#human freedom

[furiousgoldfish]

How free are you? A Poll

Instructions: If the answer to the question is 'yes', give yourself 1 point. If the answer is 'no', take 1 point away. If the answer is 'maybe', or 'I don't know', or 'unsure', don't add any points.

Can you wear whatever you want, without having to explain yourself or worry about getting berated for it?

Can you choose what to do with your own time, without having anyone criticize or guilt you for it?

Can you choose what you eat every day, or at least reject the food you don't want to eat?

Do you have access to food that is nourishing, healthy and unlikely to cause any health issues in the long term?

Can you choose freely who you spend your time with, without reprecussions?

Can you choose what you do for a job? Can you change it without severe consequences for your financial stability?

Are you allowed to go wherever you please, if your finances allow for it?

Do you have a community of people you're connected to, who have the same or similar beliefs and circumstances as you do?

Do you have a network (or a family) of people who you consider to be 'your people', who accept you and care about you?

Will you be okay and taken care of in case of illness, injury, incident or a disaster?

Can you choose your own religion, or reject a religion, without severe social consequences?

Do you have knowledge of your basic human rights, and are you informed on what to do if some of these rights get violated?

Can you go about life without ever worrying about physical violence occuring from a person you know and are around?

Can you go about life without worrying about physical violence coming from a stranger?

Can you walk the planet without being self-conscious of your body and how you're perceived, and being objectified or devalued because of it?

Do you feel safe and comfortable in most of the places you exist in?

Can you get by without taking special measures, such as hiding, lying, escaping, locking yourself in, avoiding certain places and activities, avoiding certain people, changing your name, in order to be safe in the world?

Do you have safe access to communication with people you want to communicate with?

Can you access the money you need without having to ask or explain why you need it?

Do you feel safe that your basic physical needs, such as food, clothing, sanitary items, tools, shelter and utilities are and will stay accessible to you?

Do you have secure access to healthcare, without having to severely worry about the financial aspect of it, or about someone barring you from access?

Do you have reliable information about your own health, and about how the activities you do might affect it, both for better and for worse?

Are you allowed to change your mind about how you feel about the issues in the world, your own circumstances, people around you, your faith and your politics, without being outcasted from your group of peers?

Can you go trough life without worrying about a hate crime being committed against you, both by people you know and strangers?

Is your health and physical state of body stable enough to work a full time job?

Can you secure enough money to live comfortably, without your physical or psychological health suffering and deteriorating for it?

Can you comfortably communicate your needs, feelings, problems, struggles and affection to others, when you want to?

Can you speak your mind most of the time, without worrying about reprecussions?

Can you be open about your interests, hobbies, beliefs, sexuality, identity, politics and relationships with most of the people around you?

Can you comfortably speak about the circumstances and facts of your life, without being corrected or denied to name some of them?

Can you recognize when a choice has been taken away from you, and things have been decided for you? If yes, can you also walk away from this, and refuse to take on the consequences?

Can you comfortably place blame on the people who have caused you distress and pain in your life, without any pushback or criticism for doing so?

Do you have support, knowledge and resources you need in order to deal with grief and tragedy?

Can you feel comfortable and at ease around all people you are around with?

Can you freely confront a person in your life who has attempted to cause injustice to you, even if that person is in position of authority to you? Do you feel safe and able to do so?

Can you freely choose your sexual partner(s), or refuse any you don't want without having to worry about their feelings, assault, your financial situation or your safety?

Can you choose freely to undo any consequences sex had on your body, if you don't want it to be happening to you?  (abortion rights, skip if it doesn't apply to you)

Can you break up your relationships, parental bonds and marriages to other people without having to worry about survial, physical safety or keeping a roof over your head?

Do you have information and resources to immediately recognize red flags of being lured into a scam, exploitative work, grooming, abuse, sexual abuse, cults, human trafficking, or similar situations?

Can you live without being severely affected by human made-disasters, such as wars, chemical damage to the environment, mass destruction and shootings?

Ideally, in a functional society, a human being should have all of these freedoms. I understand for most, if not all of us, to have every single of these points is impossible. If you are in the negative points, your situation is dire and freedom has been stripped from you to the inhumane level. For reference, the score I got for this was 9! 39 or 40 would be the ideal, which I don't believe anyone will get.

If your answer is 'no', for questions about having access to information, having knowledge and resources, this isn't your fault. You are not solely responsible for figuring out every single aspect of it yourself, this should have been covered in your education and upbringing. Also, if you're underage, questions like being able to work a job, securing money and choosing sexual partners do not apply to you, you should instead be protected from having to worry about any of that until you reach the adulthood or age of consent. If you are having to worry about any of that, the answer is automatically no. If you have no worries about that, you can give yourself a point for each of these.

Disclaimer: This poll was made by one person, using personal ideas about freedom in this world, I am sure I forgot to include many things, please do add in the comments other perils to freedom that are not mentioned here. It is not a definitive statement on human freedom, only a reference point and a source of information.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Good and Bad Faith

The philosophy of good faith and bad faith primarily explores concepts related to authenticity, self-deception, and the nature of human existence, especially within the framework of existentialism. These ideas are most famously articulated by Jean-Paul Sartre, a leading figure in existentialist philosophy. The notions of good faith (bonne foi) and bad faith (mauvaise foi) deal with how individuals confront their freedom, responsibilities, and the choices they make in defining their existence.

Key Themes in the Philosophy of Good Faith and Bad Faith:

Existentialism and Human Freedom:

Freedom and Responsibility: Existentialist philosophy, particularly as developed by Sartre, emphasizes that human beings are radically free. This freedom is not just the ability to make choices but a fundamental condition of human existence. However, with this freedom comes the burden of responsibility for one’s actions and the meaning one creates in life.

Existence Precedes Essence: Sartre’s famous dictum, "existence precedes essence," suggests that humans are not born with a predetermined nature or purpose. Instead, individuals must create their own essence through their actions and choices. This process is central to the ideas of good faith and bad faith.

Bad Faith (Mauvaise Foi):

Self-Deception: Bad faith involves deceiving oneself to avoid the discomfort of facing one’s freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. It is a form of self-deception where individuals lie to themselves about the nature of their choices or circumstances to escape the anxiety associated with their freedom.

Examples of Bad Faith: Sartre provides examples of bad faith, such as a waiter who over-identifies with his role, acting as if he is merely a waiter and nothing more, or a person who claims they had no choice but to act in a certain way, thereby denying their freedom. In both cases, the individual denies their full humanity by reducing themselves to fixed roles or circumstances.

Denial of Freedom: In bad faith, individuals deny their freedom by attributing their actions to external forces, such as societal roles, expectations, or determinism. They avoid acknowledging that they always have a choice, even in the most constrained situations.

Good Faith (Bonne Foi):

Authenticity: In contrast to bad faith, good faith involves living authentically, fully acknowledging and embracing one’s freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. A person in good faith recognizes that they are the source of their actions and the creator of their own values and meaning.

Embracing Responsibility: Living in good faith requires accepting the anxiety and uncertainty that come with freedom. It involves making choices based on genuine reflection and accepting the consequences of those choices without resorting to excuses or self-deception.

Authentic Existence: Good faith aligns with the existentialist ideal of living an authentic life. This means being true to oneself, making decisions based on one’s own values rather than conforming to external pressures or societal norms.

The Role of Others:

The Look (Le Regard): Sartre also explores how the presence of others affects our experience of good faith and bad faith. Through the concept of "the look," Sartre describes how being seen by others can lead to a sense of objectification, where one becomes aware of oneself as an object in another’s perception. This can lead to bad faith if one starts to see oneself solely through the eyes of others, denying one’s own freedom and subjectivity.

Interpersonal Relationships: Relationships with others are often a battleground for authenticity. In good faith, individuals engage with others without trying to dominate or submit, recognizing both their own and the other’s freedom. In bad faith, relationships are marked by attempts to control or escape the freedom of the self and the other.

Anxiety (Angoisse) and Bad Faith:

Existential Anxiety: The recognition of one’s absolute freedom and the weight of responsibility can lead to existential anxiety. This anxiety arises from the realization that there is no predetermined path or external authority to guide one’s choices—each individual must create their own meaning.

Avoidance of Anxiety: Bad faith often serves as a coping mechanism to avoid this anxiety. By convincing oneself that they are bound by external factors, individuals can temporarily escape the daunting reality of their freedom. However, this comes at the cost of living inauthentically.

Ethical Implications:

Ethics of Authenticity: The philosophy of good faith and bad faith has significant ethical implications. It suggests that living ethically involves being true to oneself, acknowledging one’s freedom, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. This form of authenticity is seen as a moral ideal in existentialist thought.

Critique of Social Roles: Sartre’s critique of bad faith extends to societal roles and norms, which can be sources of inauthenticity. He argues that when people blindly conform to societal expectations, they deny their freedom and fall into bad faith. Ethical living requires questioning these roles and choosing one’s path consciously.

Challenges and Criticisms:

Ambiguity of Authenticity: One challenge in the philosophy of good faith is defining what it means to live authentically. Since existentialism emphasizes individual freedom, there is no universal standard for authenticity, which can make the concept seem vague or subjective.

Relativism: Critics argue that the emphasis on personal freedom and authenticity can lead to moral relativism, where any choice is justified as long as it is made authentically. However, existentialists like Sartre contend that authenticity requires more than just arbitrary choice—it demands a deep engagement with one’s freedom and responsibility.

