Orwell got it right. Freedom is Slavery

He couldn't have gotten everything right. Ignorance certainly isn't strength, or we would all be gods.

Funnily enough my aim in life is to become more ignorant. I fear ‘knowing’ far more than ignorance.

The more I explore the more my ignorance is revealed. Ignorance is my primary pursuit.

Funnily enough my aim in life is to become more ignorant. I fear ‘knowing’ far more than ignorance. — I like sushi

Well, at least your goal is achievable, you definitely get points for that.

The more I explore the more my ignorance is revealed. Ignorance is my primary pursuit. — I like sushi

I know this very thread stresses that dictionary definitions aren't everything, but I think you might have ignorance and stupidity confused.

Ignorance
noun
lack of knowledge or information.

Stupidity
noun
behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment.

By exploring, you gain knowledge, so that is the opposite of ignorance. You may, however, see the truth and refuse to acknowledge it. Not paying your taxes despite knowing the consequences is stupid for sure, but probably more fun at least in the short term. If I understand you correctly, the more you see the complexity of the world, the more you wish to be simple, yes? I think it's almost undeniable that while you might live a shorter life, that life will be much more fun.

Nope! The greater the information the greater the ignorance. It is only through presuming to know an answer to a question that ignorance expands - go far enough and the very concept of ‘question’ begins to unravel.

Any claim of ‘knowledge’ necessarily leads to a plethora of new problems that we cannot frame properly. Knowledge is ignorance in this sense.

When we find certain kinds of antonyms they show themselves to be something quite extraordinary. Freedom requires an understanding of limit, limitations are inhibitors on said freedom - or rather, forced (slave like) limits are necessary for any sense of freedom.

Furthermore we could regard the concept of ‘sight’ and ‘blindness’. A species of animals that are ‘blind’ are not ‘blind’ - they are blind only from our forcing our position on theirs. There are many tricky elements to such apparent antonyms as some negations are taken as antonyms (which in colloquial use they are accepted as antonyms yet under more close scrutiny they often dissolve; life and death is another antonym that is more or less negation rather than two opposing elements).

Also, “truth” only comes through “slavery”. The limits are set out and bounded. Only from such limitations can ‘truth’ emerge.

Nope! The greater the information the greater the ignorance. — I like sushi

Any claim of ‘knowledge’ necessarily leads to a plethora of new problems that we cannot frame properly. Knowledge is ignorance in this sense. — I like sushi

Perhaps the more information you have the more you realize how little information you have, but that doesn't make you any more ignorant than before. What you didn't know about before did exist before, didn't it? You may feel more ignorant, but in reality, you were always that ignorant, if not more so.

When we find certain kinds of antonyms they show themselves to be something quite extraordinary. Freedom requires an understanding of limit, limitations are inhibitors on said freedom - or rather, forced (slave like) limits are necessary for any sense of freedom. — I like sushi

But would complete freedom not imply that you can both understand and ascend limitations? Perhaps it goes like this

Ignorance plus stupidity is the ultimate form of bondage. You don't know how to do anything and you don't wish to do anything.

Ignorance with intelligence implies that you may one day not be ignorant. Your intelligence makes you curious, makes you wish to perform actions, and your intelligence also allows you to work out how to perform said actions.

The ultimate form of freedom is knowledge plus intelligence. You know about everything and how to do everything. You aren't bound by any limitations, even though you know what they would be if you were bound. However, you are not bound because you know how to circumvent those limitations

Furthermore we could regard the concept of ‘sight’ and ‘blindness’. A species of animals that are ‘blind’ are not ‘blind’ - they are blind only from our forcing our position on theirs. — I like sushi

And so we are all partially blind. Bats can use echolocation, and we cannot. A truly free being could see all.

There are many tricky elements to such apparent antonyms as some negations are taken as antonyms (which in colloquial use they are accepted as antonyms yet under more close scrutiny they often dissolve; life and death is another antonym that is more or less negation rather than two opposing elements). — I like sushi

Perhaps this isn't the same concept, but I think good and evil are comparable to life and death. Good is simply what others wish for you to do, and evil is what others wish for you not to do. They aren't "opposites" (antonyms) per se, but they are opposing. A strange middle ground, I suppose.

Also, “truth” only comes through “slavery”. The limits are set out and bounded. Only from such limitations can ‘truth’ emerge. — I like sushi

Truth comes from slavery, but once you know the truth you are less enslaved (or at least that is what I was getting at above). You can't become more enslaved unless you lose the ability to do something, and truth gives you the ability to know things. Through slavery comes truth and through truth comes freedom it appears. One step at a time, ascending out slavery through the fruit it bears.

I think you see what I’m getting at. You can argue the semantics with yourself if you wish. Ignorance can only expand once the illusion of ‘knowing’ is reestablished - call it ‘doubt’ if you want, but doubt is rather static my mind where ignorance grows and lives.

Note: It’s my view of things, you don’t have to agree with it. I believe it is clear enough what I’m saying. If not, don’t bother yourself with it if you don’t wish to.

Ignorance plus stupidity is the ultimate form of bondage. You don't know how to do anything and you don't wish to do anything.

Aka “Freedom”. You may prefer to view this as ‘ascension’ because it has a nicer ring to it though.

And so we are all partially blind. Bats can use echolocation, and we cannot. A truly free being could see all.

I believe you need to expand your ignorance a little more in this area ;)

Truth comes from slavery, but once you know the truth you are less enslaved (or at least that is what I was getting at above). You can't become more enslaved unless you lose the ability to do something, and truth gives you the ability to know things. Through slavery comes truth and through truth comes freedom it appears. One step at a time, ascending out slavery through the fruit it bears.

To be more charitable ... yes, I agree. Therein lies my problem. If I agree I must doubt that which I agree with if I am to embrace ignorance. I must push further and unravel what seems MOST ‘true’ and ‘obvious’ to me when and where I can.

If you follow through the perpetual ascent you either reach an ultimate plane of slavery or remain a slave playing slave master ... I think it is perhaps better to accept we are necessarily enslaved by the truths we hold most dear.

All of this is framed in how I view “knowledge”. I prefer to say I ‘ken’. To say I ‘know’ is a bound truth not a ubiquitous ‘knowing’. I ken and that is satisfactory enough - in that it propels me toward some ultimate knowing only in negative terms. My biggest issue is with the cloying hold language - this here written stuff - on my thoughts, feelings and actions (Whatever they are!)

Life eh? Bizarre!

I think you see what I’m getting at. You can argue the semantics with yourself if you wish. Ignorance can only expand once the illusion of ‘knowing’ is reestablished - call it ‘doubt’ if you want, but doubt is rather static my mind where ignorance grows and lives. — I like sushi

I think I see where you're coming from. To you, all that matters is that you feel more ignorant, not that you actually became more ignorant.

Note: It’s my view of things, you don’t have to agree with it. I believe it is clear enough what I’m saying. If not, don’t bother yourself with it if you don’t wish to. — I like sushi

If I do understand, then I respect where you're coming from. If you wish to indulge in pleasure I see no reason to stop you. However, my pleasure comes from the process that frees us from this slavery. I simply enjoy knowing that I'm making some kind of progress toward that end goal, even if I don't know how much.

Aka “Freedom”. You may prefer to view this as ‘ascension’ because it has a nicer ring to it though. — I like sushi

Are you implying that what you quoted was freedom?

I believe you need to expand your ignorance a little more in this area ;) — I like sushi

I did a quick google search and found that some blind people can sort of echolocate. So you either meant that or something else. I honestly can't tell.

To be more charitable ... yes, I agree. Therein lies my problem. If I agree I must doubt that which I agree with if I am to embrace ignorance. I must push further and unravel what seems MOST ‘true’ and ‘obvious’ to me when and where I can. — I like sushi

Don't push yourself then. If being completely free makes you uncomfortable, then you wouldn't be completely free because you wouldn't want to be there. If that makes any sense. You're better off where you're happy, at least I think.

If you follow through the perpetual ascent you either reach an ultimate plane of slavery or remain a slave playing slave master ... I think it is perhaps better to accept we are necessarily enslaved by the truths we hold most dear. — I like sushi

But what if we could absolutely confirm the truths we hold dear? We will never do it in our lifetime, but it should be possible to cross confirm everything in existence and get at the very least an incredibly accurate model of the universe. Then we wouldn't have to fear that our beliefs are wrong.

All of this is framed in how I view “knowledge”. I prefer to say I ‘ken’. To say I ‘know’ is a bound truth not a ubiquitous ‘knowing’. I ken and that is satisfactory enough - in that it propels me toward some ultimate knowing only in negative terms. — I like sushi

If you're happy, I'm happy for you. I just hope that one day we can all have something even better.

Are you implying that what you quoted was freedom?

Clearly ... or not apparently.

So you either meant that or something else. I honestly can't tell.

See above. As in to ‘see all’ is to know nothing. I was speaking metaphorically ... if you didn’t realise my bad :(

I mean in the sense that to “know” anything completely is to be unable to know anything new ... ergo “freedom” and “static” - I don’t find much appealing about a void (except when I grow weary of living)

People who wish for ‘freedom’ don’t really understand that such necessarily comes at a cost. In that sense people, more often than not, claim to pursue ‘freedom’ whilst putting themselves in shackles - in that sense I’m an anarchist so such reaching for freedom doesn’t concern me. I don’t seek ‘happiness’ either! Yuck!

But what if we could absolutely confirm the truths we hold dear?

Such is the delusion of the dogmatic. That one holds something dear should be warning enough for any sensible individual to cling to doubt no matter what! You never though you may get lucky AND I’m for commitment to some end or another as a means of exploration (exploration is the key feature of life for me; it’s a tough balance to regulate safety and exploration though - I’d say one must be pushing oneself in some manner, quite hard, some of the time in order to explore most efficiently)

If you're happy, I'm happy for you. I just hope that one day we can all have something even better.

I’m not ‘happy’. “Better” seems to be worth striving for :)

Don't push yourself then.

If you don’t push yourself at all you don’t know when you’ve pushed too hard - I’ve pushed myself VERY hard before now and it was incredibly painful ... I’m ‘better’ for it though. I guess this is what you would refer to as ‘freedom’. It comes with pain and loss, suffering and death and whole host of demons; such ‘freedom’ is not for the fainthearted and I know I recoiled after a little taster. Maybe next time I’ll do better?

We want freedom FROM unreasonable interference by other people (not just the government). We want freedom TO exercise our wills to a reasonable extent. Restraint and limits are necessary to achieve freedom from/freedom to. We have to restrain ourselves to some degree, and so do others, including institutions.

"The Line" between too much interference and too little protection, or between our own and others' reasonable restraint in exercising our freedom TO is changeable over time and place. The Line has to be negotiated by the people at various levels.

Clearly ... or not apparently. — I like sushi

It really is like that sometimes.

I mean in the sense that to “know” anything completely is to be unable to know anything new ... ergo “freedom” and “static” - I don’t find much appealing about a void (except when I grow weary of living) — I like sushi

That is interesting. Maybe we could make new things to know? I suppose we do make up new things all the time, but where the limit is on our imagination is hard to say. I suppose it wouldn't be to the person who knows everything. Maybe we can make people who think in new ways, and those people make more that think in even newer ways? Either way, I don't think you're too interested in the answer anyway.

People who wish for ‘freedom’ don’t really understand that such necessarily comes at a cost. In that sense people, more often than not, claim to pursue ‘freedom’ whilst putting themselves in shackles - in that sense I’m an anarchist so such reaching for freedom doesn’t concern me. I don’t seek ‘happiness’ either! Yuck! — I like sushi

I suppose the key then is to use your freedoms to get back what you gave. I'll look into that.

Such is the delusion of the dogmatic. That one holds something dear should be warning enough for any sensible individual to cling to doubt no matter what! You never though you may get lucky AND I’m for commitment to some end or another as a means of exploration (exploration is the key feature of life for me; it’s a tough balance to regulate safety and exploration though - I’d say one must be pushing oneself in some manner, quite hard, some of the time in order to explore most efficiently) — I like sushi

To say such a thing without evidence is surely the delusion of the dogmatic, but I wish to actually prove that these things are absolutely true to the point they are ingrained into everyday life. I'm certainly willing to "pay" for such freedom because with such freedom I should be able to make back what I lost.

I’m not ‘happy’. “Better” seems to be worth striving for :) — I like sushi

Ok then, if you're happy better, I'm happy for you. I just hope that one day we can all have something even better.

If you don’t push yourself at all you don’t know when you’ve pushed too hard - I’ve pushed myself VERY hard before now and it was incredibly painful ... I’m ‘better’ for it though. I guess this is what you would refer to as ‘freedom’. It comes with pain and loss, suffering and death and whole host of demons; such ‘freedom’ is not for the fainthearted and I know I recoiled after a little taster. Maybe next time I’ll do better? — I like sushi

I hope there is a next time. You seem to know at least something.

"The Line" between too much interference and too little protection, or between our own and others' reasonable restraint in exercising our freedom TO is changeable over time and place. The Line has to be negotiated by the people at various levels. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but where is it for you? I'm interested in finding out where others lie.

Freedom is harmony. So you're always free to an extent, but rarely wholly free.

While at my age sex is becoming pretty much a dead issue, I have always been concerned that my sexual habits be free of interference. Over many years I have found both governments and individuals quite willing to interfere with the legal and consensual sex ways I prefer. In the past (but not so much now) there were institutions and individuals who were quite willing to interfere with my open expression of unpopular political views.

I have generally found the work place to be one where the employer claimed the right to control all sorts of speech (like about the defects of the employer). Employers regularly interfere with the right of workers to unionise.

Business interests often behave in ways that limit citizens. For instance, the local grocery market was changed negatively through monopolistic practices. A major food retailer has disappeared, reducing competition. With less competition, quality goes down, prices go up, and choice is limited.

Maybe I took your OP too literally. If you’re more concerned with politics and society at large then I’d say “freedom” means the “freedom to make mistakes” rather than being told what to do and how to behave.

In that sense I am an anarchist - I oppose authority both in myself and in day-to-day life. Meaning if I think “I should do X” I question the ‘should’ rather than blindly follow what is expressed in social circles and necessarily forms part of the choices I believe I have whilst covering up others.

As an extreme example I can murder and rape if I wish to. There is no “how I should behave” imposed by societal norms I have any serious inclination to take as an absolute; anymore than I’d live out my life according to ‘laws’ in some religious text. In more tangible terms this is to say that I care not for what is deemed ‘lawful’ I only care for I deem ‘right’ - I suffer the burden of the consequences fully if I’m wrong rather than submitting my error to some erroneous law and washing my hands clean of any responsibility.

This moral position plays into my whole life and hence my thoughts on ‘freedom’. The ‘freedom’ you seem to be outlining sounds more like hubris to me - in that you believe you know that there is a law and will of the universe (a placating thought, yet doubt is indestructible whether in direct eyesight or not).

So you go with a "mind your own business" sort of freedom? Everyone with there own little world, conflicting as little as possible with others?

Freedom is harmony. So you're always free to an extent, but rarely wholly free. — Shamshir

Harmony as in multiple parts working to make the whole? A sort of "working for the whole in order to have nice things" kind of freedom?

Maybe I took your OP too literally. — I like sushi

If you did, I'm honestly glad you did. You definitely brought more to the table than I was expecting.

If you’re more concerned with politics and society at large then I’d say “freedom” means the “freedom to make mistakes” rather than being told what to do and how to behave. — I like sushi

This is kind of like a "spoiler free life" in a way. Instead of someone telling you that fire is hot, you get to figure it out on your own. It's the fun of figuring things out on your own, well, if getting burned is your thing.

As an extreme example I can murder and rape if I wish to. There is no “how I should behave” imposed by societal norms I have any serious inclination to take as an absolute; anymore than I’d live out my life according to ‘laws’ in some religious text. In more tangible terms this is to say that I care not for what is deemed ‘lawful’ I only care for I deem ‘right’ - I suffer the burden of the consequences fully if I’m wrong rather than submitting my error to some erroneous law and washing my hands clean of any responsibility. — I like sushi

This is an interesting and at the very least well-intentioned way to think about it. I don't know how practical though, at least in the modern world.

This moral position plays into my whole life and hence my thoughts on ‘freedom’. The ‘freedom’ you seem to be outlining sounds more like hubris to me - in that you believe you know that there is a law and will of the universe (a placating thought, yet doubt is indestructible whether in direct eyesight or not). — I like sushi

A law or will of the universe? I don't particularly think that. I think that the universe works a certain way and that certain way can be uncovered via inquiry, but I don't think there is a "will" or reason for any of it. It's just the game we happen to find ourselves in. A game we have to both learn and win the first time we play.

An effortless unity, where no individuality is artificially strained.

I guess I never said your ideal freedom couldn’t be difficult to achieve. Well, unless you want to pull an Evangelion on everyone.

I don't think it's difficult.

I grow corn, feed the sheep corn and fertilise the cornfield with the excrements.
To me it's an effortless unity and grants me peace - by that I would deem I'm free.

I assumed you were referring to your ideal freedom in relation to others as well, but if being an isolated farmer brings you your ideal freedom and peace, that actually sounds great.

Imagine having ability to do everything, would you feel free then? I think limitations are essential to feel free. The infamous “Arbeit macht frei” seems true for me.

Well, I simply think, if we were to take cogs as an example - that working for others and yourself is the same to the free man.

Whereas stressing on helping yourself or your neighbour puts up the cage bars.

Going with the flow is good for everybody and everybody who's ever looked at the sky knows this, though it may not be apparent - and that unstressed realisation is essentially freedom.

These days the idea of freedom seems to lean towards being able to do what you chose. Free speech means being able to say what you think, freedom of movement: go where you want. It seems to me to be about gaining, getting something that will make life better for everyone. But one mans gain is another man’s pain. So there are problems with that.

I tend to think of freedom as being free of something, just what that is I’ll have to think about a bit more.

Every time I’ve tried to define what freedom means, it seems like I must affix the definition to a series of points in spacetime - the universe (and my perspective of it) continues to change around it, and everyone else enjoys a vastly different perspective of the same arrangement of points.

Freedom, I think, is a continual process of negotiation, performed by each individual in their interactions with the universe. Absolute objective freedom is simply not achievable in life. Humans above all are highly interdependent, and therefore bound by their various and complex relationships with the universe. Even a hermit is bound by his relationships with the environment, and obliged to understand and tend to those relationships in order to acquire nutrition and protection at minimum. If he simply takes what he wants then his sense of freedom is a temporary illusion, and he will soon feel oppressed by his environment.

I think a sense of freedom is achieved in harmonious relationships with the universe, as much as we understand them. The more we interact with the universe, the more we understand, including what everything and everyone needs for harmonious achievement - and so the more we feel obliged to adjust our actions in order to achieve harmony, and consequently experience freedom. More freedom allows more interaction and more understanding, but more interaction plus more understanding demands what appears to then be less freedom, relatively speaking.

Of course, we ARE free to not adjust our actions or accommodate the needs of others. But in doing so, we undermine the harmony that gives us the sense of freedom in the first place. Ignorance often feels like freedom, and understanding feels obliging from an individual point of view.

It’s also possible to achieve a personal sense of freedom in life that someone with either more OR less understanding of the universe would see as less free. Likewise, an onlooker could view someone else’s life as having freedom, but that person may not feel free themselves owing to more OR less understanding of the universe.

So you go with a "mind your own business" sort of freedom? Everyone with there own little world, conflicting as little as possible with others? — TogetherTurtle

It's a start, certainly. "Mind your own business" vs. busy bodies meddling in everyone else's affairs, sure. But "Everyone with their own little world", not quite. Society requires regular maintenance, and it is very desirable that the people who are minding their own business pay attention to the commons, the shared world, the community. Having the freedom to mind your own business, requires community maintenance.

Obvious examples: I like dogs so I get one. I live in a house, so it's my affair. When I take it out for a walk the dog will, of course, defecate when and where it feels the urge. It's my responsibility to maintain the commons by picking up the dog's faeces and disposing of it properly. The dog would like to prowl around the neighbourhood on its own, but it doesn't get to do that. For one, I want to keep the beloved Dog safe, and two, people don't want Dog digging holes in their garden or terrorising their beloved Cat.

I don't believe in using pesticides and herbicides on my lawn. I don't much like mowing it either -- total waste of time. so I have a weedy yard which I none the less do mow every now and then (city law requires it of me). That's my affair. My next door neighbours are very fussy about their lawn. They apply all sorts of chemicals to their lawn and mow it a lot. That's their affair.

