choices I made in my adult life; willingly accepting the responsibility of raising a brood of good little numerate atheists, well-equipped to fend for themselves in uncertain times.

Strangely, I found that adapting to meet the economic constraints imposed by family responsibility did not have to compromise my personal freedom. Quite the reverse. Which leads me to suspect that just as one defines one's own purpose in life, one can also define what freedoms one can indulge in. However, there are always trade-offs. No free lunches and all that.

It's only seems like an extreme example bc you've never been hungry enough to eat from the gutter; in the unlikely event that you have to choose between eating that dirty morsal or give it to your equally hungrey child, then how could you understand my point.

Life Insurance/assurance is only money and you can't eat that...

21 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I'm going to call your 'mystical, god-shaped dimension' Luilekkerland; declare that there's nothing fundamental about it (it's just a childish fantasy); and leave Darwin to decide who made the best evolutionary choice: the priest or the engineer.

Why are they mutually exclusive?

This is not a binary question, for instance, what if one of your darling little athiests wanted to believe that grandad is still 'somewhere' and smiling down on it's godless soul?

You should read some Nietzche, start here.

22 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I'm rather bored by the free-will debate. Evolution has given me the very strong impression that my significant choices are made freely, and it suits me to accept that at face value if not as an article of faith then at least by Occam's Razor. The principle of personal responsibility for one's actions seems a lot more useful.

The trouble with Occam's Razor is, it's only superficially true at every level...

Edited Tuesday at 12:38 PM2 days by dimreepr

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's only seems like an extreme example bc you've never been hungry enough to eat from the gutter; in the unlikely event that you have to choose between eating that dirty morsal or give it to your equally hungrey child, then how could you understand my point.

Then by the same token, you must fail to understand it too. Pointless and off topic.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

  On 3/23/2026 at 3:23 PM, sethoflagos said:

I'm going to call your 'mystical, god-shaped dimension' Luilekkerland; declare that there's nothing fundamental about it (it's just a childish fantasy); and leave Darwin to decide who made the best evolutionary choice: the priest or the engineer.

Why are they mutually exclusive?

The priest promises relief from hardship in the afterlife; the engineer strives to deliver it in the present.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You should read some Nietzche, start here.

Sorry, I don't do angst.

As a palliative I'd recommend The Roads to Freedom. Both more constructive and on topic.

Overall, "the Roads to Freedom as a trilogy reflects many of Sartre's best-known existentialist concepts, including bad faith, or self-deception, the acknowledgment of freedom that comes with both anguish and personal responsibility for one's actions, and how those actions embody the personal and social morality that one promotes."

14 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

The priest promises relief from hardship in the afterlife; the engineer strives to deliver it in the present.

A priest can't be an engineer?

What if the promise of the afterlife relieves the hardship of the present?

14 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Then by the same token, you must fail to understand it too. Pointless and off topic.

I've been thirsty enough to share a dirty water trough with a herd of cow's, my point is you can't know how you'll react in a stressful situation.

The Dunning and Krueger crowd will be utterly convinced that, in a life and death situation, they will act in a morally and heroic way, some might, but most of us will try to hide and hope we don't piss our pants.

Seems entirely appropriate in a topic labelled 'the false flag of freedom'.

14 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Sorry, I don't do angst.

As a palliative I'd recommend The Roads to Freedom. Both more constructive and on topic.

How does one know one's level freedom from within one's prison?

If you don't do angst then you don't do philosophy, as a palliative I'd recommend 'A Brave New World', and imagine that you're the 'savage'.