Modern “Freedom” Means Being a Slave to Impulses(lukesmith.xyz)
lukesmith.xyz
Modern “Freedom” Means Being a Slave to Impulses
https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/modern-freedom-means-being-a-slave-to-impulses
13 comments
Standard existentialism. We are condemned to be free.
"God will set you free". Got it. Now which god?
Any god of a tradition that's been successfully around for a few thousand years would be a good start.
Even if you don't believe in a deity, the traditions of a successful culture are worth considering given we only have a few years to figure out what a good life looks like before we die.
Even if you don't believe in a deity, the traditions of a successful culture are worth considering given we only have a few years to figure out what a good life looks like before we die.
Honestly, zoroastrism does not appeal to me very much.
You can start by investigating the 3 major religions: Islam, Christianity, Judaism and finding out which one preserved its message without corruption. Which one is singularly unique in how it invented a system to do.
Even if you extend the search to beyond those three, you're going to end up with the same conclusion.
Even if you extend the search to beyond those three, you're going to end up with the same conclusion.
While an interesting topic, the author needs to tone down the sexism before it seems like it deserves a place on HackerNews
If you're referring to the Christian tradition that the author brings up - it's usually men that are admonished by that tradition explicitly, because men need to hear it. Generally, it's considered that women and mothers don't need as much instruction being a later (or more fulfilled) act of creation than men.
It's also why the deceiver focused on Eve first - if she fell, Adam would surly follow.
It's also why the deceiver focused on Eve first - if she fell, Adam would surly follow.
And yet it's not only men who are admonished by the article. An example of a woman is given, too. That one example is of a woman who isn't monogamous and is "left with nothing".
What is it that she has lost?
What is it that she has lost?
I think it's a shorthand for implying the application of her youthful beauty funneled into a deep romance to establish a lasting relationship. Some beauty can prolong into older ages, but some of us are just beautiful and highly desirable when we're young. I think it's sort of an interesting population level evolutionary trait, it makes sense that the desirable/attractiveness phase would overlap with the fertile phase, and would both decline together. Having the infertile mix with the fertile is not populationally optimal.
I suspect your the nature of your objection is something you can't quite grasp yourself. Calling it sexist seems a safe way of attack.
It is one thing to know that we like or don't like something. Much harder is understanding why. Usually we give the first acceptable "reason" that comes to mind rather than trying to figure it out. Figuring out why we like or not often takes a number of thought experiments.
It is one thing to know that we like or don't like something. Much harder is understanding why. Usually we give the first acceptable "reason" that comes to mind rather than trying to figure it out. Figuring out why we like or not often takes a number of thought experiments.
Nope, I’m looking at some pretty specific frames the author is pushing, see below.
> Calling it sexist seems a safe way of attack.
Not really, this article is sexist. But alright, this is not reason enough to dismiss it.
The illustration of nihilism show a complete misunderstanding of what nihilism is (the enlightment strawman is pretty intersting too).
Theologians usually do have an education in philosophy and in history, so the man writing this is probably not one. I'm not saying only theologians have the right to reflect on religion, but they are often more thoughtfull than random bloggers.
Although i was educated with classical/continental philosophy, i did read a lot of analytic philosophy, and if the writer is American or from the commonwealth, he was exposed to analytic philosophy (or at least more than i was). And that shows in the development of his article.
But before you craft, you should learn from your master and from your peers, and the writer pretty much ignored all modern analytical works and wrote something that is so behind his time that it becomes interesting to read and to understand.
Not really, this article is sexist. But alright, this is not reason enough to dismiss it.
The illustration of nihilism show a complete misunderstanding of what nihilism is (the enlightment strawman is pretty intersting too).
Theologians usually do have an education in philosophy and in history, so the man writing this is probably not one. I'm not saying only theologians have the right to reflect on religion, but they are often more thoughtfull than random bloggers.
Although i was educated with classical/continental philosophy, i did read a lot of analytic philosophy, and if the writer is American or from the commonwealth, he was exposed to analytic philosophy (or at least more than i was). And that shows in the development of his article.
But before you craft, you should learn from your master and from your peers, and the writer pretty much ignored all modern analytical works and wrote something that is so behind his time that it becomes interesting to read and to understand.
What sexism specifically?
Well this to start: “ A woman who sleeps around throughout her twenties and is left with nothing is not free.”
There’s a lot of pretty messed up sexism packed in there.
There’s a lot of pretty messed up sexism packed in there.
That's not sexism. It's contrary to the modern feminist idea that woman can do that the same as men and it's perfectly healthy for them. That's just an idea, not a fact, and personally I've come to doubt that it's true for most women. Maybe not for most men either, tougher to say.
It's reflective of the authors values, not sexist. It's not discriminatory towards women.
It's reflective of the authors values, not sexist. It's not discriminatory towards women.
> It's reflective of the authors values, not sexist.
