Discussion Your thoughts on notions like independence, freedom, indivisualism, etc.

[ForcedLifeResistant]

See title.

Do such things exist? How attainable are they if they? Those kinds of questions.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Independence
Possible, but the more you want, the more isolated you have to be, which is hard if not impossible for most people.
Freedom
You can do whatever you want, but only if you are independent. See point one.
Real freedom, unfortunately, cost money. That means you are dependent on certain systems in society, but can buy 'independence' for yourself in other ways.
Individualism
This is a contradiction that I suspect will one day result in the collapse of our society. There is a consistent pattern to the rise of humanity through history and prehistory, as represented in archaeology. The rise of the individual. The powerful, wealthy, elite individual, that is. And these individuals stand on the backs of a far greater number of less powerful and wealthy 'common' people. The elites have bought their 'freedom' and yet are constrained by it too.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/posts/749628/

The elite caste of today's world have those freedoms but I don't believe they see the inherent contradiction or the constraint they suffer from. Which is very unfortunate, because the model we operate under, as dictated to by our very nature, is ultimately unsustainable. Everything has it's time and everything dies.

 

[262653]

Possible, but the more you want, the more isolated you have to be, which is hard if not impossible for most people.

That if we're talking about dependence on other people. If I start to grow my own food for personal consumption, instead of buying/stealing from others, then one dependence is changed for another. I think it's about picking dependencies that suit you the most.

Ed: I see freedom as the absence of obstacles for a... let's say, specific drive. Like wanting to eat apples. Freedom could be relative to others, it's when multiple decision makers come to a conflict, and the conflict winner is the one who is more free in comparison to the conflict loser, whose objectives just got stomped. If two people want the same apple, want it wholly, then if one gets it (more free), then another one doesn't get it (less free).

I think internal conflicts also make us less free. If I want an apple but allergic to it, then I would have to either give up an apple, or my body will have an allergic reaction, with nasty symptoms I don't want to experience.

And then we have physical laws restraining our freedom, like gravity maybe. An apple hanging out of reach, or inability to jump/fly high enough to grab the apple.

Now when I think of freedom in this way, it sounds closely related to individualism, because to get what I want in the competitive world, others have to give up what they want, or concede to a certain degree.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Now when I think of freedom in this way, it sounds closely related to individualism, because to get what I want in the competitive world, others have to give up what they want, or concede to a certain degree.

Yes. If you have something, then that's something that no-one else has. So to have what you require, means that someone else has to go without. Even if there are enough resources to go around, no two people can consume exactly the same resource. Hence the rise of individualism. Beneath that sits evolution and beneath that physics, in whatever form you wish to refer to it. All the same process and individualism is how we see it expressed in human society. Extended to a natural conclusion, it's our freedom that will naturally limit our species, ultimately failing as we fall victim to our success.

 

[woxihuanni]

All of that is a delusion defective people have. They do not understand they cannot actually eat their salary, for instance, if somebody does not turn it into actual food. And much more stuff to be said on the subject, but it is wasted on something like my husband. He thinks he proves his independence by being a cuntflea that belongs to a cunt he does not get to fuck.

 

[Sensei]

Independence: I agree with Underscore. The only way to achieve total independence is to become a hermit as society basically can't exist without interdependence.
Freedom: Real freedom is an impossibility for the time being. The current socio-economic system is seemingly fluid, but is in reality very rigid. It's a pyramid-like structure governed by oligarchal factions which base their power on wealth, status, manipulation, and violence. Unless civilization collapses, this system will likely last several more decades, perhaps even a century.
Individualism: Contrary to independence and freedom, individualism is possible in modern society. You can express your individuality in terms of for instance politics, religion, and taste. Conformism can suppress individualism, but it can be fought or ignored.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Unless civilization collapses, this system will likely last several more decades, perhaps even a century.

Not if, but when. All civilisations end, all societies ultimately collapse. The longer a society continues to exist, the more painful it's death throes are. Out of the ashes, something new will develop. The trick is to pass on information in perpetuity to allow future generations to make something better. Unfortunately, this has often not happened in the past and much wisdom has been lost to time, only to be rediscovered anew as if it was for the first time. Maybe this time around, if we choose to protect what we know for the future, there is a greater chance. In that respect, societal evolution is no different than biological evolution; the process is the same, it's just much faster.

 

[GrumpyFrog]

Absolute freedom is not attainable as long as you're a physical being that needs food and shelter and feels pain, and absolute independence is not something most people would want. I believe these concepts are relative - most people desire freedom and independence from something or someone, even if they don't always name that thing, and attainability of that depends on what they want to be independent from.

 

[Sensei]

Not if, but when. All civilisations end, all societies ultimately collapse.

Agreed. I believe it will be a slow, gradual, and painful process. In fact, it has already started and it's happening as we speak.

The longer a society continues to exist, the more painful it's death throes are. Out of the ashes, something new will develop. The trick is to pass on information in perpetuity to allow future generations to make something better. Unfortunately, this has often not happened in the past and much wisdom has been lost to time, only to be rediscovered anew as if it was for the first time. Maybe this time around, if we choose to protect what we know for the future, there is a greater chance. In that respect, societal evolution is no different than biological evolution; the process is the same, it's just much faster.

I think mankind will fare better this time. Unless there's a nuclear holocaust or massive asteroid impact, there will be both printed and digital information sources available. It won't change the fact that it will take a long time to rebuild society, though.

 

[RottenDeer]

Freedom and independence isn't attainable. You're never fully free nor independent. You always rely on something or someone. Individualism can be attained but it's hard.