I think lawn fertilisers, herbicides, and pesticides should be banned. People customarily use way too much and the run off contributes to the serious pollution of rivers and, in the gulf of Mexico, the steadily growing dead zone. I won't throw rocks at their windows or spray graffiti on their house to make them stop using their chemicals, though. I'll contribute to political efforts to ban the chemicals in the urban environment.

Hypothetically, if you were to create or live in a new nation, what would you expect to be your basic freedoms? What would you expect to be obligated to do? What would you expect not to be able to do? — TogetherTurtle

From this paragraph in particular, I take it that you intend to start a thread looking at the problem from the perspective of political philosophy. In other words, not to address (arguably) more fundamental problems such as free will vs determinism.

You also ask for specific basic freedoms, obligations, and limits on freedom (what we're not allowed to do).

I'm not entirely sure to what extent philosophy (or "philosophizing") can provide comprehensive answers to the kind of question you want to ask. I'm not even sure to what extent anyone can provide comprehensive answers.

For example, we might begin by agreeing that we give up our freedom to harm others. But how much harm is too much? Okay, we don't get to run around murdering and raping. But do we get to smoke in public? If we accept that there is a limit on how much harm we can do (implicitly accepting a degree of utilitarianism), we might break the problem down into two separate questions:

1. How much harm is too much?

2. How much harm does second hand smoke do?

To answer the latter question, we have to stop doing philosophy, and start doing medicine.

"Okay," you might say, "but that's just a technical question. Surely philosophy can delegate those."

But suppose we think about the economic basis of our society. How well do unregulated markets work? To what extent do they lead to the wild swings of boom and bust that were so prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries? To what extent do they lead to monopolies -- like Standard Oil? Or, for that matter, like Facebook and Amazon?

My point here is threefold.

1. These are to some degree at least empirical questions. I don't think we're going to be able to answer them entirely a priori.

2. Not only are they empirical questions; they are questions to which the correct answers may change over time, as society and technology change over time. Thus, they cannot be answered once and for all. They call for an ongoing program of research.

3. These are questions that go to the fundamental structural basis to our entire society. Whatever our answers, they have profound implications for our freedoms. And those answers will change over time.

Just to be clear, I was only using markets as an example. I think the above would apply to any structural basis for an economy and a society where society and technology are not completely static.

The above argument does, of course, implicitly assume an acceptance of the notion that living in a society implies or compels some some willingness to make trade-offs between freedom and other things that we consider worth having. My point is, the range of trade-offs available to us is in a constant state of flux.

Sooo... I guess where I'm headed is that I have my doubts as to what extent these questions can ever be answered on anything other than a fairly short term, ad hoc basis.

Hypothetically, if you were to create or live in a new nation, what would you expect to be your basic freedoms? What would you expect to be obligated to do? What would you expect not to be able to do? — TogetherTurtle

In a newly emerged nation the largest freedom is the freedom from the old nation that had people under it's control and had lost the legitimacy to it's power among the people. Typically this has been another people who either had been or had evolved into being foreign entity. This usually creates a very different atmosphere in the nation than in other more established countries where their Independence struggle is just a course in history, not something that happened just year ago or so. Hence newly formed countries look as to be very patriotic/nationalistic (well, they have to be actually) as they are still pouring the foundations of a new nation. The legitimacy of the state has to be earned, you know. Hence just what about in freedom is important changes through time.

Perhaps you have to be a Kurd or a Palestinian to understand just what it means not to have one's own nation state today, because today we take it as granted as our credit card working when shopping online. Of course there are many various people's that don't even have any dreams of an own independent nation and these people are really just fade away to being the another people as the last members knowing the language die of old age.

One modern nation state and just how many languages/dialects were spoken before:

Essentially, I believe that "freedom" is more of a scale, in which one side is the ability to do anything at any time without consequences, and the other is not being able to do anything at all times. I don't think that there is any kind of right answer, I just wish to see where the happy medium is for most people. — TogetherTurtle

The freedoms of an individual is a totally different issue than a freedom of a people. So when you ask above about "if you were to create or live in a new nation", that kind of freedom is actually bit different from the question 'how much the government intrudes into my personal life?' The latter question is especially close to the American heart.