It’s reflective of the author’s values, which are sexist.
It’s reflective of the author’s values, which are sexist.
Maybe, maybe not. You'll have to share with me proof if you want me to believe that.
I hope you're not just saying that on the basis of that one statement, that'd just be trying to pass ignorance off as knowledge.
I hope you're not just saying that on the basis of that one statement, that'd just be trying to pass ignorance off as knowledge.
That's also the author's only reference to women by my reading (did I miss another?), the rest are explicitly directed at men.
Disconnect from it all and go buy a motorcycle on an impulse. This will explain what freedom means on two wheels better than I can:
https://youtu.be/KLOlPBGlq0U
https://youtu.be/KLOlPBGlq0U
Who is more free:
1) An average man who is only not a drug addict because he lives in a country where drugs are regulated or shamed in a way to make them hard to obtain.
2) An average man who succumbs to addiction in such a country, and is now in a never-ending cycle in and out of prison and living on the street and at daily risk of death because there's no way to ensure that the drugs he takes aren't 100x as potent as he was expecting because it's easier for the cartels to sneak the product over the border that way?
1) An average man who is only not a drug addict because he lives in a country where drugs are regulated or shamed in a way to make them hard to obtain.
2) An average man who succumbs to addiction in such a country, and is now in a never-ending cycle in and out of prison and living on the street and at daily risk of death because there's no way to ensure that the drugs he takes aren't 100x as potent as he was expecting because it's easier for the cartels to sneak the product over the border that way?
2 - Bad argument against freedom, especially in a context where a major
Drug abuse is mostly a form of escapism. So freedom isn't the problem, issues that drive people to consume drugs are. Although even many healthy people indulge in drug use. We had that argument with alcohol before...
Drug abuse is mostly a form of escapism. So freedom isn't the problem, issues that drive people to consume drugs are. Although even many healthy people indulge in drug use. We had that argument with alcohol before...
One could get addicted to religious rituals instead. Such addiction is not entirely harmless, tends to damage relationships.
I disagree the goal of normal society is "to lead people away from lasciviousness and impulsive behavior." That is not enough to live a good life. And when we tried it, it ended up with neverending war on drugs.
Society should lead toward something. I think it should be toward a meaning. With the implicit understanding that there is no meaning in impulsive addictive behavior. Catholicism (and christianity generally) should not have a problem with that, as it is incredibly rich with meaning and it's so sad to see it all reduced to rigid morals, orders and prohibitions.
I disagree the goal of normal society is "to lead people away from lasciviousness and impulsive behavior." That is not enough to live a good life. And when we tried it, it ended up with neverending war on drugs.
Society should lead toward something. I think it should be toward a meaning. With the implicit understanding that there is no meaning in impulsive addictive behavior. Catholicism (and christianity generally) should not have a problem with that, as it is incredibly rich with meaning and it's so sad to see it all reduced to rigid morals, orders and prohibitions.
I'm not a philosopher by trade, so I probably have this all wrong, but if we're going to be enslaved to something anyway, isn't freedom at least the ability to choose what to be enslaved by? Virtue or vice, impulses or careful planning (and the consequences of these things)... your choice, not someone else's?
You can give multiple meaning to freedom:
1: i am legally allowed to do X
2: I am legally allowed to do X and you are forbidden to prevent me from doing X
and you can even push to this one:
3: I am legally allowed to do X, you are forbidden to prevent me from doing X, and i am able to do X without discomfort/sacrifice (this can be broken into smaller parts too, but i think this is enough)
Freedom implies moral responsibility of your choices (this can be debated, but i think the modern debate lean to that conclusion): if you are enslaved and are not responsible, you have no freedom at all. So physical addictions remove your freedom. You can do thought experiments about which addictions remove your freedoms and which do not, but i recon most drugs won't really change your freedom.
1: i am legally allowed to do X
2: I am legally allowed to do X and you are forbidden to prevent me from doing X
and you can even push to this one:
3: I am legally allowed to do X, you are forbidden to prevent me from doing X, and i am able to do X without discomfort/sacrifice (this can be broken into smaller parts too, but i think this is enough)
Freedom implies moral responsibility of your choices (this can be debated, but i think the modern debate lean to that conclusion): if you are enslaved and are not responsible, you have no freedom at all. So physical addictions remove your freedom. You can do thought experiments about which addictions remove your freedoms and which do not, but i recon most drugs won't really change your freedom.
"A drug addict is not free. A teenager who gets home from school everyday, closes his door and watches internet pornography is not free. A person who compulsively checks their social media feed when they wake up or are minorly bored is not free."
This thing sounds like it was written by a 12 year old
This thing sounds like it was written by a 12 year old
This article is fairly inane, but just to comment on this one minor point:
>Even extreme libertarians will probably say (2) is in a better place, but might chalk things up to (1) needing to have more discipline and they'll make up some just-so story as for why unambiguously bad drugs, or pornography, or dangerous things should be allowed anyway.
No, an (informed) extreme libertarian would try to dissolve this as a false dichotomy. They'd perhaps talk about various insurance schemes and contracts, which an individual is free to enter or leave (in the same way that they're free to choose between a countries with more or less harsh drug regulations), but which can still constrain an individual's actions/impulses in the short term for their own benefit.
Similarly, a modern liberal might defend the freedom to choose which country you live in, on similar grounds.
I felt the urge to respond to this just because such arguments are much more interesting than the author's attack on straw-liberals/libertarians
>Even extreme libertarians will probably say (2) is in a better place, but might chalk things up to (1) needing to have more discipline and they'll make up some just-so story as for why unambiguously bad drugs, or pornography, or dangerous things should be allowed anyway.
No, an (informed) extreme libertarian would try to dissolve this as a false dichotomy. They'd perhaps talk about various insurance schemes and contracts, which an individual is free to enter or leave (in the same way that they're free to choose between a countries with more or less harsh drug regulations), but which can still constrain an individual's actions/impulses in the short term for their own benefit.
Similarly, a modern liberal might defend the freedom to choose which country you live in, on similar grounds.
I felt the urge to respond to this just because such arguments are much more interesting than the author's attack on straw-liberals/libertarians
> Enlightenment "freedom" is only the freedom to perfectly follow the whims of impulses and vices indiscriminately.
Highly convenient definition if one wants to slander something. Aka, a straw-man argument.
Actually, freedom means finding a balance between vice and virtue that suits ones personality. With too much virtue one would do serious activity too much, basically overworking oneself. With too much vice one does things that are inadvisable for health and one accomplishes nothing.
Highly convenient definition if one wants to slander something. Aka, a straw-man argument.
Actually, freedom means finding a balance between vice and virtue that suits ones personality. With too much virtue one would do serious activity too much, basically overworking oneself. With too much vice one does things that are inadvisable for health and one accomplishes nothing.
” With too much virtue one would do serious activity too much, basically overworking oneself.”
This also seems like a strawman of what virtue is (because in the west work is considered virtuous and leisure is not, which is unfortunate ).
This also seems like a strawman of what virtue is (because in the west work is considered virtuous and leisure is not, which is unfortunate ).
> Enlightenment "freedom" is only the freedom to perfectly follow the whims of impulses and vices indiscriminately.
Boy, freedom does sound pretty bad when you define it that way.
Very few people would earnestly argue a worthwhile life is the sum of arbitrary indulgence, and the author puts zero effort into making a case that's an accurate and whole representation of enlightenment or western values, nor do they put any particular effort into making a case for their slave-to-discipline or slave-to-impulse dichotomy.
In fact, the case is stretched to the point where it seems plausible this piece is as much some sort of attack on enlightenment or western values as it is any kind of philosophical examination of freedom.
Enlightenment/western freedom, as far as I can tell, actually seems to be a balancing act between recognition that individuals are most likely to best be able to determine what self-actualization means, within certain bounds (the right to swing your fist ends at the end of others nose and all that). You have individual freedom out to a point that's collectively negotiated, ideally with majority buy-in and even under reasoned principles, and accountability past that point. There may be individual or collective failures here but they'll be within a bound of acceptable error that will still cause less suffering than, say, letting a privileged minority impose their personal vision of morality on everyone in the name of freedom through moral strength.
That position is certainly not above criticism. Perhaps some day the author will even arrive at something resembling an engaged and thoughtful criticism rather than indulging their own unexamined and unsupported impulse towards strict father vs a degenerate society narratives.
Boy, freedom does sound pretty bad when you define it that way.
Very few people would earnestly argue a worthwhile life is the sum of arbitrary indulgence, and the author puts zero effort into making a case that's an accurate and whole representation of enlightenment or western values, nor do they put any particular effort into making a case for their slave-to-discipline or slave-to-impulse dichotomy.
In fact, the case is stretched to the point where it seems plausible this piece is as much some sort of attack on enlightenment or western values as it is any kind of philosophical examination of freedom.
Enlightenment/western freedom, as far as I can tell, actually seems to be a balancing act between recognition that individuals are most likely to best be able to determine what self-actualization means, within certain bounds (the right to swing your fist ends at the end of others nose and all that). You have individual freedom out to a point that's collectively negotiated, ideally with majority buy-in and even under reasoned principles, and accountability past that point. There may be individual or collective failures here but they'll be within a bound of acceptable error that will still cause less suffering than, say, letting a privileged minority impose their personal vision of morality on everyone in the name of freedom through moral strength.
That position is certainly not above criticism. Perhaps some day the author will even arrive at something resembling an engaged and thoughtful criticism rather than indulging their own unexamined and unsupported impulse towards strict father vs a degenerate society narratives.
[deleted]
Is this really the best definition of freedom this fellow could muster?