2007-05-12 08:37:57 · 15 answers · asked by Giggly Giraffe 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You need only scan the world about you to know what "is," or what equals, freedom without rules, what it demonstrates, looks like, and feels like.
Like all things in a world comprised of duality, freedom requires its foil in order to persist and succeed at being freedom.
Like a drumstick that needs a surface off of which to rebound and create rhythmical momentum, so does freedom need its counter to manifest: that 'equal's the truth of the dual worlds.
In truth without the rules, as you frame it here, or say, certain constraints being brought to bear, the freedoms enjoyed by others does well cross the lines of others' spaces, and subjects them to the woofs and warps often to no good ends, and which oversights become big things indeed.
Others' very existence does necessitate a greater absence of our subjugations, yet we all do have the freedom to make mistakes -- Free Will.
And this, these mistakes, are what makes for Sport, what makes for the great horse races of the world, and the countless permutations and variety -- for good, bad, or waffle...
2007-05-12 10:13:22 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The question begs to be interpreted. To not have rules and still be free in any society would tend to break any proper behavior of civilized structure.If you live like an animal does, you will have freedom. Or hide yourself away on a deserted island.
Spartawo...
2007-05-12 08:58:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can that be freedom as quickly as we are able to't be loose to be constrained? particular, that sounds absurd yet suggesting that "no person could want to be constrained" is beside the point. That fact of the issue is that if freedom is liberation from regulations ( that's a around definition, because of the fact the word "liberation" merely skill "loose"), then we are able to't be loose to be constrained. Do you notice the contradiction right here? is this not additionally a limit upon what we are able to do? particular it quite is. we want a much better definition of freedom earlier we are able to respond to this question, when you consider that this definition does not fulfill the regulations of a solid definition, and that's decreased to a contradiction.
2017-01-09 17:46:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's chaos and anarchy.
You cannot have freedom without rules.
2007-05-12 08:41:57 · answer #4 · answered by thenotch66 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you wouldn't know what freedom would be.
freedom is the 'thing' apart from rules - it's relative to the rules we have.
say.. happiness. how would we know happiness if there was no sadness - we wouldn't be able to discern the 'happiness'. it would all be just this one 'feeling'. not happiness, just 'blah'.
2007-05-12 09:04:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anya 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Real freedom.
2007-05-12 13:26:33 · answer #6 · answered by PENMAN 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean rules as in government?
Anarchy, "state of nature"
2007-05-12 08:41:13 · answer #7 · answered by majorasmask91 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Total and utter chaos.
2007-05-12 09:02:23 · answer #8 · answered by Master Strategist 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Heaven, on Earth it cannot exist.
2007-05-12 10:41:53 · answer #9 · answered by ayazali84 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a fantasy
2007-05-12 11:11:34 · answer #10 · answered by ycats 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