Am I free?

[Humility]

The end's cause was the beginning.

I can't help but roll my eyes.

Even if time was like unto a set of dominoes, it would still only be the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause and so on. It would be indirect to the point of irrelevancy.

As long as we can make choices or at least have the illusion to make choices, let that illusion lead to more time. For even an illusion is better then nothing.

[Conrad_Jalowski]

I am glad that you like my philosophical essays Humility. I write these type of essays in my free time for enjoyment and for intellectual stimulation.

In addition, I do enjoy slightly authoritarian forms of government. For example, I admire the political tradition of Bonapartism and I am fascinated with the Orleanist regime of King Louis-Philippe [The July Monarchy of 1830-1848 CE]. My favorite form of government is a principate which is a combination of a monarchy and an oligarchy. For a principate, I take the Roman Principate [27 BCE-235 CE] as the prime example of a prosperous and culturally effervescent age.

[Humility]

I am glad that you like my philosophical essays Humility. I write these type of essays in my free time for enjoyment and for intellectual stimulation.

I prefer to go onto newsvine and get into an argument with the left-wing Europeans.

[Skirata]

As long as we can make choices or at least have the illusion to make choices, let that illusion lead to more time. For even an illusion is better then nothing.

An illusion is a lie and nothing more. I'd prefer not to believe in those things.

[Humility]

An illusion is a lie and nothing more. I'd prefer not to believe in those things.

And then you are left with nothing. You don't have to believe, merely accept. An illusion is more then nothing, so in a way it is real as far as itself.

In addition, I do enjoy slightly authoritarian forms of government. For example, I admire the political tradition of Bonapartism and I am fascinated with the Orleanist regime of King Louis-Philippe [The July Monarchy of 1830-1848 CE]. My favorite form of government is a principate which is a combination of a monarchy and an oligarchy. For a principate, I take the Roman Principate [27 BCE-235 CE] as the prime example of a prosperous and culturally effervescent age.

And it is an equally prime example of its failures. With periods of activity tending to one extreme or another and periods of general laziness tending to rock more gently.


Though somewhat better then a pure monarchy or oligarchy. Though the power tended to be seated more with the senate then the Emperor until it reversed.

[Skirata]

And then you are left with nothing. You don't have to believe, merely accept. An illusion is more then nothing, so in a way it is real as far as itself.

What is wrong with accepting the inevitable? A little pessimism never hurt anyone.

[Conrad_Jalowski]

Unfortunately, you are correct. The benevolent princes and sovereigns of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Alexander Severus are overwhelmed by the imperious and cruel figures of Caligula, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian, Commodus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Heliogabalus [Elagabalus] during the period of the Roman Principate.

[Humility]

What is wrong with accepting the inevitable? A little pessimism never hurt anyone.

Nothing wrong in accepting, denial is foolish, but what is wrong is giving up. Even if there is no point in existing there is also no point in not existing. And I for one prefer the former.

Unfortunately you are correct. The benevolent princes and sovereigns of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Alexander Severus are overwhelmed by the imperious and cruel figures of Caligula, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian, Commodus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Heliogabalus or Elagabalus.

I have never been that good with names.

[armbarchris]

Complete, absolute freedom is the same as complete anarchy. Even the most oppressive, tyrannical regime is better than complete anarchy because at least there is some measure of order and safety, however corrupt and evil it may be.
What's best is the happy medium; the question is, where exactly is that happy medium? Too much control, whether by government, companies, mobs, social standards, whatever, will eventually lead to oppression. Too much freedom will lead to no control and no safety. Crime would have no consequences and society would destroy itself. You can't have 100% freedom; if by freedom you mean 100% absolute free will to do whatever you want, whenever you want, then no one is, was or ever will be truly free. If one did have absolutely no freedom- no government, no law, no higher authority, no inhibitions, no consequences- then there would be anarchy.

If you give too much power to one person, they can do whatever they want. If you give too much power to the people, nothing - good or bad -will ever get done.
And of course, the biggest factor of all is that people are not perfect. We're not perfect collectively, nor are we perfect as individuals. And no system of society or government is perfect. So no matter what you do, there will be problems and SOMEBODY will be screwed by the system.

[Conrad_Jalowski]

armbarchris: Even the most oppressive, tyrannical regime is better than complete anarchy because at least there is some measure of order and safety, however corrupt and evil it may be.

In such a statement, Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan or, On the Ecclesiastical and Civil Commonwealth comes to mind. The mode of government proposed by the English political realist Thomas Hobbes was an autocracy or an absolute monarchy in which religion was completely subservient to the state. In essence, the Hobbesian monarch was a caesaropapist. An example of the practice of caesaropapism would be the autocrats and sovereigns of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Basileus held complete hegemony in both temporal and ecclesiastical affairs.