Moderator: Aldus Marius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus wrote:A limited topic, maybe, but when chatting with our friend coruncianus he told me that americans are very fond of independence. But I ask myself: when does "independence" or "freedom" end and "egoism" or "egocentrism" start?
When you want to be completely free, is it possible to take count of other people? Or do they just slow down your way to freedom?
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus wrote:A limited topic, maybe, but when chatting with our friend coruncianus he told me that americans are very fond of independence. But I ask myself: when does "independence" or "freedom" end and "egoism" or "egocentrism" start?
M Moravi Horati Piscine wrote:It is interesting that you say this topic grew out of a discussion on an American concept of "independence" and yet you don not have Americans discussing this topic with you so far. It could be interesting, now that the US seems disposed to interject their concepts on other peoples.
For Americans "independence" does have a connotation, at least at some level, of meaning what Europeans have been complaining most about recent US foreign policies. It means unilateralism, unconstrained by any "foreign entanglements" such as are posed by treaties. In the long course of the Cold War the US had a miserable record when it came to keeping treaties, ask the Russians. Or you might ask the Amerindians when it comes to the US holding to its commitments. There is a simple fact that every four years a revolution occurs in the US, and any treaties signed earlier can go out of favor with the new regime, even if the same people negotiated the treaty, because US foreign policy is based on what is popular domestically from hour to hour.
M Moravi Horati Piscine wrote:Freedom and Liberty, two words often used in the US. Technically, as the term was originally used in our founding documents, Liberty refers to property rights. The two words are now used interchangeably because they are dependent on one another. Freedom refers to a person's legal rights within a society. Your discussion of freedom versus egotism is meaningless. Niietzsche was wrong because he did not recognize man's natural state as living within a society. He speaks of anarchy, and there is no freedom in anarchy. Freedom has to do with a society respecting the rights of individuals. The ideal free society holds that all its members are treated equally within the society, and short of an ideal society then is the concept of equality before the law.
M Moravi Horati Piscine wrote:No I do not think it is a paradox, only a misunderstanding. Freedom is a restraint in a way, as Marius indicated. Can you be free if you have to continually look over your shoulder for someone trying to bonk you over the head? Mensch, I don't know what it means in German but in NY dialect it has a negative connotation, and an Uber Mensch must be a real a-hole, kind of the way I view Nietzsche. One person exerting his will without legal or moral restraint does not pose freedom for anyone, even the mensch who behaves is so crude a manner. All that will lead to in an orderly society is his imprisonment, or in a less orderly society, his death.
M Moravi Horati Piscine wrote:Freedom can exist only in a society. It is the result of collective action. The best example I might find in Roman history is the story of Verginius and Appius Claudius. Claudius would be your Ubermensch, and free men had to band together against him to regain freedom for all of Rome.
M Moravi Horati Piscine wrote:Oh, and my advice to Belgium would be to never mind the current administration's threats. Things change. The majority of people who voted did not vote for Dubba and his ilk, and it is highly questionable if the electorial count was proper. Even if Dubba is reelected, eventually there will be a regime change. The US cannot go it alone, no matter what some may think, and that is becoming all to apparent. So just wait it out.
Gaius Iulius Octavianus wrote:~Salve amicitiae et alii~ (yes my Latin sucks, but I'm working on it, honestly! *ducks to avoid the shoe thrown at him by Draco*)
Gaius Iulius Octavianus wrote:The only true freedom to be had comes from within. I find that a variety of methods help me, but to each his/her own. However, if you wish to press the issue, or ask if there are any outside requirements that at least might be conducive to the best possible experience of freedom, I would have to answer unequivocally, that the less people you have to contend with on a daily basis, the freer you are. More specifically, the less you are trapped in the rat-race of humanity, and the further away you live from so-called 'civilization' (move as far into the countryside as possible!), your true freedom not only increases exponentially, but in my particular case, is the very reason I was able to turn my life around and begin walking the path to enlightenment, only by being free of the plague of humanity. (If that doesn't wreak unmistakeably of Diogenesian Cynicism, I don't know what else does, but it's true.)
Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:Not a shoe, but a caliga! Romans wore sandals.
Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:Is this truly a form of freedom? You don't grow your own food, I presume, nor have you made your house yourself or have constructed your own car? Even though at the fringes, in a state of semi-exile, you are still connected to society.
Gaius Iulius Octavianus wrote:Is that where Gaius Cæsar Augustus Germanicus received the nickname "Caligula", by chance?
Gaius Iulius Octavianus wrote:Well to be fair, I not only grow my own food, but I also hunt as well (the only good thing left about this country is the right to keep and bear arms, for food and for self-defense, and the right to self-sufficiency, much as certain elements and other agents of slavery both domestic and abroad would like to see it taken away), but the car I have is one that, believe it or not, I actually DID construct myself, with the help of my dearest and best friend (I do have a select few I call friends, even if I do hate 99.9% of the human race in general), built my own motorcycle largely from parts that were like-new and being discarded by an individual who has too much money to begin with.
The old house I live in has been here for well over 150 years, built by the people who once lived here; I do all repairs and maintenance myself. Hell, there were no phonelines when I first moved here, and since I don't trust the incompetent idiots from the phone company to do it, since they'll screw it up somehow, I actually dug a small trench from my house out to the road, laid a length of 1 1/2" PVC conduit and pulled outdoor-rated CAT5e cable through it, terminated it inside the house, configured everything on my newly-installed network panel. Unfortunately, since I can't start my own telephone and data service, I had to let them come with their big truck, slap a wooden pole in the ground, ran their cable to meet mine, watched them flip a switch and *voila!*, I was on the internet.
Gaius Iulius Octavianus wrote:Ironically, about the only thing I do in town, besides my crappy job, is flight instruction at a local country airport. It's the only place like it left in the area, and there was a proposition made a couple years ago for the government to buy it out and put yet more office buildings up there (just what we need... more vipers in suits who don't work and make too much money while doing it), but enough people threatened to burn the place to the ground upon its completion, that the local government appealed to the state government, which finally scrapped the idea. Wise choice for them, I must say.
Gaius Iulius Octavianus wrote:Anyhoo, it's getting a bit later and I still haven't eaten yet, so I'm going to leave now and practice my chef skills outside on my old Coleman grill, and hopefully my German Shepherds "Ajax" and "Achilles" don't get any ideas about stealing the food for themselves.
Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:If burglars know the people are armed, they won't stop burgling, they'll simply come with bigger guns! Also, there's always a chance that accidents with guns can happen. Every now and then the newspaper mentions kids accidentally finding dad's gun and killing each other. I'd rather be robbed than having to lose a child. The whole Columbine shootout affair was also possible because the teens in question were able to gain easy access to firearms.
Dionysius Draco wrote:If burglars know the people are armed, they won't stop burgling, they'll simply come with bigger guns!
Dionysius Draco wrote:Also, there's always a chance that accidents with guns can happen. Every now and then the newspaper mentions kids accidentally finding dad's gun and killing each other.
Dionysius Draco wrote:The whole Columbine shootout affair was also possible because the teens in question were able to gain easy access to firearms.
Primus Aurelius Tergestus wrote:I think that talking about gun control in modern day America and Europe is a little off topic, after all the Romans did not have firearms, gunpowder, or even Greek fire until quite late (for the record, I'm very much on Octavianus' side in the modern debate, and I've found when living in over there that many Europeans have never had the opportunity the pro-gun side of the argument).
Primus Aurelius Tergestus wrote:I think this brings up an interesting topic in political philosophy: what were Roman views on arms control (swords, spears, daggers)? I recall reading somewhere that in the late republic and within the city, all weapons were locked up until they were needed in an emergency. Does anyone know how the Roman laws on arms developed?
Gaius Iulius Octavianus wrote:No, if burglars know the people are armed, and they're NOT armed (or else inadequately armed with a knife or such), most are usually intelligent enough to realise the gravity of the situation, and to then immediately move onto another house, rather than senselessly risking their own lives. A petty thief always desires the least amount of resistance possible when attempting to pull off a heist; it's a proven fact. In such case, merely owning a gun actually prevents crime and violence, without ever even having to use it.
However, in the case of armed robbery, what is your line of reasoning here?
Gaius Iulius Octavianus wrote:Aside from being a mindless statement, the size of a gun has absolutely nothing to do with anything (and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt if you were actually referring to the gun's caliber),
Gaius Iulius Octavianus wrote: ... If armed assailants (and statistics prove that they usually operate in groups of two or three) enter your house, are you saying then that it's better to just let them kill you, your wife and your children, rather than defending yourself? Or should the terrorists be allowed free reign to rape and methodically torture your wife in front of you while you sit there either held at gunpoint yourself, or else tied up and completely powerless, while they are doing who knows what to your kids, before killing them all and then killing you too, all the while being completely unopposed and unchallenged?
Gaius Iulius Octavianus wrote:... The whole Columbine shootout affair was possible because the parents of the two were a couple of stupid, clueless yuppies who cared more about their stock options and portfolios than to bother having a clue as to what their own son and the other boy were doing RIGHT IN THEIR OWN HOME. (Which begs the question, where were the parents of the other boy? Must be rather convenient to always give him unchecked, free-reign and never have him around; otherwise that might require actually being a parent!) The fact of the matter is, neither parents of either one of the two boys gave an excrement about them AT ALL; they were too stupid to realise that their sons had problems, which were perfectly clear for even total strangers to see. Yes, I blame irresponsible wastes of life like them for neglecting their children in favor of earning the greenback, which in turn makes them directly responsible for what happened. They were too wrapped up in their own little "Ozzie and Harriet" fantasy world to realise that their son and his friend were stockpiling an obscenely-huge arsenal of weapons right in their own house, that they would actually sit down the basement for hours plotting how they were going to carry out the attack, while the oblivious parents never once bothered to see what they were doing all the while, or even to check on them. In short, THEY caused what happened to happen; all else was either circumstantial, or a direct result of their own negligence and indifference as parents.
Return to Collegium Religionum et Philosophiarum
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests