Does liberty stifle or encourage human progression

POSTED BY: ImEarly
UPDATED: Monday, February 21, 2005 22:30
VIEWED: 8044
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

IMEARLY

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 4:59 AM

I reach for the various insights of this community, to with me discuss the questions below.

To what degree are the creative powers of individuals influenced by the structure of the society in which they live? What legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions would be needed to fully realize their creative powers?

Personally I feel that conflict bequeaths the greatest creative and cultural influence.
I will clarify my opinion if this thread floats.

The ball is in your court Browncoats.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NEEDLESEYE

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 6:49 AM

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but economics stifles my creative power.

I'm not quite sure where you're going, between the topic and the question.
Are you writing a paper of some sort for a class perhaps?

IMEARLY

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 1:27 PM

Quote:
I'm not quite sure where you're going, between the topic and the question.

The topic, and questions are essentially the same thing. What world serves as the greatest seed for creative and inventive progression?

And no this is not for a class paper, I am a student of Neuropsychology, and it is a postulation of interest to me.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

HERO

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
The topic, and questions are essentially the same thing. What world serves as the greatest seed for creative and inventive progression?

Liberty neither stifles nor subsidises human creativity. It leaves that to the individual. Some men will look at nothing and see opportunity, others will just see nothing. Liberty allows use each the freedom of our own vision.

Other forms of goverment impose their visions upon everyone. While this may lead to creative accomplishments, those will generally be narrowly tailored to serve the guiding vision.

So which then is better. A single unified vision available to all or a system that leaves some blind and at the mercy of those who can see?

H

IMEARLY

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 8:51 PM

Quote:
Liberty neither stifles nor subsidises human creativity. It leaves that to the individual. Some men will look at nothing and see opportunity, others will just see nothing. Liberty allows use each the freedom of our own vision.

Other forms of goverment impose their visions upon everyone. While this may lead to creative accomplishments, those will generally be narrowly tailored to serve the guiding vision.

So which then is better. A single unified vision available to all or a system that leaves some blind and at the mercy of those who can see?

Our society is tailored just as any other nation. The suggestions have simply become more subtle.

It is the blind who encourage those who can see. It is they, the slight few who are fueled by “societies inability to see as they do” Many of those who have created great art, had and do have the need to share their vision with society. To open the eyes of lemmings, to encourage purpose in those who would otherwise lack the motivation to remove themselves from the conformist coil.
A single unified vision would require the masses to conform. It would be nice for all societies to end war, for famine to become a thing of the past, and for disease to lose interest in humanity.

At what cost would we be willing to accept this, imagine the population in a hundred years. Would we be willing to accept the cost to feed, cloth, and build homes for the homeless? What about jobs, if all the men and women in the US were given a job today, we would have to extradite every non citizen and close our border, even to Canada.

The law of reciprocal actions usually applies to matter; however this theory applies to Society in its every aspect.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

RADHIL

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
A single unified vision would require the masses to conform. It would be nice for all societies to end war, for famine to become a thing of the past, and for disease to lose interest in humanity.

In these two sentences, I get the impression you've jumped thought tracks at speeds and distances resembling a suicidal locomotive. Large-idea topics like this are confusing enough - don't further it by dumping EVERYTHING into the stew.

Is this a topic about what a society can produce given a certain form, or is this a topic about what social ills come about given a certain form?

Subtle distinction. Important one.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

IMEARLY

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 11:26 PM

Quote:

Is this a topic about what a society can produce given a certain form, or is this a topic about what social ills come about given a certain form?

My apologies,

You do have a point; my abilities to tangent are second to none. It is a result of my specialized education (still in progress) However social ills, or the lack there of, are directly associated to the various forms of society that we intend to theorize.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 17, 2005 4:54 PM

You pose an interesting topic, but your question is poorly phrased. What do you mean by "liberty"? Voting privileges? Tolerance of diverse viewpoints/ cultures? Freedom from hunger?

