Hey at least one who gets interested in that discussion!
thanks!
Though I don't agree with you at all
Quote:
|
To live free, is to obey the Nature, without law binding, do what human being should do naturally. That is the real freedom.
|
If I get what you say, you are saying humans are not free because they don't obey the Nature rules. Then Animals are free, just because they cannot think far enough to build laws as humans do and thus obey the Nature rules.
So Humans would be the opposit of freedom because they are able to think!!
Let's take it another way
Isn't Human defined by the fact they can think and build their own society with common laws to everyone?
If you think about it, there are two kinds of rules: the ones from Nature and physics and chemistry and so on... these rules cannot be violated because they are constitutive (example: you cannot fall upward
). Then you cannot define freedom or not.
The second kind is the rules assumed by Humans, which you can think about and whether agree with or not. From these rules comes more or less freedom of course.
If you got what I just said, then you have to come to the point that to have freedom you need Human rules. And thus there is no absolute freedom, there is more or less freedom but never absolute freedom.
Here is such a tiny part of what I think about it