Air is an obstacle to go faster, for air friction would slow you down in the long term, but could a bird possibly fly without leaning its wings on it? Does not the freedom to flight depend on this limitation? Can freedom be possible without something that would oppose us?
2006-08-11 22:58:05 · 22 answers · asked by george 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Well done Tarryn
2006-08-11 23:09:19 · update #1
I would like you guys to think a little bit in Tarryn's answer: she said something.
2006-08-12 10:57:30 · update #2
We are limited to freedom here on earth so even absolute freedom is within limitations... also think about one's personality doesn't that limit one?!
2006-08-11 23:05:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To your first question, No! If all humans had the freedom, without restrictions, to kill other humans, it would not be good for the dead. The human race and civilization would cease to exist in time.
Air causes lift as well as friction at the same time. The speed limitation of birds is limited by their physical abilities. There is almost no speed limit in air. Planes can fly through air at up to Mach 6, so far. What you call a limitation is your way of looking at things. The drag from air does not limit humans from flying. The limitations are gravity, body size, body structure, lack of wings, lack of feathers.
I do not understand your last question. Humans have some unlimited freedoms, such as, we can breathe in as much air as we want. There are no limits, no rules, no taxes.
2006-08-12 06:09:57 · answer #2 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you mean relative freedom ,then it is always - Relative ! and limited. The freedom to do this or that ,or be this or that ,etc..
If you are referring to absolute ,or mystical freedom, that is something entirely different.
One answerer mentioned the freedom to be or not to be, saying that they were exclusive.
In true freedom they are not . True freedom ,merely refers ,in my opinion ,to non-attachment to ideas of identification.
If one can drop the idea that one is this or that ,then everything is as it is. And that has the quality of freedom.
Philosophically ,and at least partially experientially ,we can say that it includes ,(ie; doesn't say "I am not") all experienced phenomena, the unexperienced 'root of knowing', and the unmanifested potential ( or ,non-existence).
I do think that to perceive, or conceive any of this is itself dualistic, excluding the perceiver and unperceived from the observation.
However ,freedom without the possibility of limitation would be limited , and the unperceiving nature of unrestricted freedom is always and everywhere functioning anyway.
But ,then again, I could be wrong !
2006-08-12 09:35:45 · answer #3 · answered by GreatEnlightened One 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As you get higher, the thinness of the air starts to make flight impossible for birds and helicopters etc, so... freedom is relative.
BUT, you are not restricted in dreams - only in the sense that you can never influence real life dimensions while in a dream state.
2006-08-12 06:14:41 · answer #4 · answered by Bapboy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that possibly death is the only chance we have to obtain the type of freedom which you describe. If, as I think, our soul is set free at this point.
I think you describe a different plane of existence certainly not available to any of us here in these bodies, on this earth.
Sounds a bit "new wave". Sorry. But thats my answer!!
2006-08-12 18:26:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only absolute freedoms are to not exist and to exist in everything for everything which would mean that you still wouldnt have the freedom to do the other. What i am saying is there are always restrictions because one path leads to the closing of another path.eg. existing for ever in everything would mean that i could not exist in nothing forever and am therefore resticted from this
2006-08-12 08:02:20 · answer #6 · answered by James W 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only true freedom is anarchy - but do we want that sort of freedom?
Surely it is better to have and to know and use the limitations rather than hope for absolute freedom.
2006-08-12 06:08:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a philosophical question, however, in science, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, therefore everything that we do in life has an effect on the environment around us.
On this basis the only complete freedom that one could achieve is in your dreams.
2006-08-12 06:03:40 · answer #8 · answered by Peakey 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If there were no restrictions on personal freedom then we would all need to impose our own moral restrictions, otherwise we might just become murdering pigs, no better than the chimps in the jungle.
2006-08-12 06:05:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think freedom is more an internal state of mind rather than an external one. a person can be free from almost everything if they have no morals or ethical concerns.
it depends if you are a determanist or a libertarian.
2006-08-12 12:21:10 · answer #10 · answered by ncalmac 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