Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Freedom is not Liberty

Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:20:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am in a debate, so rather than reveal my hand here, I'll just post some definitions. I hope to gain third party insight. Thanks....

Definition of FREEDOM

1
the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action


http://www.merriam-webster.com...

lib"er"ty noun \G2;li-bər-tē\
the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:24:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 3:20:30 PM, Csareo wrote:
I am in a debate, so rather than reveal my hand here, I'll just post some definitions. I hope to gain third party insight. Thanks....

Definition of FREEDOM

1
the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action


http://www.merriam-webster.com...

lib"er"ty noun \G2;li-bər-tē\
the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

To clarify, are you are arguing (in this particular thread) that:

the state of being free (as in, nothing is restricting or coercing you) = / = the state of being able to act and speak freely

?
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:27:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 3:24:39 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:20:30 PM, Csareo wrote:
I am in a debate, so rather than reveal my hand here, I'll just post some definitions. I hope to gain third party insight. Thanks....

Definition of FREEDOM

1
the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action


http://www.merriam-webster.com...

lib"er"ty noun \G2;li-bər-tē\
the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

To clarify, are you are arguing (in this particular thread) that:

the state of being free (as in, nothing is restricting or coercing you) = / = the state of being able to act and speak freely

?

I don't want to reveal my hand openly. I am asking if, freedom is a state of mind, and liberty is a condition.

For example, you have liberty in having the ability to own guns, but not freedom. As freedom is a state of mind. The empowerment to have unconstrained will.
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:29:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think the definitions are that narrowly applied, to be honest. 'Freedom' has many senses to it, one of which is synonymous with 'liberty'.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:33:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 3:29:47 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I don't think the definitions are that narrowly applied, to be honest. 'Freedom' has many senses to it, one of which is synonymous with 'liberty'.

Agreed, but my argument is that freedom is a state of mind, and liberty is a condition.

You can have liberty (Freedom from government), but that does not exactly mean you have unconstrained will, right? The governments will gave you liberty. It was entitled freedom.

True freedom, is a state of mind. I created this definition......

Freedom, is the ability to act on will, without fear or constraint.

So, my argument would be, that to be free, you need to have will and the lack of fear for your actions.
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:40:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 3:33:04 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:29:47 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I don't think the definitions are that narrowly applied, to be honest. 'Freedom' has many senses to it, one of which is synonymous with 'liberty'.

Agreed, but my argument is that freedom is a state of mind, and liberty is a condition.

You can have liberty (Freedom from government), but that does not exactly mean you have unconstrained will, right? The governments will gave you liberty. It was entitled freedom.

True freedom, is a state of mind. I created this definition......

Freedom, is the ability to act on will, without fear or constraint.

So, my argument would be, that to be free, you need to have will and the lack of fear for your actions.

That's kind of my point, really; you're merely giving (re)definitions. "I am free to/I am at liberty to" is an example that shows the two can be used synonymously. I don't think that 'freedom' has ever been generally accepted as being specifically a state of mind, so without simply redefining the word to suit your argument, I don't think the case can be made.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:43:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 3:40:31 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:33:04 PM, Csareo wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:29:47 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I don't think the definitions are that narrowly applied, to be honest. 'Freedom' has many senses to it, one of which is synonymous with 'liberty'.

Agreed, but my argument is that freedom is a state of mind, and liberty is a condition.

You can have liberty (Freedom from government), but that does not exactly mean you have unconstrained will, right? The governments will gave you liberty. It was entitled freedom.

True freedom, is a state of mind. I created this definition......

Freedom, is the ability to act on will, without fear or constraint.

So, my argument would be, that to be free, you need to have will and the lack of fear for your actions.

That's kind of my point, really; you're merely giving (re)definitions. "I am free to/I am at liberty to" is an example that shows the two can be used synonymously. I don't think that 'freedom' has ever been generally accepted as being specifically a state of mind, so without simply redefining the word to suit your argument, I don't think the case can be made.

Alright, we know two things for sure...........

Freedom: The ability to act on unconstrained will

^This is established on every definition I have ever seen

Liberty: To be free from government or despotic control

^ This is phrased in some way on every definition also

So, my point is, liberty is something the government gives you, correct? Freedom, is a state of mind, correct? I guess what I'm saying, is that the government can't give you unconstrained will, but they can give you liberty.

