What is Freedom? The Ancient vs. Modern Idea of Freedom 

Keith, cover the Miami Mall Alien story!

Hey, you outlined the two current untenable dreams of freedom, but left out the Marxist definition of freedom. Please don't be anticommunist, we've had more than enough of that, in fact we're dying of it. But thanks for trying, if you were indeed trying. The Marxist view of freedom is to free all of humankind (to the extent it is both desirable and feasible) from the lack of everything necessary to sustain and reproduce a life of realized individual potential. Once that is done, then people can argue about the nature of freedom. But probably they'll be doing what they want instead. Because they're free.

Mr. Woods, have you ever considered studying philosophy under the aegis of a PHILOSOPHER?

@@ReverendDr.Thomas He has, I am sure. But he has a purpose: to exclude Marxian analysis from all consideration. You can't do that neatly!

All Hail #17 ! -Awesome Job, Keith.

Do you believe that free-will exists?

@@TheVeganVicar In the moment maybe. It's naive to think that your actions aren't dependent on the millions of years of events that happened before it though.

​@@biasedriot3603How do you connect that with your argument for freedom? I think we're all slaves to something....

Freedom is the privelaged ability to exercise decisive will over action. It is highly circumstancial in the sense that even a prison mate who actively decides to improve his physical and spiritual form during his stay and succeeds in doing so could be described as freer than any given portion of co-convicts, prison guards and non-convicted citizens alike

​@@user-hu3iy9gz5jhah.... guayyyyyyyy

Unfortunately, intelligence does not necessarily correlate with WISDOM.

@@TheVeganVicar Keith understands Plato and all the major Western philosophers. When I say intellectual I include philosopher the roots of that word being Lover of Wisdom.

@@TheVeganVicarIntelligence is the science of knowledge. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. Keith excels at both.

@@mysticmouse7261: 🐟 03. WISDOM & TRUTH: PHILOSOPHY DEFINED: Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation. Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also. GENUINE WISDOM: Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth. An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality. THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM: One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact. POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS: At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web. ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS: To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom. The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory). To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise, was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher, without India, to join Arthur! Cont…

@@sklarks8279 Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤

I like the simplicity of this

which is responsibility

The greatest general is the one who conquers himself.

@@DeathoftheWest I like it

@@DeathoftheWest yes

War is peace, freedom is slavery

Your mother is based

Wise Mother! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻

Define right

Positive freedom

I agree. In the early days of human history, freedom was about preserving the wellbeing or autonomy of one’s own language, culture and ethnicity. If you could not fall back on a tribe or community; you had little to no freedom in the old days.

It’s kind of shocking to consider how normalized the freedom to sin has been made in the Western world, to the point where our forefathers have gone to the ends of the earth to fight to normalize it there as well. We’ve been deceived.

Sin is a man made concept, born of Christianity. We're not all Christians. Freedom to sin? You mean freedom of religion, mate. I'm free of your metaphysical nonsense. Freedom means, stay out of my business. Which Keith Amazingly doesn't address

@@kevincassidy1983 - It's a concept that existed before Christianity. I'm using the word "sin" as a simplification of that metaphysical concept. Indo-Europeans had that sort of concept that maintains morality, self-preservation and kinship, which is lost in this post-modern society.

@elcidleon6500 whatever you meant by it, they're man made concepts with no basis other than "some people don't like that" Sex between 2 consenting males hurts nobody. But we still have religious institutions trying to restrict that freedom. You say the right to have gay sex is a freedom to sin Its a freedom of religion. You stay out of people's business. Your ancestry doesn't give you a moral high ground, despite what you think. That's also why slavery is abolished. Because we stop obeying our ancestral notions. The institution of religion is flawed. Time to end it

"Men" or "SOME men"?

So you combined or chain the primative urges into complex urges? What happens when you become a slave to those?

Sup GP

What is this "SPIRIT"?

You need therapy.

@@VVVVV99611, Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

​@@VVVVV99611Jesus Christ rose on the third day after His crucifixion and without this Truth, meaning cannot be justified. Praying for you, friend!

​@@VVVVV99611did you listen to the video?

I agree, in that I instead believe in ‘working for a purpose’. I’d literally rather not live in the current state of the world, never mind work to live for it.

Define work

Mark Fisher would speak of how capital prefers an individualism that is highly managed.

that's based on a supposition. the entire problem is that multiple groups have different ideas what they and the rest of society are supposed to be.

​@@Phobos1483yeah and only one group is right, the people who want things to be sensible

@@Phobos1483 Like Keith said in the 16:00 freedom in a classical sense collaborate to the natural world, so every free society will be led to a future of purity if they allow their citizens to be the best versions of themselves. It's almost a Perenialist argument. I agree with the statement above, and I think that thinking something like this is relative is itself relativistic.

I’m afraid you do not understand. Please contemplate more

@@Phobos1483 Only in the modern landscape. In traditionally structured societies, everyone knew their place in the hierarchy and didn’t entertain ideas of it being any different. Unskilled laborers believed the king had the right to rule, just as much as the king believe he had the right to rule. Modernity destroyed that, and now we have the absolute dregs of society believing they know what is best for all.

You have realized the truth. But is it too late?

Funnily enough, a false idea of liberty is one of the core errors of Vatican II.

Begging the question.

no, its a claim that there is such a thing as right and wrong and you should have the freedom to do what is right @@TheVeganVicar

And one of the big problems with the modern idea of tolerance is that it's intertwined with endorsement.

@@samuelyeates2326 Indeed. I think about the people who just say "Yes, people are free to be perverted consenting adults. IDGAF what consenting alphabet mafia members do in the privacy of their own home" and get "REEEEEE homophobia as a response."

sorry for my bad englisch btw..im dutch and its my second language englisch so make some mistakes with writing

or you just just read the platonists, you don't really need the mystery cult on top

Isn't he an Irish Protestant?

@@DeathoftheWest no he’s a neoplatonist

@@DeathoftheWest People above a certain IQ cannot be Christian

Fuck, that made me laugh really hard.

@@The-NamelessOne It only gets funnier from here.

Hey as long the trans can chug a Coors she (he?) is alright in my book AM I RIGHT

The Founders would have been shooting years ago.

Rather grim when you realize how many Americans would say that. Leftists and Libertarians epically, but conservatives as well

freedom of speech: the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of retribution. Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level. In the private domain, freedom to speak one’s mind is, entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question. Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that objectively-immoral, sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of “F.I.S.H”). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or an auditorium, purely as a practical joke. One who believes that free speech should be totally unconditional, will be unable to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example, above (assuming, of course, that one is even close to being a decent parent). So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma is unethical and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instructed them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]). At the risk of veering-off the topic, the best advisor to any monarch is his spiritual master, as defined in Chapter 19 (ideally, the most holy and wise member of the Holy Priesthood within the kingdom), so the need for him to require advice from anyone other than his guru would be scarce, at least in regard to matters of morality, which is the secure foundation of society. In matters other than dharma, such as in economics, warfare, and engineering, a wise king will take heed of the advice of his other ministers. Incidentally, the title “Prime Minister” (meaning “Chief Helper”) originally referred to a monarch’s “right-hand man”. Therefore, in absolutely every case in which that term has been used in recent centuries, it has been used quite incorrectly, since there has not existed a genuine monarch on earth for hundreds of years (not to mention the fact that in some countries where there is a so-called Prime Minister at the head of the government, there is not any sort of king to be found, such as is presently the case in Bhārata (i.e. India).

It costs folks like you and me.

@@TheVeganVicar Why did you copy and paste something from a book that was only vaguely on topic?

A-

The wheel is made to spin, never by its own choosing. The tendency to spin is due to physical forces affecting the wheel, which is also the case for the wheel gradually stopping. "The arc of circling bodies is determined by the length of their tether." Freedom is an illusion.

freedom of speech: the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of retribution. Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level. In the private domain, freedom to speak one’s mind is, entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question. Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that objectively-immoral, sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of “F.I.S.H”). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or an auditorium, purely as a practical joke. One who believes that free speech should be totally unconditional, will be unable to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example, above (assuming, of course, that one is even close to being a decent parent). So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma is unethical and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instructed them! Read Chapter 12 of my Holy Scripture in order to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]). At the risk of veering-off the topic, the best advisor to any monarch is his spiritual master, as defined in Chapter 19 (ideally, the most holy and wise member of the Holy Priesthood within the kingdom), so the need for him to require advice from anyone other than his guru would be scarce, at least in regard to matters of morality, which is the secure foundation of society. In matters other than dharma, such as in economics, warfare, and engineering, a wise king will take heed of the advice of his other ministers. Incidentally, the title “Prime Minister” (meaning “Chief Helper”) originally referred to a monarch’s “right-hand man”. Therefore, in absolutely every case in which that term has been used in recent centuries, it has been used quite incorrectly, since there has not existed a genuine monarch on earth for hundreds of years (not to mention the fact that in some countries where there is a so-called Prime Minister at the head of the government, there is not any sort of king to be found, such as is presently the case in Bhārata (i.e. India).

I could see that working, but I think you’d need the following criteria to make it possible: -a mostly ethnically homogeneous population -everyone basically practices the same religion, the only freedom exists in terms of minor sect/doctrinal differences -speech is curtailed by a common sense of morality and shared values -government leaders are among the most capable citizens, best suited for leadership, mostly from the upper class. Well-educated men (not women, who are not naturally inclined to leadership), with “skin in the game” -a lot of available land to settle -no foreign agents meddling in your affairs or subverting your culture I feel like if you could meet all those criteria in the current year, you might have a shot.

@@epsteenwusmerdered9878 I fully agree with you

woodology 101

You're God damn right.

I think Buddhism has it right. It would say something like people try to become free from fear and pain, hence the safe space epidemic. Ironically the modern person's attempt to free themselves is just an attempt to escape fear and pain by becoming distracted with pleasure.

not a Christian