Freedom is an Illusion

There are many reasons why this can be stated.

I'd like to look at a few of the basics first, starting with freud then moving to the definitions of freedom and then take a look at other factors.

According to Freuds 1923 structural theory (from wikipedia), the human psyche can be broken down into 3 main area's:
Id:The “id” (fully unconscious) contains the drives and those things repressed by consciousness

Ego: the “ego” (mostly conscious) deals with external reality

Super-Ego: the “super ego” (partly conscious) is the conscience or the internal moral judge

The relationship between the 3 dictates behaviour.

In Freud's theory, the ego mediates among the id, the super-ego and the external world. Its task is to find a balance between primitive drives, morals, and reality while satisfying the id and superego. Its main concern is with the individual's safety and allows some of the id's desires to be expressed, but only when consequences of these actions are marginal. Ego defense mechanisms are often used by the ego when id behaviour conflicts with reality and either society's morals, norms, and taboos or the individual's expectations as a result of the internalization of these morals, norms, and taboos.

Super-ego

Freud's theory says that the super-ego is a symbolic internalization of the father figure and cultural regulations. The super-ego tends to stand in opposition to the desires of the id because of their conflicting objectives, and is aggressive towards the ego. The super-ego acts as the conscience, maintaining our sense of morality and the prohibition of taboos. Its formation takes place during the dissolution of the Oedipus complex and is formed by an identification with and internalization of the father figure after the little boy cannot successfully hold the mother as a love-object out of fear of castration. "The super-ego retains the character of the father, while the more powerful the Oedipus complex was and the more rapidly it succumbed to repression (under the influence of authority, religious teaching, schooling and reading), the stricter will be the domination of the super-ego over the ego later on — in the form of conscience or perhaps of an unconscious sense of guilt" (The Ego and the Id, 1923). In Sigmund Freud's work Civilization and Its Discontents (1930) he also discusses the concept of a "cultural super-ego". The concept of super-ego and the Oedipus complex is subject to criticism for its sexism. Women, who are considered to be already castrated, do not identify with the father, and therefore form a weak super-ego, apparently leaving them susceptible to immorality and sexual identity complications.

The id

The id stands in direct opposition to the super-ego. It is dominated by the pleasure principle. A popular interpretation of the id is not that it is "convincing" the mind to ignore social norms, but rather it itself just does not take social norms into account when 'thinking' or 'acting'. The id is the primal, or beastlike, part of the brain, determined to pursue actions that are pleasurable, such as eating or copulation. The prime motive of the id is self-survival, pursuing whatever necessary to accomplish that goal.

This then, gives a basic understanding of some of the constraints we, as individuals place on ourselves, although it may also be said that learned constraining factors also exist


Mod Edit: Shortened Quote Tags.

Please Review: Quote Reference


[edit on 3-5-2007 by chissler]

[edit on 3-5-2007 by budski]

Freedom is defined in 2 parts, by wikipedia

Freedom (philosophy)

Freedom is the ability to act without restraint.

In the context of internal control, freedom is also known as self-determination, individual sovereignty, or autonomy.

The protection of interpersonal freedom can be the object of a social and political investigation, while the metaphysical foundation of inner freedom is a philosophical and psychological question. Both forms of freedom come together in each individual as the internal and external values mesh together in a dynamic compromise and power struggle; the society fighting for power in defining the values of individuals and the individual fighting for societal acceptance and respect in establishing one's own values in it.

Spiritually, freedom encompasses the peaceful acceptance of reality. The theological question of freedom generally focuses on reconciling the experience or reality of inner freedom with the omnipotence of the divine.

Freedom (Political)

Political freedom is the right, or the capacity and ability, of self-determination as an expression of the individual will.

As can be seen by these definitions, mostly the first, there are many constraints to freedom.
These can be defined in many ways, but I'll stick to the basics.

Parental constraints: we are programmed by our parents to act in certain ways, from the moment we are born. This programming can take many forms, and determine what type of person we grow to become - whether that is by accepting it or by rebelling against it, this programming dictates much of our behaviour.

Societal constraints: We are also programmed from early childhood by what society expects from us, in that we are discouraged from deeds that are deemed unacceptable to society. This is also evident in how we interact with others, and how others perceive us.

Religious constraints: It is thought by some that religions evolved as a means of social control. Many religions provide a moral code that dictate our own moral standards.

Peer constraints: We often seek approval from our peers, due to various reasons including social reasons, this in turn dictates how we behave within different peer groups.

There are other types of constraint, but I don't want to be too long winded and list them all. The types listed are the main types.

Some people will argue that political freedom has been largely ignored, however, this is not true, as all of the mentioned constraints contribute to political ideology to one extent or another - in other words, nothing is exempt from politics in the modern world.

"Freedom's just another word for, nothing left to loose..."
From "Me and Bobby Mcgee" Janis Joplin - words and music by Kris Kristofferson

If you believe you're free, then just go out and say the wrong thing, about the wrong person, or group of people, and see just how free you are.

Freedom is an illusion, practiced by fools who are so deeply asleep to the major screwing their getting everyday from the price of shelter, to the food you put on your table, to the quality of medical treatment you recieve if you lack the insurance to pay for it.

We're all slaves. Our Massas are money, power, politics, sex, religion and fame.

eyespy2- sounds like someone has been messed with lately. Or is your non stop rant about the Poor, homeless, just a cover for what is really bugging you? Got woman problems? Car won't start? Had a bad day?

Freedom is an illusion only if you let it be. Yes if I go out and say i'm going to kill the president, I will get locked up. I i say he's full of crap nothing will happen to me. Well if you talk bad about Rosie O'Donnell you will probably lose everything you have to her attornies, but that's not the norm. Freedom is an illusion, only to the disillusioned who have let the bad things in their life control them.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Royal76]

i am sorry but Sigmund's ''theories'' are not very convincing to me

freedom is a real thing, just ask the folks in North Korea

[edit on 7-5-2007 by tom_roberts]

Originally posted by Royal76
Freedom is an illusion, only to the disillusioned who have let the bad things in their life control them.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Royal76]

Holy smoke, Royal,

That dream world you live in must be one fine illussion. To truly be free, one must be able to live his/her life exactly the way one sees fit, not beholding to any man or country. Free is how the native Americans lived before the spaniards showed up.

Free to live off the land, in harmony with the land.

thousand of years before that, the minute a monetary system was set up in this world, we all became slaves to labor for gain, to feed our families and put a roof over our heads. We are all slaves to the price of oil, milk, flour, sugar, and pretty much everything we need to survive. So therefore, we are not free to live our lives as we se fit.

You can't help but be controlled by these, unless you're willing to shuck it all, and live in an institution for the mentally ill, or you're rich. I gave it all up once to live in an ashram, and you know what? They even had rules and regulations about how you're supposed to live.

So we all choose our form of servitude. But I am not foolish enough to call it freedom, because I'm an idealist, believe it or not.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by eyespy2]

Originally posted by eyespy2
To truly be free, one must be able to live his/her life exactly the way one sees fit, not beholding to any man or country.

So you’re saying that anarchy is freedom? Suddenly fascism seems like a really good idea.

Free is how the native Americans lived before the spaniards showed up.

Ah white guilt is a beautiful thing. Check your history on that bud and you will find that there were social norms that the first nations had to adhere to like any other society. Failure to comply with social norms would lead to banishment from the tribe or an immediate death.

Free to live off the land, in harmony with the land.

And be hunter gatherers! I have to pass on that one. I’m all for recycling and all that but I’m not going to go live in a forest or cave.

the minute a monetary system was set up in this world, we all became slaves to labor for gain, to feed our families and put a roof over our heads.

Um you do know that it would be a much harsher life trying to live off the land Neolithic style, right?

We are all slaves to the price of oil, milk, flour, sugar,

Oil allows us to have a varied diet By transport food from one region to an other that gives us the long life span that we all enjoy.
With out it, it would be a hell of a lot harder to get the other things on you list that we need to survive.

and pretty much everything we need to survive.

So you would rather hunt gather or make your self every thing you need to live? Have fun with that.

So therefore, we are not free to live our lives as we se fit.

With your theory I would have to spend all day picking berries to eat on my expedition to kill a bear to feed my family, under the current scheme I can spend my time arguing with you.

I gave it all up once to live in an ashram, and you know what? They even had rules and regulations about how you're supposed to live.

People are social beings, meaning we like to live in groups. If you have people together with out rules chaos will ensue, all social creators need rules it’s that simple.


[edit on 8-5-2007 by Mr Mxyztplk]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
So you’re saying that anarchy is freedom? Suddenly fascism seems like a really good idea.

Interesting how the definition of freedom, translates to anarchy in your mind. Greed, striving for power, or dominance over others creates anarchy.

I guess it's impossible for you to imagine a world where everone minds their own business - joins groups if they want to, or remains independant if they choose.

I don't need rules to live, and be happy, maybe you do. In my world, you could go be controlled by others if that's your choice. If I want to grow, pick, chops, hunt for my own food to feed myself and my family, what's that to you?




[edit on 9-5-2007 by eyespy2]

Originally posted by eyespy2
Interesting how the definition of freedom, translates to anarchy in your mind.

Actually it’s your definition that would lead to anarchy.

To truly be free, one must be able to live his/her life exactly the way one sees fit, not beholding to any man or country.

If I live my life as I see fit, doing what ever I want and nobody was abiding by any laws then that would be anarchy. And a complete brake down of civilization.

Greed, striving for power, or dominance over others creates anarchy.

Nope, the direct opposite in fact.
If I’m greedy can gather more resources by working with other people, more people equals more resources gathered. The more people in a group the more structure the group needs to function properly, with out that structure the group will brake down and anarchy will ensue.
Humankind has only developed to the level that it has because we have formed groups that work to gather and share resources with one an other. Do you think that we could be having this conversation with out people having chosen to work to gather to produce the computers we are typing on and the phone lines the words are transmitted on with out some form of structure to our civilization?
As for striving for power, a power struggle is a competition between two groups to control some thing, competition spurs development to get an advantage over your opponent. Hence it drives the advance of human kind.

I guess it's impossible for you to imagine a world where everone minds their own business

So you think that you live in a vacuum, nothing you do has any effect on anyone else?

I don't need rules to live, and be happy, maybe you do.

But I think you do need rules to live by, or at least you need others to abide by some rules so you can live a happy life.

If I want to grow, pick, chops, hunt for my own food to feed myself and my family, what's that to you?

Are you going to do this on your own land? How would you feel if someone else came and started to eat your crops? According to your rule that there is nothing to stop someone from doing this wouldn’t you have to let them?

Originally posted by eyespy2

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
So you’re saying that anarchy is freedom? Suddenly fascism seems like a really good idea.

Interesting how the definition of freedom, translates to anarchy in your mind. Greed, striving for power, or dominance over others creates anarchy.

I guess it's impossible for you to imagine a world where everone minds their own business - joins groups if they want to, or remains independant if they choose.

I don't need rules to live, and be happy, maybe you do. In my world, you could go be controlled by others if that's your choice. If I want to grow, pick, chops, hunt for my own food to feed myself and my family, what's that to you?

[edit on 9-5-2007 by eyespy2]

But this is exactly the point of this thread. You have not made your own decision, rather, the decision is a result of the programming that has occurred during your lifetime, and your reaction to it.
This reaction may take the form of acceptance or rejection of formative programming, and this acceptance or rejection is based on programming which has occurred afterwards.

So you are not really expressing any kind of free-will, or freedom, you are simply reacting to various types of programming.

This can also occur as self-programming, when an individual reaches a state of awareness about what programming has been fed in during their lifetime ( which is still not free will) and either accepts or rejects depending on mindset and education amongst other factors.

We are never free of any kind of constraint - even the man who lives in the woods and has no social contact is simply reacting rather than expressing any freedom that he perceives he has.