untethered
For industry & decency
I wonder how many Thais value the freedom to live among their own kind and not have their culture polluted by woolly-thinking foreigners.
freedom or security...
- Thread starter fela fan
- Start date
How does this relate to the thread at hand? I am an englishman debating on an english website. It's really got fuck all to do with thai people.
I don't say anyone exists in a vacuuml, least of all in the context of this thread.
I don't pretend my actions don't have consequences on others. But consequences and imposition on others are not really one and the same.
There are no guarantees with security.
There are with freedom.
For the simple reason that i can control my own actions and reactions over my own freedom, but my own security depends on the actions and reactions of others.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
your freedom can be taken away though by the actions of others.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
So your security is dependant on other people's freedom. And vice versa.
Jesus wept..
No. You're confusing 'freedom' with 'security'. My security can be taken away by others, but most certainly not my freedom. Just check the OP, and if necessary redefine the terms.
Apart from being off-topic, can you prove that?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Well then you are using a very strange definition of freedom indeed. Could we not use a different word so that we don't confuse your meaning with the usual one?
That causes me to pause and think. Perhaps i'll even have to wait until tomorrow to reply to this one... i feel it's flawed, but...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What does this 'ability' consist of? What are its defining characteristics?
What is 'responsibility'?
How does one 'take responsibility' - how does one go about it?
How do we know when 'responsibility' has been 'taken'?
How does this 'taking responsibility' mean that you are free/in a state of freedom?
I did clearly define my terms in the OP crispy. You're welcome to redefine them within the scope of your replies.
untethered
For industry & decency
For me, "freedom" is synonymous with "tastes like bananas".
So bananas have freedom, but apples don't.
It's quite straightforward, but feel free to use your own definition if mine doesn't suit you.
So bananas have freedom, but apples don't.
It's quite straightforward, but feel free to use your own definition if mine doesn't suit you.
the use of the passive voice in your last question indicates to me that you're asking questions about (oh, hang on, you've added something: i'm talking about your last but one question now) others being able to judge others. My definition of freedom in the OP is very much about the individual on the individual. It does not involve others in terms of whether one can achieve freedom or not. It is an individual concept.
I've already used my own definition in post #1.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I've asked you some basic questions that you need to answer to give even the bare bones of your opening line any substance - regardless whether you intend it to apply individually, collectively socially or whatever.
newme
Giant in Pastyland now
lol seems to be the usual format of their threads, come out with some half baked theory, complain at everyone for varying even slightly from the wide open nature of the question, then start redefining words.
untethered
For industry & decency
Fine.
I think freedom's a bad thing, to be avoided at all costs.
I can't stand bananas.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Freedom is the ability to carry out actions. In a prison cell, I do not have the freedom to move where I please. This action is simply not available to me, and it is the direct result of the jailor's freedom to restrict my freedom.
Security is the system by which everyone's freedom is restricted to a mutually agreed subset of total freedom, in order that the greatest net freedom can be achieved. ie. I will agree to not be free to stab you, if you agree to do likewise.
In theory, anyway.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
free will is unresolved. no one has any solid answers about it it yet.
so equally your definition of freedom (responsibility for one's own actions) could be a definition of being trapped in delusion.
Do you define freedom like this because of your personal instincts? Do you think it is a satifactory enough defination to sit happily with everyone else?
Is the responsibility you feel justified? Are your actions orginating from you (you sense of self) or something unknown?
In what sense does your life belong to you? Or maybe 'You' belong to Life but there might not be any ownership of it, except in your imagination.
We have different ideas of what constitutes freedom, although i do note you have seemingly put yours in the theoretical arena.
But i will add that i think britain in recent years is confusing freedom with security, hence my thread.
I don't know how you can go on about collective freedom crispy. And indeed, you have noted that security restricts freedom. I'm sorry but the freedom i understand will have no restrictions whatsoever. It's an oxymoron. Hence i feel you're theorising wrongly be saying freedom is about actions. Freedom is about a state of being, not the ability to carry out actions.
Assuming you know about her, who do you feel has more freedom, aung san suu kii under house arrest in burma, or the generals who restrict her life?
My life does not belong to me. I am my life. Whatever i am cannot be a possession, it cannot be belonged to. Nor do i belong to life.
I defined freedom in the OP relative to defining security. I am not looking at freedom alone here, but rather in relation to security. It's my belief that in recent years in britain people have become confused between the two.
I think it very safe to say however that anybody who has freedom has first understood the absolute requirement to take responsibility for their own actions and life. But under the guise of 'security', the byword in society in britain these days, that responsibility i need to take for myself if i'm to be free has been to a degree taken out of my hands by the state who are deciding that security is more important.
If i can't be responsible for my own life, then i cannot have freedom.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
Yes. Freedom and security are not only not mutually exclusive, but they depend on each other.
Again, bananas and apples are not mutually exclusive.
I admit, it looks rather like a gherkin, but it is a symbol of the symbiosis of banana and apple, known to the uninitiated as freedom and security.
Therefore, I choose the gherkin.
The more you chase security, the less freedom you can have.
The more freedom you seek, the more you accept insecurity as a way of life.
Soon as you introduce the concept of 'depending', you are moving away from freedom.
There is very little security in jumping out of a plane, skiing down a mountain, or any other adventure kind of sports and activities, yet the exhiliaration is well-documented. Pure freedom at the expense of security.
Freedom is life, security is death. A bit simplistic, but the point is valid i feel.
how do you feel the Thailand experience affects your viewpoint FF ?
We expats have no citizenship (and little realistic opportunity to get it) we have little protection offered by the state and are utterly responsible for ourselves in what is ,though a fairly benign and tolerant setting .
We expats have no citizenship (and little realistic opportunity to get it) we have little protection offered by the state and are utterly responsible for ourselves in what is ,though a fairly benign and tolerant setting .
In quite a big way mate, i came here in 1991! I've had more adult years here than in england.
For my first ten years (in bkk) i felt heady with freedom, it never left my side, and security was not on the agenda; pure unadulterated freedom.
Way i see it is that britain was my country of birth, thailand my country of choice. But: no citizenship, no protection, no voice... it's interesting isn't it, coz that really could be defining a total lack of security. I feel that chasing security blocks freedom. I feel that having freedom means not thinking about security. I prefer freedom.
Benign and tolerant means that no-one else is imposing themselves on you in your daily life. That's good. The only place i get imposed upon is here on urban...
wow - I have only been here this century. I survive by hiding.That is I have a house and a little garden and a wall with a tiny swimmigpool and happily exist here bothering noone and being bothered by noone. Thais clearly don't care what I do and the feeling is mutual. My wife is often obsessed by security -what if we are burgles etc etc until I remind her that we were burgled once and they stole a rice cooker and a bag of dog biscuits AFAIAC they can have them .We are ,anyway,insured so really what's the problem.If this was a place with armed home invasions I would be rather more worried -they have those in spain .
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Have we got to the passive-aggressive stage on this thread yet...
I don't know kyser, oh lover of labels. Why don't you enlighten us all and answer your own question?
A question to you though: why do you so like all these pigeon holes in your life? It really is not conducive to freedom you know... but perhaps it's good for security...
I can't imagine many safer countries than thailand to live in. And here we are with very little security...! And a whole heap of freedom. Freedom can be achieved anywhere of course, but some places make it an easier job.
Incidentally the little interactions that i have with thais on a daily basis up here are a joy in life. I don't want any more than that mind. Just the hellos, comments on the footy, my choice of beer, the weather, and the smiles is fine by me.