Do you understand what I'm saying now?
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:50:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 3:43:51 PM, Csareo wrote:
Alright, we know two things for sure...........

Freedom: The ability to act on unconstrained will

^This is established on every definition I have ever seen

Liberty: To be free from government or despotic control

^ This is phrased in some way on every definition also

So, my point is, liberty is something the government gives you, correct? Freedom, is a state of mind, correct? I guess what I'm saying, is that the government can't give you unconstrained will, but they can give you liberty.

Do you understand what I'm saying now?

Liberty is simply social freedom, not specifically from the government but very specifically a form of freedom. It doesn't mean that 'freedom' is therefore a state of mind. Freedom is very often defined as synonymous with liberty. It is also defined as being able to act as one wants, not merely think one can act as they want. If it were a state of mind, it would have no bearing on whether someone were actually able to then act so.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 3:54:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 3:50:41 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:43:51 PM, Csareo wrote:
Alright, we know two things for sure...........

Freedom: The ability to act on unconstrained will

^This is established on every definition I have ever seen

Liberty: To be free from government or despotic control

^ This is phrased in some way on every definition also

So, my point is, liberty is something the government gives you, correct? Freedom, is a state of mind, correct? I guess what I'm saying, is that the government can't give you unconstrained will, but they can give you liberty.

Do you understand what I'm saying now?

Liberty is simply social freedom, not specifically from the government but very specifically a form of freedom. It doesn't mean that 'freedom' is therefore a state of mind. Freedom is very often defined as synonymous with liberty. It is also defined as being able to act as one wants, not merely think one can act as they want. If it were a state of mind, it would have no bearing on whether someone were actually able to then act so.

Please clarify, as I do not understand your train of though. Liberty is a form of freedom, I agree. But its a result of the governments will, not the person. Review my definitions. Freedom on every defintion is the ability to act on unconstrained will. Everyone, try it.

Therefore, do people who have liberty necessarily have the ability to act on unconstrained will? Can someone have the liberty to own guns, but lack the ability to act on unconstrained will?

That is my resolution. A man can have freedom and not liberty. Just as a man can have liberty and not freedom. They are often synonymous, but not always.
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:01:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 3:54:32 PM, Csareo wrote:
Please clarify, as I do not understand your train of though. Liberty is a form of freedom, I agree. But its a result of the governments will, not the person.

A person's freedom isn't the result of the person, either; all freedoms are environmental, society is part of the environment of the individual.

Review my definitions. Freedom on every defintion is the ability to act on unconstrained will. Everyone, try it.

I'm familiar with the definition. I am also familiar with the synonyms for it.

Therefore, do people who have liberty necessarily have the ability to act on unconstrained will? Can someone have the liberty to own guns, but lack the ability to act on unconstrained will?

I can have the right to give birth without being able to give birth. I do not think that it would make sense to say I am "at liberty" to give birth though, because I am not. My lack of womb and other necessary equipment prevents it.

That is my resolution. A man can have freedom and not liberty. Just as a man can have liberty and not freedom. They are often synonymous, but not always.

This sounds a bit Sartrean and I'm not sure it's a useful or coherent distinction. Freedom means lack of restricting factors. Liberty is often used to mean social freedom. Therefore it is impossible to be at liberty without being free in the same way as it is impossible to be a dog without being a mammal.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:09:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:01:37 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:54:32 PM, Csareo wrote:
Please clarify, as I do not understand your train of though. Liberty is a form of freedom, I agree. But its a result of the governments will, not the person.

A person's freedom isn't the result of the person, either; all freedoms are environmental, society is part of the environment of the individual.

Really? If you claim to understand the definition, then how can you claim the right to act on unconstrained will is artificial? Will is not enviormental, but something you possess within yourself.

Review my definitions. Freedom on every defintion is the ability to act on unconstrained will. Everyone, try it.

I'm familiar with the definition. I am also familiar with the synonyms for it.

Which is why I'm confounded with your circular logic

Therefore, do people who have liberty necessarily have the ability to act on unconstrained will? Can someone have the liberty to own guns, but lack the ability to act on unconstrained will?

I can have the right to give birth without being able to give birth. I do not think that it would make sense to say I am "at liberty" to give birth though, because I am not. My lack of womb and other necessary equipment prevents it.

You still don't get the definition. Freedom, at least the true form, is not having choices. Its literally the ability to commit to something without fear or constraints.

You are not free to have a baby if you can't have birth. You are constrained in giving birth. Therefore, you are not free. Are you? You have the will, but its constrained. Therefore, this premise is negated

That is my resolution. A man can have freedom and not liberty. Just as a man can have liberty and not freedom. They are often synonymous, but not always.

This sounds a bit Sartrean and I'm not sure it's a useful or coherent distinction. Freedom means lack of restricting factors. Liberty is often used to mean social freedom. Therefore it is impossible to be at liberty without being free in the same way as it is impossible to be a dog without being a mammal.

Freedom, like the definition, is the lack of restricting factors, AND the will to act on them. You need both to be free. Summary.....

Freedom, is having both will and a lack of constraints. Or the will to not fear constraints.

Liberty, is having one of the two. You can be at liberty to own a gun, if no constraints exist. You can be at liberty to have guns, if you have the will to own one.

^ Once you have both will and no constraints, then you are free
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:22:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:09:22 PM, Csareo wrote:
Really? If you claim to understand the definition, then how can you claim the right to act on unconstrained will is artificial? Will is not enviormental, but something you possess within yourself.

It isn't the right to act, it is the ability to act. If nothing is preventing me from doing something and I am capable of doing it, I am free to do it. Simply having the will to do something - it being a state of mind, as you posited - is not the same as being free to act on that will. I am not saying that will is environmental, I am saying that freedom is being able to exercise your will without environmental restrictions preventing you from doing so.

Which is why I'm confounded with your circular logic

There's nothing circular about it; the two are synonyms and not being tied to a chair is not a state of mind, it is a matter of fact. If freedom were only a state of mind then I would need only to believe that I was free to go, regardless of whether I actually was or not. That would be nonsense.

You still don't get the definition. Freedom, at least the true form, is not having choices. Its literally the ability to commit to something without fear or constraints.

I get the definition just fine, thanks. If I am free to leave a building it is not because of my state of mind, it is because my environment is such that nothing is stopping me. Fear has nothing to do with it and seems like a very arbitrary, artificial addition to the equation.

You are not free to have a baby if you can't have birth. You are constrained in giving birth. Therefore, you are not free. Are you? You have the will, but its constrained. Therefore, this premise is negated

That's rather the point... it isn't a state of mind, it is a matter of fact.

Freedom, like the definition, is the lack of restricting factors, AND the will to act on them. You need both to be free. Summary.....

No, it is just the lack of restricting factors. I'm free to jump out of a window if I want, but I do not want to. Simply not wanting to do something does not mean I am not free to do it. The entire concept of moral responsibility relies on this being the case.

Freedom, is having both will and a lack of constraints. Or the will to not fear constraints.

As I said in the first place, you are merely redefining the term to suit your argument. That is not what freedom is widely understood to mean.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:24:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:01:37 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:54:32 PM, Csareo wrote:
This sounds a bit Sartrean and I'm not sure it's a useful or coherent distinction. Freedom means lack of restricting factors. Liberty is often used to mean social freedom. Therefore it is impossible to be at liberty without being free in the same way as it is impossible to be a dog without being a mammal.

Freedom does not necessarily mean total freedom. You must answer the question: "freedom in what domain"? If someone can't afford a car and therefore can't get to work, does that mean they are being deprived of liberty? No. In order to be at liberty you must be at least somewhat free, but that doesn't mean you will have unlimited choices. In other words, only some "I can't dos" mean you are being deprived of liberty. There's definitely a distinction to be made.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:27:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:24:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:01:37 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:54:32 PM, Csareo wrote:
This sounds a bit Sartrean and I'm not sure it's a useful or coherent distinction. Freedom means lack of restricting factors. Liberty is often used to mean social freedom. Therefore it is impossible to be at liberty without being free in the same way as it is impossible to be a dog without being a mammal.

Freedom does not necessarily mean total freedom. You must answer the question: "freedom in what domain"? If someone can't afford a car and therefore can't get to work, does that mean they are being deprived of liberty? No. In order to be at liberty you must be at least somewhat free, but that doesn't mean you will have unlimited choices. In other words, only some "I can't dos" mean you are being deprived of liberty. There's definitely a distinction to be made.

I didn't say it did mean total freedom. Why on earth did you think I was suggesting that?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:28:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I only skimmed this thread, but I generally agree with graincruncher, especially comments #4 and #6.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:33:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:27:11 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:24:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:01:37 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:54:32 PM, Csareo wrote:
This sounds a bit Sartrean and I'm not sure it's a useful or coherent distinction. Freedom means lack of restricting factors. Liberty is often used to mean social freedom. Therefore it is impossible to be at liberty without being free in the same way as it is impossible to be a dog without being a mammal.

Freedom does not necessarily mean total freedom. You must answer the question: "freedom in what domain"? If someone can't afford a car and therefore can't get to work, does that mean they are being deprived of liberty? No. In order to be at liberty you must be at least somewhat free, but that doesn't mean you will have unlimited choices. In other words, only some "I can't dos" mean you are being deprived of liberty. There's definitely a distinction to be made.

I didn't say it did mean total freedom. Why on earth did you think I was suggesting that?

I didn't say you did. I only used that to set up the next sentence.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:35:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:33:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:27:11 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:24:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:01:37 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:54:32 PM, Csareo wrote:
This sounds a bit Sartrean and I'm not sure it's a useful or coherent distinction. Freedom means lack of restricting factors. Liberty is often used to mean social freedom. Therefore it is impossible to be at liberty without being free in the same way as it is impossible to be a dog without being a mammal.

Freedom does not necessarily mean total freedom. You must answer the question: "freedom in what domain"? If someone can't afford a car and therefore can't get to work, does that mean they are being deprived of liberty? No. In order to be at liberty you must be at least somewhat free, but that doesn't mean you will have unlimited choices. In other words, only some "I can't dos" mean you are being deprived of liberty. There's definitely a distinction to be made.

I didn't say it did mean total freedom. Why on earth did you think I was suggesting that?

I didn't say you did. I only used that to set up the next sentence.

There's no need to bring total freedom into it, though. If you're free then you're unconstrained. If you're at liberty then you're unconstrained. Sometimes the latter is used to refer to specifically social freedoms. That's all there is to it.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:40:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:22:40 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:09:22 PM, Csareo wrote:
Really? If you claim to understand the definition, then how can you claim the right to act on unconstrained will is artificial? Will is not enviormental, but something you possess within yourself.

It isn't the right to act, it is the ability to act. If nothing is preventing me from doing something and I am capable of doing it, I am free to do it. Simply having the will to do something - it being a state of mind, as you posited - is not the same as being free to act on that will. I am not saying that will is environmental, I am saying that freedom is being able to exercise your will without environmental restrictions preventing you from doing so.

That's my point. If freedom requires both will and no constraints, then isn't the ability to act on will a state of mind? This is the crux of my argument. Just because you have the liberty to do something, does not entitle you the will. And vice versa.

Which is why I'm confounded with your circular logic

There's nothing circular about it; the two are synonyms and not being tied to a chair is not a state of mind, it is a matter of fact. If freedom were only a state of mind then I would need only to believe that I was free to go, regardless of whether I actually was or not. That would be nonsense.

Is, or is not will a state of mind? I get what your saying. Its not a state of mind if constraints exist, correct? Well, whats stopping you from going through with it?

Fear of course. Its the ultimate constraint. One can have freedom as a trait. A man who has will and can act on it without fear, has freedom as a mindset.

Do you at least realize what I'm saying now. You can still have freedom to act on something if it will fail. Which translates to courage.

You still don't get the definition. Freedom, at least the true form, is not having choices. Its literally the ability to commit to something without fear or constraints.

I get the definition just fine, thanks. If I am free to leave a building it is not because of my state of mind, it is because my environment is such that nothing is stopping me. Fear has nothing to do with it and seems like a very arbitrary, artificial addition to the equation.

False. Even if the enviorment is stopping you from leaving a building, you can still have the will to try. Hence, you are not constrained from acting on your will. Even if it fails.

You are not free to have a baby if you can't have birth. You are constrained in giving birth. Therefore, you are not free. Are you? You have the will, but its constrained. Therefore, this premise is negated

That's rather the point... it isn't a state of mind, it is a matter of fact.

Freedom, like the definition, is the lack of restricting factors, AND the will to act on them. You need both to be free. Summary.....

No, it is just the lack of restricting factors. I'm free to jump out of a window if I want, but I do not want to. Simply not wanting to do something does not mean I am not free to do it. The entire concept of moral responsibility relies on this being the case.

Freedom, is having both will and a lack of constraints. Or the will to not fear constraints.

As I said in the first place, you are merely redefining the term to suit your argument. That is not what freedom is widely understood to mean.

Am I? Earlier you conceded that the definition of freedom is to have both will and no constraints. What I am arguing, is that the only actual constraint preventing you from acting on will, is fear.

Does this make sense? Just because your physically incapable of climbing a mountain, does not mean that you can't attempt to try, correct?

Fear is the one constraint that keeps you from acting on will. Therefore, freedom is a mindset. Freedom, in a broad context, is having both the lack of fear, and the empowerment to act on will.

Just because the enviorment stops you from doing something, does not stop you from having the will to try? Am I wrong?
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:42:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:35:08 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:33:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:27:11 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:24:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:01:37 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:54:32 PM, Csareo wrote:
This sounds a bit Sartrean and I'm not sure it's a useful or coherent distinction. Freedom means lack of restricting factors. Liberty is often used to mean social freedom. Therefore it is impossible to be at liberty without being free in the same way as it is impossible to be a dog without being a mammal.

Freedom does not necessarily mean total freedom. You must answer the question: "freedom in what domain"? If someone can't afford a car and therefore can't get to work, does that mean they are being deprived of liberty? No. In order to be at liberty you must be at least somewhat free, but that doesn't mean you will have unlimited choices. In other words, only some "I can't dos" mean you are being deprived of liberty. There's definitely a distinction to be made.

I didn't say it did mean total freedom. Why on earth did you think I was suggesting that?

I didn't say you did. I only used that to set up the next sentence.

There's no need to bring total freedom into it, though. If you're free then you're unconstrained. If you're at liberty then you're unconstrained. Sometimes the latter is used to refer to specifically social freedoms. That's all there is to it.

Sorry for the confusion; I'm not trying to bring total freedom into it at all. I'm simply pointing out that freedom and liberty are not the same.

Wherever you are at liberty, you are free. Wherever you are free, you are at liberty. However, not having the freedom to do X doesn't necessarily mean you are being deprived of liberty (but not having the liberty to do X means you are being deprived of freedom).
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:50:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:40:45 PM, Csareo wrote:
That's my point. If freedom requires both will and no constraints, then isn't the ability to act on will a state of mind? This is the crux of my argument. Just because you have the liberty to do something, does not entitle you the will. And vice versa.

Firstly, I disagree that it is both the will and lack of constraints. Secondly, the ability to act on something is not a state of mind, it is a state of physical capacity.

Is, or is not will a state of mind?

It is.

I get what your saying. Its not a state of mind if constraints exist, correct? Well, whats stopping you from going through with it?

I am saying that my being free to do something is completely independent of the question of whether I want to do it.

Fear of course.

Or common sense, desire, disinterest or one of many other perfectly valid reasons for not wanting to do something. I don't eat broad beans because I dislike them, not because I'm afraid of them or am not free to eat them.

Do you at least realize what I'm saying now. You can still have freedom to act on something if it will fail. Which translates to courage.

I have no idea what that means.

False. Even if the enviorment is stopping you from leaving a building, you can still have the will to try. Hence, you are not constrained from acting on your will. Even if it fails.

Yes, but merely wanting to do something does not make me free to do it. Hence the example of giving birth. My will is to leave the building, not to attempt to leave the building. As I said, your argument sounds rather Sartrean. Not in a good way.

Am I?

Yes.

Earlier you conceded that the definition of freedom is to have both will and no constraints. What I am arguing, is that the only actual constraint preventing you from acting on will, is fear.

No, I didn't concede that at all. I've been saying throughout this thread that freedom is only the lack of constraint. Having the will to do it is a separate question entirely. That is before we get onto the fallacious statement that the only reason someone might not do something is out of fear.

Does this make sense?

No.

Just because your physically incapable of climbing a mountain, does not mean that you can't attempt to try, correct?

It means I am not free to climb a mountain. I am free to try, just the same as I am free to try and jump off a high building to fly unaided. That does not mean that I am free to fly, though.

Just because the enviorment stops you from doing something, does not stop you from having the will to try? Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. You are falsely equivocating between "having the will to do something" and "being free to do something". I'm free to listen to music that I dislike, but I don't choose to do so because I do not want to. Not because I am afraid of it, but because I do not enjoy doing so. In no sense am I not free to do so, though.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:50:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:42:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:35:08 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:33:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:27:11 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:24:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:01:37 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 3:54:32 PM, Csareo wrote:
This sounds a bit Sartrean and I'm not sure it's a useful or coherent distinction. Freedom means lack of restricting factors. Liberty is often used to mean social freedom. Therefore it is impossible to be at liberty without being free in the same way as it is impossible to be a dog without being a mammal.

Freedom does not necessarily mean total freedom. You must answer the question: "freedom in what domain"? If someone can't afford a car and therefore can't get to work, does that mean they are being deprived of liberty? No. In order to be at liberty you must be at least somewhat free, but that doesn't mean you will have unlimited choices. In other words, only some "I can't dos" mean you are being deprived of liberty. There's definitely a distinction to be made.

I didn't say it did mean total freedom. Why on earth did you think I was suggesting that?

I didn't say you did. I only used that to set up the next sentence.

There's no need to bring total freedom into it, though. If you're free then you're unconstrained. If you're at liberty then you're unconstrained. Sometimes the latter is used to refer to specifically social freedoms. That's all there is to it.

Sorry for the confusion; I'm not trying to bring total freedom into it at all. I'm simply pointing out that freedom and liberty are not the same.

Wherever you are at liberty, you are free. Wherever you are free, you are at liberty. However, not having the freedom to do X doesn't necessarily mean you are being deprived of liberty (but not having the liberty to do X means you are being deprived of freedom).

Did you read my argument? Currently, our premises look like this.....

Resolution: Freedom is a state of mind

Pro premise: A man has the freedom to act on unconstrained will, whether or not the environment allows it.

Con Premise: Freedom is not a state of mind, as you can not always act on will, if constraints exist.

Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that the only thing preventing one from acting on will is fear, right? So, my premise is, that one who puts aside fear, has no constraints preventing him from acting on will.

What do you think?
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 4:52:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:42:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Sorry for the confusion; I'm not trying to bring total freedom into it at all. I'm simply pointing out that freedom and liberty are not the same.

Wherever you are at liberty, you are free. Wherever you are free, you are at liberty. However, not having the freedom to do X doesn't necessarily mean you are being deprived of liberty (but not having the liberty to do X means you are being deprived of freedom).

As I said, sometimes they are synonymous and other times liberty is taken to mean a more specifically social kind of freedom. I think this is probably a distinction that only really exists on that side of the Atlantic though. People here just tend to say 'free'.
Csareo
Posts: 194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 5:05:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 4:50:38 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2014 4:40:45 PM, Csareo wrote:
That's my point. If freedom requires both will and no constraints, then isn't the ability to act on will a state of mind? This is the crux of my argument. Just because you have the liberty to do something, does not entitle you the will. And vice versa.

Firstly, I disagree that it is both the will and lack of constraints. Secondly, the ability to act on something is not a state of mind, it is a state of physical capacity.

You said you concede to the definition, and now your saying you deny it. Look, once again....

freedom
Syllabification: free"dom
Pronunciation: /G2;frēdəm /
NOUN

1The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint:


Therefore, if you deny the definition provided, then you are denying set terminology. Your going solo on this one.


Is, or is not will a state of mind?

It is.

Concession

I get what your saying. Its not a state of mind if constraints exist, correct? Well, whats stopping you from going through with it?

I am saying that my being free to do something is completely independent of the question of whether I want to do it.

Then, is it possible, that one can have the freedom to not act on his will? Being free does not entitle you to act on it, but having a mindset that allows you to.

Is this not true?

Fear of course.

Or common sense, desire, disinterest or one of many other perfectly valid reasons for not wanting to do something. I don't eat broad beans because I dislike them, not because I'm afraid of them or am not free to eat them.

As I said, just because one has the ability to act on will, does not mean he will act on it. That would be fallacious. Can one have the ability to act, without acting?

Your resolution is hardly standing.

Do you at least realize what I'm saying now. You can still have freedom to act on something if it will fail. Which translates to courage.

I have no idea what that means.

It means, that just because the environment stops you from accomplishing something, does not mean that your unable to attempt it. Hence, your argument that the environment stops you from being free, is negated.

False. Even if the enviorment is stopping you from leaving a building, you can still have the will to try. Hence, you are not constrained from acting on your will. Even if it fails.

Yes, but merely wanting to do something does not make me free to do it. Hence the example of giving birth. My will is to leave the building, not to attempt to leave the building. As I said, your argument sounds rather Sartrean. Not in a good way.

Am I?

Yes.

In what way? Are you still trying to say that because one can not accomplish his will, he lacks the ability to attempt his will.

Your whole resolution is negated. The definition of freedom says the abillity to act. Not that one, per say, will act.

Its 100% reasonable to assume one can have the freedom to act on his will, without actually acting on it.

Earlier you conceded that the definition of freedom is to have both will and no constraints. What I am arguing, is that the only actual constraint preventing you from acting on will, is fear.

No, I didn't concede that at all. I've been saying throughout this thread that freedom is only the lack of constraint. Having the will to do it is a separate question entirely. That is before we get onto the fallacious statement that the only reason someone might not do something is out of fear.

Then you are denying terminology. Let me ask you, What is free will? It is, and must be, a result of unconstrained. Therefore, one can not be free in any area without having the will to be free.

Does this make sense?

No.

Enlighten me?

Just because your physically incapable of climbing a mountain, does not mean that you can't attempt to try, correct?

It means I am not free to climb a mountain. I am free to try, just the same as I am free to try and jump off a high building to fly unaided. That does not mean that I am free to fly, though.

Does it mean your not free to try? Being free to do something, does not imply it will work. It implies that you have the ability to attempt that will.

Your argument that one can not act on will if nature disallows it, is fallacious. People have gone against nature and basic science all the time. Its because they had the will to go against society, science, or nature.

Your whole premise is circular and a fallacy

Just because the enviorment stops you from doing something, does not stop you from having the will to try? Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. You are falsely equivocating between "having the will to do something" and "being free to do something". I'm free to listen to music that I dislike, but I don't choose to do so because I do not want to. Not because I am afraid of it, but because I do not enjoy doing so. In no sense am I not free to do so, though.

As I said, your resolution is extremely fallacious. Everybody is free to do something. Freedom has NOTHING to do with success. Just because one is unable to swim without drowning, does not mean he lacks the will to try.

By your logic, humanity can not attempt to do anything that seems impossible. You have taken the whole BOP on yourself. To prove your case, you must prove that that humanity can not change what seems impossible.

Which has already been done many times. Your resolution, is absolutely, 100%, negated by this point
http://www.edeb8.com...

Edeb8 unofficial champion of team debate bug finding

PM me for questions on campaign http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 5:31:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 5:05:32 PM, Csareo wrote:
You said you concede to the definition, and now your saying you deny it. Look, once again....

I said I know what the common definitions of freedom are. I did not say I agreed with your redefinition of freedom.

Therefore, if you deny the definition provided, then you are denying set terminology. Your going solo on this one.

Selective quoting can do all sorts of magic tricks. Shall we see what else the definitions have to say?

"freedom Q94;
free"dom [free-duhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

Synonyms:
1. Freedom, independence, liberty"

http://dictionary.reference.com...