The philosophy of good faith and bad faith provides a powerful framework for understanding human freedom, responsibility, and the quest for an authentic life. It challenges individuals to confront their freedom honestly, without resorting to self-deception or excuses, and to live in a way that is true to their own values and potential. By exploring the dynamics of self-deception and authenticity, this philosophy offers profound insights into the nature of human existence and the ethical challenges that come with it.

[thebeerthrillers]

Book Review: Create Dangerously (Albert Camus)

Create Dangerously by Albert Camus Create Dangerously Live dangerously, think dangerously, create dangerously. This can be a wonderful way to sum up the life – and writings – of Albert Camus. One of my favorite writers, his works have profoundly touched me in my own writing, in my own way of thinking, and my life in general. One of my biggest inspirations for writing, alongside Kurt Vonnegut,…

View On WordPress

[funsimplethings]

[dongcroncher]

A brief argument for human free will below.

The argument is an attempt to show that our ability to discern between actions that are obviously deterministic-such as muscle spasms or sneezes, and seemingly free ones-such as what to have for breakfast: gives us good reason to believe that our seemingly free actions are actually free.

Before we dive into the syllogism, consider the following scenarios: I wake up one morning and go downstairs. In front of me is a bowl of cerreal and pancakes. I feel as though I have a choice between eating one or the other. In this way, I have the phenomenological experience of choice, whether or not this is illusory or not. We will call this a seemingly free action.

After I eat breakfast, I notice a muscle spasm in my leg. My leg keeps twitching, and I realize that I lack the choice to stop it. In this way, I lack the phenomenological experience of having a choice. There is no possibility of an illusion of free choice here. We will call this an obviously determined action.

It is clear from the start that these are obviously dissimilar actions in virtue of the phenomenological experience or lack thereof, of freedom. But what type of case for free will can be made here? First I'll propose a deductive syllogism.

P1. Determined actions such as sneezes and spasms have an attribute of feeling deterministic.

P2. Seemingly free actions such as chosing breakfast lack the attribute of feeling deterministic.

C. Per Leibniz Law Seemingly Free actions are non-identical to Deterministic ones.

P3. If seemingly free actions are not determined then they are actually free.

C2. So seemingly free actions are actually free.

If the deductive syllogism above is too strong for some people's likings, this same concept can be expressed in a more modest inductive format.

P1. I can conceptually discern between determined actions and seemingly free actions.

P2. This is more surprising given determinism than free will.

C. Therefore free will is more likely than determinism all things considered equal.

This is a rough sketch of the idea more than anything, so I'm open to critiques, though I do find there is strength here.

[spirituality-and-alien-contact]

What are the requirements for freedom?

NewMessage.org/LifeUniverse

[feministdragon]

Women’s Rights are Human Rights pt. 1

Women are deprived of human rights.  Legally and socially they are subsumed to or included in the category of man, while being explicitly not treated the same as men in society.  ’Man’ is said to be a descriptor that includes women in law and other texts, but women are not afforded any of the practical rights and privileges that men receive. Women are not understood to have the same human rights as men, and only recently in some countries have women gained some practical rights that normally are only permitted to men, including the right to vote, the right to own money and to manage this money on their own in bank accounts, to inherit money from their parents, and to work.  

Women still do not have the following rights in most countries:  to be explicitly acknowledged in the founding document of the country to be human beings, to be paid fairly for their work, to be free of male violence in the home and other places, to have full control over the use of their bodies and reproductive function,

Because women historically have been slaves appended to men, it is hard to define women as a ‘class’, even though dividing women and men socially is the first class division that existed in history.   The fundamental trick is that each woman individually is possessed by men individually, and also men as a whole.  A woman belongs to her father/brother/male relatives first, and than belongs to the man she is married to.  If she is seen as being without ‘protection’ of an individual male, then she is owned my males in general, to be used as they see fit.

The recent gains in some countries have obscured this stark truth.  However, it persists in the world, despite that I and some other women have been able to gain some rights within law and social structures, which allow me to be economically independent and married in a lesbian relationship, and therefore live relatively free from the influence of men.  My father and brothers are no longer my legal masters, I am able to form a legal economic unit with another woman, and in the particular country I live in, men are not allowed to overtly assume my ownership or use, although there is always the threat.

The limited number of women in my situation is the exception that proves the rule:  the feminist project has barely begun, and gains we make are swiftly subverted to fit the status quo [see: the gender identity project, which seeks to reify gender roles as innate to human beings, which if codified in law would legalize women as second-class, inferior human beings, obviously not a desirable result for women.]

For the feminist project to advance, we need to recognise in a systematic way the different ways women are deprived of human rights, and then systematically assert our humanity, as individuals, and as a group.

[this is part of a longer essay in development.  I enthusiastically welcome any feedback, especially on how to describe things more precisely and accurately, to include examples and ideas that I have missed, or anything else you see as lacking.  Please either pm me or reblog with your feedback.]