the question, or one of the questions facing us is this
question of freedom..
are we beings who can act freely or are we determined in
some fashion that we can only act in a certain way?
for example, we have various scientific theories like evolution
and gravity, do they, in some fashion, determine our actions?
and the answer is yes, we are limited in some fashion by evolution
and the theory of gravity... the forces of the universe can only allow
me to engage in a certain way with the universe... I cannot fly, like
a bird or an insect... I am limited by evolution which prevents me from flying
like a bird or insect... I cannot be an elephant or a dog either...
my genetic programming only allows me to be a human being.. I can
do no nothing else but be human.....I have no choice or freedom in this
matter... and because of forces beyond my control, I can only be
what the forces have already decided for me to be...I am, limited
by the forces of the universe to be one thing and one thing only....
and evolution is that particular force... gravity also plays a role in
my options or choices...the force of gravity forces me to be limited
in my choices...I cannot escape or do something different than what
gravity is forcing me to do... I cannot leap over a tall building in
a single bound... and I am limited by other forces like the force
of entropy... from disorder to order to disorder and back again...
we organic beings, we go from order to disorder to order and disorder..
if there is reincarnation, this is it...we are born, becoming order,
and as we age, we slowly become disorder/entropy..
we die and then just as slowly, we return to order by
being born again.... Einstein showed us that no matter is lost
in the universe, we are simply matter that gets recycled over
and over again...and what choice or freedom do we have to
engage with this forever recycling of our bodies? None that I can tell...
so in fact, we human beings are rather limited in our choices, in
what we can do in regard to freedom....as the forces in the universe,
over which we have no control over, force us to act or be in a certain way or
manner....
and these forces or limitations we have, is called science...
we can only run so fast and we can only swim so long
and we can only exist in a vacuum so long...and it is science
which tells us which forces limit us in which way....
and what is philosophy? a means to tell us in which
way we are free to act...and what is god? just another form
of limitation that we have installed inside of ourselves...
we are limited if we accept the idea of god...for god has
limitations on us...my choice according to some religions is
to go to heaven or go to hell, there is no third choice...
and for the Buddhist, your choice is to be reincarnated
again and again until you can free yourself of this necessity...
and the path of the Buddha is the path of freeing yourself from
the necessity of being reborn, over and over again...
(necessity is just another word for no choice)
and if we look carefully at previous civilizations and nations,
we can see, with a few exceptions, that human beings are determined,
we have few if any choices in our lives... both the Greeks and the Romans,
believed in limited choices or limited freedom for a human being...
if we have an obligation to our ancestors, as both the Romans and
the Chinese thought, then we are not free to act.. we must, by necessity,
worship our ancestors...if the gods determine our actions, as gods are
going to do, then we are, by necessity acting without free will...
but how do we escape this particular aspect of necessity?
the question of existence may be, maybe, this question of
how do we find freedom in a universe that has forces that
force us into certain actions, regardless of whether we want to act
or not...how do we find freedom in a universe that seems to be
pretty determine to prevent human beings from acting freely,
or acting from necessity?
so we have knowledge, epistemological knowledge that
tell us we are, in many ways, predetermined, forced to
act in a certain way...science tells us about the forces of
gravity and evolution and entropy.. forces that demand we must
be, in a certain way, regardless of our own feelings in the matter....
how do we overcome this knowledge of science to reclaim, or
recover our freedom?
by making the choices that we can make...I cannot overcome gravity,
but I can choose to be free in my choices in religion or politics or
philosophical choices or in which history I believe in....
our choices are involved in what it means to be human...
I can choose to be a democrat or choose to be Catholic or choose
to be a fan of Man U, or choose to be a Californian, or choose to
be male or female as the case may be....these are some of the choices,
that, as a human being, I can make... some freedoms in which I make
the choice in what I to hold to be true...the belief that America is
"exceptional" is a choice I can make....there is no necessity to make
that choice....I can make a choice as to the apparent
rightness or wrongness of America.... and to the good or evil,
that I might be... my actions, at least those actions that lay outside
of the necessities of gravity or evolution, are choices I can make
about what kind of human being I can be...I can't choose to
be anything but human, but I can choose to be kind or nice or
mean, I can choose to be a certain kind of human...
now conservatives believe, as Machiavelli believed, that
we are determined by birth, as to whether we are evil or
good.... he says that a human being cannot change his spots,
just like a leopard cannot change their spots... we are determined,
to be good or to be evil... but the evidence is clear, we do have
a choice... we can choose to be evil or we can choose to be good....
we are not determined in this particular fashion...
but the question becomes, what is good and what is evil?
and then the choice is ours..... so, what is good? and what is evil?
and by that, we can make a choice as to what type of human beings
we are... as we are free to make that choice...it isn't determined..
what knowledge do we have that might suggest that we are, in fact,
determined to be either evil or good? I would suggest that we have
no such knowledge, no such determination to be either good or evil....
it is a choice we can make about being human.....
and so, what choice do you make? are you good or evil?
and why that choice and not another?
Kropotkin
epistemology and freedom
-
Peter Kropotkin
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:11 am
Re: epistemology and freedom
we have worked out something called "laws"
and those "laws" are predicated upon something,
that something or what the "laws" are trying to stop/prevent
is violence... all crime is some sort of violence toward some person
or the society at large.. and what is "violence" exactly?
it is the act of harm, or harming someone/the state/society....
in essence, crime is violence of some sort...or hard of some sort....
if we harm someone, we are committing a crime.... and yet,
even here we have some wiggle room... the Law/crime is
predicated upon our having some sort of choice in committing crime...
if we have no choice in an action, how can we be held liable for
that action? That is the basis of an insanity plea.. that we were so
driven by necessity, that we had no choice but to commit violence,
to harm someone.... the law itself allows some leeway toward a necessity
of action.... but the law of the state, allows itself to be violent,
to commit harm to its citizens... for the state gives itself the right
to capital punishment... and the state gives the police the right to
violence in the name of "protecting itself".. so this act of harm,
of violence, is in some cases allowed to certain people and it denies
violence/harm to others...
Let us think about this further... If I lock someone up and starve
them, I would be guilty of violence/harm against that person....
the act of starvation is considered an act of violence against a person,
but and this is important to note, that if a person on the streets has no
food and is starving, then the state does not consider a crime to be committed....
violence is committed when we starve someone and yet, when millions of
of people are starving, as they do at this very moment, no crime is
committed...how is that rationalized? By the assumption that those
who live on the streets, are their by choice, they made choices...
and yet, we know that this is not true..... of the number of homeless,
50% are children.. how would they make that choice? One might argue that
their parents made that choice, but again, that is not true... millions
are made homeless by the choices of corporations that downside and by
the government that allows them to die quickly on the streets...
people are dying, not by choice, violence is committed to them,
which is harm and who is being held accountable? if we are on
the streets by necessity and are starving by necessity, how is that
a choice? if people are dying by being harmed, how is that not
a crime?
and that is the beauty of being a state/or a society...
we can pretend that by our collective nature, we are not
held responsible for violence committed to people, for harm
in people starving and starving not by choice, as not being our problem....
people are being harmed by the very nature of capitalism.... who is
responsible for that harm being done to people without a choice?
capitalism, but capitalism is an ism, an ideology, how do you hold
an ism, an ideology responsible for the harm it does to people
without a choice? and that is why people love living within an ism,
an ideology for it allows us to commit harm to others without any
charge of a crime being committed... I can watch people starve to
death on my street and not feel guilty because I can hold
capitalism, the forces of capitalism as being guilty.. and the forces
of capitalism do not play favorites, it is random and chaotic...
thus how can I personally be held accountable?
if we have no choice in our actions, how are we to be held accountable?
and within this sentence, we can look the other way while millions of
our fellow human beings starve before our very eyes....
and how do we hold accountability.... if not us to be held accountable,
then who? or do we simple pretend that by not holding anyone
accountable, we can simply wash our hands of the entire matter...
Kropotkin
and those "laws" are predicated upon something,
that something or what the "laws" are trying to stop/prevent
is violence... all crime is some sort of violence toward some person
or the society at large.. and what is "violence" exactly?
it is the act of harm, or harming someone/the state/society....
in essence, crime is violence of some sort...or hard of some sort....
if we harm someone, we are committing a crime.... and yet,
even here we have some wiggle room... the Law/crime is
predicated upon our having some sort of choice in committing crime...
if we have no choice in an action, how can we be held liable for
that action? That is the basis of an insanity plea.. that we were so
driven by necessity, that we had no choice but to commit violence,
to harm someone.... the law itself allows some leeway toward a necessity
of action.... but the law of the state, allows itself to be violent,
to commit harm to its citizens... for the state gives itself the right
to capital punishment... and the state gives the police the right to
violence in the name of "protecting itself".. so this act of harm,
of violence, is in some cases allowed to certain people and it denies
violence/harm to others...
Let us think about this further... If I lock someone up and starve
them, I would be guilty of violence/harm against that person....
the act of starvation is considered an act of violence against a person,
but and this is important to note, that if a person on the streets has no
food and is starving, then the state does not consider a crime to be committed....
violence is committed when we starve someone and yet, when millions of
of people are starving, as they do at this very moment, no crime is
committed...how is that rationalized? By the assumption that those
who live on the streets, are their by choice, they made choices...
and yet, we know that this is not true..... of the number of homeless,
50% are children.. how would they make that choice? One might argue that
their parents made that choice, but again, that is not true... millions
are made homeless by the choices of corporations that downside and by
the government that allows them to die quickly on the streets...
people are dying, not by choice, violence is committed to them,
which is harm and who is being held accountable? if we are on
the streets by necessity and are starving by necessity, how is that
a choice? if people are dying by being harmed, how is that not
a crime?
and that is the beauty of being a state/or a society...
we can pretend that by our collective nature, we are not
held responsible for violence committed to people, for harm
in people starving and starving not by choice, as not being our problem....
people are being harmed by the very nature of capitalism.... who is
responsible for that harm being done to people without a choice?
capitalism, but capitalism is an ism, an ideology, how do you hold
an ism, an ideology responsible for the harm it does to people
without a choice? and that is why people love living within an ism,
an ideology for it allows us to commit harm to others without any
charge of a crime being committed... I can watch people starve to
death on my street and not feel guilty because I can hold
capitalism, the forces of capitalism as being guilty.. and the forces
of capitalism do not play favorites, it is random and chaotic...
thus how can I personally be held accountable?
if we have no choice in our actions, how are we to be held accountable?
and within this sentence, we can look the other way while millions of
our fellow human beings starve before our very eyes....
and how do we hold accountability.... if not us to be held accountable,
then who? or do we simple pretend that by not holding anyone
accountable, we can simply wash our hands of the entire matter...
Kropotkin