[icon ] blenderdumbass . org [icon scene] Articles

The Ultimate Paradox Of Freedom

February 02, 2023

👁 100

https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/Stallman_Report_The_Irony_Of_Conservative_Leftists.md : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/search?text=paradox&fc=on&title=on&post=on&description=on&comments=on&tags=on : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/Please_Help_Me_Debunk_This_Theory : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/search?text=freedom&title=on&author=on&post=on&description=on&comments=on&tags=on : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/gpl_doesn_t_make_the_program_libre : 👁 2

[avatar]by Blender Dumbass

Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".


From 4 years ago.
Information or opinions might not be up to date.


9 Minute Read



Is it freedom to be rebellious? Or is it just an uncontrollable reaction? There is this concept called Reverse Psychology which suggests that sometimes to obtain a wanted result from somebody it's better to push that somebody in the opposite direction. But reverse psychology doesn't work always. Only when the person feels like his or her freedom is at stake. For example when a parent doesn't allow a teenager to engage in a particular activity. The parent might not be an inherently evil person. He might not desire to exercise any kind of power. He maybe just really wants to protect the teenager. But the teenager feels like his or her freedom is being betrayed and taken away. So they rebel. Is it freedom to be rebellious, though? Or is it just an uncontrollable reaction? Is there freedom at all? Or is it just a big paradox? ↩ Reply

Mendel: Why are you so strange? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: What do you mean? ↩ Reply

Mendel: You always seem to find weird solutions to everything. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Weird? ↩ Reply

Mendel: The guys at work all have this green app thing on their phones. What is up? Or something... ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Whats App. ↩ Reply

Mendel: Yeah. I know you told why you hate it. But it seems like you hate everything that normal people do. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: I have a very strong reason to hate it. By the way, have you tried arguing with them to stop using the app? ↩ Reply

Mendel: I did actually. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: What are your results? ↩ Reply

Mendel: Zero results. Nobody cares. Besides I'm not as good as you are at knowing everything. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Well, I'm also not as good myself. ↩ Reply

Mendel: Well, you are good enough... About this app, though... ah... My boss. Well... He wants me to be in the group chat. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Decline. ↩ Reply

Mendel: Yes. But... ↩ Reply

Sheiny: But? ↩ Reply

Mendel: You know you are talking about freedom all the time. But I don't feel it. I feel like you are just restricting the apps I can use. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Oh crap... ↩ Reply

Mendel: What? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: I spoke to Mr. Humbert the other day, we talked about Reverse Psychology. It seems you are effected. ↩ Reply

Mendel: Eh... What? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: You see what you are describing is kind of a paradox. ↩ Reply

Mendel: Well, yes. That's what I'm saying. How am I supposed to be free when I can't install this app? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: What is freedom? ↩ Reply

Mendel: I know what it is. You ate my ears repeating yourself over an over. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Well, is loosing freedom freedom too? ↩ Reply

Mendel: Eh... Yes! ↩ Reply

Sheiny: So freedom is unstable and leads always to the loss of freedom? ↩ Reply

Mendel: Not always. But you have to have the freedom to loose freedom. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: I think it's quite always. On the other hand you can try limit it to not loose it, in which case you loose immediately. But maybe not immediately. Like there is a question to be had about it as well. ↩ Reply

Mendel: What are you talking about? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Let's take democracy for example. What is it? ↩ Reply

Mendel: Eh... When people can vote for a president? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: When people can control the state. By vote... Yes. But the idea is. Say you want to have democracy forever. And people always choose laws. Or representatives. It doesn't matter. So we have laws allowing people to vote on laws. Right? ↩ Reply

Mendel: Okay, but get to the point. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: I'm trying.... Now, what if people decide to abolish the laws that give them the rights to change laws? This is a kind of justification for, say, a ban on spread of communistic ideas or something. The fear is that if communistic ideas could spread, people could believe in them and therefor vote for the state to become communistic. And as we all know, communism is almost entirely opposite to democracy, or freedom. So it's like freedom is only possible when it's non-existent. Because otherwise there would be free speech and therefor you could spread communism and therefor you could loose freedom. So you have to not have freedom to have freedom. It's a paradox. ↩ Reply

Mendel: Ah? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: You didn't understand what I said? ↩ Reply

Mendel: Ah... No! ↩ Reply

Sheiny: You want to have digital freedom, for example. ↩ Reply

Mendel: Yes. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: This includes installing whats app. ↩ Reply

Mendel: Yes, that's what I'm saying. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: But by installing whats app you loose your digital freedom. So to keep it you have to not install whats app. Therefor to not have the freedom to install whats app. Therefor you don't have freedom to begin with. But if you will have the freedom to install whats app, it will eventually lead to installing it and loosing freedom anyway. There is either no freedom at all, or the whole thing is a paradox. ↩ Reply

Mendel: But I can have the freedom to install it, but just choose not to. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Is your choice systematic? Like have you pre-meditated not installing it ever? Or are you asking yourself the question of installing it every time you have the chance and then just so happens that you choose to not install it? ↩ Reply

Mendel: What's the difference? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Well, if you decided ahead of the time that you will always choose one particular answer to the same question, you have no freedom to choose otherwise. Therefor you had no freedom to begin... ↩ Reply

Mendel: Aha! And if I ask myself the question every time. I might install the app and loose my freedom that way. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Yes! ... Well... Alright, perhaps you don't install it. And you always happened to choose not to install it. Technically you do have freedom. But it's extremely unstable. It's very easy to go one way or the other and ruin it. ↩ Reply

Mendel: Yeah, but wait a second. Isn't that also a freedom to choose ahead of the time that I wont install it ever? Like, you know. Controlling your own life and shit. Isn't that what freedom is. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Freedom is control over yourself and things belonging to you. Yes. ↩ Reply

Mendel: So if I can't tell myself to always answer the question with the same answer ahead of time, which will ruin my freedom, I already ruined my freedom to begin with. By not allowing me to set myself this rule. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: This is a paradox after all! ↩ Reply

Mendel: So does freedom actually exist? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: You have to be extremely lucky to be free. ↩ Reply

Mendel: But it's a paradox? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: I think there is still a chance that it's still possible. It's like winning a lottery. You have to randomly stumble upon just the right answers all the time, that never takes your freedom away from you. Maybe this is what heaven is? ↩ Reply

Mendel: But if it's all just lucky random chance, do you control anything? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Fuck! You are right. ↩ Reply

Mendel: From the other perspective. Can you control everything about yourself? Like what if you want to walk through another person? That other person has his own freedom, right? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: You are describing a freedom collision. ↩ Reply

Mendel: So there is a freedom paradox on one side and a freedom collision on another? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: One freedom ends where another begins. ↩ Reply

Mendel: But does it even exist if it's so paradoxical? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Regrets! ↩ Reply

Mendel: What regrets? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Imagine you let yourself install whats app then regret it and return back into freedom. You can control yourself. But also can control yourself from your own control over yourself. ↩ Reply

Mendel: But doesn't your ability to regret mean that you didn't have control over yourself to begin with? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: When you controlled yourself first you didn't know that you were to regret it later. ↩ Reply

Mendel: What if you did know? What if you planned to regret? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: Then your plan was all along something else entirely. You plan, then, was to install the app and then delete it. But you could regret having this plan anywhere during the plan itself. And, say, cancel the installation process early. ↩ Reply

Mendel: So is it a paradox or not? ↩ Reply

Sheiny: It's a paradox of whether it is a paradox. So I think it's at least a paradox in that way. ↩ Reply

Mendel: Paradoxical! ↩ Reply

Sheiny: The strange thing about paradoxes though, that they do work inside our minds. ↩ Reply

Mendel: Paradoxes brake logic. ↩ Reply

Sheiny: I'm not talking about logic. You know there is this paradoxical image of a staircase that closes in on itself. It's impossible in real life. And it's impossible 3-dimensionaly. Yet the brain can imagine it. And can even find some sense in the paradoxical situation. I mean even the universe is a big paradox. From one side you have the quantum realm which is just paradox after paradox. From the other side the size of the universe is probably unlimited. Yes there is a limit to what we can see. But there is matter beyond the observable universe. And it's probably endless. Which means that there is infinite matter. And infinity is a paradox in an of itself. The universe is a paradox. Yet I think, therefor I am. Freedom is a paradox, but it's real. And it means to have control over yourself. If you loose it, you loose freedom. But then again. It's a paradox. So it's extremely unstable. I think the great question is what exactly do you want to achieve. Or - what do you want? But this question perhaps is a great paradox in and of itself. ↩ Reply

Happy Hacking! ↩ Reply


[icon unlike] 0
[icon left]
[icon right]
[icon terminal]
[icon markdown]

Find this post on Mastodon

[avatar]  Anonymous Guest
  Pending Approval  





[icon reply]
[icon question]








[icon reviews]Death Proof 2007 is a genius art house action film that people didn't get

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 31



Quentin Tarantino's 2007 film Death Proof is considered the only bad movie written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. For the uninitiated the film seems like a boring film where 90% of the time nothing happens. And for those who know Tarantino it feels like Tarantino is trying too hard to flex his dialogue muscle while forgetting to tell an actual story.


#DeathProof #QuentinTarantino #film #review #movies #grindhouse #horror #action #cinemastodon


[icon reviews]RRR

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 76 💬 1



A movie titled simply "RRR" is perhaps the greatest achievement in the entire Indian cinema landscape. You are probably familiar with the term "Bollywood". There is a misunderstanding in the world that Bollywood simply means Indian cinema. It's not necessarily true. Bollywood is Indian cinema from the center of India. And Bollywood movies all shot in the Hindi language. India has a dozen or so states and a dozen or so languages. Each state and even each little region of those states have different languages and dialects. RRR was made in the state called Andra Pradesh ( Telugu: ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ ) where people speak Telugu ( Telugu: తెలుగు ). And the movie is a part of Tollywood, not Bollywood. Though quite frankly, even that is not true, since the director of the film Koduri Srisaila Sri Rajamouli ( Telugu: కోడూరి శ్రీశైల శ్రీ రాజమౌళి ) known as simply S. S. Rajamouli ( Telugu: ఎస్. ఎస్. రాజమౌళి ) treated this film as an all Indian movie, using actors from different states of India, and dubbing the film into multiple Indian languages. Making the film Indian in general, not simply Tollywood.


[icon articles]The Paradox of Tolerance is Real, Look at Israel

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 26 💬 3



People like to pretend that everything is simple. That every problem has a straight forward, easy solution. That the paradox of tolerance is not real, because you could simply look at it a bit differently and it magically disappears, or something. People claim a soothing claim that all you need to do to make the paradox go away is to think of it as a "social contract". If you are not willing to tolerate, you are not tolerated. But I happened to live in Israel...


#tolerance #paradoxoftolerance #israel #palestine #politics #philosophy


[icon reviews]Bones And All

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 56 💬 4



It is very hard to describe the style of Luca Guadagnino, the director of Bones And All. His films are very good. But it seems like he is not interested in plot, which is weird, considering that the movies are good. He is famous for his erotic dramas, films centered around a sexual tension between people, like his perhaps most acclaimed movie Call Me By Your Name, in which all the substance comes from very subtle things. A character looks a certain way on another character. Or perhaps holds onto another character's hand for way too long. And you have to piece together all these little clues to even start feeling some kind of presence of a plot. Because if you don't pay attention it all looks like people just casually hanging out. And then suddenly a payoff happens, which would make sense only if you paid attention to the little clues.


[icon reviews]Riddle Of Fire

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 62 ❤ 1 💬 4



There is a sub genre of film which includes my movie Moria's Race and things like Spy Kids. Those are movies where child characters are opposing adults. And winning them. But there is a kind of spectrum in this sub genre. Spy Kids franchise, for example, is very clean and sterile. Trying as hard as possible to get a good age rating. While others might get a bit riskier. Riddle Of Fire is one such film.


[icon codeberg] Powered with BDServer [icon python] Plugins [icon theme] Themes [icon analytics] Analytics [icon email] Contact [icon mastodon] Mastodon
[icon unlock]