Metaphysical rubbish, for which you have no proper answer?

Man, at the very least initially, does not choose to exist. That much is a fact, and no amount of tirading will change that.

For one, the State owns your body, literally. — baker

Morally that is certainly not the case, assuming we can agree on such basic things as the right to bodily integrity.

If such is the case in practice, then I hope we can also agree that it is morally reprehensible and such situations should have been done away with in 1863, which is already several millenia too late.

Yes, you would like to make the claim that individuals owe their existence to the societies they are born into, forgetting the fact that man doesn't choose what society he is born into, nor does he choose to exist at all. I see no reason why this situation would forfeit his essential freedom, which can only be a result of voluntary choice, or such is my view.

And you are just an internet philsopher. Your point?

...but pretty much any human is born into webs of social, political and even ecological relations which pretty much everything around it, webs upon which they are dependent upon for their very existence. — StreetlightX

None of which, at least initially, a result of his voluntary choice.

Therefore I believe none of these to hold any moral claim to him.

I just don't see that freedom. — baker

If you don't see that man is in essence free, you must believe that his existence can belong to someone else. Who?

But this is not true of any existing human being. — StreetlightX

Oh, then by whom, by virtue of their existence, are they rightfully owned or to whom are they rightfully indebted?

One would assume that the denizens of this forum would be intelligent enough to understand that the phrase "Man is born free" does not imply that babies are born in absolute physical freedom.

Man is born unindebted, under possession or moral authority of no state, society or individual. — Tzeentch

One would assume that the denizens of this forum would be intelligent enough to understand that the phrase "Man is born free" does not imply that babies are born in absolute physical freedom.

Man is born unindebted, under possession or moral authority of no state, society or individual.

The individualist notion of freedom is literally infantile. — StreetlightX

Beyond infantile, individualism is inherently moribund - a dead ideology. — Maw

Luckily there is anti-individualism, and what delightful historical company do we find ourselves in!

So for example if a kid were raised in a, oh I don't know, heavy libertarian culture and eventually applied their God given critical thinking skills to discover that they've been manipulated, would they throw off the invisible chains and go on to undo the damage and work to help empower the working class? — praxis

Sure, why not? If they are guided by reason and that is where it takes them. However, one would hope that since they had to undo the damage done to them, they would apply methods that do not do the same to others.

More seriously, if I'm following correctly it appears to be a catch 22 situation. The freer a person becomes the more responsibility they assume, but the more responsibility they assume the less free they become. — praxis

A free person more readily recognizes and accepts those responsibilities that are theirs, because they chose them voluntarily. They do not necessarily assume more responsibilities. While responsibilities limit one's freedom, since I believe responsibilities can only be assumed and not imposed they are an extension of one's own free will.

Human nature. One wants better for themselves. — Outlander

I don't share that view of human nature, and frankly I think attempts at psychoanalyzing complete strangers sooner point towards projection.

What about all the other individuals who do not need constraints? Are they are just to be considered collateral damage?

If, on the other hand you think human beings are by nature social animals then there must be constraints if we are to live together in peace. — Fooloso4

I don't require constraints to live in peace with others.

From an early age individuals are taught what to believe. By their parents, by the educational system, politicians and so forth. This happens before the individual is capable of critical thought.

If the individual develops critical thinking, they have a chance to reevaluate all they know, and rid themselves of the false beliefs of others.

The "invisible bonds" are the beliefs of others, and one is still inherently free, because one by virtue of their own mental faculty holds the key to the lock.

If a person is actually free then they can freely assume responsibility. So why is there such an apparent lack of it? — praxis

While individuals are inherently free, they must still actively accept that freedom, and few do.

Most are enslaved in their formative years and never escape their (mostly psychological) bonds, sadly.

It seems to be the case that only when accept the fact that we’re not free, accept our interdependence, that we may tend to become more responsible. And because we’re a social species this acceptance may provide meaning and an enhanced sense of well-being, feeling part of something greater than ourselves. — praxis

For some those things may very well be true. For others, maybe not.

I am in favor of individuals making such choices freely.

What if your ability to live where, in the manner in which you've become accustomed and act as you please and state what you state is the sole result of claiming the essential freedoms of another? — Outlander

Then shame on whoever did that claiming.

So, you don't quite believe this, you believe in protecting a familiar status quo that serves you and little more, just another case of looking out for number one. — Outlander

I believe what I stated, and this is just an underhanded (and sleep-inducingly old) attempt at framing it as selfishness.

What makes you believe I am so fond of the status quo?

Fixed.

Does that not happen where you are from? — Fooloso4

Oh, sure. I just don't believe any of it to be legitimate.

The family is a social structure with rules and differences in power. It is not freedom without constraint. — Fooloso4

I don't think a state of nature implies freedom without constraint either. I'm having trouble seeing how this relates to my earlier posts.

Society is a group of people. — Fooloso4

And this group of people can lay a claim to the individual's freedom or impose responsibilities, then?

Man has never lived in a state of nature. There has always been some organization, starting with the family. — Fooloso4

I don't think a state of nature implies an absence of families.

Man is born into a society not a "state of nature". — Fooloso4

What is society, and how did it take man out of this "state of nature"?

Man is born utterly dependent, actually, and compared to other mammals remains that way for a very long time. — praxis

Dependency does not detract from his essential freedom. Unless you wish to argue individuals may claim moral authority over others?

Man is also a social species and is therefore irrevocably tied to others of his kind. — praxis

I don't think that applies to all of mankind, or is inherently true for all individuals.

Right, that's the problem, not enough assuming. — praxis

Perhaps. Maybe there is too much imposing.

I think control is counter-productive to individuals developing into independent adults capable of taking responsibility in the first place.

And yet he is free. In fact, children are more free than most adults.

Assuredly, the one and only reason, no other option you dictate and expect or will look down on or dismiss others if not agreed upon. — Outlander

I think any claims to another's essential freedom is to be looked down upon and dismissed. One of the few claims for which I think that to be the case. Would you object to this?

Far too often men confuse freedom with abandonment of responsibility, — Outlander

In a word: responsibility. People like freedom but responsibility is a big bummer. — praxis

That’s very true. Increasing the space of individual freedom gives opportunity to the irresponsible individual as much as to the responsible one. Personally I wouldn’t have it any other way. — NOS4A2

Man is born free and without responsibility. Responsibility can only be a result of his own voluntary actions. Responsibility is assumed, and not imposed.

Individualism is problematic especially to those who would like to lay claim to the individual and use him for their own purposes.

Surely, the only reason one can object to an individual choosing the path of freedom is because one fears one may lose their hold on him.

"Every individual needs revolution, inner division, overthrow of the existing order, and renewal, but not by forcing them upon his neighbours under the hypocritical cloak of ... the sense of social responsibility or any of the other beautiful euphemisms for unconscious urges to personal power. Individual self-reflection, return of the individual to the ground of human nature, to his own deepest being with its individual and social destiny - here is the beginning of a cure for that blindness which reigns at the present hour."
- Carl Jung, Two Essays in Analytical Psychology

Most people see themselves as good. This is just not the case. I think we are born with both potentials but tilt towards evil. Anything too add? — Caleb Mercado

Evil, in my opinion, requires an intention to hurt. The degree to which one produces suffering unintentionally, I call that ignorance.

I don't agree that most people are tilted towards evil, though maybe there is something to be said for most people doing harm as a result of their ignorance.

I'd love to talk about Jung and his ideas. The link is not working for me however. Perhaps you could share a particular idea of Jung you'd like to discuss? Or maybe summarize the conclusion of the video?

Looney is the word I'd use for those who would seek to impose their moral views on others through state coercion.

Trying to do good by doing evil is one of those terrible paradoxes that typify the worst parts of human history.

Fear and death alike will eventually be preventable. — David Pearce

What reason is there to want to prevent death, if not for a fear of it?

Transcending humanity through reverence of its basic drives: fear of death and desire for pleasure.

This should be called hyperhumanism!

In principle, any reasonable person should be able to retrace Einstein's steps, follow his logic, and of course test the predictions derived from his theory. — j0e

Most would probably be able to reach a surface level understanding of his theories. To reach the level of understanding of Einstein though, would likely be beyond most people's intellective capabilities.

Some individuals are able to reach levels of understanding that others cannot, through hard work and dedication, and possibly also genetic disposition.

He doesn't just get to say 'because I say so, because I have a third eye that you do not have.' His mind would be judged uncommon by its fruits, rather than the reverse. — j0e

Sages usually offer some form of teaching (a method that can be tested), and also a reason to be interested in those teachings. Perhaps they seem very happy and wise (the fruits).

I'd agree if these things aren't present, then one has plenty of reason to doubt the genuiness of this sage.

There may be an important difference in the 'exalted' sage. It's not just a matter of knowing our shared reality in more detail but seemingly knowing an otherwise secret reality through an uncommon faculty. — j0e

Can you explain that difference?

At the surface there seems to be one, but on further inspection I'm not so sure. Weren't the bits of reality that Einstein laid bare through his works "secret"? And wasn't his extraordinary mind an uncommon faculty?

It seems to me that many intellectual fields require extensive study of the subject and/or a certain intellectual faculty that not everbody possesses in order to be understood.

Development of understanding is a process, requiring dedication and a sharp mind.

Not everyone can view the world the way Einstein or Jung did (let alone develop such views independently), yet I hope we can agree they had some interesting things to say.

Buddhism DOES want to tell to others (at least to those who ask for it) how to live. — god must be atheist

That is a rather key distinction for me.

Philosophy.

To my mind people make unnecessary distinctions in social-political theory. — Gregory

Agreed. As far as I am concerned, they are all misplaced opinions about how other individuals should live their lives.

I do not support control of a country by a single person — Gregory

I do not support control of a single person by a country.

You seem like a sensible person, but you apply your ideas selectively.

So the groups Marxism posits one belongs to are illusory as well?

The term "social identity" to me suggests an exterior source of self, which I think is contrary to what Buddhism teaches.

Is Buddhism about social identity?

I don't see how having strong opinions about how others should live their lives is in any way complementary to Buddhist ideas. I'd sooner consider it contrary.