Jujupilote wrote:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Personally, I don’t get it.
When I think of my liberty, I don’t think in concepts of being able to define my own concept of existence, or of the universe or the mystery of human life. I think of it more as being able to do what I want, provided it doesn’t unfairly impinge on others liberty.
To put it differently, we deny the liberty of criminals by putting them in jail. With their liberty denied, sitting in their jail cell, nothing is stopping them defining their own concept of existence, meaning, the universe of the mystery of human life. If being able to define those things is at the heart of liberty, how can they do it when their liberty is denied by the state?
Obviously a thought police ala 1984, would be a denial of liberty, but it’s hardly the heart of liberty.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The problem today is not with beliefs and opinions or even concepts but that people can’t agree on very basic facts. That is quite a different matter and very worrying.
Yes absolutely. The consequence of that is the loss of common ground, which is the precondition for any peaceful and purposeful society. If there is no common ground, not even 2 people can live together for any period of time, let alone a society.
Peter wrote:
Indeed, but liberty is generally purchased with the blood of others, and needs constant vigilance thereafter to maintain it.
If we look at liberty the way that quote defines it, I’d say sematically it is freedom from oppression which is usually purchased by blood. liberty in this concept would mean the more underlaying liberty to define your own way of life and, within the restrictions freedom poses, live it.
LeSving wrote:
We can say lots of thing about the US of A. But their willingness and ability to do what it takes to preserve our way of life is undisputable. For all practical purposes, this is the very essence of liberty, the corner stone.
some years ago I would have agreed with this. However, the US is now one of the most divided countries in the world and the reason for that is exactly the loss of common ground and the denial to define the own concept of liberty between the big parties. THAT is scary indeed. I would not be surprised if the context of this quote had something to do with the situation there.
dublinpilot wrote:
When I think of my liberty, I don’t think in concepts of being able to define my own concept of existence, or of the universe or the mystery of human life. I think of it more as being able to do what I want, provided it doesn’t unfairly impinge on others liberty.
I think you nicely demonstrate the semantic difference between liberty and freedom. You do have the liberty to define your own worldview and live it for yourself and you have the freedom to pursue it within the restriction that your freedom can only to a certain extent restrict the one of others.
If you imprison someone, you take away his freedom, not necessarily the liberty to have his own worldview.
dublinpilot wrote:
Obviously a thought police ala 1984, would be a denial of liberty, but it’s hardly the heart of liberty.
If you look at the woke movement, you can see exactly this happening. And yea, what is going on there, cancel culture, wokeism, denial of fundamental rights of expression, is very much at the heart of liberty and almost as bad as 1984. In many ways worse.
dublinpilot wrote:
With their liberty denied, sitting in their jail cell, nothing is stopping them defining their own concept of existence, meaning, the universe of the mystery of human life.
This exact scenario was a pivotal moment for Henry David Thoreau, jailed for refusing to pay the poll tax (largely anti-government/war/slavery). In Civil Disobedience he wrote: “I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to break through, before they could get to be as free as I was”.
He later lectured, and wrote Walden, which wikipedia describes as a “personal declaration of independence”.
some years ago I would have agreed with this.
The proof is in the pudding. The war in Ukraine is real, not fiction or some finer philosophical idea.
LeSving wrote:
We agree (and respect) that we all have different versions of reality.
This is perhaps a philosophical question, but to me there can be only one reality. Of course our perception of reality can differ.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I think you nicely demonstrate the semantic difference between liberty and freedom.
Does that difference actually exist? Or is it just being invented to justify the quote?
A Search for the definition of Liberty gives
- the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behaviour, or political views.
- the power or scope to act as one pleases.
A Search for the definition of Freedom gives
- the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.
- the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
I think you’d be hard pushed to squeeze a hair between them.
Both involve actions, and thoughts.
And even if you can make a definitive distinction between them, the definition of liberty clearly is about far more than just thought police, and very much includes freedom of movement, actions, etc.
dublinpilot wrote:
Does that difference actually exist?
I think it does and you are right, it may be one of the interesting things about this topic.
In German for instance, the translation of both terms comes up with “Freiheit”. Not sure about other languages. In English however, they are distinct terms and the more I think about it, inspired by the quote, I think there is a real distinction. And in particular the term “Freedom” has been abused in recent years to mean something like anarchy.
Maybe I misunderstand the terms but at least for me, liberty is the base for freedom, yet does not necessarily include freedom.
The definitions you quote actually seem to confirm this: Liberty is the “state of being free within society…. (in) one’s way of life, behaviour or political views”. Freedom on the other hand, is a “state of not being imprisoned or enslaved” as well as a “right to act, speak, or think as one wants” , as long as the latter does not unduely create a state of unfreedom to others.
Power is a factor in this as well: Many constitutions in democracies are based on the power of any government being dependent on the consent of the people governed. This in opposition to societies where the government derives it’s power from its own authority and quite possibly armed forces, police e.t.c. But which ever way you turn it, the concept of individual liberty has to be the base of any “free” society and quite logically is the “enemy” of authoritarian regimes. Yet, even within those you may well enjoy certain freedoms, but they are hollow without the liberty behind them.
I don’t think this quote is about the difference between the use of the word liberty and that of the word freedom.
To move away from the reason behind the quote and back to something much debated on here ie Covid. On the one side you have a group of people who think/thought that life should go on as normal and the numbers dying were just the natural order of things, on the other hand you had people who wanted anyone with symptoms locked up. In the middle you had the group that believed you were alright to go to restaurants etc as long as you had tested negative. Of course things changed with the vaccine but you still had those that would take a vaccine and others who would not.
All of these groups felt that their liberties, their freedoms woul be curtailed by the choice the others were making.
That became even more the case when governing bodies introduced or changed laws, which meant that a small number of people (lawmakers and law enforcers) had curtailed and were curtailing the freedom of many more people.
The liberty to think the way people thought was not curtailed. Neither was the liberty to believe what you want to believe, however “out there” that might be. And those things you should have the liberty to do free from ridicule, aggression or abuse. But what you are not free to do is act on these beliefs if they go against what has been decided by the small group of people. But what gives such a small group of people, even elected politicians, the right to suddenly take away the liberty/freedoms of a much larger populace without direct consent.
Please note I am not trying to start up the Covid argument again. We have all heard the pros, cons etc, endlessly.
IMO the quote refers to this ethical question of who makes decisions for who and whether they have the right to.do so.
I have used Covid as such a conundrum but it I am correct and @jujupilote will correct me if I am wrong. The quote stems from a similar conundrum on which there is no real answer only opinions.
Cambridge dictionary:
Liberty: the freedom to live as you wish or go where you want:
Freedom: the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited.
Marriam-Webster dictionary:
Liberty: the quality or state of being free:
Freedom: the quality or state of being free: such as