"1 The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants"
"2The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved"
"SYNONYMS
liberty, liberation, release, emancipation, deliverance, delivery, discharge, non-confinement, extrication; amnesty, pardoning"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

"1
the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>
2
a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege"

"Synonyms
autonomy, independence, independency, liberty, self-determination, self-governance, self-government, sovereignty"

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Hardly 'going solo', then.

Concession

Not really, since that has never been in dispute. Nor has it ever been relevant.

Then, is it possible, that one can have the freedom to not act on his will? Being free does not entitle you to act on it, but having a mindset that allows you to.

Being free means that should you choose to do so, you are able to do so. Whether you have the mindset to do so or not. It is not a question of "will I?" but of "can I?".

As I said, just because one has the ability to act on will, does not mean he will act on it. That would be fallacious. Can one have the ability to act, without acting?

Freedom is a matter of whether you are able to do something, not whether you actually decide to do it or not. I am not sure what you're finding so hard to grasp about this point, as it is very simple.

It means, that just because the environment stops you from accomplishing something, does not mean that your unable to attempt it. Hence, your argument that the environment stops you from being free, is negated.

If I am tied to a chair then I am not free to walk away. The environment is preventing me from doing so. That I can then try and find ways to free myself of restraint does not change the fact that I am indeed restrained in the first place.

In what way? Are you still trying to say that because one can not accomplish his will, he lacks the ability to attempt his will.

I am saying that if someone locks me in a cell then I am not free to leave that cell.

Your whole resolution is negated. The definition of freedom says the abillity to act. Not that one, per say, will act.

You are now arguing with yourself.

Its 100% reasonable to assume one can have the freedom to act on his will, without actually acting on it.

Yes, because freedom is independent of will. That's my whole point. I'm glad you now agree.

Then you are denying terminology. Let me ask you, What is free will? It is, and must be, a result of unconstrained. Therefore, one can not be free in any area without having the will to be free.

I shall let 3 major dictionary definitions posted above speak for themselves in showing quite how wrong your statement here is. Free will is concept that we can choose our actions, as contrasted with the deterministic model whereby we have no choice in such matters. It is not the same as freedom in general though. You are once again equivocating.

Enlighten me?

I'm not sure how much more enlightened I can make you than "no, it does not make sense" plus all the other points I'm making.

Does it mean your not free to try? Being free to do something, does not imply it will work. It implies that you have the ability to attempt that will.

I am not free to fly unaided. I am free to try, but I shall fail. If I am tied to a chair, I am not free to walk away unopposed. I can try, but I shall fail. By your definition here, everyone is always free to do whatever they can think of, no matter that they will not succeed. This makes a terminal nonsense of the concept of freedom.

Your argument that one can not act on will if nature disallows it, is fallacious. People have gone against nature and basic science all the time. Its because they had the will to go against society, science, or nature.

I didn't say one could not act on their will. I said that they are not free to do whatever they want if the environment prevents it. Nobody ever goes against science or nature. This isn't the Matrix.

As I said, your resolution is extremely fallacious. Everybody is free to do something. Freedom has NOTHING to do with success. Just because one is unable to swim without drowning, does not mean he lacks the will to try.

You've said quite a lot of things. Some of them have contradicted other things you've said. Most of them have just been nonsense.

By your logic, humanity can not attempt to do anything that seems impossible. You have taken the whole BOP on yourself. To prove your case, you must prove that that humanity can not change what seems impossible.

No, by my logic humanity cannot do something that is known to be impossible. I am not free to add 2 to 2 and get 5. I am not free to jump into an active volcano naked without being burned. I am not free to leap from a window and fly unaided. I am free to attempt these things, but in doing so I will find out just how unfree I am to do them.

Which has already been done many times. Your resolution, is absolutely, 100%, negated by this point

I think you need to pipe down and re-read a few of these posts, the dictionary and ideally some basic philosophy.
Shadowhuntress
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 8:09:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The American pledge of Allegiance states "with liberty and justice for all". I believe they are the same. Dictionary definitions are never quite the same as they are used in life.
Shadowhuntress- i'm an angel with a shotgun.
Shadowhuntress
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 8:32:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, them being different would imply that you can have one without the other. Can you have freedom without liberty? Or liberty without freedom?
Shadowhuntress- i'm an angel with a shotgun.