Looking at the history of innovation, there are some associated factors: higher population; population density; accumulated, shared knowledge; comfortable living standards; access to a broad range of materials; security/ stability; transporation.

Hmmm... there are some overlapping factors here, some may not be necessary. Needs more thought...

IMEARLY

Thursday, February 17, 2005 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You pose an interesting topic, but your question is poorly phrased. What do you mean by "liberty"? Voting privileges? Tolerance of diverse viewpoints/ cultures? Freedom from hunger?

Looking at the history of innovation, there are some associated factors: higher population; population density; accumulated, shared knowledge; comfortable living standards; access to a broad range of materials; security/ stability; transporation.

Hmmm... there are some overlapping factors here, some may not be necessary. Needs more thought...

I agree, your post may need more thought.

To define liberty: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges.

The questions, as they are, are quite strait forward...

I quote myself.

To what degree are the creative powers of individuals influenced by the structure of the society in which they live? What legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions would be needed to fully realize their creative powers?

My question is that of a broader range then liberty, that is mearly a segment of the title, of this topic

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

DANFAN

Friday, February 18, 2005 2:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
To define liberty: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges.

This definition has a homegrown feel to it... one that didn't seem quite on target for me. It sounded more like a definition of "Paris Hilton" than a definition of "liberty." So, I took a quick journey to the dictionary. The definitions there that seemed most appropriate for this thread are:

1) Immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority… political independence

2) Freedom of choice

3) Personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression

These definitions felt more accurate to me. There is nothing in there about "privilege" which is usually defined as something like "a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all... a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group." There's also nothing about economic benefit inherent to the exercise of liberty. In fact liberty can be downright impoverishing... and oftentimes fatal.

The primary benefit/reward of liberty is: liberty itself. Freedom... to choose life or death, work or sloth, plaid or solid colors. Every side of every choice comes with advantages and disadvantages that must be weighed against those of the other side. To imply that liberty is some kind of societal grant to wealth (“economic… privilege”) and happiness (“positive enjoyment”) is false advertising. Liberty is great stuff, but it also cuts the careless user.

But I think I digress from the thrust of your thread. I just couldn’t let that definition stand without comment. On to the meat…

Quote:
To what degree are the creative powers of individuals influenced by the structure of the society in which they live?

Measured in what units? I don’t know how anyone could answer that in an explicit way. The most powerfully creative will be so no matter what society they live in. Likewise, the staunchly uncreative will be so even in utopia. I think your question is targeted at the vast majority between those extremes. The degree to which they’re creativity is shaped by society is… too complex for me to quantify.

Quote:
What legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions would be needed to fully realize their creative powers?

Legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions are not the sole determining factor for fully realizing creative powers. Free will plays a part. But such things can surely influence the prevalence of creativity in a society. With that thought in mind, let’s see…

For starters, perhaps a society that removed responsibilities like having to ensure personal survival from the shoulders of the moderately creative… the “arts patronage” system. But that is no guarantee. If this were applied to the entire population, some folks would use their freedom to improve their creative talents. Some people thus liberated would squander that freedom on watching reruns of the Dick Van Dyke show. No society will enhance creative people who are lazy.

Another thought… creative growth might be helped by a society that removed the negative effects of instability from impacting the lives of the people trying to encourage their creative impulses. The most amazing creativity in human beings often seems to go hand in hand with mental instability. At the risk of spinning my own homegrown definition, I’d like to postulate that creativity is “productive instability”: seeing or making something in a way no one has ever seen or made it before because you cut your mind loose from the normal, predictable ways of operating. That is uncharted territory… it often finds rocks and reefs just under the surface. Some people with the freedom to be unstable will create the Pieta. Some will take other people captive and drill holes in their heads to try to make sexual slaves out of them.

I guess where my thoughts have led me is that most of the crude ways I’ve thought of to mold society to maximize individual creativity in the greatest number of people also co

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE