Does liberty stifle or encourage human progression

POSTED BY: ImEarly
UPDATED: Monday, February 21, 2005 22:30
VIEWED: 8044
PAGE 2 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

IMEARLY

Friday, February 18, 2005 3:39 AM

Quote:
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.

It’s hardly homegrown, it comes directly from Webster. This is the definition that I felt most appropriate, for it is the definition that we most enjoy. American’s after all enjoy the exact same privileges that Paris Hilton has, she simply has access to a few more dollars than most of us.

Quote:
There's also nothing about economic benefit inherent to the exercise of liberty. In fact liberty can be downright impoverishing... and oftentimes fatal.

Yes, there most certainly is, any downtrodden, street life vagabond, can earn success, with the proper motivation, though in most cases luck. Ninety percent of American ancestors came to this new world, because they were enslaved, indentured or couldn’t make it in the old.

It is the lack of liberty that ensnares humanity, binding that potential.

Positive enjoyment doesn’t mean an Eagle at par 5; it means the right to participate directly in the processes of Society, of Politics and Economics.

Quote:
Measured in what units?

denarii

Quote:
The most powerfully creative will be so no matter what society they live in.

What you have created here is a Paradox, for social rifts indeed produce who is the most powerfully creative.

Quote:
Legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions are not the sole determining factor for fully realizing creative powers.

I think perhaps I should have placed an etcetera somewhere, you are correct free will is a dominating factor.

Quote:
Perhaps the better question is: What legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions would be needed to enable our most motivated people to fully realize their creative powers? The lazy and the monstrously demented need not apply. But that sounds so elitist…

Elitism is the cornerstone of all society, and is what keeps humanity in check. Without it there would be no society. No one would be capable of making any decision, because there would always be someone who wouldn’t allow them.

Quite frankly if the lazy and, monstrously demented are offended by Elitism, then they should continue their education or seek a local Psychotherapist.

I think I am beginning to tangent again…

This is fun.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, February 18, 2005 4:10 AM

It’s a rather broad question. It’s kind of hard to get my head around it, but if I had to identify societal conditions, that is to say conditions external to personal ambitions, I would have to say that the factor with the strongest influence on creativity would probably be economic in nature. A market where goods and ideas trade freely and where people are free to participate in that market would seem to offer the greatest boost to creativity as one imagines that such conditions would provide the most exposure to ideas and opportunities to applies those ideas. Secondly, wealth provides people with the time they need to be creativity. People without wealth need not be considered necessarily without creativity, but such people may also spend most of the time providing for their own livelihood, and little or no time remaining to apply to one’s creative powers.

IMEARLY

Friday, February 18, 2005 4:55 PM

This is true to an extent, however the majority of those who have created great works of art have begun their career’s in the slums of society. I don’t mean to imply only that of impoverished communities.

However can you imagine how many Picasso’s, Beethoven’s, Gate's and Washington’s there are among us? If only these people were to raise their heads above the crowd.

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

IMEARLY

Friday, February 18, 2005 4:55 PM

Accidental re-posting

THATWEIRDGIRL

Friday, February 18, 2005 6:40 PM

Quote:
imearly wrote:However can you imagine how many Picasso’s, Beethoven’s, Gate's and Washington’s there are among us? If only these people were to raise their heads above the crowd.

I’m not nearly as eloquent as DanFan, but here is my little thought on the your last statement.

This doesn't seem like a 'how do we get the possibly creative to express their creativity' issue. The creative will find a way to express themselves no matter the conditions. It could be art, music, craftsmanship, leadership, etc... You're worried about how many Picasso's are hiding out there. Well, they’re not hiding, we're just not looking. I guarantee you that the unknown Picasso is creating something and you haven't found him. Perhaps we shouldn't be worried about encouraging expression; we should be worried about acknowledging expression.

Are you concerned with volume? How much creativity can a person turn out? I create my version of art everyday. No matter the legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions. However, economics does affect my quantity. If my creativity resides outside my career—which it does-- I have to ask myself, ‘Can I afford to be creative today? Do I have time after work, during housework, before school to express myself?’ It takes time and money.

*twg jumps tracks onto her own little train*… The competitive ways dishearten the masses. The cooperative ways ignore the individual. Man walks a precarious tightrope of self-actualization and mass satisfaction: one vs. many, right vs. left, capitalism vs. communism.

I don’t know why I responded to this, I’m obviously out of my league here.

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.
--Samuel Johnson

DANFAN

Friday, February 18, 2005 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
Perhaps we shouldn't be worried about encouraging expression; we should be worried about acknowledging expression.

Dont't worry about eloquence. You said in one sentence what I took two pages to say. That's a gift.

Your comments about creating your art around your other obligations ring true in my life as well. I'm a passable guitar player. I love to play. But I've got a job, a house to keep up, tendonitis in my shoulder... I play when I can. When I can't, I can't.

Quote:
I don’t know why I responded to this, I’m obviously out of my league here.

I disagree.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 19, 2005 1:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
This is true to an extent, however the majority of those who have created great works of art have begun their career’s in the slums of society. I don’t mean to imply only that of impoverished communities.

However can you imagine how many Picasso’s, Beethoven’s, Gate's and Washington’s there are among us? If only these people were to raise their heads above the crowd.

Well I don’t know that it is necessarily fair to say that the majority of those who have created great works of art began their lives in the slums of society. In fact, I’m not sure that I really understanding what you’re saying. If by “slums of society” you don’t mean “impoverished communities” then what do you mean?

I don’t know how many Picasso’s are among us, and I don’t know what that has to do with anything either. Maybe I’m missing some pretext here, but what is your point?

This discussion is very braod.

DANFAN

Saturday, February 19, 2005 3:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
It’s hardly homegrown, it comes directly from Webster. This is the definition that I felt most appropriate, for it is the definition that we most enjoy.

Merriam-Webster, eh? I'm an American Heritage man, myself (and my Webster Collegiate is at the office, where I don't intend to be any time sooner than Monday morning). I found Merriam Webster online and confirmed for myself what you said... I stand corrected. Your definition is not homegrown.

However, I don't buy that definition, personally. Even Merriam Webster uses the words "free" and "freedom" four times in the first three definitions before they get to the fourth definition {which you quoted).

I think the crux of our disagreement over the word is that you seem to see it inextricably linked to other concrete benefits (like economic success or happiness). I don't see it as antithetical to those things... but I don't see it as linked to them either. It is only linked to freedom and opportunity to make of life what you will. That is its only intrinsic benefit. And it is enough.

If I have nailed our difference of opinion, then we can agree to disagree. If I haven't nailed the difference, then I'm just missing your point.

IMEARLY

Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:57 AM

Truthfully, we have nothing to disagree upon, let me tell you why, the term liberty as I used it in the title of the post was very much a generalization, the true sustenance of this topic are the questions that I proposed within.

My definition as was posted was mostly a jest toward SignyM in his previous post. Even in that topic I pointed out that my true questions were those that inhabit my first post.

Quote:
my Webster Collegiate is at the office, where I don't intend to be any time sooner than Monday morning

Sadly I cannot empathize, I am a full time student and a struggling writer, one who writes in his pajamas.

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

IMEARLY

Saturday, February 19, 2005 6:00 AM

Quote:
I’m not sure that I really understanding what you’re saying. If by “slums of society” you don’t mean “impoverished communities” then what do you mean?

The slums of society do extend themselves beyond the poor and underprivileged. Many of the most depressed individuals of this world are those who have more then most, who want more.
And factually, there are a great many that belong to the upper echelon of Society whom are encouraged to follow strict standards and are feverously frowned upon when they attempt to follow their own hidden passions.

The greatest artistic and technological achievement of man is not wealth, for wealth is fleeting. It is immortality, the knowledge that after their children’s, great grandchildren’s bones have gone to dust that their life and accomplishments will ever last.

THATWEIRDGIRL, if you are reading this:

I must agree with DanFan, your post was quite in adept fashion and you clearly have no need to concern yourself with leagues.

Quote:
The creative will find a way to express themselves no matter the conditions.

I would like to digress to one of my preceding statements…

This is inconceivably illogical, for human nature is fickle, nearly quantizing.
The condition defines the individual, and the individual in cycle defines the condition,
This near flux is a paradigm of what truly holds the fabric of our ‘human world’

The universe is a fugue, a patchwork:

We all hold a few of these stray threads, and what we do with them determine our fate.

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE