To walk upon the skies with no more than wind in your eyes, to gaze upon ourself through the silence of your own creation with awe and fearless steps of certainty. To walk upon... And to walk across... What was on the other side was the turn... So as to gaze upon the same view that had never been seen before.. And Never will again... To the last sky walker of the two towers 😊 Thank you for the thrill 😊
We have to be slaves towards freedom so to speak if we want to fight for it to be our own bad enough...we still have to recognize with freedom comes demands from it in itself both on personal and public front.
Excellent summary of some of the motivations of Pettit's republican views. Good laws and social rules enable freedom. They make it possible that we can go to school, have healthcare, have roads and energy. We need a strong legal framework and infrastrutrue which enable safe and rich lives. Business and industry are only possible in such a world, so we have to regulate business in a way that benefits most of us. Just doing what everyone wants leads to weakness, chaos, exploitation and the rule of the rich.
I don't know how to get this freedom, in my feeling, all laws making and work depend on humans. Humans should have different tendencies on different issues. We depend on others. Because we have to exchange things with others, we cannot produce anything.
Why is it that we continue to negotiate freedom by addressing what are percieved differences? Our differences should should perhaps be private. That is to say not a matter for the governing bodies to consider.
~freedom is not "of" the world~freedom is being not consistently Maya's puppet~when you have lost your ego you are totally free from agendas, events and even your physical self in being true self which in ZEN* is nothing at all~an object will never be free~freedom is transparent and like said not "of" the world but in it instead~only the SOUL* has it~not an identity~do you know who you are?~remember when the Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma "who stands before me?"~Bodhidharma said~" dunno" and walked away~he went on to be the founder of ZEN* which no one can interpret unless you dig deep within yourself to know of it~as said~identity is ego based and to seek it outside oneself one has just lost who is already within~
Let's now see an example from the artistic world that Pettit has recurrently used to illustrate his idea of freedom as non-domination: Henrik Ibsen's play "A Doll's House." In this drama, Pettit explains that Nora would not be directly constrained in her factual freedom under her husband, who allows her to do whatever she wants. However, she would be dominated because her freedom ultimately depends on her husband's goodwill. But Pettit stays at a superficial level of the play, and the metaphorical sense of his interpretation does not hold up. As we later understand in the novel, Nora has been deceived by her husband's attitude from the beginning. His tolerance and permissiveness are rooted in hidden economic interests related to the power of the woman's signature, which has always been manipulated. I emphasize this because Pettit establishes a criterion to detect domination at a basic level of social interaction, which he calls the "eyeball test." According to this test, a society is free if its citizens can look each other in the eye without feeling the fears associated with domination. This immediately raises the question of what happens when citizens do not identify the agent of their domination, when the power that subjugates them is not readily visible. This is the case in contemporary society, where corporations are invisible in their structure and identity, and the overwhelmingly dominant power, represented by their shareholders, remains elusive and untouchable, the source of misery and death. One cannot separate the private from the political, the personal from the public, the social from the individual. This is precisely what happens with Nora. Nora shatters the doll's house that Pettit tries to reduce her to with his interpretation by leaving her home and abandoning her family. Nora, like Antigone at that level, defies the entire state apparatus, personified by her husband as a patriarchal figure. Great real-life figures like Ulrike Meinhof or Rosa Luxemburg embody this. Here, the true enemy is identified, one that is never obvious. This example of "A Doll's House" is important because Pettit uses it in various interventions, including an interview and a conference. In a TEDxNewYork talk titled "How Do You Know If You're Truly Free?" he once again relies on "A Doll's House" to explain his idea of freedom as non-domination, drawing an analogy with the independence of the 13 American colonies from the British Empire. For Pettit, colonial America represents the role of the oppressed, Nora, while the British Empire represents the role of the oppressor, Torvald. This choice of the "American Revolution" is more driven by a sophistical inclination towards chauvinism and the exaltation of American patriotism than by philosophical adequacy, as we will now see. When speaking of freedom as non-domination, Pettit unintentionally presents a counterexample. On one hand, he presents colonial America as the archetypal example of the oppressed against the British Empire, which represents the oppressor. However, he later proposes the African American social minority as a new archetypal example of the oppressed. Well, colonial America was, for centuries after its "revolution," the absolute oppressor of the African-descendant minority. Despite its "constitution," it maintained the factual enslavement and privileged exploitative relationships with the British Empire, dominating the enslaved workforce that provided raw materials for the British imperial metropolis's industrial revolution, such as cotton. And this is just speaking of the oppressive role of colonial America in relation to enslaved human beings from Africa. On the other hand, we have the systematic genocide of tens of millions of Native Americans. What on earth does the independence of the 13 American colonies from the British Empire have to do with the side of the oppressed, with Nora? Pettit falls into a major contradiction. Here we see the classic case in which freedom as non-domination can be applied to defend both the oppressed and the oppressors, although it may only appear as a double-edged sword. Pettit's postulate that "we need a situation in which minorities are protected from majorities" through non-domination is susceptible to being easily interpreted as an invitation to class inequality. Because such a sword can be wielded by large corporations and other elite power groups (who are all-powerful but quantitatively a minority), who, under the guise of freedom as non-domination, continue or expand their disproportionate domination. Thus, both Pettit's defense of freedom as non-domination and Shapiro's defense are actually one-sided swords: they seem to be inclined toward the defense of positive freedom for the most disadvantaged in terms of redistributive justice, but nothing prevents the powerful from snatching it from their hands and using it to decapitate them with the armored defense of their corporate rights, claiming freedom as non-domination to protect the unsustainable growth of their predatory enterprises in the public sphere. Because weapons are taken by those who can take them and know how to use them.
So Nora does not have the freedom to leave Torvald. Well, no one is free of every constraint. I'm not free to fly into the air without mechanical assistance. So I am not then free at all --- is that right?
He`s talking about the freedom or non freedom as imposed on you by others, wether it be direct or through a system. The fact that you cannot fly is not a restriction imposed onto you by anything other than nature which noone can change. Noone stops you from finding a way in which you can fly without mechanical way, therefore you are free to do so in this sense. Also he explains in his book "On the peoples terms" a term that he calls "vitation" which is exactly what you are questioning here and put simple "vitation" happens when you cannot do something because you do not have the recources to do it, which noone has taken from you because you have never had it in the first place.
I disagree fundamentally with this talk. Real freedom is from within. In the west we lack that despite given freedoms to do what we want. We have the freedom to smile at strangers but we don't. If that sounds like a small thing to you, as it does to many well off people I know, then you don't understand how to be happy.
; ) smile for ya. I think freedom may be internal. However, I think it represents what we as a society consider human rights. The sad reality is that there are many people in the west and everywhere that are put into inhuman situations, and that could be stopped quite easily if not for the greed that is pervasive in our day. We could end poverty and homelessness very easily with universal basic income. This would give everyone a chance to escape the unjust situation they may be in. And, you're right! Most people just need a smile from time to time, and that would be enough for most. But if we cannot stop the deep suffering of our neighbors who die on the street, if we don't have the compassion for them, then why would we smile at each other if we didn't have to. Greed seems to win out, even if it is unhealthy for us. But we are alive, so might as well smile at the humorous tragedy of it all ; )
I doubt Pettit, or anyone else, would have any qualms about smiling to strangers. You don't seem to have gotten the meaning of the talk, questionable as it might be.
this of course what you are stating is the actual freedom of the individual in him/her self to understand the difference of free self then that posed upon us by what is perceived as freedom under the rule of the many, which I agree with but also disagree with you, as is my freedom to do so. my freedom as the person within me to be free is something I am learning deeply about my self, in a sense I am learning to be a little more selfish to my need before others, and in that, i find my freedom to feel good within myself and then give to others.
You are talking about a spiritual feeling of freedom. You can feel as free as you want, but you might not actually be free. Whereas you might feel not free, while living in a free country. This is not about feelings, this is about actual freedom. By the way: I might not want to smile at strangers - which is just as much freedom as doing so. I think what you are really talking about is happiness.
Obviously this guy doesn't understand what a libertarian is. He seems to have no reason except some personal vendetta to even tag a lecture on the dangers of libertarianism onto the last minute. Libertarians work harder at keeping laws and lawmakers in their place than anyone I know
Or you do not understand the difference bewteen libertarianism and civic republicanism? It is not that Pettit does not "understand what a libertarian is"; he just disagrees with it in the sense that he believes "Freedom is non-domination", which states in this day and age fail to understand, whereas libertarians believe: people are free SIMPLY TO THE EXTENT that their choices are not interfered with. And this IS NOT "Freedom is non-domination", which Pettit follows. You are still being dominated, even IF your choices are NOT INTERFERED WITH. (Hence the relationship between Nora and Torvald from "A Doll`s house" by Ibsen. Nora does something, which Torvald does not interfere on, but he is STILL THE MAN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (aka, Nora has A MASTER), so because of that Nora does not even go through any sort or liberty or freedom, because she has someone who is not on the same level as her (Pettit calls this the eyeball test, which talks about looking at one another wthouth any fear, aka, everyone are equal) Republican freedom requires the absence of something, namely, the absence of any structural dependence or domination. (Also like non-interference, non-domination comes in degrees: on the civic republican view, one is not either free or unfree, but rather more or less free depending on the extent of non-domination one securely enjoys.)
Isaiah Berlin has a better definition of freedom. Is more in line with the liberal movement. Negative freedom is what matter. We should be free from government. I also associate equaliaty as equality of opportunity. Is the only equality that has some value.
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - สาวสอง ( มีมี่ของอ้าย ) ft. ตาต้า,ต้องเต [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mqlMjnP08XI/mqdefault.jpg)
To walk upon the skies with no more than wind in your eyes, to gaze upon ourself through the silence of your own creation with awe and fearless steps of certainty.
To walk upon... And to walk across... What was on the other side was the turn... So as to gaze upon the same view that had never been seen before.. And Never will again... To the last sky walker of the two towers 😊 Thank you for the thrill 😊
We have to be slaves towards freedom so to speak if we want to fight for it to be our own bad enough...we still have to recognize with freedom comes demands from it in itself both on personal and public front.
I am going to have this on my exam :)
Same it’s why I’m watching this
@@yashvardhanruhela1251 Same
Excellent summary of some of the motivations of Pettit's republican views. Good laws and social rules enable freedom. They make it possible that we can go to school, have healthcare, have roads and energy. We need a strong legal framework and infrastrutrue which enable safe and rich lives. Business and industry are only possible in such a world, so we have to regulate business in a way that benefits most of us. Just doing what everyone wants leads to weakness, chaos, exploitation and the rule of the rich.
By binding others especially those who can't pay you 👍😀
"The army of truly free people grows with every life they trample" Tristan Garwood
An active democracy.
Nora is not a free person. Correct.
i know that i am free because i am obligated to taxes and tolls .
I don't know how to get this freedom, in my feeling, all laws making and work depend on humans. Humans should have different tendencies on different issues. We depend on others. Because we have to exchange things with others, we cannot produce anything.
Why is it that we continue to negotiate freedom by addressing what are percieved differences?
Our differences should should perhaps be private. That is to say not a matter for the governing bodies to consider.
The more protection you need the less Freedom you have
no condoms for everyone!
-13:50
~freedom is not "of" the world~freedom is being not consistently Maya's puppet~when you have lost your ego you are totally free from agendas, events and even your physical self in being true self which in ZEN* is nothing at all~an object will never be free~freedom is transparent and like said not "of" the world but in it instead~only the SOUL* has it~not an identity~do you know who you are?~remember when the Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma "who stands before me?"~Bodhidharma said~" dunno" and walked away~he went on to be the founder of ZEN* which no one can interpret unless you dig deep within yourself to know of it~as said~identity is ego based and to seek it outside oneself one has just lost who is already within~
I came after watching fight club
why? interesting link!
Let's now see an example from the artistic world that Pettit has recurrently used to illustrate his idea of freedom as non-domination: Henrik Ibsen's play "A Doll's House." In this drama, Pettit explains that Nora would not be directly constrained in her factual freedom under her husband, who allows her to do whatever she wants. However, she would be dominated because her freedom ultimately depends on her husband's goodwill. But Pettit stays at a superficial level of the play, and the metaphorical sense of his interpretation does not hold up. As we later understand in the novel, Nora has been deceived by her husband's attitude from the beginning. His tolerance and permissiveness are rooted in hidden economic interests related to the power of the woman's signature, which has always been manipulated.
I emphasize this because Pettit establishes a criterion to detect domination at a basic level of social interaction, which he calls the "eyeball test." According to this test, a society is free if its citizens can look each other in the eye without feeling the fears associated with domination. This immediately raises the question of what happens when citizens do not identify the agent of their domination, when the power that subjugates them is not readily visible. This is the case in contemporary society, where corporations are invisible in their structure and identity, and the overwhelmingly dominant power, represented by their shareholders, remains elusive and untouchable, the source of misery and death. One cannot separate the private from the political, the personal from the public, the social from the individual.
This is precisely what happens with Nora. Nora shatters the doll's house that Pettit tries to reduce her to with his interpretation by leaving her home and abandoning her family. Nora, like Antigone at that level, defies the entire state apparatus, personified by her husband as a patriarchal figure. Great real-life figures like Ulrike Meinhof or Rosa Luxemburg embody this. Here, the true enemy is identified, one that is never obvious.
This example of "A Doll's House" is important because Pettit uses it in various interventions, including an interview and a conference. In a TEDxNewYork talk titled "How Do You Know If You're Truly Free?" he once again relies on "A Doll's House" to explain his idea of freedom as non-domination, drawing an analogy with the independence of the 13 American colonies from the British Empire. For Pettit, colonial America represents the role of the oppressed, Nora, while the British Empire represents the role of the oppressor, Torvald.
This choice of the "American Revolution" is more driven by a sophistical inclination towards chauvinism and the exaltation of American patriotism than by philosophical adequacy, as we will now see. When speaking of freedom as non-domination, Pettit unintentionally presents a counterexample. On one hand, he presents colonial America as the archetypal example of the oppressed against the British Empire, which represents the oppressor. However, he later proposes the African American social minority as a new archetypal example of the oppressed. Well, colonial America was, for centuries after its "revolution," the absolute oppressor of the African-descendant minority. Despite its "constitution," it maintained the factual enslavement and privileged exploitative relationships with the British Empire, dominating the enslaved workforce that provided raw materials for the British imperial metropolis's industrial revolution, such as cotton. And this is just speaking of the oppressive role of colonial America in relation to enslaved human beings from Africa. On the other hand, we have the systematic genocide of tens of millions of Native Americans. What on earth does the independence of the 13 American colonies from the British Empire have to do with the side of the oppressed, with Nora? Pettit falls into a major contradiction. Here we see the classic case in which freedom as non-domination can be applied to defend both the oppressed and the oppressors, although it may only appear as a double-edged sword.
Pettit's postulate that "we need a situation in which minorities are protected from majorities" through non-domination is susceptible to being easily interpreted as an invitation to class inequality. Because such a sword can be wielded by large corporations and other elite power groups (who are all-powerful but quantitatively a minority), who, under the guise of freedom as non-domination, continue or expand their disproportionate domination.
Thus, both Pettit's defense of freedom as non-domination and Shapiro's defense are actually one-sided swords: they seem to be inclined toward the defense of positive freedom for the most disadvantaged in terms of redistributive justice, but nothing prevents the powerful from snatching it from their hands and using it to decapitate them with the armored defense of their corporate rights, claiming freedom as non-domination to protect the unsustainable growth of their predatory enterprises in the public sphere. Because weapons are taken by those who can take them and know how to use them.
So Nora does not have the freedom to leave Torvald. Well, no one is free of every constraint. I'm not free to fly into the air without mechanical assistance. So I am not then free at all --- is that right?
He`s talking about the freedom or non freedom as imposed on you by others, wether it be direct or through a system. The fact that you cannot fly is not a restriction imposed onto you by anything other than nature which noone can change. Noone stops you from finding a way in which you can fly without mechanical way, therefore you are free to do so in this sense. Also he explains in his book "On the peoples terms" a term that he calls "vitation" which is exactly what you are questioning here and put simple "vitation" happens when you cannot do something because you do not have the recources to do it, which noone has taken from you because you have never had it in the first place.
@@geenamaria2597 that made sense...
I disagree fundamentally with this talk. Real freedom is from within. In the west we lack that despite given freedoms to do what we want. We have the freedom to smile at strangers but we don't. If that sounds like a small thing to you, as it does to many well off people I know, then you don't understand how to be happy.
; ) smile for ya. I think freedom may be internal. However, I think it represents what we as a society consider human rights. The sad reality is that there are many people in the west and everywhere that are put into inhuman situations, and that could be stopped quite easily if not for the greed that is pervasive in our day. We could end poverty and homelessness very easily with universal basic income. This would give everyone a chance to escape the unjust situation they may be in. And, you're right! Most people just need a smile from time to time, and that would be enough for most. But if we cannot stop the deep suffering of our neighbors who die on the street, if we don't have the compassion for them, then why would we smile at each other if we didn't have to. Greed seems to win out, even if it is unhealthy for us. But we are alive, so might as well smile at the humorous tragedy of it all ; )
I doubt Pettit, or anyone else, would have any qualms about smiling to strangers. You don't seem to have gotten the meaning of the talk, questionable as it might be.
There is a difference between internal and external freedom. Hes all about external freedom in this talk
this of course what you are stating is the actual freedom of the individual in him/her self to understand the difference of free self then that posed upon us by what is perceived as freedom under the rule of the many, which I agree with but also disagree with you, as is my freedom to do so. my freedom as the person within me to be free is something I am learning deeply about my self, in a sense I am learning to be a little more selfish to my need before others, and in that, i find my freedom to feel good within myself and then give to others.
You are talking about a spiritual feeling of freedom. You can feel as free as you want, but you might not actually be free. Whereas you might feel not free, while living in a free country. This is not about feelings, this is about actual freedom. By the way: I might not want to smile at strangers - which is just as much freedom as doing so. I think what you are really talking about is happiness.
Obviously this guy doesn't understand what a libertarian is. He seems to have no reason except some personal vendetta to even tag a lecture on the dangers of libertarianism onto the last minute. Libertarians work harder at keeping laws and lawmakers in their place than anyone I know
Or you do not understand the difference bewteen libertarianism and civic republicanism?
It is not that Pettit does not "understand what a libertarian is"; he just disagrees with it in the sense that he believes "Freedom is non-domination", which states in this day and age fail to understand, whereas libertarians believe: people are free SIMPLY TO THE EXTENT that their choices are not interfered with. And this IS NOT "Freedom is non-domination", which Pettit follows. You are still being dominated, even IF your choices are NOT INTERFERED WITH. (Hence the relationship between Nora and Torvald from "A Doll`s house" by Ibsen. Nora does something, which Torvald does not interfere on, but he is STILL THE MAN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (aka, Nora has A MASTER), so because of that Nora does not even go through any sort or liberty or freedom, because she has someone who is not on the same level as her (Pettit calls this the eyeball test, which talks about looking at one another wthouth any fear, aka, everyone are equal)
Republican freedom requires the absence of something, namely, the absence of any structural dependence or domination. (Also like non-interference, non-domination comes in degrees: on the civic republican view, one is not either free or unfree, but rather more or less free depending on the extent of non-domination one securely enjoys.)
Isaiah Berlin has a better definition of freedom. Is more in line with the liberal movement. Negative freedom is what matter. We should be free from government.
I also associate equaliaty as equality of opportunity. Is the only equality that has some value.
Statism 101.