It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by whatukno
Really? What is freedom, what is freedom to you?
Freedom is the right to exercise the rights granted by the laws of God, Nature and Country.
What do you think that Freedom means?
Same question as #1.
At what point does freedom equate to chaos?
When laws are removed that protects person and property.
At what point does freedom go too far?
When freedom becomes confused with anarchy. Anarchy will always lead to self destruction.
What would you restrict? What is Taboo, what is Wrong, what do you think people SHOULDN'T have the freedom to do? I would restrict any action that would cause harm to person or property. What is morally taboo, wrong or right should be up to the individual to decide. With that said, If what an individual decides and/or acts upon threatends the life, harm, destruction or well being of another person or property, then the offender must pay the price with his/her's freedom.edit on 2/23/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)
My idea is, as you see, that consciousness does not really belong to man's individual existence but rather to his social or herd nature; that, as follows from this, it has developed subtlety only insofar as this is required by social or herd utility. Consequently, given the best will in the world to understand ourselves as individually as possible, "to know ourselves," each of us will always succeed in becoming conscious only of what is not individual but "average." Our thoughts themselves are continually governed by the character of consciousness--by the "genius of the species" that commands it--and translated back into the perspective of the herd. Fundamentally, all our actions are altogether incomparably personal, unique, and infinitely individual; there is no doubt of that. But as soon as we translate them into consciousness they no longer seem to be.
This is the essence of phenomenalism and perspectivism as I understand them: Owing to the nature of animal consciousness, the world of which we can become conscious is only a surface- and sign-world, a world that is made common and meaner; whatever becomes conscious becomes by the same token shallow, thin, relatively stupid, general, sign, herd signal; all becoming conscious involves a great and thorough corruption, falsification, reduction to superficialities, and generalization. Ultimately, the growth of consciousness becomes a danger, and anyone who lives among the most conscious European even knows that it is a disease.
You will guess that it is not the opposition of subject and object that concerns me here: This distinction I leave to the epistemologists who have become entangled in the snares of grammar (the metaphysics of the people). It is even less the opposition of "thing-in-itself" and appearance; for we do not "know" nearly enough to be entitled to any such distinction. We simply lack any organ for knowledge, for "truth": we "know" (or believe or imagine) just as much as may be useful in the interests of the human herd, the species; and even what is here called "utility" is ultimately also a mere belief, something imaginary, and perhaps precisely that most calamitous stupidity of which we shall perish someday.